User talk:Itaqallah/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


it's more of an art :) - crz crztalk 16:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The battle of Karbala[edit]

Salam. Can you please tell us about Sunni scholars POV in the Battle of Karbala and help us to improve it. Please look at its talk page first.--Sa.vakilian 15:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can't help us, who do you propose?--Sa.vakilian 17:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support[edit]

Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 19:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Manifestations of God[edit]

Please stop removing every page in that category, please wait until the disscussion is over. Zazaban 02:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have stopped thank you. Zazaban 02:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hypocrisy in action?[edit]

With regards to your latest advise, please take note: I was not the one who initiated my exchange with administrator Kirby, rather it was he who personally derogated me by calling me a "dick." Unless you have given him a warning as well, I will assume your advise will be anything but mere hypocrisy in action and, given the circumstances, cannot and will not abide by the parameters set by this specific guideline.

And regarding the criticisms of Islam, have you anything to say? Given that there has been a paucity of discussion following my responses to you, Kirby and Falcon on the "Discussion Page," I will assume that I have had the last word and will revert to the changes I have laid forth.--Canadia 04:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Kirby is not an administrator. he advised you not to be a WP:DICK, and i wouldn't imagine that forwarding someone to that page can be construed as a personal attack, for obvious reasons. with regards to the dispute, your POV fork suggestion was speedy-deleted. you haven't actually responded to the points, you have merely been reiterating your own along with personal attacks. ITAQALLAH 04:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In regard to the Criticisms of Islam page, you have yet to respond to my proposition. Please do, as I will take your silence as meaning that I have been given the "green-light" to implement my suggestion. Thanks. --Canadia 03:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

which suggestion are you referring to? do you mean the recreation of a speedy deleted POV-fork? if so.. you're just likely to get in trouble for disruption :|. that i have been away does not validate violation of policy in the slightest, which several editors are objecting to. ITAQALLAH 20:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I've read the speedy deletion policy and NOT ONE criteria should warrant the deletion of the page that I've proposed to create. NOT ONE. Instead of referring me to this speedy deletion policy, maybe you can tell me which criteria I have violated? --Canadia 19:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
perhaps you should look at this. ITAQALLAH 19:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Jazakallahukhairan kaseera[edit]

Walaikum Assalam, Thanks for ur message bro, I will try to keep my head cool but there are lot of bias going on on Islam related pages. tc. Mak82hyd 00:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[edit]

Following a deletion review has been relisted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ (2nd nomination). - brenneman 01:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


Seriously think about why you removed my statements from someone else's talk page. Arrow740 06:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

this kind of deliberate trolling is unacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. please refrain from this kind of behaviour in future. thank you. ITAQALLAH 13:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it was trolling. That isn't why you deleted it. Think about that.
Regarding the article about Muhammad's slaves, we don't have to include informations from secondary sources that are obviously wrong. I know you like to push your POV, and that's no criticism of you in itself. But please read what the article is saying, and look at the verses they're trying to use as evidence. They are lying. If you disagree maybe you can find me a verse in the Quran that describes slavery as an unacceptable transition period, or one that discusses abolition. Or a verse saying that the only lawful sex that can occur is in marriage (this would contradict the other one). If you can't, how can you include those references? Arrow740 22:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
i am amused that you believe you know my intentions more than i do. the secondary sources are wrong, according to you. unfortunately, you are not an authority on the matter, and in no way can you dismiss those who are. in fact, i think in most cases your understanding of the Qur'an (and Islam in general) is extremely superficial, so it's of very little validity if you remove a well-sourced passage because you deem it to be incorrect. academics such as Schimmel conclude that the Qur'an proposes a practical way of stamping out slavery. not that i care about such opinions but that's just what they say. EoI states that a man may not have intercourse with a female slave who is married: "Co-owners of a female slave may not cohabit with her, nor may a sole owner cohabit with a married female slave." to my knowledge, that is accurate. ITAQALLAH 23:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
If you think the Quran doesn't say that mountains prevent earthquakes then your understanding of the Quran is too deep. Well-sourced or not (the source is not reliable), the statements are clearly wrong. I have asked you repeatedly to simply read what we're arguing about and tell me why it could be true. The Quran does not recognize slavery as an unacceptable transitional period. It also says that you can capture women and then have sex with them, and more generally that you can have sex with slaves. Muhammad and other early Muslims did so. Muhammad slept with one of his wives shortly after he killed her husband. Maybe it was OK because, after all, her husband was dead. Muslim preachers exhort Muslims to give just this treatment to Israeli women these days. The verse being interpreted as saying that it is unlawful to do so simply does not mention law in any way. Arrow740 10:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
i think your last comment exemplifies that comprehension of the shari' sciences (e.g usul al-fiqh) totally eludes you. this is what i mean when i say that you attempt to understand matters through thick, subjective goggles despite your claim to neutrality. you expect to gain a thorough understand the qur'an simply by reading it like a book, yet you couldn't understand why exactly most translators put "(lightly)" after the word beat in a particular verse, other than tagging it as sly manipulation. i'm not prepared to lecture you on the disciplines of islamic law a) because it's extraneous to the discussion and b) you don't give the impression that you're vaguely interested in learning. to the rest of your points: original arguments are of no use here. ITAQALLAH 18:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
If language is metaphoric then what appear to be contradictions can actually be statements about different things. In this case, the language is very frank and literal. Hence your repeated lack of response to my questions. Regarding exegesis of the Quran, it happens in all religions that the adherents are stuck with their holy books. Most don't change them (you may have heard of Mormons. They actually have editted their holy book thousands of times. There is no post-Umar evidence of this, as far as I can tell, in Islam). So schools of scholarship then arise to try to make it all make sense. In the case of the Quran, it was composed by one highly intelligent illiterate man over the course of decades. It contains numerous contradictions and statements that by our modern standards are repulsive. Over time, Muslims have sought to construct frameworks by which an acceptable interpretation of the Quran can be rendered. Truthspreader seems to think that the Quran was very time-specific; the inhumane injunctions to barbarity were specific to Muhammad and his immediate successors; by the standards of his day, his killing and slaving were much less of an issue than for us today (which brings up the concept of objective morality, but I won't get into that again). If all Muslims thought like Truthspreader then I would have no problem with the faith continuing or spreading. Unfortunately it is clear that that is not a correct interpretation, and the majority of Muslims agree with me. As long as Islam exists there will be those who wage violent Jihad, i.e. kill people. Don't you agree? Arrow740 23:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
you're missing the point. nobody is talking about metaphoric interpretation, we are talking about the tools jurists use, and have been using since the inception of Islam, to gain accurate insight into the primary texts and derive legal rulings and edicts. this has nothing to do with providing a watered down "acceptable interpretation." i have paid no attention to your questions and emotive condemnations as you remain fundamentally uninformed as to how exactly we analyse the primary sources, so i have little motivation in discussing such issues of jurisprudence (under which slavery and jihad are subtopics) with you. that, and this is an encyclopedia, which you mistake for a forum. thus, you must excuse me if i feel there are more important things to attend to. ITAQALLAH 00:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no contradiction, is there, between the Qur'an stipulating that "Co-owners of a female slave may not cohabit with her, nor may a sole owner cohabit with a married female slave," and that the Qur'an allows one owner to have sex with an unmarried female slave (as it does)?Proabivouac 18:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
to my knowledge, no. ITAQALLAH 18:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The statement, "Some Islamic scholars assert that sexual relations with concubines were only permitted because slavery couldn't be eradicated immediately being an essential component of social and economic infra-structure, as Qur'an presents marriage as the only legal way of satisfying one's sexual desires," is plainly self-contradictory: if sexual relations with concubines is permitted, then marriage is not the only legal way of satisfying one's sexual desires. Can our source be this careless, or is one of us to blame?Proabivouac 18:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
the only problem i see with that statement is possible weasel wording. it should be attributed to Ghamidi, and if he truly makes that precise point, then he's probably opposed by the vast majority of scholarship on this. ITAQALLAH 18:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed.Proabivouac 19:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hadith of[edit]

Oh my...[1]. As it seems we agree on something, will you also agree that most of this material deserves to be presented in some way - we are not here to paper over differences between Sunni and Shi'a anymore than we are here to exacerbate them - but at the same time, the current sitution is unacceptable? I wonder if Striver will also agree?Proabivouac 07:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for including a diff[edit]

I'm here as a mediator, and as I'm currently mediating a case related to religion in India, I happened to notice a recent message from you to an editor about a personal attack. Since you included a diff, it was easy for me to delete the attack. (I'm not including a diff. ;-)) — Sebastian 22:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The relation between Islam and science[edit]

I wanted to let you, as a significant contributor to this article, know that I've set several tags there, and noted my concerns on the talk page. I'm not trying to start anything, and would welcome a good article here in the English Wikipedia on the subject; but I have several concerns that, I think, compromise the article.

Personally, I'd rather Wikipedia present the very best work on Islam to foster genuine understanding. I know that that is an uphill fight, and I don't really like the ubiquity that Wikipedia is developing; but that is where things seem to be going. I'd rather see Wikipedia silent on a subject than miss the mark. You deserve the opportunity to weigh in.

Unfortunately, I'm not prepared to contribute meaningfully to presenting the Islamic facts as they deserve to be here, so you may have to pick up the slack. Thank you for your contributions to date. Cheers, MARussellPESE 02:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Usul al-fiqh[edit]

You might want to fine find misleading Islamophile sources for that article. As it is now it is saying that anything anyone did in front of Muhammad and didn't get rebuked for was OK, and Muhammad was infallible. Surely you can find a better picture to paint on this issue. Arrow740 00:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

? why would i want to "fine [sic] misleading Islamophile sources" for that article? ITAQALLAH 01:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You're certainly making this more stimulating for me. Imagine what you could have done with your real life during the time you spent trying to get me blocked for a day. Just give me a 3RR warning next time. Arrow740 08:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

you didn't answer my question above. anyway, 3RR warnings are only necessary the first time one is to violate it, not on every subsequent occasion, because by then they should be fully aware of what they're doing- as you were. ITAQALLAH 21:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to think you understand me very well. Arrow740 22:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by User:Proabivouac[edit]

User:Proabivouac has repeatedly vandalised the Islaim in China page, constantly reverting the sourced and referenced demographic figures from the bbc website and the 1938 china year book.

He has been warned 6 times of his repeated violation, and has a track record of antimuslim posting, repeatedly destroying muslim articles


He has suggested various dates were innacurate, yet instead of asking for a correction he has deleted on no less that 6 occasions the sourced and referenced dates of

  • There are in China 48,104,241 Mohammedan followers and 42,371 mosques, largely in Sinkiang, Chinghai, Manchuria, Kansu, Yunnan, Shensi, Hopei, and Honan. "Ferm, Vergilius (ed.). An Encyclopedia of Religion; Westport, CT: Greenwood Press (1976), pg. 145. [1st pub. in 1945 by Philosophical Library. 1976 reprint is unrevised.] 12:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Source inquiry on Muhammad's slaves[edit]

Itaqallah, it seems possible that Arrow740’s view of your motives for questioning a source on Muhammad's slaves was influenced by Talk:The relation between Islam and science#Introduction to Quran and Science this discussion, in which you advocate a different approach[2] towards significantly more dubious material. As it is possible that your standards have simply improved in the three months which have passed, I've no reason to assume bad faith, but only mean to emphasize that consistency in the application of principle can go a long way towards building the trust which is so often absent from this space.

One thing upon which it seems possible that you and I might agree is that there is a heap of junk on all sides which Wikipedia is better off without. Unfortunately, factionalization hinders efforts to uproot it, as there is the inclination to rally around allies under the assumption (often true) that would-be deletors would take an opposite approach were the junk material of their own faction under review. The result is deadlock as this space is choked by an increasing pile of bullshit of all flavors.Proabivouac 03:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

as far as i remember, that comment is within the context of whether passages amounting to original research (for which citations are a possibility, quite a few books talk about the very topic) should be removed. that is not relevant here, where we have a source intending to forward clear cut polemic through cherry picking and half-quoting, whilst the article is referring to apparently the same 1945 edition arabic book. regardless, i don't actually intend to remove the sects straight away, and i will probably wait for this attempted verification.
regarding your other comments, generally speaking that is true. are there any specific examples you have in mind? ITAQALLAH 03:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, for starters, Pizza farm.Proabivouac 09:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

humorous, yes. it did seem like a hoax until i scanned through the USATODAY article, which seems to establish a decent case for keeping. looks like it's going to stay per the AfD discussion... ITAQALLAH 07:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't make it not junk. I don't understand the mentality whic says, yes, it's silly, stupid and hardly important, but keep. It's a total abdication of our responsibility. Things that are silly, stupid and hardly important shouldn't be here. WP:V is intended to determine what cannot be in mainspace, not what must remain there. It probably will stay, but it's interesting how most are saying, yes it's a pathetic joke but we must keep it. Are aliens controlling us from space? When something is a joke, we should delete it; otherwise, Wikipedia is a joke. My opinion, at least.Proabivouac 07:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
would you still believe the same about the article if the subject had received more significantly more weightage in terms of relevant press and academic works? it's not like journalists et al. have nothing to write about that they end up writing inane rubbish (that is in some instances debatable). for wiki purposes, if a subject receives a significant amount of attention, regardless of what it actually is and its reading on the laughability scale, it becomes difficult to argue against its inclusion. does that need to be changed? i'm not convinced. after all, Wikipedia is apparently supposed to represent (or aims to represent) the sum total of human knowledge. general notibility and academic verifiability guidelines seem to help cut through much of the subjectivity that can be associated with judging solely on article subject and its apparent usefulness. ITAQALLAH 04:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Which source, please be more specific. Str1977 (smile back) 22:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Where do these voices support Ahmad's view? Str1977 (smile back) 22:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
So why didn't you say so from the start. I have now instituted a version more reflective of this. Str1977 (smile back) 22:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In the past 24 hours...[edit]

You accused me of engaging in libel[3] and then you called me a dick[4]. Considering that I did not even write Makbool Javaid, in which I suposedly engaged in libel, and considering that the last time I made a contested edit to HuT was on January 9, I no longer have any respect for you. Did you really think I wouldnt see your posts? KazakhPol 22:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

i didn't accuse you of libel. and i did not call you a "dick". i merely tried to empathise with AS in that there can be people one will find "uncomprimising", which links to metawiki essay m:DICK. yes, of course, i never thought you would ever see what i write, which is why i thought i would try getting away with a non-existent personal attack. no, wait... ITAQALLAH 03:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Having no opinion about your content dispute, I think you are making something out of nothing, KazakhPol. Itaqallah's comments here seem to me quite civil and reasonable.Proabivouac 03:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Your (Itaqallah) edit summary clearly implied you regarded my statements as "libellous" and you did indeed refer to me as a dick. You seem to have less maturity than Aaliyah Stevens, which is saying quite a lot. KazakhPol 05:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
"my statements" what statements? you have stated above that you didn't write Makbool Javaid. regarding your second allegation: no, i didn't. as Proabivouac mentioned: you are grossly overstating the evidence. please do not resort to making personal attacks. thank you. ITAQALLAH 05:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
No, see a personal attack is calling someone a dick. I had the maturity to point this out instead of responding with a personal attack, you, clearly, do not. KazakhPol 06:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
yes, calling someone a "dick" is a personal attack. i didn't call you one. per your talk-page disclaimer, i think you need to "chill out" ^_^. i see you haven't responded to the other comment regarding Makbool Javaid. ITAQALLAH 06:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


The references clearly say the organization has been banned as a terrorist organization. Neither AS nor SV are disputing this. The references may not be lined up as I only changed sources to references and did not verify the content, but in a bunch of them it says it has been banned as such. KazakhPol 06:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Taimiyya[edit]

Do we have an article on that guy? Arrow740 09:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Arrow740 05:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The Sealed Nonsense[edit]

Please do not cite from that. We have already established that it is not a reliable source. Arrow740 16:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I was justified in removing that paragraph not only because of the sources, but because, as the following paragraph makes clear, it is not clear at all what arrangement Muhammad had with the Banu Qaynuqa. In the future you should use the talk page and restrict yourself to reliable sources. Arrow740 16:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

you have established nothing of the sort. it is certainly usable to present the traditional Muslim point of view as long as attribution is provided. it is pretty much known what the general conditions were, and besides the conditions listed are according to traditional sources as has been qualified in the text. ITAQALLAH 16:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no objection to you presenting the traditional Muslim view as such, preceding the scholarly discussion. Arrow740 16:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

People Muhammad bought or enslaved[edit]

You said that ZM is available online and that you can read Arabic at least moderately well. Could you please verify that that list of slaves is present in ZM? Thanks. Arrow740 05:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

i answered this on the talk page. it is available online, yes. the article however cites an arabic publication. my arabic is not such that i could verify and translate a whole passage, which is necessary for us to know what he says about such a supposed list, whether it is actually relevant, and to verify if it has been represented faithfully. and i am not to go searching through the book looking for the appropriate passage. what is needed is an actual published translation of the book. i will however see if i can find a partial/full translation of the work in a scholarly journal. ITAQALLAH 05:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Alright. I don't understand your demand for context of a list but I won't push the issue now. Arrow740 05:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


As with the next sentence, I was only editting for style. I thought you'd reworded that too vaguely, without realizing that's really all the source says.Proabivouac 07:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem, give me a minute...Proabivouac 07:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah, I believe you have reverted 4 times at that article. Please don't revert any more. In keeping with [Quran 2:194] I will investigate. Arrow740 07:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

no i haven't. i have only reverted twice. you still don't get what a revert is methinks :P. actually, i think you have reverted four times... i am simply too lazy to write up the report. only three actually. ITAQALLAH 07:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

However if you submit, feel yourself subdued, and pay me Jizya, I will relent. Arrow740 07:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I count four partial reverts, two of me two of Beit Or. As a sign of goodwill I won't pursue it. Arrow740 08:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
you have not understood WP:3RR and WP:Revert. i reverted you fully, twice. i did not revert Beit Or, fully or partially, at all, as there is no previous version of the passages that i restored, and nor did i remove what Beit Or inserted. ITAQALLAH 08:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
"goodwill" would be to not make spurious allegations of violating 3rr ^_^. ITAQALLAH 08:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
You repeated Bless sin's removal of Beit Or's addition here and again here. Maybe you'd like to comment at Proabivouac's RfC, as you know him to be a good editor. Arrow740 21:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
can you provide the diffs of where Bless sins altered those two specific passages in the same way? i didn't remove anything from Beit Or's text, i simply improved it. yes, indeed i will comment on Proabivouac's RfC soon. ITAQALLAH 05:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Almost anything counts as a revert. It doesn't have to be "the same way." It think the policy needs to be changed. Anyway let's drop it. Do you really wake up at 5 on Saturday to work on wikipedia? Arrow740 08:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
went to sleep early. ITAQALLAH 08:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Once one has invested himself in it he starts to identify with his wikipedia activities to an unreasonable extent. Myself included. I'm going to go to sleep early. Arrow740 08:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You must admit that Robert Spencer is a vastly more reliable source than Mubarakfooli. Arrow740 20:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

please refrain from trollish comments, and see the guidelines at the top of this page. ITAQALLAH 23:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Comparing two sources is trollish? Arrow740 23:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
"Mubarakpuri", as you know, means "from Mubarakpur", in India. you're simply cussing out a vast number of people with your spiteful and offensive remarks. ITAQALLAH 23:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a cuss word there. I think my country cousins will forgive me and understand that it was a very targeted jibe. Are you Indian, yar? Arrow740 00:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Dhimmi and Women in Islam[edit]

Itaqallah, please see these articles. Arrow740 is POV pushing. Please see the talk page of Women in Islam for discussion on al-Hibri --Aminz 08:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... upholding WP:RS is POV pushing? I am trying to be more of a congenial editor here. I think that having a lawyer make ridiculous, untenable statements about the Quran is really going too far. Arrow740 08:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Her expertise is clear from her homepage, the article she has published and the courses she has taught. [5] --Aminz 08:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's clear she has no expertise and no training. Certainly no QUALIFICATIONS, which is what would make her a reliable source. Arrow740 08:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

forking in what way?[edit]

and more appropriate for whom? for those who whant to hide the truth? --redSUNRISING 09:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"criticism" is mentioned along with its response, there is no reason to separate them (or, as you did, remove them). you replaced attributed material with subjective original research. implying that others are wanting to "hide the truth" is rhetoric that i do not welcome. ITAQALLAH 09:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Aminz RfC[edit]

I see you are saying there that the attempts to resolve the dispute were insufficient. However, I think that you will agree that this is far more true in the case of FayssalF's RfC against me. FayssalF's message was generic, and there was no pre-existing dispute between us. I think your endorsement of FayssalF's summary unjustified for this reason (at least.)Proabivouac 09:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

the summary section concerns the actual claims of disputed behaviour, a number of them which i endorse, and i outlined this in my own section. this is different to verifying the basis of the RfC (i.e. other forms of resolution have been exhausted). i don't know if there has been sufficient alternative dispute resolution in your case (that's not needed to endorse the summary), but i would think that my own disputes with you may constitute attempted resolution of disputed behaviour. this is because the RfC doesn't focus exclusively upon the latest dispute, as the alleged violation of policies may span over numerous disputes- and in that sense the attempted resolution is with regard to the editor and the potentially violated policies/guidelines. that is why i took into consideration the numerous disputes (and what i would think were my own attempted resolutions) we have had. i do note that the RfC states that it must be the same dispute, although i interpret this not as solely the same content dispute or particular incident, but rather also including the same disputed behaviour over multiple articles (which is why Szvest provided diffs evidencing disputed behaviour from several articles/talk pages). in this regard, i can find only one diff on Aminz' RfC where he had been approached in a satisfactory manner for dispute resolution. ITAQALLAH 09:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
You can't honestly believe that the material in The relation between the Quran and science deserved to be here. I know that because you don't write things like this. Biased, arguably, but not asinine or crankish. I realize that your outside view was fairer in this regard, but FayssalF's summary was not; in fact, relative to the number of diffs, this is the single biggest issue. I can't believe that you really believe it was a bad move for me to remove this junk, but you endorsed a summary that says just that.Proabivouac 10:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
i stated:

i would state that some of the diffs that Szvest has provided are not the best to illustrate his concerns, and i partially agree with Merzbow above when he says some of the diffs have been overstated ...

so i endorsed his summary, as a number of the concerns highlighted are valid. in my own summary, i qualified to what extent i agreed. ITAQALLAH 10:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
You did in your Outside View, which despite many disagreements, I appreciated and acknowledged for its good-faith, level-headedness and productive nature, and agree (and with Merzbow) that my approach could benefit from some improvements, but your endorsement of FayssalF's summary isn't consistent with this. Endorsement is endorsement; if you don't agree with his summary, and his heavy-handed treatment of me, you shouldn't endorse it.Proabivouac 11:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


Hi, could you please add your opinion in this debate. ← ANAS Talk? 12:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

using accurate edit summaries[edit]

if you are going to revert, as you did on Undercover Mosque[6], then you should label it as such. furthermore, you restored the disputed version and removed the POV tag from the section despite there currently being a dispute over that formulation (which is why i proposed a superior alternative). i believe you are also misusing fair use images, as they become usable only under fair use criteria. that means the images are to be used for "identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents," whereas they are not commentated upon nor analysed in the text and serve as little more than decoration. ITAQALLAH 05:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The images are used under fair use as [Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television.] They are commented on throughout the article , but of course you just deleted the section where they were commented on. I had restored a cited version of the contents , meaning that each statement is sourced and verifiably referenced. --CltFn 05:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
the first image is used for identification of the documentary. the rest of the images are not discussed or analysed in the text, which is what is meant by critical commentary. as for the contents, restoring a biased version (and removing the POV tag) whilst adding cites for the quotes (it's not the quotes that are disputed) doesn't resolve the issue. my proposition allows for clear cut attribution, you can add all the quotes you like in the boxes. ITAQALLAH 05:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Then restore the quotes and the POV tag if you wish. As for the images I will add images that specifically referenced in the text then.--CltFn 05:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


A user has raised the issue of this article on the WikiProject:Taoism page. She feels it is far too Christian centred and I would agree. She has been trying to add Hindu, Taoist and Buddhist views, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention since I believe it is a key concept in Islam.Itsmejudith 12:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic. I don't know if your encyclopedic interest in Islam (as opposed to your faith as an adherent, I assume) is primarily theological or socio-political. If there are any other editors who you know to have a theological interest in this or similar topics, perhpas you could point them in that direction. Many thanks.Itsmejudith 20:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[edit]

We're going to have to do something about your anti-Semitic friend here. Arrow740 01:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall ridiculing your english. I may have expressed doubt that it was your mother tongue. Arrow740 22:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
re-read what you wrote again. you implied that i did not understand what Nasr wrote, whereas i would have were i a native english speaker. that is ridiculing my grasp of the language, blatantly so in the light of similarly provocative comments you have made in the past. ITAQALLAH 22:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, first you didn't understand what he wrote. This "ridicule" claim is a stretch. I don't think my statements have been nearly as provocative as, say, your slogan on your user page. Your persistent claims of ridicule are becoming a cause for concern. Arrow740 22:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


Arrow, When someone implies that you have offended them or made a personal attack, WP:CIVIL implies that you should first apologise for any unintended offence BEFORE explaining what you meant. Arguing about whether it was a personal attack does not help: FWIW in the context I think what you said was 50-50. BTW I have just left a polite warning for 3RR with a request to be civil. --BozMo talk 10:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

BozMo, i respect your judgement, but you must look beyond that singular diff. he has made it a habit to direct such comments towards me (i.e. insinuating that i "grew up in Pakistan", and other such patronising comments[7][8], i won't list them all as i'm not interested in diff-hunting) and in that context the latest comment can only be construed as continued, condescending harrassment. ITAQALLAH 18:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
One of those diffs was inappropriate as I indicated on BozMo's talk. Otherwise I'll just ask you what's wrong with being brought up in Pakistan? Why is my suggesting that you were an insult? But for the record, I acknowledge that English is your first language and you are good at using it. We all make mistakes in posting to wikipedia. Arrow740 19:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
nothing wrong with being born in Pakistan, the rhetoric behind the comment is that english isn't my first language. as for the rest of your comments: wonderful. no more jibes then, please. ITAQALLAH 19:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I have nothing much more to add to this. It is pretty common to cause serious offence when intending just to be light-hearted. For some reason with me I tend to upset Texans without meaning to. Both of you are obviously assets to WP and managing to work together with some degree of cooperation and even mutual respect would be great: sometimes we all make bad edits or get tired or cross so lets try to encourage each other to be reasonable when we do. However if I say much more I'll probably only unite the two of you in irritation with me :) so I'll leave it. --BozMo talk 23:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


So a dismissal needs to reject an argument? What's your definition? Arrow740 07:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

if he is dismissing the qur'an, or something about it, there must be a notion of the qur'an he is attempting to dismiss. if he comments on the qur'an, it may be considered a dismissal or to some even an appraisal. it's more accurate to say he describes the qur'an in those terms (and leave the interpreting to others), because it's certainly not clear that he's attempting to dismiss anything if he doesn't mention exactly what about it he is dismissing. ITAQALLAH 09:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Alright. Arrow740 08:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

An excellent edit[edit]

This was an excellent edit:[9].Proabivouac 11:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

thank you. ITAQALLAH 12:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)