User talk:Aaliyah Stevens

Welcome!

Hello, Aaliyah Stevens, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

--N R S | ^T/_M\^B 13:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice poem and Welcome

Dear sister nice poem and welcome to wikipedia. Please be a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam. We all are working in our capcities to make things better here. Hope to see your many contributions around. --- ALM 18:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you look at the article Muhammad's slaves. They are adding many things, which being a Sunni Muslim I do not believe. Can you help with some reasearch? --- ALM 12:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Permission

I have added your name at my user-page. Is that fine? [1] --- ALM 14:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me :-) Regarding research on articles about Racism, Slavery, etc, I'm currently pre-occupied in preventing [User:KazakhPol] from labelling an Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir as terrorist, he has yet to provide once referenced incident of HT being involved or linked to any terrorism. Rather other users and myself have provided a bulk of evidence to the contrary. He also seems to want to sensationalise all things related to Islamism, viewing it as a terrorist monologue Aaliyah Stevens 16:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

This is the last time I'm going to ask you to stop vandalizing Wikipedia. Next time you will be blocked. KazakhPol 00:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last time? this was the first time you ever spoke to me! Look up the definition of vandalism (WP:VAND) and learn to be civil (WP:CIVIL) User:Aaliyah Stevens

Hizb ut-Tahrir

I went ahead and re-added the TotallyDisputed template. Unless someone decides to ban you, it's pretty unlikely that template will be removed in 2007. Dont remove it again. Consider this a general warning about your vandalism. KazakhPol 00:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of comments are those. Why someone decided to ban her? Please be civil. --- ALM 05:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The State Department does consider the ISF a terrorist organization[2] so your entire refutation of the Heritage Foundation's reliability just flew out the window, KazakhPol 18:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read your own link regarding FIS, translated as the Islamic Salvation Front; the state department does not list FIS as terrorist, even in the out-of-date list you link which is from 1999, not like latest one I referred to [3]. And before you argue about the acronym 'FIS' that's how the state department refer to them when they mention that they won the elections: "... in early 1992 after Algiers voided the victory of the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS)" Aaliyah Stevens 10:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does list it... are you saying that the political and militant factions dont equate? At the very least the link shows the Jamestown Foundation wasnt making stuff up. KazakhPol 06:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I'm getting rather frustrated with you're repeated inability to cognise a simple fact in plain english, FIS (Islamic Salvation Front) is not listed by the state department as a foreign terrorist organisation, and there is no mention of any military faction of FIS there either. Even in Algeria FIS is not designated as a terrorist group, rather it was simply banned. Aaliyah Stevens 13:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion

Maybe you could add an explanation of your conversion to your talk page? Arrow740 10:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done :-) Aaliyah Stevens 16:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for balance on racism page

Talk:Racism and Talk:Racism by country there is an editing pattern on these page preventing any plural discussion of Israel and racism, there are two criterion in place where poorly constructed arguments are allowed in, but detailed arguments for inclusion of Israel are vetoed for all kinds of reasons. I believe Wikipedia has a duty to prevent this kind of behavior which is not only undemocratic it is dangerous. See the chain of convo on the talk page to see the impossible retort to every voice which is about Israel and racism, at least 4-5 editors in this gang pushing the same POV--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 04:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

السلام عليكم

hello AS, i thought i'd try offering some advice as i see you're getting a little frustrated on Talk:Hizb ut-Tahrir. content disputes draw the extreme ire of many editors who fall into them (which is pretty much everyone). sometimes you feel you're having to repeat things again and again, whilst at the same time perceiving that the other side simply refuses to listen. it's always important to keep a cool head and maintain your composure, overly asserting yourself with caps or boldface can come across as aggressive or uncivil. i totally understand the sentiments experienced when people are behaving in an uncomprimising manner. unfortunately, that is part and parcel of the encyclopaedia: you have to deal with people you don't see eye to eye with. moreso on Islam-related articles: emotions are high on all sides and you'll almost always see talk-page brawling on some article or another.

if talk page discussions aren't working, then there are other ways to try sorting out the dispute: you shouldn't feel that you're being compelled to have to try making someone understand something (which you may see as very basic). i would sincerely suggest you set up a RfC (request for comment) if you find that you've exhausted the avenue of discussion. thanks. ITAQALLAH 23:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaliyah Stevens 11:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC) جزاك الله خير[reply]

Where are you from

Hi! Which country are you from? If you're a Lebanese, since your Arabic is good, I would like you to visit this website (since we're looking for Lebanese - and even non-Lebanese - to help Lebanon-related articles):

http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A7:%D9%85%D8%B4%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B9_%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%8A_%D9%84%D8%A8%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%86 <- we are critically low in membership

Also consider going to the English version by clicking here

Thanks. - Qasamaan 21:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you're Lebanese, add {{User_Lebanese}} on your user page.

أسف أخي أي قبل الاسلام ، ولست عربية Aaliyah Stevens 19:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Designated terrorist organization

Normally WTA would be in effect. However, this is an exemption. See the explanation on Category:Designated terrorist organizations. The same thing applies for individuals. KazakhPol 19:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your contributions to Terrorism in Kazakhstan page, I feel all alone there trying to communicate a basic point.cs 15:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Jama'at al-Jihad al-Islami and page blanking

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. If you blank any more pages I will open up an RFC on your editing. I have no doubt Zora, RuneX2, and others will want to comment. KazakhPol 04:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets

If a checkuser shows you are using sockpuppets you will likely be blocked for a very long time. I suggest you cease using them. I also suggest you stop stalking me and violating WP:3RR. KazakhPol 04:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take me to the cleaners if you have a case - but you don't. I don't know what you are on about? I am not vandalising, stop throwing around wild and unsubstantiated accusations. Aaliyah Stevens 09:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tawhid

Dear sister, Tawhid is the basic concept of Islam and one of the biggest attraction for Islam. However the article is really badly written see and divide useless thing between Shia/Sunni. I will appreciate if you could change it because all Shia and Sunni agrees to omit things which divide us. See the agreement on talk page Talk:Tawhid#Merger_discussion and Talk:Tawhid#Time_to_change_it. I will be thankful if you could spend some time there. Wassalam. -- ALM 11:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

I do not know what your recent edits on the terrorism in Kazakhstan pages have been about. I do know you followed my contributions to target pages I have edited, and therefore violated WP:STALK. If you are genuinely interested in having a discussion regarding these pages then I suggest you propose a page move before you decide to merge three pages that were originally one page but were split upon the agreement of three users months ago. I have proposed a compromise regarding the template on Hizb ut-Tahrir. I propose that the page on Kaz-U.S. coop in counter-terrorism be moved to "Kazakhstan-United States relations," similar to Kazakhstan-United Kingdom relations, as this page also discusses Secretary of State visits which were not explicitly about terrorism. Regards, KazakhPol 19:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the page on the New Great Game, other than the first instance in which I have kept the fact template, all text not specifically sourced at the end is sourced to Ahmed Rashid's Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia. KazakhPol 19:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for comment/Cs.

Hi Aaliah I would appreciate it if you would add a few lines to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cs. Someone seems to have engaged in a campaign to discredit my efforts to keep POV out of wiki. thanks cs 11:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for RfC

Aaliyah Would you consider asking for a Request for Comment for Kazakhpol? He certainly does not engage in productive editing, constantly reverts NPOV edits to push his POV, name-calls, advances sock-puppetry allegations in multiple pages with more than a dozen users. There could be more than a few users who would be interested in endorsing it. I, for one, will be more than happy to help create and endorse the dispute. thanks in advance. cs 12:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask her and start a page as soon as I have time. I will let you know when I am onto it. His primary preoccupation around here seems to pepper Islam-related articles with "terrorism." I believe there are dozens of users annoyed by him. thanks cs 13:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

Hi Aaliah I have created the page, here [[4]]. Please read and feel free to add anything you feel like should be included. Two users are needed to certify the dispute. I put my name. Consider putting your name as certify'er. best cs 21:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please note that there is a special format to the page, you have to sign under "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" to get it listed.cs 22:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Cs

Hi - in the "Outside view section, would you be OK with me adding "Users who endorse this summary:" below your summary and me shifting your signature below it? (Just to mak eit look "official".) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SmithBlue (talk • contribs) 12:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC). Sure! Aaliyah Stevens 12:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check that you are happy with present layout of "Outside view section" - have got it how I think its meant to be. SmithBlue 13:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HuT

Better, but notice that however wrote that page did not source that section. KazakhPol 15:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

put a { { citation needed } } in the article Aaliyah Stevens 15:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect advice! Just to add that it would be the {{fact}} tag you'd need to place in the article. :) Dreadlocke ☥ 21:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Thanks for removing the misplaced comments about User:KazakhPol on the WP:WTA talk page! That is a huge showing of civility and understanding of how Wikipedia works! Very nice move! Hopefully you and Kazakhpol can work though your issues with each other, if you haven't read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, it has some good suggestions on how to go about it! Happy editing! Dreadlocke ☥ 18:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I did not mean to imply or accuse you of Wikistalking, I was merely trying to tell Kazakhpol how to go about reporting any such experiences. I certainly haven't investigated the claim at all. My apologies if I seemed to accuse you of such. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your very nice reply on my talk page! No worries, I fully understand your sensitivity - I can get that way too.... :) Salaam. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your response here

Salam (Peace!), I'd like your response here.Bless sins 21:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User page

I just wanted to drop in and tell you how much I like your user page. I'm also interested in reading more about Islam and philosophy (mostly as a refresher) so if you have a list you could point users to or share that would be helpful. —Viriditas | Talk 00:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need an Anti-Islamic Sentiment cat?

Just wondering what are your views for a cat which identifies people who are anti-Islamic and have a hostile bigotry to Muslims. the debate is on Category talk:Anti-Islam sentiment‎--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 11:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunni Islam in India

Assalamu Alaikum, I noticed your comments on the Sunni Islam talk page. Not that I particularly care about the state of links in a wikipedia article but I just though I'd comment on some of the stuff you wrote. Please don't consider this criticism of any kind. I'm just mentioning some things which I think are relevant.

We should not put culturally specific (i.e. Pakistani/Indian urdu barelwi) sites on this page,

Every scholar of Islam has some cultural specificity. Even Al-Ghazzali whose brand of Sufism (with it's emphasis on austerity) is suited to Persians rather than to (say) the Turks who benefited more from Imam Rumi etc.

I agree, but not to the narrow extent that subcontinental 'scholars' have done so, many of which don't even speak arabic, (so would hardly qualify to be Scholars), e.g. some have even gone to the extent of claiming Urdu is the language of Islam, even for arabic speakers. Although you may believe that Ghazali was culturally specific, he was universally accepted throughout the world, among Sunni, Shia, and non-Muslims (who referred to him as algazal). Aaliyah Stevens 16:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is not about Sunni islam of the barelwi persuation in the subcontinent, and no major Sunni Scholars came from there in the development of sufism or Sunni Islam in the first few hundred years.

That's inaccurate. I'm a Keralite (which happens to be the only state in India with a Shafi'i majority amongst the muslims). Islam started here at the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) himself when one of the local kings visited him after beholding one of his miracles ([5]). Also, there are scholars like Zainiddin Mallibari who lived quite long ago. As for the northern parts of India where the Hanafi madhab is more established, there are scholars from there who have contributed to Islam and Sufism quite a bit. A look at the Mujaddid article should show that. I'm not sure about the time periods though so maybe you're right in this regard.

Yes, none have come from the subcontinent, in the formation years of Sunni Kalam, and theology, i.e. the period of the 4 great Sunni Imams, or even a few hundred years after that. The closest thing was Abu Hanifah, whose grandfather originated from Kabul.Aaliyah Stevens 16:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barelwis do not exist anywhere except in that region. I find the notion that Sufism=Barelwis disingenious on the part of Barelwis, because sufism is much bigger than Barelwis.

That's true. It's just that majority of the people in India who have a Tariq and follow a more traditional path are Barelwis. Which is not to demean the Deobandi Ulema who are great too.

I admit that Barelwis are one of the largest Sufi sub-groups in the subcontinent, however they've only been around since the British colonial period, and there is evidence (not proof) to suggest thier founder collaborated with the colonialists against the Muslims who resisted the British occupation.Aaliyah Stevens 16:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and there is links to Imam Ghazali who was the most famous Sufi scholar on earth

He was definitely one of the greatest. The world has benefitted a lot from him and may Allah continue to spread his Barakah. I just worry that if you idolise him too much, you're in danger of looking down on other friends of Allah and of injuring yourself spiritually. Not that I disagree at all. I hope you understand.

Rest assured that I do not look down upon any of the Awliyaa, I just don't like the very narrow, blinkered approach to sufism of some of my Barelwi brothers and sisters, who do takfir on other Sunnis, and claim they are more significant than they are, or even claim exclusivity to the mantle of the Ahl-as-sunnah, claim their leaders are the Mujadids, or the Shaykh of Islam. They seem to self-aggradise too much. Aaliyah Stevens 16:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive any lack of Adab on my part and please remember me in your Duas. Wassalam --Nkv 15:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, Wa-alaykum salam.

List at Articles for Deletion

I removed the speedy tag from Ramadan riots becuase what you listed is not a crtteria for speedy deletion. List the page at AfD if you want to. Also, be careful about soliciting votes. See Wikipedia:Canvassing. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom harrison is correct. These activities are against Wiki policies. You may however, ask other users to take a look at an article and give a comment on the talk page etc. You can even bring the attention of editors to an AfD if they are associated with the article.Bless sins 04:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best thing is that you just add it in the list of Islamic articles for deletion and all interested people will see it. Here is this URL Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Islam. Also please add that page in your watch list because you might be interested in seeing those articles listed there. --- ALM 10:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and slavery

As you can see, this is a very contentious topic. I was trying to get some order into how people edit it (but i think that is a lost cause). So, it would help a lot if you used the edit summaries. Yes, I know they can be frustrating, but it really helps other editors. I actually like you only do a little bit each edit rather than a massive change at once - even better if you use the edit summary. kind regards and happy editing. Merbabu 12:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome to the block, sorry about people being rude to you but its a particularly bad multi-page edit war ongoing at the moment, you will get to know the names and articles real quick. Small edits mean we can often get more done durring big revert wars. Hypnosadist 04:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aaliyah,

I saw your comments on the Islam and slavery article and thought write something if you don't mind :)

The negative picture created of slavery in West caused a severe reaction to in West. The situation was different in Muslim lands. The situation of slaves were no worst (and in certain aspects better) than poor free Muslims, Lewis says. Of course, the situation was not always the same nor was it uniform. It depended on many other factors as well. But the abolishion movement was never a strong force in Muslim lands. Encyclopedia of Islam explains the reason that the abolishion movement wasn't so welcomed among Muslims in this way: From the perspective of slaves:"The domestic slave is in his master's power through fear and respect, through self-interest, through affection. We must bear in mind that he is generally well-treated; we may reflect that he lives in a family atmosphere, without thought for the morrow. To the slave-woman, concubinage offers, besides various advantages for herself and her children, the chance of an ascent in the social scale, of which an untimely emancipation would rob her. Even when freed, the slave is often likely to remain close to his master. If he has procured his freedom against the latter's wishes, or if he has been snatched from the claws of the slaver, he is woefully without resources in a hostile environment, unless he benefits by the special measures which governments ought to take—and which they have occasionally taken—with a view to his social readjustment." From the perspective of masters: "The prevailing wish in the minds of slave-owners is to enjoy the comfort afforded by having a large domestic staff, kept under strict control; from which, moreover, lawful concubines may be recruited. They have on their side not only the tacit consent of the majority of their slaves but also an extensive public opinion and the religious tradition of Islam."

Of course, as you might guess there were 19th Muslim scholars such as Syed Ahmed Khan who argued that Quran(^{[Quran 42:4]}) forbade the making of new slaves; or Ameer Ali who includes slavery among the preIslamic practices which Islam only tolerated through temporary necessity, while virtually abolishing them: man-made laws were later to complete the abrogation of it, which could not have been done formerly by a sudden and total emancipation. Cheers, --Aminz 09:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It seems to me that the Quranic reference is not correct but Encyclopedia of Islam mentions this verse. I couldn't find the correct verse. Anyways, it doesn't matter. --Aminz 09:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Pictures in Muhammad article

In case you are interested there is a mediation going on. And also see Talk:Muhammad/images Wassalam. --- ALM 12:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad (Images)

Those images are not of Muhammad(SAW) but they are images of persian kings and miraj.jpg is image of zorroaster. kaaba images are images of khalifahs (rulers of islamic empire) after prophet Muhammad(saw).

Prophet Muhammad(saw) was called Al-amin in his society which means honest and truthful. someone changed it to "dishonest" in reference. Those so called "good editers" of article Muhammad didnt even care till i saw it and changed it to make it right.

miraj.jpg image is image of zoroaster. you can see fire in that images. maome.jpg is image of persian king or saint. I've researched those images. Help me by sharing with me authenticity of those images so those images could be removed. you can visit my talk page.Regards Funnypop12 07:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]