Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild

This talk page or "board room" for The Muslim Guild has been categorized into various sections.

That means that Striver decided to reorganize it without asking anyone else. Zora 23:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• The "Old Discussion" section will be used for old archives.
• The "Member introductions" section will be used for member introductions.
• The "Articles" section refers to major articles we are currently working on or think need work.
• The "Stubs" section refers to Stubs we are currently working on or think need work.
• The "Templates" section refers to templates that we are currently working on or have concerns with.
• The "Portals" section refers to Portals that we are currently working on or have concerns with.
• The "Standards" section refers to any ideas on editing standards.
• The "User comments" section refers to comments on Wikipedia users.
• The "Other guilds" section refers to our joint efforts and concerns with other guilds.
• The "Misc and recent" section is for any other recent info not relating to articles or anything else above.

Please add new concerns to the bottom of each section.

Old Discussion

• Archive 1

Member introductions

• Member introductions

Welcome Letter

"Salam!" "Peace!"

Welcome to The Muslim Guild!

You can learn more about our mission and guiding principles at The Muslim Guild.
We hope that you will contribute to Islam-related articles.
Please feel free to contact any current Muslim Guild members if you have any questions.

Sincerely, The Muslim Guild

Articles

Here we can discuss articles in need of attention. Many such articles can be found in the Islam category as well as in the Islam stubs category. Please refer to the talk page for the various articles. Please cross out the articles that you and others are satisfied with.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Articles

Stubs

Several articles within the Islam stubs category need lots of work.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals#Islam --Striver 01:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

New stubs

{{Islam-bio-stub}} and {{Islamic-theologian-stub}} created!--Striver 08:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Templates

Template:Islam

Please continue to monitor the Islam template and make recommendations that make the template better. --User:JuanMuslim 17:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:Muslim Beliefs

• I got tired of someone naging about puting shia stuff at the top, so i made a new template. Was a bit uppset from the mentioned, so i didnt consult you all first, sorry for that. What do you think of the template? Go to its talk page :) --Striver 01:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Muslim scholars

• Started working on this some time ago, but gave it up after somebody told me it was no good... --Striver 03:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Going to transfer most of the people here to Islamic scholars --Striver 17:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• This template is obsolete since i created List of Islamic scholars, can someone delet it? --Striver 14:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Portals

Please remember to update the Islam Portal from time to time.--JuanMuslim ^1m 04:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Standards

Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)

Let's try to improve the standards mentioned in the following Manual of Style. Check out:

• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Islam-related_articles)

Please keep an eye on this as it is shared with other guilds. Certain guilds might make it very biased.

Please post suggestions for standardization issues to the talk page of the Manual of Style (Islam-related articles). --Juan Muslim 05:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Islam

Nominated as "Featured article"!

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Islam

--Striver 00:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

User comments

Any requests for comments on a fellow wiki editor you feel to raise? Positive or negative, its goes in this section.

Salman

Comment on main editor comment page:Salman

Striver

Comment on main editor comment page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild/User comments/Striver

Zora

Comment on main editor comment page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild/User comments/Zora

Ed Poor

Comment on main editor comment page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild/User comments/Ed Poor

Saduj al-Dahij

Comment on main editor comment page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild/User comments/Saduj al-Dahij

OceanSplash

Comment on main editor comment page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild/User comments/OceanSplash

Palmiro

Recently on Jannah this user changed Allah to God and after I changed back he reverted my edit. I've told this user to stop using non-Islamic terms on Islamic articles in the past, but he continues nonetheless. I suggest checking his contributions and correcting any more alterations. freestylefrappe 03:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

He was right, you were wrong. --Striver 06:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I still think we should use Allah in place of God. If the Quran is only true when read in Arabic, then Allah is the only true form of God for Muslims. freestylefrappe 02:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Nygdan

This user's contribution to Bektashi, which I highly suspect is a copyvio, has started an edit war between a new user, Bektashi110 and several other users. On his user page he seems to assert that Shiia, Bektashi, and Alawi are not Muslims. This may be an acceptable pov, but this should be taken to account. freestylefrappe 02:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Other guilds

see Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Other guilds

Misc and recent (not relating to articles)

Archived discussions of this section

• Archive 1

Defaming Islam

Ya'll,

Take a look at this page: Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni. I think it is highly biased.--Zereshk 03:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see that article as defaming Islam. It makes it very clear that there are numerous POVs as to what actually happened, and credits the government of Iran with the hangings, not Islam as a whole. Zora 03:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Did you read its talk page? --Striver 04:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

A new user who could use help

There's a new user Angry Ayrab (talk · contribs) working on an article about an Islamic religious figure. He looks like he could use some help from experienced users. Cheers. Zocky 18:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Help?

I've began Vali Muhammad Khan and the Uthman Qur'an. If anyone has anymore info, please add it. Both are quite short at the mo. --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Whenever you require any information on such topic, please come to my page - I will surely try to do something. You have done nice articles on these two topics. I am an Indian of Hindu faith, and I find that wikipedia does not still have several pages about Indian muslims - after all, for more than a 1000 years, muslims have been a part of the Indian subcontinent. I will try to add the contents and stubs surely - but after my first wiki birthday on 24th March 2006. Happy editing. --Bhadani 16:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Reasons

Hello to all, I shall be here for next few weeks, and have a careful look at a number of relevant pages to modify, and remove if warranted, un-Encyclopedic information from such pages. I shall also do minor copyedits, wikification, clean-ups etc. --Bhadani 16:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Created 2 stubs today: Samarkand manuscript & Banya Bashi Mosque. I will create at least one stub almost daily relating to Islam until I continue here. Even thereafter, I shall continue to contribute to Islam-related matters. --Bhadani 17:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well that's great but most of us don't keep talking about it. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for guiding me in the matter. I will silently work in future. --Bhadani 17:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Good luck. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Bhadani 17:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ayatollah

There has been some discussion on the Ayatollah page about a recurrent posting summarizing an episode of the Simpsons. A few people have been removing the paragraph when it pops up, but perhaps the discussion of the appropriateness of this paragraph to this particular article would be improved if more voices were heard. I would invite editors to put it on their watchlist and make an objective decision about whether the paragraph adds to the usefulness of the Ayatollah article.--Counsel 22:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

systemic bias

If anyone is interested in discussing systemic bias reg. Islam on Wikipedia, please go here. Raphael1 12:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

To all of my Brothers and Sisters

Dear Brothers and Sisters. First we are Muslims and the Shi’a or Sunni. We have to make sure that we protect the Islamic articles accurate from the point of view of Muslims. Some people are trying to say that Imam Hussain was killed instead of being martyred. I think that they are non-Muslims and because of that they do not understand the meaning of being killed and being martyred as far as their knowledge of Islam is concerned. I would like all of my brothers and sisters to contribute to Islamic article like Battle of Khaybar other Islamic articles that need to be more developed from the point of view of a Muslim. Thank You Salman

I agree with you on the subject about Imam Hussain r.a. But as you can see from every writig around you wikipedia has a no point of view policy. This doesnt mean that people can come and desacralize things that others hold holy but it means that articles and of course every single sentence in them must be non biased. Having said this I still think that on subjects like martyrdom no-one should say killed. A martyr is a martyr there is no POV here. Suleyman Habeeb 22:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, yes there is. Those of us who are non-Muslim do not accept the use of the term martyred. Zora 05:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

No, martyr is not pov, see chritianity articles. --Striver 10:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Islam

Assalamu Alaikum and Hello,

I propose that we, as a guild, concentrate on improving the Islam article until we're able to get it to featured status. BhaiSaab 06:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

I have removed my name from here as " removing my name from here - as I found contents of several pages related to islam were not dynamic and choice was limited - I felt like working in a cage." However, I shall continue to contribute to islam related pages, that is sure. Thank you friends, bye bye. --Bhadani 17:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, within a day or two of my joining the guild, one editor de-motivated me by saying - we do not talk here, or something like that ... strange that people are not permitted to talk and discuss. --Bhadani 17:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I promise to give very soon Islam related stubs equal to the number of days I was associated with the Guild. I depart sadly, but I shall continue to work in this field. Thanks and Ameen. --Bhadani 17:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparent crusade against arabic/islamic articles in progress

An editor has recently taken it upon himself to begin a campaign to remove references to many arabic-titled articles (mostly connected with islamic subjects) from en.wikipedia, claiming they are "POV forks". In the course of this effort, he has recently added a "Translation" section to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles) instructing editors to that effect. It would seem that the result of adopting his additional guidelines will be that articles such as Allah and Isa will tend to be bypassed by wikipedia readers and editors alike, providing justification for their eventual deletion or merging (as subsidiary material, based on his contention that the abrahamic religions should be referred to in chronological order of their "founding", regardless of any claims that Islam predates Muhammad for example), as per Jibril (merged into Gabriel after a two-day "merge discussion period" during which no discussion took place; see Talk:Jibril) into articles with principally jewish or christian content. Other editors might like to comment on this development. — JEREMY 10:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Friends, please do not make quick judgements as Jeremy did. Writing like "Apparent crusade against arabic/islamic articles in progress" is not expected from a Muslim. I and Timothy have two different sets of argument, both ending up with the same conclusions. Please hear our argument first. I don't agree with Jeremy on "It would seem that the result of adopting his additional guidelines will be that articles such as Allah and Isa will tend to be bypassed by wikipedia readers and editors alike" Please specify a place and we will discuss the matter in length. You can revert everything back whenever you want. Salam --Aminz 11:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Timothy should stop this now. The article have been like that for years and he simply can't come around, ignore the discussion and then start moving articles around. This is blockable. Regards --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Several of these articles (and many you've not gotten around to) haven't been touched in months. That's negligence, not consensus. Further, and I mean no offense by this, but it's often unclear if the text creators spoke English as a first language, or had any sense of literary style. It's not all a big POV war.Timothy Usher 07:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean they haven't been touched in months. Editors have worked on them since they were only a paragraph long and I was one of them. It is a big POV war because so far you have shown that you believe your edits are the best thing that ever happened to the articles and should be kept simply because of that. These articles weren't always articles you know. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we please have a mediation page for this issue. Thanks --Aminz 23:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that mediation would be desirable - at least, more desirable than AE having me blocked. My hope is that we could get a healthy mix of editors involved, rather than only those from a particular Guild (incidentally, I would have joined the Muslim Guild some time ago, were it not explicitly segregated by confession, which I find inappropriate and immoral).Timothy Usher 07:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought we already agreed on talk page of the Qur'an article. It's not up to Timothy to go around doing it just because he found the discussion unecessary. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Again as I said, it is blockable, I never said I would block you. Please stop assuming bad faith and take it as a warning. Editors have been blocked for it before you know. You need to read the wikipedia policies on consensus, which you should have done before you started editing. It isn't up to you to arbitrarily make decisions. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, you've no right to say the I "found the discussion unnecessary." In the case of Jibril, there was a grand total of one message on the talk page, and my tag didn't change anything in this regard. I've been happy to engage you and all other editors on talk pages at every turn. Check your ratio of mainspace:talk edits to mine. Compare your edit summaries to mine. Who deems reverts of disputed points "minor edits"? It is rich that you grasp at this line of criticism.Timothy Usher 07:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your argument, but there are other concerns and arguments as well. Maybe there is a moderate solution to this problem. How is it to have a mediation page for this significant issue where everybody can come and share their ideas? --Aminz 23:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

With the exception of Jeremy's usage of the term crusade, I 100% Agree with him and Anonymous editor. Each of the different Arabic names tends to have it's own history apart from their English equivalents. It is partially for this reason that I also disagree with User:Aminz's efforts to alter every reference of Allah to be the English equivalent God. Both Aminz and Timothy Usher have tried to rationalize this change by saying that they are just translating Allah to God but I refute this argument due to the fact that Allah is already a very well established English language Arabic_transliteration of الله. Likewise this logic applies to nearly all other examples of established transliterated terms. Netscott 00:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

God in Islam is the same as God in Judaism. I and Timothy are not trying to rationalize this, we are trying to avoid misunderstandings of Islam. --Aminz 04:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Aminz, I no longer trust you having directly witnessed your inclination to edit with bad faith (despite your now appearingly disingenuous apology) and your falsely accusing me of bad faith editing as well. This demonstration (that I'm sure you were aware of your having been involved in that discussion) of Timothy Usher's rationalizing is further indication that I am right to not trust you. Netscott 08:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, don't trust me. Yes, I sinned when I broke my deal but I don't accept your further accusations. I made an error. I don't want to get into discussion of whether you made a mistake or not again. This is something we don't agree upon. But let me tell you something, I made an error and confessed it. But you are exposing it everywhere. If we all died and there was a God, then you should not expect God to cover your sins. --Aminz 08:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Who's talking about sinning? I'm talking about holding to your word and further not trying to save face in not holding to your word by trying to falsely demonize those with whom you've broken your word. This is not a disagreement, this is a truth which you refuse to acknowledge. Netscott 09:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me, if I wanted to save face, would I have accepted that my fault was bigger than yours? If I wanted to save face, would I have apologized first? The reason that my first apology didn't seem sincere to you wasn't that I didn't want to be sincere. First of all, I don't have that feeling about the english words that I have about the persian words. I can not exactly control it. Sometimes, when I edit something over and over and go back and forth, I'll lose my control over how it will sound even more. Anyways, I don't know how this issue is going to be solved. My impression of seeing you reverting that edit was that you should not have done it but it is a possibility that my impression was completely wrong. Who knows. This is a truth which I can acknowledge. Anything more than this is personal disagreement. --Aminz 09:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Aminz, what is funny is that your own words betray you. I demonstrated your bad faith in editing and then you accused me of bad faith in editing. If we follow the simple logic that one demonstration of bad faith equals another (at the levels we're talking about here) then based upon your accusations we should be equal in our faults. This is not true because I have not demonstrated bad faith in our previous exchange which I clearly demonstrated to you. Therefore if you're talking about your fault being bigger than mine then you are wrong. Netscott 09:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am really confused. You showed me my breaking of my deal. I accepted it and apologized. Then after that you said I have accepted your apology, I said that some particular revertion of yours is a breaking of the deal though my fault was bigger. Then you disagreed with me.

I think what is causing the confusion is that I was changing all the articles one by one. I got stuck on one of the articles and compromised with you (not that I was convinced that your position is correct). Then I moved on to other articles. I considered my deal to be only on that particular article. I believe saying "God (Allah)" is better than "Allah" alone but the best is "God" based on some reasons. This is the story in my view. --Aminz 10:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• That's just it, you didn't compromise but merely delayed the edit you really wanted to make while hoping for me to lose interest in the subject whereupon you'd come back and fix the article. Even before you left that extremely telling message on User:Jeremygbyrne's talk page you immediately demonstrated your bad faith by reverting to the same style of editing that we conflicted upon on the very next thing you edited afterwards. Other than for bad faith reasons why else would you do that? This is why I started reverting your similarly natured subsequent edits wholesale. Netscott 10:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I compromised on that article, and at that moment I didn't want to change God (Allah) to God later, though I wasn't happy of the compromise. I was later tempted to do that. One reason that I accepted the compromise was that I myself had already used the form God (Arabic: Allah) on "Ali" article {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali&diff=prev&oldid=50701607] and we were in revert war. But I didn't think that my compromise is supposed to include all articles, that is, I was not convinced by no means that we should use God(Allah) everywhere. I accepted that on that particular article we use God (Allah). That was why I continued to edit other articles. After you reverted my edits on another article, I immediately changed it to God (Allah). The reason I broke my compromise was because I saw Jeremy doesn't wants God(Allah) to be there and I was tempted to break my deal which was wrong and I apologized for it. --Aminz 20:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It is well-established, Netscott, but as a misunderstanding, as in, "Muslims worship Allah rather than God." The latest rumor is that Allah is the Moon God [1], [2], [3], [4] (there are many more where these came from.)Timothy Usher 07:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Timothy Usher, at this point I feel as though you are on a false campaign in this regard and with it you are fueling (perhaps inadvertently) an editor that you refer to as impulsive and chaotic. Does Wikipedia need this? I think not. Does it not seem more logical to utilize Wikipedia as it is intended, to give readers the opportunity to properly educate themselves to know what Allah actually represents and means? Such a campaign appears destined to introduce further confusion in the minds of those wanting to learn about the Islamic concept of Allah as God. Netscott 08:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, yes, Timothy refered to me as impulsive and chaotic and had not God covered my other sins, all would have known that I am much worst. The honor is in the hands of God alone. --Aminz 09:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Netscott, for your vote of support. (I admit to using "crusade" to attract attention in order to counter to the unreasonable haste with which Timothy was acting — I don't actually think he wants to drive the infidel from the holy land.) I think the answer lies somewhere between your position and Aminz's, in that it's important people don't get the idea that Allah is somehow a different god from G*d or God (the Father, that is — let's leave christology aside for the moment, as it introduces its own set of difficulties into the discussion), but it's also very important our readers can find an article entitled "Allah" when they come to wikipedia (as they can when they go to every other major general encyclopedia in english, on- or offline). Otherwise, wikipedia is going to come off looking bizarre, out of touch and anti-islamic (no matter how loudly Timothy might proclaim the unbiased universality of his viewpoint). The optimal solution is pretty much the status quo, with more interlinking/cross-referencing of relevant articles to minimise the sense of ghettoisation Timothy says he's concerned about. What we don't need is impulsiveness and unilateralism (whether it's one or a small group of editors who take it on themselves to engage in it). It is far better that nothing changes than that changes are made which alienate large numbers of editors. — JEREMY 06:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy, I appreciate your conciliatory words. Though I collaborated with IPT to write Infidel, I don't trouble myself with such concepts.

I've no intention of deleting or merging Allah - as it stood, it was mainly about the Arabic word, which is easily important enough to merit its own article. All I'd done is move passages about the Islamic concept of God to, well, Islamic concept of God. Most of these were duplicated (with minor changes since the copy/paste) anyhow. Having it in one place means we won't have competing versions, and preserves topicality. I've treated the Islamic concept of God with great respect (not in the least because it's my concept of God as well).Timothy Usher 07:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Portal Vandalism

There has been some vandilism occuring on the portals. Please keep an eye on them. BhaiSaab 06:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the vandilism on both the Sunni and Shi'a portals. BhaiSaab 06:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Article needing attention

While on random article patrol, I found Shah Nimatullah, which needs attention from somebody knowledgable on the subject. Zocky | picture popups 17:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This guild needs a NPOV name

I'm concerned that this guild acts as a rallying call toward muslims to change articles toward their POV rather than an aim to create balanced articles. This is demonstrated by the fact that the vast proportion of members are muslims. I don't think a 'muslim guild' is appropriate for wikipedia as it is inherently (as its name indicates) POV and seems to only serve the purpose of raising awareness among muslims on wikipedia toward a supposed need to steer articles toward 'muslim POV'. This is unfair and should not be tolerated.

I'll admit 'Muslim POV' is varied but there is definately a case for Muslims sharing POV and we shouldn't be party to the act of steering articles toward any POV, thus this guild should have a name that is neutral. JHJPDJKDKHI! 22:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I somewhat agree. Perhaps it should be merged back into Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam. I don't understand why they're two separate entities anyway. joturner 22:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and would like to add that my original comments were perhaps a little overzealous. I think these guilds are a necessary part of wikipedia, I just caution that any attempts to steer articles toward POV should be avoided and that should be embodied in the name of the guild. JHJPDJKDKHI! 22:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What about the Guild for Muslim topics, The Muslim topics Guild or The interested in Muslim topics Guild or something along those lines? Otherwise just follow User:Joturner's idea above. Netscott 06:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The current title is at least honest. Note how membership is broken down by confession, with Muslims coming first. For my part, despite my significant involvement with Islam-related articles, I would never consider joining this group It's deeply inappropriate to organize or to segregate editors by religion. It's also deeply inappropriate that the guild act as a unit, as it has in a current RfA, to promote its members. This cabal should be recognized for what it is and abolished.Timothy Usher 06:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, Here is a question for you. [5].

Also, Timothy, please first make the definition of the terms you are using precise. --Aminz 09:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Tickle me+Aiden hardly constitute a Guild.

My comments are clear, and need no further definition.Timothy Usher 09:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see the guild merged back into Wikiproject Islam as well. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

different kind of censorship?

I am sure many of you remember the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy image dispute. Now it seems the self-proclaimed free speech proponents censor critique on their own blocking habits: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#26_May_2006 Raphael1 22:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It goes even further: Now administrators even removed [6][7][8] the review of their censorship after only 9 hours of discussion. Raphael1 08:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This is abit of a nobrainer, as if you agreed with censorship of muhammed cartoons, why are you questioning censorship elsewhere? Do you think Islam tolerates critical views of muhammed? No they censor them or as history has shown make death threats. I think whta these wikipedia users have done is very mild in comparison, it's certainly not a declaration of the opinions of the majority of freespeech proponents. It's incredibably hypocritical of you to criticise other peopl ewhen they censor your views in the discussion of the censorship of other people views. JHJPDJKDKHI! 13:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I have not removed the cartoons for a long time. Instead I prefer the linkimage compromise, where the cartoons are just moved one click away. I do not regard this as censorship, since everybody can see the cartoons if they please, while at the same time showing respect to readers, who feel insulted by them. In contrast my critique has been removed entirely by administrators as well as the discussion about the removal. Raphael1 13:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Barnstar Award

File:IslamicBarnstar.png

The Islamic Barnstar Award

I just created this image to help recognize any editor who has made exceptional contributions to Islam-related articles. --JuanMuslim ^1m 07:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnstars are wikipedian, and must not have a religion. I've nominated this image for deletion.Timothy Usher 07:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnstars are entirely unofficial, and therefore their form is wholly up to the editors who chose to give them out. I have seen plenty of personal barnstar-type awards which are entirely (and entirely appropriately) POV. — JEREMY 07:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I know individuals like User:Cyde have been making strenous efforts to "neutralize" userboxes and also to subst them (with T2 reasoning). Part of the reason these individuals are doing this is that they want to inhibit the ability of editors to form cabals with such userboxes. I suspect that these same individuals will soon argue for the removal of this type of barnstar when to their way of thinking it is possible to use it for doing the same type of thing. Netscott 08:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This is worse than partisan userboxes, as it's coordinated rather than self-placed. This is exactly what's wrong with this Barnstar, and this Guild. Wikipedia's not supposed to be "Muslim" or "Islamic," and editors aren't supposed to try to make it so. Rather, we're to be a reputable scholarly source. It's inappropriate, off-topic and counterproductive to congratulate editors for being "Islamic."Timothy Usher 08:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Partisan awards naturally serve to divide rather than unite, and this barnstar is obviously counter-productive in building bridges among editors with different beliefs. Pecher ^Talk 09:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This barnstar is no different to the many devoted to specific categories. It isn't an award for "being a good Muslim" or even "being a good Muslim editor"; it's "to help recognize any editor who has made exceptional contributions to Islam-related articles". (Note the "any editor" part). Personally, I think barnstars are naff as hell — but I recognise that others find them useful, and it's not like we're talking "This editor thinks Trinitarian Christology is a Surrealist Joke" userboxen or something. — JEREMY 09:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You may vote to keep or delete the image at the Vote to keep or delete page. --JuanMuslim ^1m 09:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I will copy our discussion to the Voting talk page, so that others will get an accurate idea about our current discussion. --JuanMuslim ^1m 09:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This image was nominated for possible deletion on May 27, 2006 but survived deletion. --JuanMuslim ^1m 04:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks to your advertisement on this blatanly partisan talk page, it did.Timothy Usher 04:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Your reservations about this talk page aside Timothy Usher let's try to assume good faith and see that the image is neutral in itself. If such wasn't the case I doubt you would have issued this barnstar yourself to a number of notable non-muslim editors involved with topics of an Islamic nature. Netscott 08:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The image itself is fine, and several editors deserved the barnstar, having toiled far harder, and for a more principled cause, then some of those who'd received it the first time around. It's the overall atmosphere to which I object. This page should be abolished, [[Category:Muslim Wikipedians]] should be abolished, "Salam, brother" (to fellow "Muslims" only) should be abolished, "I LOVE ISLAM!" on userpages should be abolished, and everything else along those lines, as per T2+++.Timothy Usher 10:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, may I ask why should the category be abolished? There are categories of wikipedians who believe in other religions? I'm curious if you make these remarks at other religions pages too? I know that all you want is to contribute in the way you believe best but some of your words do not seem like that. I cannot see what's wrong about saying ¨salam¨ to another wikipedian. salam. Suleyman Habeeb 11:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

According to SirIsaacBrock those who have received that barnstar belong to "a small group of anti-Semites". He has repeated the statement several times, for instance at Category talk:Anti-Semitic people#Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Perhaps you would be interested to have a word in it. // Liftarn

If you're unhappy about a certain user's behavior, you may report it on WP:AN/I, but do not spam talk pages to rally support, please. Pecher ^Talk 18:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Muqtada al-Sadir and the sadrist party in Iraq

I've added a new Islam related articals that were missing. Sadrist Movement please add more info on this as it is a stub really.Hypnosadist 17:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Certain Users

I'd like to point out certain users to the rest of the Muslim Guild: Karl_Meier, CltFn, and Oceansplash. They happen to think along the lines of "Islamists are taking over Wikipedia" and make, in my opinion, as many Anti-Islam and Anti-Muslim edits as possible. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, watch out, im taking over! ... lol. --Striver 19:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

/me is still waiting for the opening of Striverpedia. heh Netscott 19:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

On another note, this type of list making is highly frowned upon here on Wikipedia and there are histories involving blocking surrounding previous cases. Netscott 19:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of Raphael's experiences with listmaking. Any of the above users are free to come here and say that I'm wrong all they like. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not merely referring to User:Raphael1 but also previous cases. Netscott 19:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab, your post is really inappropriate, and is construable as a personal attack.Timothy Usher 00:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the comment was a personal attack, per se, but I agree with Timothy it should not have been made. If you want to talk to the editors you mentioned about their edits, that's fine, but calling them out like this and putting words in their mouths ("Islamists are taking over Wikipedia") is nothing short of tactless. joturner 01:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't put any words in their mouth - you should see some of their recent edits. See this one, for example. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Im sure BhaiSaab didnt mean to break any rule, but my experience is that it usualy has a bad ending when one starts to list people against their wish. Im not saying that it shouldnt be done, only that it usualy has a bad ending. --Striver 13:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab, if you aim to correct Oceansplash's impression that Muslim editors act as a pack against unbelievers, posting a message on "The Muslim Guild" of the sort you have - I also note the "User Comment" section above - is pretty much the last way to do it. Just what action do you expect "the rest of the Muslim guild" to take, now that you've "point[ed] out certain users" to them?

Joturner and Striver's comments are much better-considered in this regard. If you don't wish others to believe you act as a pack, don't do it.

We could start by abolishing this blatantly partisan page, which promotes exactly this mentality. Don't divide editors into "Muslims" and "Non-Muslims". Don't greet fellow "Muslims" with "Salam, brother" while other wikipedians are only "certain users." Don't write spiels about how "I Love Islam" on one's user page while denouncing other editors as "anti-Muslim," as another guild member has recently done. I could go on, but you probably already see my point. These sorts of behaviors, and the very existence of this page, and frankly the subsequent behavior of the editor Oceansplash was tactlessly denouncing, lend credence to the paranoia expressed by the referenced remark, and will compel otherwise disinterested parties to view you with mistrust.Timothy Usher 20:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed, this guild is made up both non-Muslims and Muslims. One of its aims is "To ensure that Islam-related articles offer a neutral, unbiased point of view free from all POV whether secular or nonsecular" and I think the users I pointed out above compromise that aim. If this guild were to "act as a pack" it certainly wouldn't only be the Muslims. I have nothing to do with dividing editors into Muslims and Non-Muslims; I'm all for merging this guild back into WikiProject Islam, as I've said before. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

May I ask again what action you expect "the rest of the Muslim guild" to take, now that you've "point[ed] out certain users" to them?Timothy Usher 09:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't expect any action. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Then what was the point?

Just today, Karl Meier, whom you'd singled out above, has been harrassed by two members of this very Guild. Though these members are responsible for their own actions, your post contributed to the environment in which this harrassment took place.Timothy Usher 22:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

While far from condoning this list this last part added by User:Timothy Usher about User:Karl Meier relative to User:Irishpunktom is in fact something that had been going on for quite some time (well before this list was posted). Netscott 22:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That's why I said "two", not counting IPT, who doesn't seem to have been logged on when the stuff went down today. We have every reason to believe that AE and Faisal have read this post, and that it may have influenced their decisions in this regard.Timothy Usher 22:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No, not really if you follow the history of that page you'll note that a number of editors have done reverts outside of User:Irishpunktom himself, including User:Raphael1 and User:Striver all one would need do is look at the history and see what's been occurring there and edit accordingly (relative to a perception of Irishpunktom's wishes from following his own reverts) regardless of this list. Netscott 22:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Even User:Anonymous editor has previously reverted Irishpunktom's page. Netscott 22:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

And Faisal?Timothy Usher 22:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You're hingeing such a statement on the act of one editor? Sorry, not inclined to see the direct correlation, certainly a possibility but I tend to keep watch on editor's talk pages (and subsequently their user page) whom I tend to "edit with" and I find this to be a more plausible explanation for what occurred in this case. But regardless this is a minor point as in reality this list should have never been posted... period. Netscott 23:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I grant that it may have happened anyhow, but only because of the very same environment which I'm criticizing here. BhaiSaab’s post didn’t occur in a vacuum. He'd been given every reason to believe that his comment would be viewed as acceptable to the target audience.

It's time to stop designating editors as "Muslim" or "non-Muslim", much less as "anti-Muslim". This Guild and this page (again, see the section entitled "User Comments" above) is a big part of the problem. So is the misuse of user space as seen on IPT's (before the removal of the attack) and especially Faisal's user page. It's an ongoing atmosphere of sectarian hostility and division which should end, starting, if not yesterday, then right here, right now.Timothy Usher 23:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm failing to see the issue here Timothy and yet you continue to bring this up. The Muslim / non-Muslim designation is perhaps there to help guide those editors who want a Muslim perspective on an issue (and therefore want to find a Muslim editor). Perhaps it's there to demonstrate that this guild / Wikiproject does not just consist of Muslims and that it's a joint effort of people of different religions. It's not compulsory for people, Muslim or non-Muslim, to indicate their religion as there is a "not telling" section and users don't theoretically have to put their name anywhere on the page. And what's wrong with Ibrahimfaisal's page? So he's proud of his religion. So what? Jwrosenzweig is a proud Christian (and a bureaucrat). No big deal. Essjay, also a bureaucrat, is gay and a liberal Christian, and doesn't care if the whole world knows. Power to him. Raul654 is proud of his academic work, while Ilyanep is willing to share his accomplishments from his first fourteen years of life. Both bureaucrats; both no problem. Timothy, they are all people despite their roles on Wikipedia and they should be free to say whatever they want on their userpages as long as they're not attacking anyone or creating a conflict. It's always nice to know that there are actually people behind those usernames. joturner 23:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles That Need To Be Seriously Looked At

I've noticed a rather extreme and deliberate effort by a group of editors (and a few administrators) to promote a negative image of Islam. Several articles are weighed down with highly partisan sources from known Islamophobes, without any effort to maintain neutrality by balancing perspectives with opposing ones. Articles relating to Islam and Muslims, directly or indirectly, have been systematically subject to these group attacks. I'd advise people to look at the following articles for now and participate in editing to bring them into balance. Feel free to add more articles to this list:

• Criticism of Islam
• Hamas (with regards to the context in which Hamas formed, ie the occupation and refugee crisis)
• Dhimmi
• Islam and anti-Semitism
• Zionism
• Islamophobia
• Islam in the United States

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amibidhrohi (talk • contribs) .

It should be noted that all editors should maintain the spirit of NPOV. I am merely urging people to use their knowlege of Islam, and of subject matters where Islam or Muslims are involved, to make articles reflect an academically and intellectually credible quality. In my opinion, the articles right now are loaded with information deliberately placed to present Muslims and Islam in the most negative possible light. This request isn't just directed towards Muslims, but to anyone interested in making articles on these subjects truly neutral in their portrayal of the matter. Amibidhrohi 00:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems the only result so far is a blind revert to your version with the edit summary, "Amibidrohi's version is better". I suppose that's what you call a neutral point of view?

You wrote "To bring about that balance, more Muslim participation is necessary" below[9]. Only now do you say, "This request isn't just directed towards Muslims..." I believed you the first time.Timothy Usher 00:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I've restored the preceding post because I think it germane to the discussion we've been having above.

Amibidrohi is calling Muslim Guild members to rally together to combat editors which he claims are "extreme[ly] and deliberate[ly]...promot[ing] a negative view of Islam," and characterizing their edits as "group attacks." But what could be the point of this post, other than to organize just such a "group attack"?Timothy Usher 23:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, please read WP:AGF. Amibidhrohi 23:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate my question: what can be the the point of your post, if not to organize collective Guild action to promote a certain point of view?Timothy Usher 23:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Only that a few here see to it that those articles present a truly NPOV. I don't have the time to do all the work myself. I've noticed that in most articles pertaining to Islam, there are more Jewish and Christian authors with axes to grind, than Muslim. I merely hope to see things kept within balance. To bring about that balance, more Muslim participation is necessary. Once again, please read WP:AGF. Amibidhrohi 00:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ditto, Amibidhrohi. I often see what seems to be a tendency for Timothy to fail to assume good faith in Muslim editors. For some reason, Timothy, you seem to have this impression that Muslims want to take over Wikipedia, promoting a heavily biased point-of-view and asserting some sort of Muslim superiority. That's obviously not true. Muslim Wikipedians, on the whole, have the same goal as Wikipedians on the whole: building a comprehensive, unbiased encyclopedia. Getting input and ideas from people of all backgrounds is the only way that goal is going to be achieved. It appears as though Amibidhrohi is just trying to get some Muslim input on articles where there so far has been little. joturner 00:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it seems that Timothy's always hoping he can try and prevent more editors from fixing the messes he's made on articles. And he has always had a very large problem with assuming good faith ever since he started editing here. There are too many discussions which show that. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Any more falsehoods you'd like to share with us today?Timothy Usher 02:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher, anymore incivility you want to share with us today? (A request: [10] your response to the request: [11]) 70.132.40.180 21:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

a.n.o.n.y.m, be careful, Timothy Usher has anti semitism feeling against anon-editors in wikipedia and apparently you are somehow an Anonymous Editor. If he accused you of vandalism, don't bother to reason with him. It will not work. Instead you may want to change your username. That might work 70.132.58.150 22:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not about "Muslim Wikipedians", but about this Guild.

And I do not assume bad faith:

I accept that Amibidrohi sincerely believes that "Jewish and Christian editors have axes to grind" and are engaged in "a rather extreme and deliberate effort...to promote a negative image of Islam." I accept that he sincerely believes that "more Muslim participation is necessary" to "present a truly NPOV". And I accept that he sincerely believes that it's okay to use this page to rally Guild members to act collectively to further this cause.Timothy Usher 00:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Amibidhrohi, thanks for posting those articles. I think that there should be notice board assocated with Muslim Guild where people can post the articles need to view. Similar to the Pakistan notice board. So should be create such a notice board at the Muslim Guild page. --- Faisal 13:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Its here. Can someone move this discussion there? --Striver 14:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. A separate page dealing with articles that need to be reviewed and edited if necessary. Amibidhrohi 15:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This page already exists on...

WP:RfC

Folks, there is already a place to call attention to an article. It's called an RfC (Request for comment). However, it differs from spam posts to this page in two ways: 1) you'll be asking for other editors' attention, not their assistance 2) you'll be addressing the community as a whole, not just the "Muslim Guild".

Whosever sincerely wishes only for editors to take a look at an article and make up their own minds, and truly doesn't mean to address his post only to members of a particular religion, will use the established RfC process. Those who, having been apprised of the process, post to this Guild anyhow, do so, it must be assumed, precisely because their intentions would not be served by the legitimate goals of an RfC.Timothy Usher 18:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This guild is not closed to anyone, so there's no problem posting here. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, you assume that im looking at the RfC like a hawk, searching it for Islam related articles. I dont. But i still want to be notified when it is needed. This is the best way to do it, a notification board for those intrested.--Striver 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:SPAM, etc.

The only functions I've seen for this Guild thusfar are:

• To evade the spam policy by gathering like-minded editors in one place, such that we can generically advertise[12], [13] to them all while claiming that it is "technically" not spam, while accomplishing its goals; to wit: "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view."
• To personally attack non-Muslim or "anti-Muslim" editors, as per BhaiSaab and Amibidhrohi's recent posts[14], [15], , the "Crusade" section, and most of all the execrable "User comments" section further above.
• To make sure that members know who is a "Muslim" and who is not, as per the front page.

This is un-wikipedian, inherently and intentionally divisive, and wrong.Timothy Usher 09:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher, your uncivil behavior and false accusations casts doubts upon the credibility of your comments. 70.132.42.38 03:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, I've gone on assuming good faith on your part to the point of being naive. You repeatedly bring up my name in every post you make,and on various talk pages, dispite the fact that I've consistently refused to name editors whom I feel are guilty of the extreme POV-pushing that created this problem in the first place. I've made no personal attacks against anyone, and yet you have repeatedly accused me of trying to incite an 'attack'. If a particular user is guilty of personal attacks, his error is his own. In no way has personal attacks been encouraged by this guild,nor POV-pushing, and in no way should the error of a member be exploited by the likes of you to reflect guilt on the part of an entire group. Now back off. Amibidhrohi 18:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A call to WP:AGF is usually the last resort of an editor who has nothing else to say. I assume that you, Amibidhrohi, plead guilty to charges of spamming and personal attacks. Pecher ^Talk 21:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There are other groups too for other nations, for example For Pakistan related stuff, For indian related stuff and this list is tooooo big. We Muslims are also a nation. Hence there is no harm to have similar project for us. Why you are so much only against this project? Why you do not go on numerous other projects sites made on the similar lines and speak against them. Why we cannot have similar project like all other nations have? As you know there is a group that is producing hate against Muslims in articles and that group is working very closely. If one member of that group makes a change other support him. For example look at Dhimmi, talk:Muhammad article. We need to end this propoganda against Islam. Secondly, we also need to create new articles related to Islam. Creating new articles is not a task of single person, hence it is good to have some support/collaboration. --- Faisal 18:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam devoted to just that: improving Islam-related articles. Any more ideas as to why this guild should exist? Pecher ^Talk 20:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right; there is no reason. As I suggested before, this should just be merged back into WikiProject Islam. joturner 05:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Pecher and Joturner. Changing the name and erasing the ugly history might go a long way towards encouraging broader participation, and refocus the mission from "defending Islam" against purported enemies to improving Wikipedia. Let's start with a clean, non-sectarian and inclusive slate.Timothy Usher 05:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to start a vote going, but I don't know if this discussion page is the appropriate page to do it. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC);;

I could think about accepting the merge with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam if the merge include at least following

* All the member's of Guild become members there

* The article section here goes to there too. That means we should be allowed to nominate article that have problems.

* The mission of Guild also become mission of Wikipedia_islam project. That means working together to create new articles and secondly, do not let any one to push his POV on Islam related articles. The Propoganda against Islam should be end.

In case the merge along above lines is not possible. Then I will continue supporting the Guild and will advice other member of Guild to reject any suggestion for ending/changing the Guild. --- Faisal 05:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Membership policy

I think that we should have membership policy and membership should not be open for everyone. Hence if a User wants to join the group then other User should vote (based on his contributions), whether he should be allowed to be a member or not. He should be member only in case of consensus (75-80% support votes) of the current members. Similarly the voting procedure may disqualify a current member. The reason I want to have this policy is that, if many people who are part of propaganda against Islam join the group then it might become ineffective. --- Faisal 19:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Okay I take my suggestion back. Let "them" join too. --- Faisal 21:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I oppose it, let them join, who care. This is not a exclusive club, this is somewhere where people intrested in Islam-topics can gathere, no mater who they are. --Striver 19:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Faisal. Spies are all around here scheming against this guild. Pecher ^Talk 20:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Guys, we need to remeber that we dont own this, this is not "our" guild, this is a project page to co-operate when editing Islam articles. *If* there are any "spies", the worst think they could do is to create a atmospher of fear. Let him be, focus on the mission: To creat better wikipedia articles. --Striver 21:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Striver here. Amibidhrohi 21:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I, too, agree with Striver.Timothy Usher 05:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course we expect there should be some who have propaganda against Islam but interestingly there are some who have Anti Semitism feeling against anon-editors in wikipedia (And moreover they are rude)70.132.40.180 22:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Those who are anti-semitism are as bad Users as "the group" working for Islam propoganda. ---- Faisal 03:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a group of those who are anti-semitism (Timothy Usher and his meatpuppet Pgk belong to that group). They both believe I am a vandal (speaking to myself: They themselves are vandal. Hmmm, now I feel better. Again, They themselves are vandal. They themselves are vandal. They themselves are vandal... ). 70.132.66.114 03:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

WTF is up with that comment ?? Mr 70.132.66.114, your diatribe there is quite offensive! I mean, you didn't even call me a vandal! Just Usher and Pgk? Playing favorites? You, you, you... exclusionist!! Luckily I don't get hurt feelings that easily ;) Enjoy your day, my cute little 70.132.66.114 Love, --FairNBalanced 06:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see you here, FairNBalanced! Anon was closer to the mark when he said I had "Anti Semitism feeling against anon-editors in wikipedia"[16], [17] I don't mind being attacked per se, but it's important to get these nuances straight.Timothy Usher 06:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL --FairNBalanced 06:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Why I am not a vandal and Timothy Usher and Pgk are making false accusations

Please have a look at the history of Timothy Usher's talk page and Pgk's talk page. I was only making the title of a section neutral. It was Timothy Usher who first accused me of vandalism ("ALONG WITH THE JUSTIFICATION THAT I AM AN ANONYMOUS EDITOR") and recently referred to me as a troll. Now he is playing the role of an innocent person and others are ridiculing me. 70.231.238.22 07:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

004.135 O ye who believe! stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do.

017.035 Give full measure when ye measure, and weigh with a balance that is straight: that is the most fitting and the most advantageous in the final determination.

Guys, I found the first one yesterday (when editing criticism of Islam article). I think they are relevant. If you think I haven't done any vandalism tell Timothy Usher and Pgk about this, otherwise inform me of my fault. 70.231.238.22 07:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is one of my censored comments (My last comment on Pgk's talk page after he kept removing my comments):

Disclaimer: The content of this comment may not be true.

Okay, fine, I understand. You are Timothy's friend. That's why you support him and abuse me. That's why you are silent when he is abusing me. Well, okay. Do whatever you want. I will not edit your talk page anymore. Censor whatever you want. 70.231.238.22 08:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

To Mr. Timothy Usher

Mr. Timothy Usher, if you agree that your behavior could have been better, your judgment was quick and ask Pgk to unprotect your talk page, everything between us will be resolved. It is a good contract. Put yourself in my shoes and you will realize that you were offensive towards me even if it was not intended. 70.231.233.118 05:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Muslim Guide ???

Very non-neutral title. I hate bad titles. 70.231.233.118 09:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Muslim Guild, as well as the WikiProject_Islam Under-Attack

Both the Muslim Guild as well as the WikiProject_Islam are under attack by them. See the changes made in WikiProject_Islam. They have change everything from Missin statement to the URL on the page. [Similarly See the changes made in the Muslim Guild by them]. These are the same people who want to make propoganda against Islam. --- Faisal 13:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Attack? You might want to rephase what you are saying in accord with Wikipedia:Consensus because describing those edits as "attacks" is quite a misnomer. It appears moreso that the editors in question were being bold. Let us not forget that none of us are owners when it comes to editing on Wikipedia. Netscott 14:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Im not comfortable with the new rules of WikiProject_Islam, but on the other hand, im not active there. --Striver 14:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Any chance you might expound on what makes you "uncomfortable" Striver? Netscott 14:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The entire "do not" section was critisized in its talk page in a maner that i can subscribe to.--Striver 17:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If some delete the whole page and change the rules overnight without developing any consensus then I will say it is attack. It is much better and polite word than words like vandalism and others. --- Faisal 16:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, have you not read Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages? Netscott 16:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

it says be bold, it doesn't say change everything you see in a changing-frenzy into the way you want it to be, without asking for opinions of other users. --Suleyman Habeeb 17:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It also says, in quite large writing actually "don't be reckless" .. which Faisal and others seem to concur has happened. --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Still the word attack does not correspond to "be bold". Remember we're supposed to be assuming good faith. Can we honestly say those edits weren't made in good faith? Netscott 20:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The title "Muslim Guild" is not neutral. Why don't we first move everything to the other project page and then discuss the issues in details? 70.132.49.92 20:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

How is it not neutral? - Its a guild for editors who wish to work on all things relating to, or concerning Muslims. --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess the other project page "WikiProject Islam" is also supposed to be a guild for editors who .... Please illuminate me. What is the difference? 70.132.49.32 21:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Two points: 1) It's not a "Guild", it's a WikiProject. 2) It's not "Muslim", but about the subject Islam.Timothy Usher 21:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Guild or/and WikiProject ; why do we have two pages? one is enough. I am going to sleep; good night!

I've said so in earlier commentary relative to the question of neutrality and the title of this guild. If this guild was entitled, Muslim Topics Guild or Guild for Muslim Topics it would at least have the appearance of being neutral and not exclusionary as it is now (as though one needs to be a Muslim to be a part of this Guild). Netscott 20:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There are many non-Muslims in the Guild. May be the number of non-Muslims and muslims might be equal. --- Faisal 20:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

See it is not big deal to change this section heading. I might change it to what ever you wish. But please admit that, removing all the material from the project page is not good thing. Secondly, I name it attack because of a specific user. I already know and talked to him many times in the past. I had good faith towards him in the beginning but now I know that he is not neutral towards Muhammad (PBUH). I have observed his edits many times in different articles and he is one of the reasons that I join the Guild. Hence if the same user now starts changing all the rules (without any discussion) then I cannot assume good faith because of our history. I am sorry. I could provide proof and specify his name too but I will not do that. --- Faisal 20:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What about calling this user by name? Pecher ^Talk 20:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The user who blanked this page isn't using a username.Timothy Usher 20:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Jihad & Islamic Propaganda

Ok, what do you want? Monty2 05:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you tell the members of this Guild what you just said on Talk:Muhammad?Timothy Usher 05:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely you'll agree that you're a wiki jihadist, is that even an insult to your type? Monty2 05:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I might, I might not. Anyhow, what's so bad about that? Oh, also, if you'd be willing to create a new section title that you feel appropriate to this conversation, that'd be fantastic.Timothy Usher 05:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think wikipedia is the place for 'islamic guilds', anymore than it's a place for 'scientology guilds'. It's a built-in bias. Do you think it's ok for every POV to get together and spam sites and remove things it doesn't agree on over religous or idealogical context? Monty2 05:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Read the discussion above, and tell us - me and the members of this Guild - what you think.Timothy Usher 05:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think censorship and bias of your type is spreading dangerously all over the place. This is wikipedia, not little saudi arabia. It's a black mark on this site to have propaganda of the worst type being allowed to run amok. Monty2 05:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

So much for any discussion I guess.. Monty2 05:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, read the prior discussion on this page, and tell us what you think.Timothy Usher 06:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Monty2 should have read the discussion above, LOL --FairNBalanced 06:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he saw my user page, where is proudly displayed the Islamic Barnstar. I'm wondering if it's realistic to display a thusly-captioned image, and still expect to be seen as a neutral commentator? It might make more sense to hide what we're up to. Comments?Timothy Usher 06:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher, can you be so sure that's where User:Monty2's allegations stem from? Netscott 06:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming User:Monty2's allegations came from a combination of this: It started here: [18]...continued when someone else made this edit: [19], Usher followed with this: [20], but not before enganging in an "unsigned comment" war with anonymous user User:206.103.66.134 who we can assume is none other than Monty2. Last but not least, I'm sure THIS didn't help an already confused Monty2. I'm nearly ready to give Usher a second Islamic barnstar for this whole interchange. Thanks for the laughs, amigo ! --FairNBalanced 07:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I should've known you guys were more or less a YTMND joke org. Oh well. A nice jihadi bit the dust today, so my mood can't be spoiled by trolls. Monty2 07:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

YTMND, I'd never heard of that before. Which "jihadi" bit the dust today? Make no mistake Monty2 you were certainly baited by User:Timothy Usher and you fell for it. As it appears that you haven't quite realized why this occurred it is because Timothy Usher has been driving home the same points that you've made up above here. If you look at the Membership list of this "Guild" you won't find User:Timothy Usher which might be indicative of what I'm actually saying. Netscott 07:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, I didn't realize you guys were a GNAA spinoff or whatever.. Zarqawi's whom I'm talking about. Monty2 07:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Now you're just being insulting, GNAA? I would recommend you try stepping back a bit and seeing the big picture here and hopefully you'll better understand what is occurring and how you've happened to come at more or less just the right time to witness it. Netscott 07:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't be offended by my troll warning, Monty, it was taken down in the past 24hrs, but I think this premature - it has nothing to do with this particular discussion. Netscott is right - for that matter, you won't find him on the list (though FairNBalanced is so listed) - after I read his link I felt sort of ashamed, hence my recent post to you. This page is no joke, but the very serious home of exactly the sort of spam and POV swarms to which you referred; it's just that neither I, nor Netscott, nor FNB, are party to it.

Folks, I've enjoyed reading the exchange a lot, but I'd suggest letting Monty off-hook for the moment until he reads this and other talk pages and comes back with his opinion. Pecher ^Talk 08:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No thanks. Monty2 08:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, do I have your permission to violate WP:NPA with regard to Monty2? Better yet, let's put it to a vote with the Guild. Please vote yea or nay (below this comment) on whether I should have permission to violate WP:NPA against this jackass. wait.. oop... uh.. did I just?.. ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm --FairNBalanced 05:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No one's ever going to "have permission" from any other editor on Wikipedia to "violate NPA". I realize you are trying to be ironic (and humorous) in your commentary but lest we forget, we're here to write an encyclopaedia. One of the best things one can do towards these ends is remain in accord with "assume good faith" guidelines which goes hand in hand with not personally attacking fellow editors. Netscott 07:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Raphael1

It seems like I will leave Wikipedia soon. It has been my pleasure to work with you. See: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Raphael1 Raphael1 19:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Good news for Muslims and Non-Muslims alike

Oh, this is breaking news, Maliki says Zarqawi was just killed in an air raid...Timothy Usher 07:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, they got him alright... lol... --Striver 21:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ever one to cite reliable sources eh Striver? Netscott 07:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Zarqawi was a vicious beast who made Muslims look bad. Good riddens. The world needs more cute Muslims. Like Szvest. --FairNBalanced 05:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Despite the apparent evil nature of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, I'm not one to applaud the death of a fellow human being. I would have been more interested in seeing proper execution of justice in a viable court of law despite the seeming preponderance of evidence to suggest he merited his ends. We probably shouldn't even be discussing this here as it is a discussion that is not editorial in nature. Netscott 07:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Scootster, he was sentenced to death in courts of law (in absentia) multiple times. and I'm not "applauding" the "death of a fellow human being". I'm "applauding" the death of a truly evil scumbag who killed thousands of innocent Muslims and non-Muslims in the name of Allah. You ought to be to :) --FairNBalanced 16:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say not all 'moderate' muslims are rejoicing.

"Riad Mohammed, 32, designer Zarqawi was a good man and all Jordanians know he was a good man. He was afraid of no-one but God.

But my view of him changed after the bombings of hotels in Amman, Jordan. After that I thought he deserved to die."

"Mutassim Qatrami, 25, student

America is occupying Iraq and anyone who fights the occupation is a good man.

Zarqawi fought the Americans and killed them and because of this I respect him. "

"Sami Abrahim, 36, production manger

He was a fabulous man and a shining example for the Arab people. I wish there were more like him.

He fought for Islam. When people did evil things against Islam he fought them. "

"Samer (last name withheld), 26, shop manager

He was a human being but did so much for the Arab and Islamic cause.

There is no-one like him in any other place in the world. I respect him as a man." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5062302.stmJHJPDJKDKHI! 20:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Poor people, swalowed the entire White House propaganda... the guy is a boogey man, died in 2003 bombings since his leg was amputated, then all of the sudden he grows a new leg and is al over the place... yea, right... --Striver 21:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Striver the above comments and your views just make me so sad, i fear more and more this Long War will not end without genocide. I have no doubt the West will win, its the cost in other peoples blood that is the problem.Hypnosadist 23:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory, LOL. Do you mind if I borrow your hat, Striver? I'd like to bake a potato in the oven.

Look, I am a member of the Muslim guild, and joining has changed my life. Now I want to help the Muslim cause, and the only reason we have neologisms like Islamophobia are because of assholes like Zarqawi who chant "Allah is great" while cutting off a civilian's head with a knife. Evil people like Zarqawi hurt Islam because they make people think Islam is not a peace religion. As members of the Muslim guild, it is up to us to fight against terrorist killers, & incidentally, those who make a bad name for Islam. Do you people know Zarqawi and his group decapitated 9 people shortly before he was killed? And that one of those people whose heads were found in cardboard box was a Muslim religious leader who was teaching peace and tolerance?

I'd like to say Zarqawi was a piece of shit, but I will refrain, due to my compassion for every piece of living fecal matter in the universe to which this would be a grave insult. --FairNBalanced 02:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No, problem, take the "hat". I don't even react to being called an idiot or goof anymore, except for feeling amused. I do agree that the actions attributed to him where of sub-animal standard. And i do wish that the world would not see such things one day. --Striver 09:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Folks, I don't know if this project will make sense and if I should join, but foul language, violating NPA ruling and trolling won't cut it for sure. Obviously, there are two factions here - and we won't ever enjoy each other's company. That said, we're bound to meet again and again. So let's try to make do without redundancies and beating our mighty chests. I enjoy zesty polemics as much as anyone does, and if let loose, I can be one really naughty hoolipedian. However, I had to realise by the hard way that wikiwise, it doesn't lead to anything productive ever. This thread and any like it is moot right from the beginning, sheer watchlist pollution. Let's do without, ok? --tickle me 02:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Islamonline IS a Reliable Source

Hello guys,

I think I am not supposed to edit here but this is an exception. Islam Online is frequently considered as an unreliable source and its material are removed from articles. I just noticed that IslamOnline is nothing but the website of an Islamic scholar named Yusuf al-Qaradawi. To prove that this scholar is wellknown enough, one can note that several radio and communications organization such as BBC, Radio Free Europe, and al Jazeera quote him ( e.g. http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/03/698d27d4-ec5d-429d-9ded-286e8d29d6eb.html , http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/3875119.stm ). I think that would be enough to consider "Islam Online" as a POV merits to be quoted in wikipedia. Any feedback? Thanks --Aminz 06:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems he is very famous ;)

BBC writes about him:

To some he is a pre-eminent Muslim scholar who has visited London for many years without fuss. To others he's nothing but trouble, a man who uses religion to justify suicide bombings and who should be banned from Britain as he is banned from the United States.

lol --Aminz 06:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful!

Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi is often referred to as the most influential contemporary Sunni scholar. His fatwas (legal opinions) regarding democracy, women's participation in politics, music and other social issues are considered relatively progressive and he has condemned the 9/11 attacks. Many Muslims and some Western scholars argue that he is a moderate who represents a credible alternative to the radical Islam associated with Al Qaeda.

See http://www.adl.org/main_Arab_World/al_Qaradawi_report_20041110.htm

I think he is a very famous guy from many aspects- lol --Aminz 06:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, Islamonline is the most visited website on the internet!! + we have a wiki article for that :) --Aminz 07:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say not to use it because the RS guideline directly states that:

'...self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so.'

Since this is a guideline, it's not set in stone; certainly there are articles that simply couldn't exist without referencing information found only on web pages. But scholarly encyclopedic articles about Islam don't fall under this category. - Merzbow 07:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow, sorry, I couldn't get your argument. Do you mean we can not write: "Yusuf al-Qaradawi states ..." or "Islamonline states ..." or "Islamonline the website of Yusuf al-Qaradawi states ..." or ...?

According to some, most influential contemporary Sunni scholar.; BBC writes about him "To some he is a pre-eminent Muslim scholar" ; his website is the most visited website on the internet. I am just confused. Who can we then quote if we can not quote from somebody that Radio Free Europe, and al Jazeera for example quote from him? --Aminz 07:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

My sense is that he may be a very adequate source if 1) he's authored the article himselfm and we explicitly attribute opinions to the influential Sunni scholar al-Qaradawi 3) it's about his area of expertise, contemporary interpretation. Feedback?Timothy Usher 07:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Not so sure; The articles are usually in the form of Question and Answer. The Answers are supposed to reflect what that scholar thinks (as it is the case with many other fatwa websites). In many cases, the scholar himself doesn't have time to answer all the questions, so his students, write the answers if they know or otherwise ask the scholar himself. This is the case for all websites of the shia jurists, I know. I guess with a high probability that this should be the case for the Sunni scholars as well. --Aminz 07:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I can see something in this history of the edits of the Yusuf al-Qaradawi. I thought I was the first one here who noticed that Yusuf al-Qaradawi is a very famous scholar and IslamOnline is his website (and so IslamOnline should be a reliable enough source). But apparently I am NOT!!!!! --Aminz 07:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Aminz asked me what I thought about this.

I think we could cite Islam-online.net for generally accepted information about Islam presented as matters of fact, where those facts are relatively less controversial, as "Muslims believe...<ref>Islam-online.net</ref>." If some think one thing and some another, we could say, "Some contemporary Sunni scholars<ref>like Yusuf al-Qaradawi at Islam-online.net</ref> say that..." If he has a notable opinion that's greatly different from that of many other scholars, we might say, "Yusuf al-Qaradawi says that..."

If I wanted to write, "It is necessary to study the Hadiths to fully understand the messaage of the Qur'an," I would feel confident citing something like The Importance of Hadith in Islam, by Prof. Shahul Hameed.

Like everything else, it also depends on what he's writing about. Outside his area of expertise his opinion is less informed. The website says, for example, that smoking is bad for you. While this is certainly true, I would not cite Islam-online.net from our page on lung cancer.

I also thought Some Mistakes of Yusuf Al-Qaradawi looked interesting.

Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Merger

Many of us have mentioned the idea of merging with Wikiproject:Islam. I propose that we wait to discuss any possibly changes to mission statement, etc., of Wikiproject Islam until after the merger occurs, if it occurs, so that we're able to discuss any changes with the current members of the project effectively. Vote below please. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

For the Merger

• BhaiSaab
• Netscott 02:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Aminz 07:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC) - I don't care really. As long as there is a community for editors (Muslim and Non-Muslim) working on Islam related articles I am fine.
• Merzbow - If the only thing that 'merger' means is that the current membership will be subsumed into that of Wikiproject:Islam (and Wikiproject:The_Muslim_Guild deleted), then I'm for it (as long as they aren't categorized by religion). - Merzbow 07:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow, isn't it somewhat a matter of principle that membership should be voluntary? We can't just sign up users for another project. Also, several members of this Guild are currently under ArbCom scrutiny, one of whom will almost certainly be banned, and I can think of at least two more which appear to be going down the same road. At least two are currently blocked (for example, the one who proposed the merger.) In all cases this is due to precisely the attitudes and behaviors which has brought this Guild into disrepute, as is amply illustrated by the discussion above. It strikes me as very unwise to prolong this history by merging it with a legitimate project. I urge you to reconsider your support.Timothy Usher 07:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know who are under scrutiny, but we have enough evidence to put "some" other people under scrutiny if one feels it is necessary. Just to make it fair, or just to reduce the number of people watching here! The choice is yours --Aminz 08:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean?Timothy Usher 08:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, I didn't refer to you for sure. See, on one hand I should abide by the wikipedia rules and on the other hand I need to express myself. Hey Timothy, tomorrow, there is a football match between Iran and Mexico, and I hope Iran wins ;)--Aminz 08:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's good to hear I'm not in anyone sights. Go Iran!Timothy Usher 08:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anybody has any evidence against you even though some may not like you. But that's because you have "big" goals. --Aminz 08:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Against the Merger

• Timothy Usher - this sad history of this Guild demonstrates that it should be abolished, not merged with anything.Timothy Usher 02:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Which sad history Timothy? Do you mean my post here for Joturner's nomination? --Aminz 07:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There are solicitations from both blocked user Amibidhrohi and Ibrahimfaisal above, personal attacks by blocked user BhaiSaab, Ibrahimfaisal and others, sections explicitly created to solicit reverts and sections to attack other editors. Most recently, conspicuous trolling by anons (possibly sockpuppets of a banned user) and others. I think this qualifies as a sad history.Timothy Usher 08:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, I don't know Amibidhrohi (and if he is Muslim or not), but do you mean all guilty editors here are Muslim editors, some of which are banned, some other under ArbCom scrutiny. Just tell me that all problem comes from Muslim editors. All these happened while I wasn't here (+ For a long time nothing happened here). It would be fair enough for me to guess that there is a conspiracy (without desiring to blame anybody). What is going on here? --Aminz 08:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone mentioned "Muslim editors." The problem is with this Guild, with the misconduct of its members, and with the overt encouragement thereof.Timothy Usher 08:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, nobody mentioned "Muslim editors" but I am not a fool either. Timothy, at least we know each other to some extent. You are good in forming theories based on observations. I did the same here. As I said above, as long as there is a community for editors who work on Islam related articles, I don't care what people call it. But I reserve my judgment about functionality of this project since at least on the Joturner case, I didn't agree with your view about this project page. --Aminz 08:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be coy here. It seems you're assuming that Muslim editors would naturally join/have joined the Muslim Guild, but I don't see that as remotely obvious. I know of a good number that haven't and probably wouldn't, and have to assume that there are a good deal more whose religion isn't obvious from their editting pattern. As for the Joturner RfA, I don't know how else one can interpret unanimous unqualified support for a fellow member. As per Definition12 below, this is simply not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work.Timothy Usher 08:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am assuming that Muslim editors, who would like to mention their religon in their userpages, would naturally join/have joined the Muslim Guild.

Timothy, let's check something. Let's pick up for example Cyde's RfA and process it. How is that? + Timothy, we can not swim against the direction of the river + You are really bothering me by using the word "unqualified"--Aminz 09:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think you dislike the idea of a merger Timothy because you'd rather keep WikiProject Islam this way and I don't think you're anyone to talk when it comes to making personal attacks. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you're spamming again, BhaiSaab. I stand by my comments, and repeat them here for those too apathetic to click through to the link: This is a non-sectarian encyclopedia. Your recent contributions lead me to believe that this is a big problem for you. If you're here to practice your religion, you've come to the wrong place.Timothy Usher 08:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab, I am not aware of the dispute but I think you can do whatever you are currently doing just in a more covered way (formally, while abiding by the wikipedia rules). That's the rule of the game if you really want to play. Unfortunately, there are even "decent" ways of bothering others. Play the game a bit and you’ll learn all these. See, I myself, am still a beginner. I should have told these to you via email. I am nude but don’t feel any shame. I haven’t picked the fruit from the tree yet. --Aminz 08:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Definition12 - it should be abolished as it doesn't serve its stated purpose, this project is a complete facade, it's stated goals are misguided and in consequence the outcome is to totally misguide users as to how to approach wikipedia, ie they are not supposed to approach articles as a cabal of POV pushing partners and that has been the outcome of the creation of this guild. JHJPDJKDKHI! 07:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Striver - This entire atmospher of making sweeping allegations of everybody since a few mebers are missbehaving gives me the chills. I dont care what some member is doing, the guild is far larger than a few members. If they wanted to join the Wikiproject Islam, they would. But they did't, and that tells me lots. --Striver 09:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Faisal -- The Wikipedia_islam project should be deleted and the guild should be renamed to wikipedia_islam project. Some people have corrupted the whole wikipedia_islam project. Hence it current to-do and other policies are not at all acceptable. --- Faisal 09:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Abstain/Undecided

• Fair N Balanced - per my username, I'd like to see more of all sides of the argument before choosing a position --FairNBalanced 03:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This vote is a little confusing. If you vote against the merger, wouldn't you require a separate vote then for the deletion of "The Muslim Guild" (in favor of just keeping "The Wikipedia Islam Project"? Even if the deletion occurred rather than the merger, what would stop "The Wikipedia Islam Project" from becoming essentially "The Muslim Guild, part 2" ? --FairNBalanced 08:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)