User talk:AAA765/Archive 12

Islam and animals

The Islam and animals article received heavy editing today, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you think the protection to that article already in place needs to be increased to bring control to the article, please let me know and I will protect that page from edits by all non-admin users. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Qurayza

I agree with your suggestion. But we can move the "later Muhammad raised this assessment to equal Nadir's" to "Arrival of Muhammad". And there we can attribute the opinion that he tried to establish the friendship.Bless sins 10:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for your two cents

Salam 'alaik akhi, I hope you're doing alright. I know you're busy, but if you have the time I was wondering if you could check something out. As you probably know, there is a bit of enmity between South Asia's Deobandi and Barelwi communities. Lately, both articles have been POV magnets as may be seen on their respective talk pages. I was wondering if you could check it out and let me know your take on the current disputes. MezzoMezzo 09:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

So sorry for my late reply MezzoMezzo. Unfortunately I am not aware of the beliefs/differences between the Deobandi and Barelwi communities. But maybe the dispute would be solved through using reliable sources such as Encyclopedia of Islam, Britannica Encyclopedia and others? I'll take a look at it soon.--Aminz 21:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad

Aminz, any idea why this article is protected, I looked at the talk page, I do not see any on going edit wars. Thanks NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 13:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC) And are u still using ur college email ID? NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 13:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Netmonger, there is actually an active discussion on the talk page (please feel free to join :) ). My email is activated here [1].

Cheers, --Aminz 17:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fatima

Salam Alaykum. Jat Mashhad kheili khalie.

AA had nominated this article as a good one. I review it and found several problems. Therefor I put on hold tag on it and added my viewpoints in the talk page. Please help us with this article.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak

Eid Mubarak! Wishing you and your family a blessed Eid.

Your friendly neighborhood Muslim.

If you object to the above message, please remove it, accept my apologies and notify me on my talk page.

Eid Mubarak

Greetings and may Allah guide us all!

wassalam ~atif ^{msg me} - 04:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad

Aminz - I've got a watchful eye on the situation, and I'll see what gets said. If people are agreeable, I'll do the change. Cheers, WilyD 13:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Islam and antisemitism

I have made several changes to the article recently, that I think improve it. Please try not to blankly revert by overriding them. I think the disputed sections are the alleged future trends and the islamic theology section. I think it may be best if we stop discussing why we want/don't want this, as everything under the sun has been stated (except providing actual quotes) and try to work out a compromise version that encompasses both our concerns. As I don't have access to the Chanes source, I think any version I will make will be able to verify will be more based more on the Lewis version. I have grown to respect many of your edits, and believe as a whole you have helped out the project, dispite our very differnt biases, and I think you may be more willing and able to compromise or come up with a version which can satify all parties than some of the other parties are. For now, I will copy that section to the talk page, while we work out a compromise. Any thoughts? Yahel Guhan 00:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment.

The main difficulty, I think, is the definition of antisemitism. Maybe, as we have a section on the definition of antisemitism, we should further continue by making sections for each point of view. The section on the Lewis-type-scholars would contain "theology" subsection.

In other words, after the section: "Antisemitism in the context of Islam", we continue with a section "Lewis's view" in which we mention everything Lewis says.

Then we can have a section titled "Views of Claude Cahen and Shelomo Dov Goitein", "Views of Frederick M. Schweitzer and Marvin Perry" etc etc.

Other section on "The Qur'an", etc etc should only include the information unchallenged by all scholars. In other words, we should include not say "X says A but Y says B" statements. In section containing the views of "X" we mention "X says A" but in section containing the views of "Y", we mention "Y says B".

This is similar to the approach taken in the article New antisemitism. Just my two cents. --Aminz 05:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

that is a good suggestion. What ultimately matters is the implication of it; the actual phraising. Yahel Guhan 21:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Were you aware of this?

Salam alaykum,

Were you aware of the following book?

Ramadan, Tariq (2007). In the Footsteps of the Prophet. New York: Oxford University Press.

It is by far the most beautiful book I've read on the prophet.Bless sins 01:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't. Thanks for letting me know. --Aminz 06:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Aisha

Sorry, man, it's really confusing following this discussion across several pages. I felt that consensus had spoken at the Aisha page about what ought to be included. It didn't seem like there was any consensus on the RS page about Barlas, and at any rate, she is only one person, and it seems like most other scholars follow Tabari and Bukhari. I don't like the current state of the article, where there's no discussion of Aisha's age at all, but I have to tell you, I greatly resent the way it the article was presented before. It made it sound like there was substantial doubt about her age, but after reading Tabari's account, and the views of several modern historians (including M. Watt), that's just not the way it is. To reiterate, even if Barlas is a reliable scholar, most scholars just don't share that opinion (and it surely sounds like she doesn't take a positon one way or another). There are real reasons to dispute the current state of the article, but doubting the accuracy of the primary sources isn't one of them. I think it should mention Watt's (and I'd imagine Barlas') opinion that Aisha's age was not something that bothered people during Muhammad's time, even people critical of the prophet. This needs to be said, but we've been to busy arguing over other things to include it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Cuchullain, thanks for your reply. I certainly agree that only in the last century some people have said that Aisha should have been older. This is of course not incidental. This corresponds to the time that the age of marriage was increased in west. Muhammad started being criticized and some Muslims who were influenced by those criticisms started looking to the sources now with a certain goal: to show that Aisha has been more than 9 years old. And that wasn't so hard to do: Tabari and Ibn Hisham for example say that Aisha was the 20th person who became a Muslim. This would mean that Muhammad had less than 20 followers after 7 years (source for this statement:Islamic sciences and Culture Academy).

That is really what happened. This story parallels many other stories: For centuries people said that the Bible says sun is rotating around the earth, Noah's flood was universal, and many other statements. But only after scientific criticism came, people started separating their ways. The story of Satanic verses, you know, is similar. Sometime ago, I was reading a paper about the Witch of Endor. The Jewish tradition and early Christians held that Samuel himself was summoned by the witch. Later Christian scholars addressed the theological issues raised by this text and concluded that it was actually a demon.

In all these cases I think , the real fact is that nobody really knows or can know. It is all a matter of probability. I don't consider history as a science. It is a pseudo-science. It is unfortunate that they teach it in the same place as they teach physics or math.

Historical scholarship is reality not a matter of finding the truth, nor is it possible. This is how it works: Take a position, recruit some smart people and they will show that the chosen position actually happened. It is really that easy in my experience.

Coming back to the Aisha issue, I agree that "It made it sound like there was substantial doubt about her age". My suggestion is to first mention that this whole new opinion is a very modern one; western scholars don't accept it; a minority of Muslims do (Islamic sciences and Culture Academy is a quite prestigious religious organization in Iran; this is easily testable: I am sure any Iranian would state that about "پژوهشگاه فرهنگ و علوم اسلامی دفتر تبلیغات اسلامی" )--Aminz 09:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with mentioning that some Muslims believe she was younger, but other contributors certainly do. As I said on the talk page over there, we should, perhaps in a different paragraph or section, say that though scholars (it's not just "Western" scholars) have no reason to believe she wasn't the age the historians describe her as, some Muslims today believe she was older for whatever reason (perhaps quoting Barlas as a source). Then we should say that some critics of Muhammad have used her age to criticize him, but that his contemporary critics did not mention it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza

Dear Aminz, regardless of the misbehaviour of other editors, let me assure you that I am still interested in the information you can provide regarding the "blood money" issue. Cheers, Str1977 ^(talk) 08:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, two issues:

1. I am still awaiting clarification of the "blood money" issue.
2. Please have a look at the BQ talk page as a reference (Peters 77) is questioned by BS. Since you added that reference in the first place, could you please chime in on that.

Thanks, Str1977 ^(talk) 19:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Str1977,

I apologize for my delay. Due to some personal issues, I can not edit wikipedia regularly for some time. Hope everything is going well with you

Regarding the bloodmoney issue:

Rizwi S. Faizer in Muhammad and the Medinan Jews,International Journal of Middle East Studies 28 (1996), 463—489 says:

More importantly, Ibn Ishaq shows us that the Jews actually permitted Muhammad to participate in the activities of their community during the first few months after his arrival in Medina. Thus, Ibn Ishaq shows Muhammad passing sentence on an adulterous Jewish couple, raising the value of the blood price of the B. Qurayza to equal that of the B. Nadir, and becoming involved in religious arguments with the Jews.

Another source is here [2]

"Taking advantage of Muhammad's arrival in Madina, the weaker tribe challenged their stronger neighbour to submit the matter to Muhammad's adjudication..."

--Aminz 07:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Aminz for the heads up.

Of course real life should always supersede Wiki-business. And under the circumstances thanks for your rapid reply.

The Faizer bit is good, the other one however is still confusing to me as it talks about retaliation, i.e. life for life, i.e. capital punishment. However, I have also looked into the whole range of Quran verses you linked to now and think that M's decision was probably that "life for life" /capital punishment should be the norm but that the victim's relatives were also free (as a matter of grace towards the killer) to accept blood money instead. I am still awaiting the Guillaume I ordered and once I have received it, I will consider the entire matter further. I will let you know and you are always welcome to comment. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I will continue this on the article talk page. Thanks for your effort. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

EOI request

I have emailed you a request for an EOI article. → AA ^(talk) — 09:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Twelver's Imams

Salam, My dear friend

Please help me with List of Twelver's Imams. I want to nominate it as a Featured lists on the basis of the WP:WIAFL. Please write your review o the talk page. I would be grateful if you cleaned up the list.--Seyyed(t-c) 17:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Torah judgement reloaded

You were once involved in the discussion about whether the Banu Qurayza were massacred based/in line with/etc. provisions of the Torah. Some editor has reopened that can and I think you may want to comment ar Talk:Banu_Qurayza#Torah_issue_reloaded. Cheers, Str1977 ^(talk) 19:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Str, Thanks for letting me know about this. I suggest we say something along the lines that the early sources do not explicitly say this but some, not all, have read this thing from the sources. This is only a suggestion of course. Cheers, --Aminz (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood my message. The issue is whether we should mention it at all. As you may recall, it was removed entirely by consensus. I prefer to keep it out though I have no strong feelings about this (even though I think the claim nonsense). What I do have strong feelings about is that if included it is written in a balanced manner. The other editor, unaware that this had been there before, tried to include it in a IMHO onesided manner. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I too think it can be mentioned in a balanced way or left out. Either way. --Aminz (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Virgin marriage

Aminz, placing that there is original synthesis becuase it implies a motive for Muhammad's marriages which is not a known fact. Wishful thinking. Arrow740 (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The original source said the widow marriages were because of providing a livelihood to widows as it was hard for widows to remarry in a culture that emphasized virgin marriages. No WP:OR. I'd rather to discuss this further on the talk page. The connection is made by the sources you call apologetic. What I added further was the same material from another source. --Aminz (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Just chiming in - it should be clearly distinguished between what the sources say and what is (modern) interpretation. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Str,

Thanks for your comment. I don't think this is an issue of modern or traditional interpretation. The Arabian custom marriage was determined more by the tribal system. This is independent of Arabia. Britannica says the following about the extended family structure that came after the tribal structure: "In societies in which the large, or extended, family remains the basic unit, marriages are usually arranged by the family. The assumption is that love between the partners comes after marriage, and much thought is given to the socioeconomic advantages accruing to the larger family from the match. By contrast, in societies in which the small, or nuclear, family predominates, young adults usually choose their own mates. It is assumed that love precedes (and determines) marriage, and less thought is normally given to the socioeconomic aspects of the match."

The tribal system marriage was generally contracted in accordance with the larger needs of the tribe and was based on the need to form alliances within the tribe and with other tribes. The point in discussion is that we have sources saying that some of Muhammad's marriages were done to form political alliances. Cheers, --Aminz (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

EOTC canon

It would not be practical to directly quote the cited page, because as you can see, it includes "I Esdras" and also II Esdras (or "Ezra Apocalypse") in the middle of a lengthy list of Old Testament Books accepted as fully canonical by the EOTC. There are plenty of other sources that will confirm this work is in the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church of Alexandria, and all other branches, if you have any doubt. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Str1977

Hey Aminz can you help me out here?

Str1977 is manipulating my comments on the talk page. Consider this edit where Str1977 removes a section I created, and also chops up my other posts into two parts. Though this may seem small, I'm really annoyed by this behavior. I feel as if I can longer express my opinions freely on the talk page. I'd like it if you could help me out a bit.Bless sins (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I need to run now but I'll rejoin the discussion. Cheers, --Aminz (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Satanic Verses

I'm not sure what comment you're referring to, could you be more specific? As for the Rubin quote, I believe Rubin is referring to the book in general. You should ask the person who added it, I believe Arrow740, for more information on it. It's on topic because Rubin is an expert on the subject; his thoughts carry weight on whether a source is credible or not. The same would go for any source listed, "Western" or otherwise - if a credible expert had a problem with one of the sources in either section, it could be included. Said, however, is not an expert on the subject - he's a literary theorist, not a historian. His criticisms are against so-called "Western" scholarship as a concept, not on the credibility of individual sources. Rubin is not being trumped out as representing one "side" of the debate against the other, nor does he attack Muslim scholars as some monolithic force; his quote is directed against one work in particular. It would similarly not be acceptable to use Islam Unveiled as a source for anything, at least without pointing out that scholars believe the book is driven by ulterior motives.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Cuchullain, I think when someone sides with a particular side in a content dispute and reverts, he is expected to know what exactly the dispute is. You say Rubin says the book is "marked by apologetic motives". What does this have to with his writings on that particular matter. In reality "having no motives" when writing about history is a fiction, isn't it. Regarding his book, Encyclopedia of Islam entry on Muhammad Husayn Haykal says the following in relation to his book:

In the second category must be cited his Hayāt Muhammad (1934), a life of the Prophet of Islam which is respectful of the most reliable Muslim tradition and at the same time conforms with the requirements of modern learning-notably echoing La vie de Mahomet ¶ of E. Dermenghem, Paris 1929, and The Life of Muhammad of Sir William Muir, Edinburgh 1923 (see A. Wessels, A modern biography of Muḥammad , Leiden 1972). After having dealt with the sīra of the founder of Islam, Haykal also applied himself as an historian to the biographies of its first three so-called “Orthodox” caliphs: Abū Bakr (1942), ʿUmar (1945), and ʿUt̲h̲mān (only to be published in 1964, after Haykal's death). Finally, let us mention the account of his own pilgrimage which he wrote in 1937, Fī manzil al-waḥy . In all his work, Haykal appears as a man endowed with a great capacity for work and assimilation, capable of constantly starting afresh...

The writer of SV in Encyclopedia of the Qur'an quotes Haykal but doesn't feel obliged to refute him: "The modern locus classicus is probably the article “Masʾalat al-gharānīq wa-tafsīr al-āyāt” published by Muhammad ʿAbduh in al-Manār in 1905; but widely-circulated refutations of the incident have also been authored by other influential moderns, including Muhammad Ḥusayn Haykal (d. 1376/1956) in Ḥayāt Muhammad, Sayyid Quṭb (d. 1387/1967) in Fī ẓilāl al-Qurʾān, Abū l-Aʿlā Mawdūdī (d. 1399/1979) in Tafhīm al-Qurʾān, and Muḥammad Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī (d. 1420/1999) in Naṣb al-majānīq li-nasf al-gharānīq (see exegesis of the qurʾān: early modern and contemporary ). Orientalists (see post-enlightenment academic study of the qurʾān ), including the most widely-read biographers of Muhammad — such as William Muir, D.S. Margoliouth, W. Montgomery Watt, Maxime Rodinson and F.E. Peters — have tended (with few exceptions) just as forcefully to accept the historicity of the incident, the orientalist logic having been epitomized by Peters: “This is the indubitably authentic story — it is impossible to imagine a Muslim inventing such an inauspicious tale.” The widespread acceptance of the incident by early Muslims suggests, however, that they did not view the incident as inauspicious and that they would presumably not have, on this basis at least, been adverse to inventing it."

--Aminz (talk) 08:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have never been a big fan of dropping lengthy quotes to try an illustrate a point. To your first statement, I do not have Rubin's book, but I am aware of the author's reputation as an expert in this field. The quote from him is perfectly clear, I don't know what you're having trouble with - it says that Haykal's Hayat Muhammad is marked by apologetic motives. It even gives you a page number. I feel a quote from him gives context to the preceding quote from Haykal - pointing out that an expert believes Haykal's work is apologetical. You obviously think that unfairly marks the Haykal quote, especially since none of the other ("Orientalist") scholars have such caveats. This, however, is more likely due to the fact that no one has written such a quote about them (except perhaps for non-specialists like Edward Said). However, I am done arguing about this; I will drop a not to Arrow740 and move on.

Your other edits do seem to have improved the article, however.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Remember I added nothing, I only restored sourced information that had been suppressed. Arrow is the person who added it, and he will have to deal with it now, because I'm done.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rille apollo10 big.jpg

Hi. Did you intend for this image to be marked for speedy deletion immediately on upload? IceKarmaॐ 10:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Why? It is the picture of a famous Rille known as Rima Hyginus Rille. --Aminz (talk) 11:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Change to Splitting the Moon article

Hi, Aminz. I didn't change the text of the main article, just added a section to the talk page. I'm not Muslim, but I have read parts of the Koran, and have taken Islamic history. It seemed as though there were many interesting opinions cited. However it was hard for me to bind them together. The article is a legitimate discussion of major points of view, but I still didn't understand: how important the issue is, what groups advocate each position, and especially, perhaps, whether this is a somewhat academic argument that would not show on Al Jazeera -- if you understand what I mean, there.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.67.7 (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Allah

The article Article you nominated as a Allah has failed , see Talk:Allah for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. SriMesh | talk 02:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Core Contest

Just a quick note - the diffs you linked to on this page don't explicitly show your edits, although you have shown what the article looked like before you started and where you're at so far. This diff would show the difference your edits have made. You can make this by clicking "(cur)" in the history, on the edit you started from. Just makes it look neater and easier to access, I think (not to mention more impressive!). Grab me if you need another explanation, or check out Help:Diffs. RHB - Talk 22:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Consistency in application of your principle of using primacy sources

Regarding this, help me out and be sure to keep primary sources out of Wikipedia. You should apply your principle uniformly and not use it only to take out material which you dont like to be seen here. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

i'm sure Aminz agrees with removing OR and primary source material - the significance of which has not been proven by reliably secondary sources - and so should you. however, that rationale cannot be applied to edits like [these. if an article like the one in Encyclopedia of the Qur'an specifically mentions these verse, which i believe it does, then you a) don't need to provide the EoQ cite after every sentence, you can put it at the end; and b) mentioning the primary sources which the secondary source mentions is completely fine.

i assume, now that you have changed your views on primary sourcing for the better, that you will agree that primary source quotes from Khomeini's books etc. are also unacceptable? ITAQALLAH 15:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to discuss what policy really says. I think it forbids primary sources, unless we're trying to make a deduction.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Matt, I support this edit of yours [3]. It was Original Research and could be used only if a secondary source has used them. I disagree with these because these references are provided by EoQ. --Aminz (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Lets see: I think we can quote relevant verses and hadiths where the subject matter is directly related to the title of the page. We are not drawing any conclusions here. The "connection" of the subject matter is not required to be established. If the Quran talks about children, we can give verses which talk about children and so on. No one is drawing conclusions here; we're just quoting the sources. This is not forbidden. If it is, what is allowed then? When is it okay to put out Islamic primary sources? When a secondary source has established its connection? I think you're inventing your own requirements. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

But there are thousands of verses that are clearly on the issue. So there is a danger of selection bias. Secondly, some verses should be quoted in their context, meaning that if you would like quote that one, you should quote their neighboring verses as well. Thirdly, the Qur'anic verses are not isolated. A verse helps explaining another one and sheds light on another verse. Exegesis usually point these out. Fourthly, There are occasion of revelations that are important in understanding of the verses. Aside from all these, Matt, I don't believe that Khomenini's quote is real and even if this is so (that I highly doubt), I think it is a very fringe view. Islam has a 1400 years tradition and we can not give undue weight to the views of one person. If Khomeini is reflecting a typical view though that's another issue. If I knew that this is the case, I would have certainly supported you in adding it. But I simply think this can not be true. --Aminz (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

arbitrary decisions that a particular primary source passage is appropriate merely because the words from the article topic are somewhere in the passage cannot be sufficient justification for its insertion, especially if it is disputed. if the applicability of a PS is disputed (i.e. because it is argued to be vaguely relevant), then a secondary source should be used to back up the claim of its importance. just because lots of Islamic primary texts discuss Islam/Muhammad doesn't mean those articles need to use any of them at all. this is something dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Islam and animals is another patent example - where every virtually narration mentioning an animal was inserted. in this case, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, we don't need a record for every animal mentioned - that can be saved for wikiquote or wikisource. unless, of course, we have a secondary source discussing its significance and impact directly. the same goes for searching for primary sources reflecting a particular skew (let's say, "thighing of prepubescents"?), in violation of WP:UNDUE, which states that noteworthy views should have their significance verified. ITAQALLAH 22:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Splitting of the moon

hi Aminz... just in case you were unaware, i have placed this article on hold pending some work being done which i have highlighted on the talk page. two main recommendations have been made: the first being to ensure a thorough copyedit is done on the article; the second being an issue of whether there is any material available on the traditionist perspective. regards, ITAQALLAH 13:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thank you so much!!! --Aminz (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, nice to hear from you, hope you are well. Anything else I can do on this or other articles you are working on, please let me know. Cheers. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Anything you think needs adding to Islam in the African diaspora, which I watch just because I helped out a bit with formatting the table? No Shi'as mentioned at present. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Cycle of poverty

I agree with you about the article. I'm going to admit it to the Intensive Care Unit. Hope that's OK by you. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

ICU is less active than it was a couple of months ago. If nothing happens, try WikiProject Economics. You could also see if there is anything useful on the page of Amartya Sen or if any of the editors on that page would have a look. Are you interested in NPOV on Cold fusion by any chance? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Response

Salam, I think you can find it in the work of Allame Tabatabaee. I don't know "Wahy, Shour Marmuz" is translated to English or not, but we can find something in "Shiite Islam" and "Quran". I think "History of Islamic philosophy" of Corbin is another good source.[4]. Ma ra ham 2a kon--Seyyed(t-c) 03:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ezra, Failed

Salam again, I'm not happy to say Ezra failed. I hope your next attempt would be successful, En Sha Allah. Gar sabr koni ze qure halva sazi.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Kheili Mokhlesim ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sa.vakilian (talk • contribs) 15:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

End of the World

No problem! When you have developed it a bit more, you might ask User:Paul Barlow to take a look before resubmitting. He is probably our best expert on Victorian painting. Johnbod (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34 KJV

Dear AAA765, at this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven, no hell. There is only the natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that harden hearts and enslaves minds.

Kirbytime sen't me this a year ago, and I liked it. Well, Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, or whatever you celebrate, and see you next year. Yahel Guhan 23:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Aminz!!! I'm making apple crumble right now. Here's some for you online. With pouring cream or ice cream? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Persecution of early Christians by the Jews

I noticed you participated in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Jews (2nd nomination) discussion and I thought you might be interested in participating in a similar debate over at Talk:Persecution of early Christians by the Jews. Feel free to come by and contribute your thoughts. - CheshireKatz (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edit summary

Here was a joke. You reverted an agreement made between itaqallah and myself on the jihad section here, and ignored the extensive discussion of the India edit here. You obviously were lying when you indicated you had read the talk page: your edit summary said "rm undiscussed controversial opinionated material." It doesn't look good, Aminz. Arrow740 (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw your additions to the family section; they could not be more biased. You seem to be back to your POV-pushing. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't write those secondary sources, nor the primary sources they quote. Arrow740 (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow, when you add biased material, do you really think they will eventually stay? Aside from these, please remember that we are summarizing the big topic of the family and Islam into a small section. What we choose to write requires a enough justification. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summary here was wrong again (if "opinioned" means what I'm guessing it does), how are facts opinionated and/or biased? Arrow740 (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Another dishonest edit summary: this is not the section itaqallah and I had agreed to. Arrow740 (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Another revert, another bizarre excuse. One sourced sentence about history, regarding a Muslim invader of India, is hardly "undue weight to India." Arrow740 (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record: Please be cautious with Arrow740's comments if he ever claims to "have agreement with me or another user". Confirm it with the user first.Bless sins (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this refers to BS's not understanding something I wrote. Care to elucidate, BS? Arrow740 (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 18:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

peace/islam

sir, please tell me if the site http://www.harunyahya.com can be a reliable source for a wikipedia article or not. thanks, wassalam.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zikrullah (talk • contribs) 11:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Freemon - WP:UNDUE

Per WP:UNDUE, I feel this one person is being given too much space here. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I hope it looks better now. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Aaron

Salam, Aaron is nominated as a good article. I wanted to review this article, but unfortunately I'm too busy. Can you please review it. Also please pay attention to this comment.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus in Islam

Most sources are pretty declarative in attributing Islam's denial of the crucifixion. The EoI in fact appears to affirm a general agreement on the issue, while noting some Ismaili and rationalist explanations which didn't take hold. That's why I think it'd be better to stick to the original wording in the lead. ITAQALLAH 03:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at EoQ. Its lead when comes to crucifixion says:"As traditionally interpreted by Muslims, it also denies that he was crucified." Later in the article says:"In Q 4, the Jews are criticized for boasting that they killed Jesus ( Q 4:157-9). The interpretation of this passage poses a number of problems (Robinson, Christ, 78-89, 106-11, 127-41). First, there is the statement, “ They did not kill him or crucify him. ” Traditionally, Muslim interpreters have held that this is a categorical denial of Jesus' death by crucifixion. It may simply mean, however, that although the Jews thought that they had killed Jesus, Muslims should not think of him as dead because, from the qurʾānic perspective, he is alive with God like the martyrs of Uhud ( Q 3:169, see above; see MARTYR )."

This is just one source. There are several other sources that provide other arguments as well. --Be happy!! (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. The EoQ appears to be more reserved than the EoI here, which says:

On the different modern explanations of the wal§kin ê9ubbiha lahum, cf. Michaud, 64-5, who mentions them and himself agrees with Hayek (41) in understanding “ it seemed thus to them ” , which this writer considers to be the most plausible interpretation. Certain fal§sifa and some Ism§#ÊlÊ commentators have interpreted this passage thus: the Jews intended to destroy the person of Jesus completely; in fact, they crucified only his n§såt, his l§håt remained alive; cf. L. Massignon, Le Christ dans les Évangiles selon Ghaz§li, in REI , 1932, 523-36, who cites texts of the Ras§"il IÕ9w§n al- -af§" (ed. Bombay, iv, 115), a passage of Abå 0§tim al- R§zÊ (about 934), and another of the Ism§#ÊlÊ Mu"ayyad ÷9Êr§zÊ (1077). But this interpretation was not generally accepted and it may be said that there is unanimous agreement in denying the crucifixion. The denial, furthermore, is in perfect agreement with the logic of the |ur"§n. The Biblical stories reproduced in it (e.g., Job, Moses, Joseph etc.) and the episodes relating to the history of the beginning of Islam demonstrate that it is “ God's practice ” (sunnat All§h ) to make faith triumph finally over the forces of evil and adversity. “ So truly with hardship comes ease ” , (XCIV, 5, 6). For Jesus to die on the cross would have meant the triumph of his executioners; but the |ur"§n asserts that they undoubtedly failed: “ Assuredly God will defend those who believe ” ; (XXII, 49). He confounds the plots of the enemies of Christ (III, 54).

The subsequent paragraphs also respond to the notion of dying by some other means before being raised (apologies about the scrambled text). ITAQALLAH 03:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that's traditional interpretation of the text which itself underwent historical developments as Mahmoud Ayoub in his article The death of Jesus: Reality or Delusion (Muslim World 70 (1980) pp. 91-121) explains. I think these differing stories are a result of the contact with Gnostic Christians. Two points: There are other Qur'anic verses on Jesus's death as well. Second as EoQ says:"The classical commentators generally began with the questionable premise that Q4:157-9 contains an unambiguous denial of Jesus' death by crucifixion. They found confirmation of this in the existence of traditional reports about a look-alike substitute and ḥadīths about Jesus' future descent. Then they interpreted the other qurʾānic references to Jesus' death in the light of their understanding of this one passage. If, however, the other passages are examined without presupposition and Q 4:157-9 is then interpreted in the light of them, it can be read as a denial of the ultimate reality of Jesus' death rather than a categorical denial that he died. The traditional reports about the crucifixion of a look-alike substitute probably originated in circles in contact with Gnostic Christians. They may also owe something to early Shīʿī speculation about the fate of the Imāms (see IMĀM ; SHĪ ʿ ISM AND THE QUR ʾ ĀN )." --Be happy!! (talk) 04:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that the EoI is saying that consensus was achieved in denial of the crucifixion. This is why I don't necessarily agree with changing the language in the lead, if it's only a minority view rejecting it. As for the EoQ's discussion about Jesus' death, the next few passages from EoI contrast sharply with that too (see here). I'll have a think about what compromise can be achieved on this lead sentence, though I'd much prefer just keeping it simple. Regards, ITAQALLAH 04:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the details. I think my version also confirms existence of a sort of consensus. "According to the traditional interpretation of Q ... Jesus was not crucified". --Be happy!! (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Kind of... but if there is a consensus, then we can just say "Islam states that Jesus was not crucified etc.". "According to the traditional interpretation of Q..." has a few problems... 1) there is needless attribution to a 'traditional interpretation' when there is already consensus. 2) 'traditional interpretation' is weaker than consensus, and implies that other interpretations also prevail (though this isn't really the case per EoI) 3) it's also not just about interpreting one verse, it's about the whole set of verses as well as supporting narrations. ITAQALLAH 04:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think saying that Islam says X is too strong because 1. It means that EoQ is mistaken because in its view the central text of Islam does not say that 2. it means that Mahmoud Ayoub is an apostate for example. 3. EoI says that it may be said that there is unanimous agreement in denying the crucifixion. It didn't say it must be said that.

How is this: According to the very prevailing view of the classical commentators of the Qur'an, Jesus was not crucified. ? --Be happy!! (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The EoQ is only looking at the specific verses themselves, whereas the EoI assesses the verses as a whole, as well as Islamic tradition, and also declares consensus. "may be said" or "must be said" is reading too much into the source, it is saying that it is entirely accurate to say there was consensus. There is no implication about the beliefs of Ayoub. As to your proposal, I still think there is no need to attribute to a specific interpretation or commentary (i.e. 'traditional or classical') because it can be read in certain ways, and that it makes the passage longwinded. Given the consensus I'm happy to change "Islam says that..." to "Muslims believe that..." so as to attribute it more to Muslims than Islam (though I think the primary texts are pretty clear on the matter). Regards, ITAQALLAH 17:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Then please say that "According to the consensus reading of the verse, the Qur'an denies that Jesus was crucified". --Be happy!! (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The change says "According to the consensus reading of a Qur'anic verse..." - As I said, it's not just about how people interpreted one verse, it's about how the all verses have been understood as a whole, and how they are corroborated upon by the Islamic traditions. This is how the people formed their opinions, not just by looking at one verse in isolation. What do you think about "Muslims believe..."? ITAQALLAH 17:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How about "According to the consensus Muslim view..."? --Be happy!! (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting Husayn ibn Ali

This article was too weak and violated copyright as well as WP rules. Therefor I rewrote it. I hope you can help me with it.--Seyyed(t-c) 17:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for rewriting it. I'll take a look at it soon. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping out. Your edit seems reasonable as opposed to others who were just deleting it straight away. I'll put an additional ref about him being in the encyclopedia. I didnt know that was the case. We have a serious problem of sources on Islam related articles. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I restored it because I knew that it was mentioned in Catholic Encyclopedia. Otherwise, their argument that the critic should be particularly notable makes sense of course. I agree that the sources need to be improved.--Be happy!! (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Peace
		Aminz, I award you this barnstar, as you are willing to work with others who disagree with you and try to resolve conflicts with them. You also have done well in improving articles while trying harder than many users to stay neutral in your writing, and in spite of some of our editing conflicts, you have won my respect as an editor. Yahel Guhan 05:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

peace/islam

thanks for your wonderful return. your valuable interest in the article is needed.blessings and may God give you peace. thanks for cooperating /Zikrullah (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad at Medina

Do you have that book? Arrow740 (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

sorry

for being late. thanks a lot for cooperation. i need your prayer. i will edit with the help u have provided; as i am smwhat busy now.

thanks. &assalam alaikum.Zikrullah (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Bookrag

Salam Alaykum. Shahadat Hazrat Aba Abdellah ra Tasliat migam.

Have you seen this[5]. I found it[6] when I was looking for an article about Zaynab. It's a good source.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Qur'an

Hi Aminz. As you participated substantially in writing the current version of the Islam#Qur'an section, you might be interested in participating in the recent discussion about it. ITAQALLAH 23:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Anger

Just wanted to tell you that this article is now a GA, good work mate!Λua∫Wise ^(talk) 15:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This

You may be interested in this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:STALK.Bless sins (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān

How can I access Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān? (Imad marie (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

You might be able to find the printed version of it in a library close by. You can access it online at "www.paulyonline.brill.nl/" if you have subscription. If you don't have subscription and want to see any of the articles, please send me an email and please let me know on my talk page to check my email (I don't check it regularly). --Be happy!! (talk) 08:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please check your email. (Imad marie (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

I have replied to all your emails I believe. If you send me any other emails, please notify me on my talk page. Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 09:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please check your email. (Imad marie (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

Re:Lead

OK, would "acting contrary to their agreement with Muhammad" be more satisfactory?Bless sins (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be better as this was part of Muhammad's fifth column report. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it([7]). Tell me what you think.Bless sins (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro looks good to me. Later you might want to change "the surrender was unconditional" bit if a consensus was formed on the mediation page. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken (I might be), you may have added the "knew the consequences of treachery". However, I've the source on me, and can verify it.Bless sins (talk) 05:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to be bold and make the changes as you see fit.Bless sins (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you think that this is encyclopedic?Bless sins (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

One reason is that IMHO it does not add anything informative to the article. Please see this --Be happy!! (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Drama!

Admit it, you just like the drama, don't you? ;-) Thanks for the amusing comment - I needed the laugh. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, actually it is good to have such cases for every now and then :-) It would be nice to have an archive of admin-against-admin battles :P ... Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A new suggestion (Muhammad images)

Sorry, I don't like it. I don't think we can have two versions. Firstly, maintaining two versions will be difficult and it would most definitely be called a POV fork. More likely than that would be a button at the top of the page which said "hide images" and used java script to do that. As always I'm a little frustrated about all of this because I think there are too many images but the climate because of that petition has made it almost impossible to discuss serious issues. Even though I have disagreed with your two latest proposals I do thank you for remaining a calm and constructive editor when there has been so much trolling and turning this into a larger-than-Wikipedia political debate. gren グレン 22:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"Yes, I designed it to look like "a button at the top of the page which said "hide images" and used java script to do that"."

I thought you wanted a disambiguation page and you'd have to click through to get to either version? I think the end will come to different censorship filters applied in the monobook files. Because, even if my ideal of the Muhammad article is met it will still have at least one image of Muhammad in it which will probably not be any more acceptable to many people. And I have no problem allowing for censored versions as long as they don't change the experience of the average user.

Also, what do you think about Talk:Muhammad#NOTICE_about_image_discussion. I have been bold and created that section and will remove any sections below it as I have. Do you agree with this idea? I'd appreciate support and I will keep doing this unless there is a backlash, of course, and I realize that my boldness has not been accepted :) --gren グレン 22:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you. I feel really honoured that you guys have given me the "participant of the month" barnstar. After all the edit wars and criticisms I've had to put up with today on Wikipedia, this barnstar has really made my day. I really appreciate it and (once again) God bless you all! Salam, bro. Jagged 85 (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Buddism

Dude, I didnt create that section. I fixed a spelling error and added a link. I understand, of course, I just feel victimized for trying to help. Anyways, have a happy life.

Sorrrrrrrry Man. I thought you created the section and thought that a criticism section for a faith article is inappropriate. :P I need to get some sleep I guess :) --Be happy!! (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

haha. Hey its cool. I agree you that its inappropiate. Yes. Sleep is good. Very good. Laters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.56.55 (talk) 09:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

NYTimes

Man, what's next? :) Jmlk17 10:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I am now prepared to go for presidency :P I was really surprised!!! lol!!! --Be happy!! (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Me too. When I first saw that it had reached the media, my first thought was "oh God no", but it's not all that bad. Aminz '08! :) Jmlk17 10:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Your userpage

The section on your userpage on Pornography fails the following element of policy about using pages as a soapbox on two counts - 1) and 2) - I would politely ask you to remove it or I will nominate it for MFD. --Fredrick day (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:POINT. Our disagreement with you on Muhammad pictures has nothing to do with this. --Be happy!! (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

we've been interacting, so I checked out your userpage to find out more about you - this is SOP. Your userpage is clearly unacceptable as per policy - how does that have anything to do with WP:POINT? If this was to do with POINT - why would I single you out and why would I ask you to remove it rather than take it directly to MFD? again I politely ask you to remove the soapbox like comments from your userpage, if you are unwilling then I will be forced to MFD the page. it belongs on a personal blog not a community userpage. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If you think the current form of my page is not good (I think it is good), you can try MFD. --Be happy!! (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad

I think you have misunderstood what I was trying to say. My comment "singling you out" was made in good faith, and in an attempt to be constructive: Since it appears that you will not find a consensus to your liking, it is a perfectly valid course of action to look for a browser-side solution for users who are interested in one. If you are interested in offering people a possibility to visit Wikipedia and not run into Muhammad images, this is the way to go. If your aims lie elsewhere, this is still a possibility for those who wish for a possibility to visit Wikipedia and not see Muhammad images: I assume that there appear to be such people, or else this debate would not be taking place. regards, dab (𒁳) 12:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Bow to Islam

Sorry for returning that, I thought it was a similarly titled subject in the /images area. Zazaban (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries Zazaban. The guy who wrote this was probably drunk. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Dante

He's an interesting author. And that's all I have to say about him :) --gren グレン 01:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User Page Change

I am impressed with your decision to address the problem even when the MfD was not going to result in the user page being removed. I only happened across this in looking at the present Zenwhat block, and I can echo his comments that your actions point to a high degree of integrity. Jay*Jay (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jay*Jay. I hope I can have a high degree of integrity. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about Doczilla's RfA

Hi, Aminz. I have posed two questions to Doczilla in his RfA here, one of which is based (in part) on the MfD discussion of the now-removed materials on your user page. Doczilla is concerned that the formulation of the question could be seen as critical of you, which was not my intent. However, I recognise he has a valid concern. I have thus (temporarily) stricken the question. There is a discussion on my talk page about a new formulation, which I invite you to join. I would like to restore my question in some form, but am open to suggestions if you are uncomfortable about either the original formulation or the modified one on my talk page. Please accept my assurance that my intent is solely to examine Doczilla's thoughts and beliefs as a part of the RfA process, and I apologise for not considering more carefully how your reputation might be influenced by the original question. I look forward to any thoughts you might care to offer. If you don't want to say anything, that is (of course) fine as well, but I would appreciate at least an acknowledgement (here or on my talk page - your choice) that you have seen this message and have no comment / don't wish to comment / whatever... Thanks. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that you have discussed the issue on Doczilla's talk page. His explanation was that a page can not be deleted because of a section of it, similar to the comment made by Yahel Guhan, and that the particular sections should be discussed in ANI or somewhere else. On your or his talk page, he has said that he thinks the section was in violation of WP:SOAP. So, I think his instance is clear on this matter. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on your response, I have rephrased the questions so there is no reference to you, as I think this is what you would prefer that I do. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Allah

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Allah you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. jackturner3 (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you very much for dropping me that note. I really appreciated it. Truly, Doczilla _RAWR! 09:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Anger

I will upload the cropped article from the protest onto the gesture pages, but I won't do it for the Anger article as it is too important to have both people in the photo. This will need to be a compromise you accept, or we can take it up higher. But your issue with the photo is more about POV than it is content, and I tried to accommodate your issues on the other articles, but since there is an "angry exchange" mentioned for this photo, it requires both people in it. I hope this will suffice; if not, open an RfC now since 1. The photo will be cropped on the other articles; and 2. I renamed the file. So, I feel I did enough to accommodate your concerns. --David Shankbone 15:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to get consensus for that addition. Before that please do not add it. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You are the only person with a problem with it, so you should get consensus to have it removed. Take it to the Talk page and raise your arguments there, and I will respond. --David Shankbone 23:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You take it to the talk page. You are the only one who want to add your own image to the article. You should get consensus for your addition because you are the one who is introducing it. Period. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

proposed merge

Hello Amin, do we have a resolution here ? (Imad marie (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC))

That sounds fare, please check your email. (Imad marie (talk) 06:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

Muhammad broken link

Greetings Aminz, I'm not sure, but it looks as though when you made this edit you introduced a broken reference, currently note #34 in the article (at time of writing). Can you review and fix it up? Even if it's not yours, I have no clue how to fix it, so your help is appreciated. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And it may have been fixed while I typed, your review still appreciated. Franamax (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Rabbits

Rabbi. I meant rabbi. Unfortuantely, as a Christian, I'm used to typing "rabbit" more. I tried to correct it, but noticed the error too late. Sorry about that. John Carter (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad

Do you see that French blurb at the top of the article? Hope it's not just me... Jmlk17 06:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I can not read what it says. It might be a vandalism (?) --Be happy!! (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it is, but I can't find it anywhere in the source, nor the recent changes... hmmmm. Jmlk17 06:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, nevermind. Got it figured out. Someone vandalized the template {{Muhammad}}. :) Jmlk17 06:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Good job! It was really puzzling. The vandals are getting more and more sophisticated :) --Be happy!! (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That they are my friend. You're doing a great job with the page by the way. Keep up the great work! :) Jmlk17 06:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I am just adding some pictures. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

keep your homophobic views to yourself

You are entitled to your views on homosexuality but wikipedia is not the place for you to outline why you think homosexuality is bad - it is a place to build an encyclopaedia. --87.115.7.37 (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I was only trying to fill in my cultural gap and understand the issue better for my own benefit. I didn't mean offending anybody. I am sorry if you were. --Be happy!! (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Translation request

Please could you provide a translation into English of this - "Jenab Doctor, Man ensha'allah yek sa'ate digeh barmigardam va ageh eshkal nadashteh bashe yek kam bahs mikonim... Shad bashi" which you posted on another user's talk page. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I told him that I need to go now but will be back in an hour and if that is okay we can have a bit of discussion... Cheers

I was only interested to fill in the cultural gap and "understand" it better for my own benefit.

Could you please let me know how you got to see that page. Thank you. --Be happy!! (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw it because it was mentioned on another page I have watchlisted, the thread is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#where_to_report_homophobic_comments. There is some concern about some of your comments, and editors were unsure if that comment was relevant. By the way, what language is it? DuncanHill (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh my God. The cultural gap is really really big. --Be happy!! (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The language is farsi btw. --Be happy!! (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

OK cool, and you are right - there are huge cultural differences and potential for misunderstanding, we can all do with remembering that and trying to understand each other better! DuncanHill (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been following this exchange, if I have the time later, I'll dig you some papers out on western liberal thinking around the concept of homosexuality. Oh and as someone pointed out to you, unless you know less than ten people, you know some homosexuals, you just don't know they are homosexuals. --Fredrick day (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)