User talk:Elazeez

Image copyright problem with Image:He's a Twit -- Roald Dahl.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:He's a Twit -- Roald Dahl.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of minor edit box

Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. Andjam (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: About Mu`awwidhatayn

I really do not have any feelings one way or the other on the matter as I am very unfamiliar with the finer points of how Islamic topics are supposed to be covered on Wikipedia. I was on vandal patrol last night and I noticed that a lot of information was being removed from that article so I reverted it. Later I realized/was told that the removal was done in good faith and I removed the edits I had done. If you feel the information is appropriate for the article, by all means readd it. If the other user starts removing it again, you could add it back in once more and leave an edit summary along the lines of "restore info. see talk page" and then discuss your reason for wanting the info in the article on the talk page. Whatever you do, try to remember to remain civil and don't engage in a revert war as that could result in a block. Hope that helps and thank you for helping contribute to Wikipedia! Regards. Thingg^⊕^⊗ 14:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:He's a Twit — Roald Dahl.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:He's a Twit — Roald Dahl.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Andjam (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Elazeez, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

May you enjoy your stay on wikipedia. Please don't hesitate to contact me.Bless sins (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Ahmad Deedat 1.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Ahmad Deedat 1.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I've put up the required tag. Shouldn't be a problem now I hope

'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey what is the name of his lecture Ahmad Deedat was speaking during the taking of that picture of him.?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.15.56.187 (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ahmad Deedat.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ahmad Deedat.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic view of anal sex

Hey Elazeez! I reinstated the change you had reverted in the above-mentioned article. I would be curious to understand your point of view. Why don't you leave me a message? Cheers Mrbluesky (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, and thanks for taking the time to reply. I see your point (and incidentally I agree that the sources provided are feeble at best), but in any case, the statement made in the article and the sources do not concur. You are of course entitled to keep the statement, but I believe taht you should then delete the reference to the sources entirely in the article, to keep the article is consistent. Have a brilliant day ! Mrbluesky (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Islam

Thank you for making the edits in Criticism of Islam. However, please remember this article is about criticms not responses to the criticisms. Your "responses" section is longer than the criticisms section. Please could you replace it with a smaller section perhaps with links to some of your articles, of the same rough format as the criticisms section. If you don't do this someone else will remove the whole section. Mike Young (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respect to Islam

Greetings most benevolent Elazeez.

I grew up with the stories of the old and the new testament, the old testament was for me a reason to study polytheism and the new testament was for me a reason to study Human Rights. My religion of choice is Syncretic Polytheism, but I also have respect for Monotheism.

I think it is very sad that people have disrespected Islam.

This proves that European sentiment is still Nazi savagery, I'm European and I can't stand racism & prejudices. Judaism & islam have been victimised and the justice system worldwide has been bribed, I pray for the people in Iraq. The Iraq war & Afghanistan war are all based on false premises, so basically the lies, hatred & imbecility started hatred towards Islam and I had enough of these prejudices.

Because white supremacists gave Europeans a bad name and I had enough. Phalanx Pursos 01:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons

Thank you for uploading images/media to Wikipedia! There is, however, another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please consider creating an account and uploading your media there instead. That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view images you have previously uploaded by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'image' namespace from the drop down box). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!--O sama K 11:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Bless_sins

Assalamualikum!

I wanted to pay my greeting to you, after having seen you around. I think that your conclusion on wikipedia and the Qur'an is very interesting.Bless sins (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Thanx for informing, all of his 5 edits have been vandalism. If he does it again he will be blocked as a vandal only account. I will monitor him. Cheers. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

It irked me to see in English the EXACT OPPOSITE of what is in the Arabic Hadith. The whole page needs a re-write. Unflavoured (talk) 07:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious Claim in Zakir Naik Edit Summary

In a recent edit [1] you state "Removing word 'Hafiz' since he is not one. (word slipped in by Agnistus during [2])" which is totally untrue since the word was added by Arthur in [3]. Please refrain from indulging in such misbehavior. - Agnistus (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Hafiz is a term used by Muslims for people who have completely memorized the Qur'an. So why not say Hafiz Dr. Zakir... - Agnistus (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If replying, reply under Zakir Naik section in my talk page - Agnistus (talk) 07:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thankyou - Agnistus (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved NPA section downwards & strike out

Dear Abdel, I have moved the NPA section you created downwards to where the de-striked comments were. Those comments were directed towards Itaqallah (not you) who has been sublimely rude to me from the very first time (before I was to him). I have also striked out (the hate-filled part of) the comment in question. Thankyou. - Agnistus (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archive part of Talk:Zakir Naik

Talk:Zakir Naik is now over 120 KB.

I suggest moving the first 4 sections of Talk:Zakir Naik into Archive 2:

1 Article is still disputed.
2 Article should be deleted.
3 Article must be balanced.
4 What the article really needs is:

Please tell me if you agree by 20:00, June 20th 2008 (UTC). Thankyou. - Agnistus (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the archiving since all of these sections involve current discussion. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and Sikhism

Respected User:Elazeez, Thank you very much for your kind advice. Actually, I did not delete any information from this article and I did not add any information to this article either, I was just struggling to save it from vandalism. If you read my comments in User talk:90.192.59.97, you can easily conclude that this guy has extremist right wing Hindu idiology. Eventhough I requested him to refrain from doing vandalism in religious articles, he still kept distorting Sikh religious information either to make it appear anti-muslim or to make a fun of it... Singh6 (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism's view of Muhammad

I replied to you my talk page. ephix (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copying from Ephix's talkpage

Shalom aleichem brother Ephix. Noticed your recent edits to two articles (viz. Qur'an [4] and Muhammed (pbuh)[5]) and thought I'd pay you a a visit to offer kind greetings. Your latest article Judaism's view of Muhammad seems like its off to a good start, and Insha'Allah I too will try helping expand it with some of the authentic resources that I have. Please do let me know if you need any authentic resources/information about Muhammad(pbuh)'s life or the Islamic connections to Judaism. Shalom 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Abd, thanks for the greetings. I would like to point that this article is distinct from the article Muhammad and the Jews in that it deals with Judaism's view of Muhammad as the tile might indicate. I will thus be edit and mainly summarising your edits as the main purpose of the article is deal with Muhammad from a religious perspective, as opposed to a purely historical one. Please see more on the article's talk page. Thanks again. ;) ephix (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... That's odd, I didn't know that article (viz. Muhammad and the Jews) existed. Nevermind though, I'll assist with editing and summarizing of the content that I've posted yesterday. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be a great help. Please summarise it to a paragraph. Thanks! ephix (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:

Wa `alaykum as-Salam. Thanks for your concern... just been a bit busy! I'll be happy to have a quick look through the article. ITAQALLAH 17:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agnistus Note

How do you know I am a South Indian ? - Agnistus (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know. T'was probably just a co-incidence. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You recent additions to Zakir Naik was notable (Pope controversy & expansion of Yazid issue). I recommend you scale down the paragraph on the Yazid issues. Especially irrelevent to a BLP is material regarding location, name and duration of the lecture, quote: "organized a 10-day international Islamic conference and exhibition titled The Peace Conference at the Somaya grounds in Mumbai".

Also please avoid including un-encyclopedic sentences like: "According to Naik, it was the to be the first conference of its kind in the history of the Muslim world and was to be 'a global kaleidoscope presenting Islam as a religion of peace and to explain that justice, human rights, moral values and peace are a must for effective human progress and global unity."

Try to keep things short, informative and to-the-point.

Thank you. - Agnistus (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, the article by Khaled covers several other views of Naik. You want to know why the other views were'nt covered as well. It is not practical to include all the points made in an article, since as I said before; while writing an Enclyclopedia "Try to keep things short, informative and to-the-point.". The pioint was selected because it was more significant than the other points and since the destruction of Bamiyan statues is queite an important incident w.r.t. the others. Nevertheless, you may add other points made in Khaled's article too, if you wish. - Agnistus (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove properly sourced content

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Zakir Naik appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you.

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Zakir Naik, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.

- Agnistus (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome Agnistus (I've been around for quite a while though :). Have you had the chance to have a look at the talk page for Zakir Naik yet? 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elazeez, I have removed the vandalism warning from your talk page - it is clearly unwarranted. Even if Agnistus thinks you are wrong in a content dispute, a position he is entitled to, it is highly disingenuous to disregard the concerns raised and dismiss opposition as vandalism - especially when they have been explained in detail on talk. ITAQALLAH 01:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest that you try sticking to the discussion at hand, as talk pages aren't for the expression of personal opinions or speculation - they're there to discuss matters strictly related to improving the article. Other discussions only serve as a distraction from the issues at hand. Regards, ITAQALLAH 01:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Mutawatir; Fatimah bint Amr; Muslim world; Divisions of Islam; Amina; Hindu Temples - What Happened to Them; Islam Makrifat; List of Muslim Christianity scholars; Harith Gassani; Yunus (sura); Alamin; Neural tube; Al-Ahbash; Neuromere; Umm Shareek; Urethral groove; History of Sufism; Reproductive system; Masoud Khan

Cleanup: Hadith of Mubahela; Al-A'raf; Al-Kahf
Merge: Jaahil; Tawrat; Gastrulation
Add Sources: Zayd ibn Harithah; At-Tawba; Al-Baqara
Wikify: Seth; Inna lillahi wa inna ilahi raji'un; Great Assembly
Expand: Saleh; Homosexuality and Buddhism; People of the Book

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to talk to you

Dear Abdel, I would like to talk to you on phone. I believe you are residing in India (from your user page). Reply on my talk page or send me your cell-phone number to agnistus at gmail dot com. Yours sincerely, Agnistus (talk) 07:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

[Copy from Agnistus' talk page ]

Dear Agnistus, I'm sorry I do not entertain any unsolicited phone calls, especially from people I come across on the internet... I hope you'll understand why. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could, however, have a hearty conversation on my talk page. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. A word of advice from a fellow Indian: considering the pros and cons of the amount of privacy the internet has to offer, it may not be prudent to give out your email ID on a publicly available webpage. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel a phone conversation would be a more effective way of sorting out matters. You still have the option to have a phone-discussion. - Agnistus (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Umm, 'sorting out matters'? As co-editors for WP, I don't see any necessity for that. Thanks anyways, will consider your proposal some other time InshaAllah. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to discuss some non-WP stuff related to Islam, e.t.c. with you. What do you say? - Agnistus (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I'd be pleased to help with that as far as I can InshaAllah. Lets start here right away then. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agnistus' Dialogue

Copy from Dr. Zakir Naik's talk page
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
BTW a reply to Abdel's statement: "I totally respect your religious views (See Qur'an 6:108 which beckons muslims to respect other communities)". I ask the Muslims, if you can quote 6:108; then why not quote Qu'ran 9:5 (At-Tawba 5) ? This verse truly shows what Islam thinks of non-believers (kafirs). Quote Ibn Kathir's commentary on the verse:

“

Do not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam."

”

Every religious leader has been an example of peace and goodness, except Muhammed. Jesus, Buddha, e.t.c. never shed blood. On the contrary, Muhammed was a mass-murderer. Not only is the book violent and unjust; but also contains gross scientific errors such as the splitting of the moon. So don't try to cover up this fact and pretend that it is peaceful or just. - Agnistus (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

You may wish to consider a blog or forum for this soapboxing, because Wikipedia is not the place. ITAQALLAH 18:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And who started the whole thing?? Adbel started it all by quoting verses from the quran in a discussion that has nothing to do with Islam. Show your smartness to him, Itaq. - 117.196.130.9 (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And soapboxing it is indeed User:Agnistus; nevermind though, I'll finish off the discussion in this one post InshaAllah. For any more talk on these, please post on my talk page and avoid cluttering this space. Here are your answers: 1) Have you by any chance had the chance to look at an article dealing with Quran9:5 At-Tawba 5 (which BTW is about a war that was taking place between the Muslims and the Pagans... I'm sure no army-general will ask his army to have mercy on the enemy's soldiers) I'm also pretty sure taht if you read (atleast) the WP article it with an open mind, you'll find some answers there. 2) Forget Jesus (PBUH) (since I don't think the Bible is your area of expertise... AND also since I could prove you wrong on that account as well), how about your own Mahabharata which has more verses of killing than the Qur'an itself?. 3) Splitting up of the moon? see Miracles. Like I said before, for more talk on this, speak with me on my talk page. This Zakir Naik talk-page is not a blog or a forum on critique about Islam 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy End. Dialogue continued below
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dear Abdel; In the Mahabharata and war, most of the killing is done in order to maintain Dharma (peace and justice). Not to force a religion down the throats of unwilling people. - Agnistus (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I'll reply in green so you can distinguish between posts InshaAllah) Dear Agnistus: Precisely said (well, almost). The only difference is, I can't see the verse from the Quran that you've quoted on Dr. Zakir Naik's talk page (i.e. At-Tawba 5) befitting the latter example above (i.e. forcing religion down peoples' throats). Please do find some replies below:-

Hmm... so you DID drop the discussion about Jesus PBUH's teachings eh? Thats good I'd say, now InshaAllah we can concentrate on your personal doubts.
Peace and Justice (Is that a new translation of the word 'Dharma'? Which I've always found to be synonymous with religion?) by killing ones own cousins, Agnistus?
Chapter 9 (At-Tawba) talks of a peace treaty between the Muslims and the Pagans which was violated by the Pagans. You NEED to read the translation of the chapter from verse 1 onwards to verse 8 (atleast) to understand the context InshaAllah. There, I've linked it for you here http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html
Soon after the death of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the death of Abu Bakr, the first caliph, the Muslim faithful were led by Caliph `Umar, one of the Prophet's Companions. When `Umar entered Jerusalem at the head of a Muslim army in 638 CE, just six years after the Prophet's death, he entered the city on foot, as a gesture of humility in a city sacred to Muslims, Christians, and Jews. There was no bloodshed. There were no massacres or forced conversions. On the contrary, those who wanted to leave were allowed to do so with all their possessions. Those who wanted to stay were granted protection for their lives, their property, and their places of worship. `Umar very famously declined to pray one of the five daily prayers in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, lest in years to come Muslims might try to turn it into a mosque in his memory. Instead, `Umar cleansed the so-called Temple Mount with rose water and built a small mosque there, where the Dome of the Rock now stands.
The spread of Islaam stands in contrast to the actions of the followers of Christianity, who since the time of the Emperor Constantine have made liberal use of the sword - often basing their conduct on Biblical verses. This was especially true of the colonisation of South America and Africa, where native peoples were systematically wiped-out or forced to convert. It is also interesting to note that when the Mongols invaded and conquered large portions of the Islaamic Empire, instead of destroying the religion, they adopted it. This is a unique occurrence in history - the conquerors adopting the religion of the conquered! Since they were the victors, they certainly could not have been forced to become Muslims! Ask any of the over one billion Muslims alive in the world today whether they were forced! The largest Muslim country in the world today is Indonesia -- and there were never any battles fought there! So where was the sword? How could someone be forced to adhere to a spiritually rewarding and demanding religion like Islam?
It should also be known that Muslims ruled Spain for roughly 800 years. During this time, and up to when they were finally forced out, the non-Muslims there were alive and flourishing. Additionally, Christian and Jewish minorities have survived in the Muslim lands of the Middle East for centuries. Countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan all have Christian and/or Jewish populations. If Islaam taught that all people are supposed to be killed or forced to become Muslims, how did all of these non-Muslims survive for so long in the middle of the Islaamic Empire?
Have you heard of the non-muslim historian De Lacy O' Leary who wrote: "History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islaam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever accepted." (Islaam at the Crossroads, London, 1923, p. 8.)?

One could go on and on explaining the point to you Agnistus, but the question is, are you ready to listen with an open mind? Allah the Exalted says in the Qur'an, 2:256 'Let there be no compulsion in religion; Truth stands out clear from Error.' If you come with an open mind, InshaAllah you will see the truth... 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply point-by-point on the Zakir Naik talk. Its better to discuss threre since everyone can see it and *maybe* benefit from it (just like Naik says he'll only have public debates). Alhamdulillah. - Agnistus (talk) 09:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agnistus, the reason I didn't post all this on Dr. Naik's page directly was to avoid spamming that page with information irrelevant to the article. Have you by any chance read WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:NOT#BLOG? I totally disapproved of your posting irrelevant text on this Naik's talk page (especially after I requested you to speak with me in person on my talk page). Try as I may to think otherwise, it now seems like your sole intention behind asking questions was to create mischief and nothing else: nevertheless, I'm ready to give you the benefit of the doubt with regards to your hidden intentions, but I'm sorry Agnistus, I wont be replying to any more posts (yours or otherwise) on Naik's page in regards to this topic anymore (well atleast not in that sub-section). YOu may still post on my personal talk page and InshaAllah I'll reply there (BUT that still doesn't mean you can copy my answers and post on Naik's talk page). 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No michief intended. As I said before, I prefer pubic dialogues (like venerable Naik). - Agnistus (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that (as well as the one before) reference to Naik, in a post irrelevant to him, just might show us how much of a neutral point of view you keep while editing Naik's article on WP(?) 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 10:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The real reason

The real reason you haven't replied to the comemnts I made on your points, is simply because you know you just can't refute them. Deep inside you heart, you know that there are many hideous and horrible things about the clan that you are trying to defend. I feel pity for you actually, to see you trapped in this cage (you can't leave it, since then you'll be executed!). I suggest you read the Bhagavat Gita or watch some of the videos of Richard Dawkins. Regards - Agnistus (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...So thinketh Agnistus aka Arjun Menon, and Arjun is a man with a conceited mind. It might have been possible reach a common ground over atleast some of things that we could agree on, on the basis of rational and logical thinking, but you seem to have a lot of inner inhibitions and prejudice. Nevermind, I stick to my decision of ignoring that sub-section of (red-herrings, totally unrelated to) Zakir Naik's talk page. Out here, I was trying to "Come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah." If then they turn back, say ye: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's Will)."^{[3:64–64 (Translated by Yusuf Ali)]} , but you don't seem to fathom simple answers... So atleast just bear your witness well. This 'clan' which has the second largest number of followers in the whole world (and the fastest growing one[6] at that CNN->[7],DefendAmerica.com ->[8], ForeignPolicy.com->[9], Answers.com -> [10], etc. etc.), may have some black sheep of its own like every other community does, but it does indeed befit the verse "You are the best communities (Ummah) raised up for (the benefit of) humanity; enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong and believing in Allah; and if only the People of the Book had believed, it would have been better for them; among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors."^{[3:110–110 (Translated by Yusuf Ali)]},an undeniable truth, the realization of which, whether today or on the Day of Judgement, is a personal choice for you; after all, one can bring a horse to the water, but then again you can't make it drink can you. So long Agnistus. ~ 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your reply. This will probably be the last post I'm making on your talk page since I will be leaving WP by the 10th. I hold nothing against the Ummah, and I agree with the black sheep situation that you mentioned. Indeed, I myself was born and grew up in a Muslim country (U.A.E.). Many of my friends at school were Muslims. None of the Muslims in the U.A.E has ever shown any aversion or dislike against me for being non-Muslim. It was when I moved to the United States that I had my first taste of Islamic virulence. Some of the muslims (Pakistani immigrants) there mocked Hinduism for idol worshipping and said all non-muslims would go to hell, e.t.c. It is these kinds of Muslims that I despise. Itaqallah's character makes me feel he is one of them. I do not know for sure the weather the Qiyamah is indeed true or not. But even if it is true, I am certain that a just God would not indiscriminately send all non-muslims to hell. I wonder if you don't see anything in "but most of them are perverted". In the Gita, Krishna says "Even if people worship other gods, All worship comes to me". You read the Blible. I suggest you try reading the Bhagavad Gita once also. It is good to have an open mind and learn about other people's religions before presuming things about them. If any of my previous comments have hurt you, I sincerely apologize for them; and hope you hold no bad feelings against me. Good luck and Goodbye. Yours sincerely, Agnistus (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Well I can't really understand why any Muslim would mock a non-Muslim's ways of worship. Yes Islam does hold the belief that the only way of life acceptable by Allah (SWT) (not us human beings) is total submission to His will (in a monotheistic sense), adherence to the Five Pillars and the way of life prescribed in the Qur'an, and the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH), however it also asks Muslims in Chapter 6: verse 108 Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides God, lest they out of spite revile God in their ignorance. Thus have We made alluring to each people its own doings. In the end will they return to their Lord, and We shall then tell them the truth of all that they did. Bottom-line, I condemn the mocking you had to face. There's an excellent article that was published in 1996 at the University of Louisville Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective: Religious Perspectives (John Witte, Jr. and Johan D. van der Vyver eds., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996) and titled Religious Human Rights in the Quran [11], I'd recommend a read if you're interested in understanding the concept of Human Rights according to the Quran alone. I beg to differ with your opinion of Itaqallah being as conceited as the few black sheep that you've met in the US. I see him as a person whose sole intention on WP is ensuring it doesn't fall to pieces due to misinformation (or mis-representation of information), and that IS how WP is supposed to work I think. That's all I can say of him, can't comment more since I don't know the guy personally. Regarding Qiyamah, yes it IS true (and is to come at an afore-acertained time InshaAllah... afore-acertained by Allah alone). You see, there are various verses of the Quran referring to its coming, not to forget two whole Chapters (as far as my limited knowledge goes) devoted to it (Chapter 75 - al-Qiyamah and Chapter 99 - az-Zilzal) as well as a number of Sahih Hadith of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) warning men of a Day of Judgement to come (InshaAllah). You see, the Quran tells us, (and so does the Bible) that erecting partners with God is an unforgiveable sin in the eyes of God (For example, Quran Chapter 4:verse 48 says Verily, Allâh forgives not that partners should be set up with him in worship, but He forgives except that (anything else) to whom He pleases, and whoever sets up partners with Allâh in worship, he has indeed invented a tremendous sin, while the Bible in Deuteronomy 5:8-9 says You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, and similarly in Exodus 2:4-5 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,). So you see, we find Allah telling us that HE will not forgive anyone who worships anyone else except Him alone. The presence of contradictions and differences between Islam and Christianity are a different topic all-together (like for example Islam does not believe in punishing children for the iniquity of parents, since it says in 99:7-8Then shall anyone who has done an atom's weight of good, see it! And anyone who has done an atom's weight of evil, shall see it. and hence believes in the dictum 'each man for himself'), what I'm trying to say here is that the two major religions in the world speak of belief the final day of Judgement and that Allah will not forgive someone who in his own perversion associates partners with HIM or worships someone else besides HIM. So the Muslim belief indeed attests that Allah will not take anyone who worships anyone else besides HIM, into the kingdom of Heaven; and that will be HIS indiscriminating justice. Think about it this way, —even if its for just a moment— what if it IS indeed true (and then what will save those who don't believe in HIM from the Hellfire?) No Allah has NOT promised that every Muslim will go to Heaven, we too have to work our way up there with our faith and good deeds. And NO, it isn't true too that all non-Muslims will go to Hell, you see 'Islam', 'Muslim' etc. are just Arabic names for a comprehensive way of life and a people respectively. What will eventually (InshaAllah) take a person to Heaven are 1) His/her faith and worship in ONLY one God, 2) Belief that Muhammed PBUH was the last and final messenger (in a series of messengers starting including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Moses, Jesus etc. etc.) from that God and 3) obeying all commandments revealed by that God to mankind, like prayer, fasting, charity, pilgrimage, etc. Even if you aren't called a Muslim, and even if you don't have a Muslim name, but you stick to the principles of life and worship prescribed by one God and His last and final messenger Prophet Muhammed PBUH, you stand a chance of being a contender for a place in the Kingdom of Heaven InshaAllah. Thanks for inviting me to read the Gita (I see it as a welcoming move), InshaAllah someday I will, just as a good student of comparative religion or a Da'ee do. As a welcoming move and on a personal note I invite you to InshaAllah have a read at the Qur'an (try Abdullah Yusuf Ali's English translation if you like reading excellent English, otherwise pickup any reputed translator's work and start InshaAllah) and see what it says with an open mind; InshaAllah if nothing it will atleast help you pick up some good things about Islam and see the truth in them. I am sorry but Richard Dawkins' work isn't really my cup of tea, and personally I consider it all a bit too naive to believe all that he says... but then again that's just my opinion. Well it is a bit sad to know that you'll be leaving WP, but then again it must have been a decision arrived at after quite a lot of pondering, I presume. Nevertheless I wish you good luck in all your affairs and pray that on the Day of Judgement, you be amongst those that the Quran describes as Some faces, that Day, will beam (in brightness and beauty); Looking towards their Lord. - Ameen. Wassalaam (peace) 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 11:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the enlightening reply. I own an English Qu'ran translated by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem published by Oxford. I've not yet started reading it (have only read the 1st chapter infact). Some day soon, I'm planning to set-apart/allot some time each week for Qu'ran reading. As you know I'm leavng WP today. (You don't have to reply to this message). Once again Good Luck & God Bye. Regards. Agnistus (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jamaal_Badawi.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Jamaal_Badawi.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ahmed Deedat Stamp - Finland.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ahmed Deedat Stamp - Finland.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Answers_to_Non-Muslims'_Common_Questions_about_Islam.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Answers_to_Non-Muslims'_Common_Questions_about_Islam.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Salaam, putting the Taj Mahal as an image on the template was made in very good faith by myself, and many individuals both Muslim and non-Muslim liked the design. --Enzuru 01:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and Sikhism

S'lam, I was interested in what you thought of this article ? It came across as particularly critical of Islam, and ultra pr-Sikh so I made some edits and came across a very concerted hostile Sikh fundamentalist camp trying to manipulate editors and undermine the edits from a non-Sikh ie Islamic point of view. for example it also keeps referring Mardana was a Muslim who converted to Sikhism, when in fact he was a Sufi Mirasi - I will have another look at it and hope to come back to you, if you feel it could be re-structured, I'll be glad to help out. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.59.43 (talk) 13:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elazeez, He has never edited/contributed to any Islamic article except Islam and Sikhism, all the articles he has vandalized in his/her editing history are Sikhism related only. I think following links should be enough to disclose the true face of this Hindu fundamentalists:

Please feel free to leave me a message if you have any question :) --Singh6 (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Salaam Alaykum Brother. Some time ago, you left some comments about my pictures on my gallery page. I would like to thank you for your kind words. Regards, Muhammad(talk) 06:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ahmad Deedat 1.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ahmad Deedat 1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rob (talk) 09:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcom

Assalamu Alaykom brother, you are most welcome. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you needed any Arabic help. --Yamanam (talk) 10:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]