Hi Itaqallah. If it's not too much trouble, could you have a look at Talk:2007? An IP has posted something there in Arabic, but I don't have the skill level to know what that might be. I'm curious, but more importantly I don't want other editors confused by the presence of the text. Thanks, and best wishes getting Islam featured! -Fsotrain0900:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Standardising Qur'an citations
Hi, as someone who edits Islam related articles, I was wondering if you could comment on my proposal for standardising the citation of the Qur'an using a single template. Thanks. → Aktar(talk • contribs) — 21:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
why my link are delated repadily ?
Dear Itaqallah,
Hope you are well. My question to you is recently I want to add a Review by Dr.Ali sina on Zakir naik but it is deletaded continuancely by zakir naik fans I am surprised and angry by this behaviour because at first i didn't change even a single word in that atricle but seeing this kind of facist behaviour i wonder why i should prevent myself editing other atricle in wikipedia everyone should respect each other view suppose if i praise dr.zakir naik my link or writting are safe but if something opposite or dunceing i want to add my atricle or link will be deleted what kind mindset this is let the reader judge everything
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dhanmondi (talk • contribs) 08:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
hello, i think we should keep the article encyclopedic. the link you are inserting does not add enecyclopedic value to the article. please consult the links provided on the talk page. ITAQALLAH16:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rafida protection
Ah, I was trying to get more information about this from AnonMoos, but s/he appears to have gone offline. I will gladly unprotect the article if it is a single user causing disruption, but being unfamiliar with the article, I was unsure which version was correct, and who was in the right. Should Dreamz rosez be blocked as a sockpuppet, in your opinion? Thanks, – Rianaऋ16:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've dropped the protection to semi, reverted to AnonMoos's version, and have blocked the Dreamz rozez account for 2 weeks (I would block for longer, but would like some input from Swatjester first). Thanks for your advice. – Rianaऋ16:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting misrepresentation of a source by Matt - Islam and animals
File:620768 52069243.jpgAccording to one tradition attributed to Muhammad, black dogs are evil, or even devils, in animal form.[1]
The source[1] says:"According to one tradition attributed to Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, black dogs are evil, or even devils, in animal form... The vast majority of Muslim jurists considered this particular tradition to be falsely attributed to the Prophet, and therefore, apocryphal."
Hey, this is interesting: "Most jurists rejected the traditions mandating the killing of dogs as fabrications because, they reasoned, such behavior would be wasteful of life." LOL!!! --Aminz22:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is more reasoning: "These jurists argued that there is a presumption prohibiting the destruction of nature, and mandating the honoring of all creation. Any part of creation or nature cannot be needlessly destroyed, and no life can be taken without compelling cause.[14] For the vast majority of jurists, since the consumption of dogs was strictly prohibited in Islam, there was no reason to slaughter dogs." --Aminz22:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit, you removed the sourced line "Jihad is also used in the meaning of struggle for or defense of Islam.<ref name="jih"/>" - can I know why? Also you shortened the Ref for Esposito to just 2006a. Why is that? --Matt57(talk•contribs)18:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i replaced the first paragraph with what can be found in the Islam article's first para on the section of Jihad. the other sentence was removed because it was a residual of the misrepresentation of the primary meaning of Jihad in the first para (i.e. 'Jihad is also used ... defense of Islam'). the meaning of the sentence is already covered adequately in the preceding and succeeding sentences. ITAQALLAH19:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now Kaaba also has Muhammad picture[2]. I need to file arbitration case on next Monday or so. It is becasue I need to work on paper in real life and have to take a wikibreak. I hope you will help me before Islam also have many pictures of Muhammad. --- A. L. M.09:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it does. The articles' text reads, "A story found in Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah (as reconstructed and translated by Guillaume) shows Muhammad as settling a quarrel between Meccan clans as to which clan should set the cornerstone in place. Muhammad had all the clan elders raise the cornerstone on a cloak; he then set the stone into place." It is impossible to imagine a more topical image than one which depicts exactly what is described in the text. Additionally, unlike several which ALM has uploaded, this image is undeniably notable in its own right.Proabivouac09:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Itaqallah, I wonder if you could take the time to look at this dispute. I'm sure you'll immediately appreciate that this has nothing to do with POV, but mere quality control.Proabivouac19:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Itaqallah, it's a real shame that you (like Merzbow) don't wish to be an admin. Although that may mean you don't wish to submit yourself to RfA, which I completely understand. The current process punishes serious people working in contentious spaces. Of course, you wouldn't be allowed to exercise the tools where you edit, or against editors with whom you've been in direct conflict, but...we have a core of reasonable people - Tom harrison, FayssalF, HighInBC, Grenavitar - whose only shortcoming is in not being sufficiently numerous. (On this note, it's also a shame that Dev920's last candidacy failed.) In my experience, while, like anyone else, you have your biases, your temperament is patient, thoughtful and judicious, and I believe you will be relatively even-handed where you are asked and expected to be. At the very least, please involve yourself more in admin-level discussions, wherever you can find the time.Proabivouac09:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it is standard wiki practice to remove comments from talk pages which may be trolling, using the page as a vehicle for one's own soapboxing or propaganda, or anything else which constitutes baiting or counter-productive to appropriate use of the talk page. the section on TPG you cite refers to altering people's comments. ITAQALLAH18:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite agree with that interpretation, Sefringle. Some talk pages, notably Talk:Muhammad, have at times eroded to near zero functionality due to the high volume of irrelevant rants from all corners, which invariably inspire counter rants devolving into flame wars. The comments about the converts (although it strikes me as fallacious) isn't so bad as they go, but I don't have a big problem with its removal, either. The lists of Qur'anic verses should definitely have been removed. If this is allowed, then what happens next? Someone posts a list of verses which seem to contradict these and claim these to be the real teaching. etc. I have seen more or less this exact exchange played out on numerous occasions; it leads nowhere but to affirm that the talk page is the place to discuss our opinion on the general merits of Islam, and amounts to a dinner bell for trolls and fanatics.
As we're not discussing blocking users (in fact, removal of off-topic comments removes basis for blocking users,) there is no need to get sentimental. What we need to do is stand firm and together in insisting on topicality regardless of whether we personally sympathize with the off-topic remarks (indeed, I occasionally find myself upon reflection removing my own.)Proabivouac19:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i would have removed the comment and the trolling it elicited, but as more replies have since occured, the issue of removal doesn't appear as clear cut. ITAQALLAH19:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your vigilant action against this spam-only SPA, which only now came to my attention; I believe I have reverted all of it.Proabivouac07:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Itaqallah, you have well-earned this award, and my respect, through your continuous improvement as an editor, as well as your charity to others (such as myself) who might likewise improve. Yours has evolved into one of the (too few) voices which suggest to me that Islam-related articles are not ever hopelessly a battleground.Proabivouac09:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second this Barnstar. Itaqallah has always been fair, reasonable and approachable, despite any disagreement on the content of edits. I enjoyed Itaqallah's edit comment here [5]. It was both humorous and accurate. --ProtectWomen07:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re:
Can you please summerize and add the following text from Britannica Encyclopedia: "Except in regard to the fundamental questions of the existence of God, Islamic revelation, and future reward and punishment, the juridical conditions for declaring someone an unbeliever or beyond the pale of Islam were so demanding as to make it almost impossible to make a valid declaration of this sort about a professing Muslim."
Source: Article: Islām. Britannica Encyclopedia": [6]
This might be also worthy of mentioning: "The status of the believer in Islam remained in practice a juridical question, not a matter for theologians or philosophers to decide...In the course of events in Islamic history, representatives of certain theological movements, who happened to be jurists and who succeeded in converting rulers to their cause, made those rulers declare in favour of their movements and even encouraged them to persecute their opponents. Thus there arose in some localities and periods a semblance of an official, or orthodox, doctrine." --Aminz02:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if this relates to defining what would have been considered "deviant" beyond tolerance, then i posted a comment about it on your talk page. ITAQALLAH14:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it is not an honorific. to say he is a prophet may be POV, but to say he is an Islamic prophet (i.e. a prophet according to Islam) is factual, in the same way someone may be called a Jewish prophet or Christian prophet. ITAQALLAH10:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guess it depends on whether you think it conceivable anyone could get to this point in this article, (or life) without knowing who Muhammad was (since I doubt there is a risk we might be thought as referring to another Muhammad). Not honorific (that would be just "prophet" inclusion of Islamic is descriptive I think). Perhaps unnecessary. 50-50 call, so I can't give an opinion either way. --BozMotalk14:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bozmo, thanks for your input. Itaq, ok I got your point now but I agree with Karl who said that clarification is not needed. As the guidelines also say if there are two Muhammad's only then clarification is needed. --Matt57(talk•contribs)15:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i think the guide to writing better articles i linked above is quite clear. we shouldn't assume people will know who Muhammad is. they could always click on the wikilink to find out, but it is appropriate to have a succinct description in other articles also, and there's no reason to believe they will have found an article like Imran ibn Husain by extensive on-wiki exploration, as opposed to searching for it on the internet and finding the page directly. ITAQALLAH17:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My RFA
You supported my candidacy in my recently completed request for adminship. The debated ended 40/4/1 and I'm now an administrator. I'd just like to say thanks for taking the time to consider me, and thanks for the confidence in me. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified.
Thanks for your attention on Bahram Soroush on your edit here which lead me to discover that he's pretty notable to have his own article. Feel free to put in some more third party references there if you find any. --Matt57(talk•contribs)06:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sunni Template
Assalamu-aleikum,
I created the Sunni template, and I definitely agree that lots of the beliefs section was Sunni vs Shia oriented, however I was unsure how to approach it without that. To say a belief is to essentially say where it differs from other beliefs (ie, reincarnation over other after death beliefs). While I certainly saw that section as competitive, when it comes to defining Sunnism, I'm afraid we may actually have to define it in conjunction with Shi'asm, ie, what it is and what it is not.
So, we have to mention that the Sahaba play an important part, and we have to mention the idea of the Rashidun Caliphs (even if this idea is not doctrinally requirable for one to be a Sunni). But, I won't touch anything until I hear what you think we should do regarding Sunni beliefs. Till then, I'll add to the template in other areas. --Enzuru19:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I added those. Problem is those are extremely vague, almost all Islamic sects agree with most, if not all of those statements. I have that in the template now, but it still does not in actuality define Sunnism as it is, and that's what is disappointing. --Enzuru20:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. Isn't pedophilia, at least as defined by Wikipedia, about attraction not action? I am struggling for the accurate term... "Sexual involvement of children in marriage"? The same issue exists around the Mormon church but I cannot find how it is treated there... not at all I think. --BozMotalk06:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Itaqallah. As you have participated at the ANI discussion regarding the behaviour of the abovementioned user, i just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on themselves in response to the concerns raised during the discussion at the ANI. The RfC is located here. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®10:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what does 'antidhimmi' mean? his main sphere seems to be Hinduism, with one sentence about his aversion to Islamism. how is a spam of select authors appropriate here? See also sections aren't really areas for every personality who agrees with him on one matter or another, it's for links directly related to the subject topic. ITAQALLAH20:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He wrote a book about the danger of high Muslim birthrates and forced conversions in India. Please look at the links I provided. Arrow74021:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be biased or offensive by saying this. I'm just telling and informing you about those criticisms.
I want you to read and look at those criticisms so that you can (or can try to) refute, dispute, argue against, respond to, and react to them.
Can you please tell and ask other Muslims to look at those criticisms? Can you also please tell them to (or to try to) refute, dispute, argue against, respond to, and react to them?
There is a section in Islam - A Case Of Mistaken Identity called "Questions to ask". You and other Muslims should especially look at that part, and try to answers those questions.
^http://www.scholarofthehouse.org/dinistrandna.html Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature, s.v. �Dogs in the Islamic Tradition and Nature.� New York: Continuum International, forthcoming 2004. By: Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl
