User talk:Cacahuate
|
Regarding Batini
[edit]Assalamu-aleikum, ya Ali Madad, The term is a general pejorative term, but in general it was used for Ismaili groups, and really as far as I know there was no special Ismaili Batini group, but rather Batini was a general pejorative term for Ismailism. For example, al-Ghazali wrote a treatise against Fatimid Ismailism titled "Refutation of the Batini Cult" if I remember correctly. Thanks for asking, though. --Enzuru 01:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Articles nominated for deletion
[edit]Walaikum salam sir, and thanks for your interest in the mentioned articles. While there is no denial that they may be of interest to people - someone spent the time to write them, after all - my issue with many of them wasn't just notability but also that some of them were definitions and as I mentioned, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Would you mind mentioning which nominations for deletion you took issue with? As for the link to the article based on ibn Arabi's work, yes, I did read it, and found that much of the material was copied and pasted directly onto some of the articles I was checking. I did not, however, find "yaqeen" in there. Perhaps you could show me where I missed it. I will check out the articles you take issue with being deleted shortly. MezzoMezzo 14:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently the ibn Arabi article does mention yaqin, seven times I believe. That's incredible that I completely missed that. MezzoMezzo 14:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually I figured I should just tak a look at the articles to save us all some time. Here are my issues:
- Murid - it isn't one of the 99 names of Allah as far as I know. The article says that it is but I have never heard that before, unless it's a mispronunciation of another word which is possible.
- Sulook - you removed the tag and said that you feel the article is totally valid, but didn't explain why. As I explained when I nominated, it seems to just be a definition and a stub at most with none of the cited links explaining specifically why that term is notable enough to warrant an article.
- As for Ruh, Qalb, and Nafs, why must they be expanded? You say that they are but don't explain why. If one of them already has more information than Lataif-as-Sitta, then why not just merge them? Again, same issue - I don't see a reason why these concepts are notable enough to warrant space for their own articles. One random article from a site commenting on ibn Arabi's work doesn't exactly constitute strong interest in readers.
Those are the primary issues, I may come with more soon. At the root of it it's just a lack of proof of notability for a lot of these terms - all of the articles are short, written primarily by one or two users, and have little to no discussion which my initial impression was that that is due to a general lack of interest. You figure if these were more well know and notable concepts there would be more people discussing and editing (and probably even arguing). MezzoMezzo 14:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Things should be easier now, as I don't really take issue with your suggestions. For Murid, if you think it is that significant, then I shall back off. That's a simple issue. For Sulook, neither of us appear to know enough about Sufis to expand it, so perhaps we could set some sort of a time frame for it to be expanded or something. As for Ruh, Qalb, and Nafs, merging may be the best solution for now. Keep in mind that those are also just general Islamic terms, used by mainstream Muslims in addition to Sufis; right now the articles only mention the Sufistic conceptualization of them, so if they are to stay on their own that distinction needs to be made. However, as stated above, I think the easiest thing may be to just merge with Lataif-as-Sitta. Let me know what you think, the five day time limit is off now so take your time. MezzoMezzo 07:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for putting my nose in this discussion, but i just edited a part of the article Nafs & found that the article is intended to be merged. I have to express my disagreement with this intended merger as the topic has important information related to concepts Sufism & merging it will make the concept really confusing with loss of clarity. Hence i request your support in maintaining & expanding the article. --Doc sameer 00:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
dear brother!
[edit]Is mysticism defined in qur'an if not its not your subject. if its then give the ayah and interpret it for your support. thanks.Zikrullah 04:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've replied again at Talk:Kashf – cacahuate talk 04:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thank you. why not you improve the article.i need your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zikrullah (talk • contribs) 04:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar
[edit]
|
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
| "periods are a good thing" MezzoMezzo 13:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC) |
- Aww, thanks! – cacahuate talk 22:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello - thanks for the message. By all means, create a stub or, even better, an article on it. That's one of those plagiarized articles we hate to delete, but I didn't have any choice - the guy copied the content of two different websites into the thing and there wasn't anything left to salvage. Good luck! :-) KrakatoaKatie 01:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
"Wazifa" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wazifa. Since you had some involvement with the Wazifa redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)