Misplaced Pages

List of notable converts to Islam

You and Matt57 have been edit warring here lately (recent reverts: ). Please see WP:EW and try dispute resolution to discuss the conflict instead of constantly reverting edits you disagree with. You might want to try WP:RFM if the discussion isn't working. Cheers. Dmcdevit·t 04:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		From what I have seen, you are a refreshingly good-natured and friendly editor on what is a contentious space, and a model of civility that myself and others can only hope to benefit learning from. ITAQALLAH 16:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Good work

Salam alaikum brother, good work on the articles for the Green Lane Masjid and Undercover Mosque. Looks very nice, just thought i'd say keep up the good work. MezzoMezzo 16:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Wa'alaikumsalam warahmatulah - thank you, I did nothing really though. I'll fix it better later on though inshallah ... PS>sorry for the late reply, had exams so haven't been checking my page lately. Wikipidian 23:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Yusuf Estes

Bismillah aRahman aRaheem

Brother Salaam walykum a rahmatullahi wa barakatuh,

In the name of truth, I am genuinely confused about your removal of a cited reference to Yusuf Estes emails concerning Sh Hamza Yusuf on AllahuAkbar.net

This publicly available reference is, as far as I understand, what the page was asking for...! Please enlighten me brother.

Perceptions are a funny thing & it seems what this is about.

Shouldn't people know? & Why did you accuse me of vandalism? I was providing a verifiable reference according to Wiki guidelines!

Why is it that you're removing of it, is not considered vandalism in turn?

& Who is the final arbiter?

RE: AllahuAkbar.net

Have you read the material from that website? & have you seen where it's coming from? Have you lived in Saudi Arabia?

I have my brother for almost 3 years, in the provinces. I have never seen such lack of khusho'ur & inward concentration & understanding of this deen with exceptions & there are many good & righteous people there.

Actually I'm not surprised the site is based in India & not in the KSA they'd be banned as extremists, from what I saw living there.

It's called, in the set of definitions as I understand them, 'literalism', some say salafism others say wahhibism: it needs to be defined & discussed in the light of the majority of scholar's opinions.

As you know balanced ikhtilaf is welcome. But it too is considered a sect & in fact an aspect of human psychology that you can observe anywhere in the world in any religion.

The point is:

Why did you remove it (ie the writings of Yusuf Estes himself) from Yusuf Estes page but include it on Sh Hamza's? Can you not see that?

That's a clear imbalanced & prejudiced decision, that according to the terms you accused me of vandalism you just committed yourself!

I haven't gone & reported you in turn, but I'm writing to you instead.

Brother, are you unable to perceive the hateful, xenophobic, imbalanced accusative nature of the material? It lacks credibility & is clearly defined.

OK Put it up & let people decide themselves & but don't remove it from the very links from the author's page it self! ( ie Yusuf Estes)

Go & take it to well-respected scholar with recognizable education from a traditional, acceptable, well known institution & get a fatwa if you're uncertain.

But how much have you studied the works of Sh Hamza in comparison? How many scholars of the inward sciences, not just the outward have you met & studied with?

The majority opinion is the balanced & middle view, hence why all the 4 imams (of the madhahib) studied Tassawuf, (as originally referred to, is an inward 'science' of Islam) & in absence of the Prophet ( salalahu 'alyhi wa salam) the sahaba & taba'in (RA) & understood deeply it's purpose & recommended it to develop ihsan.

Remember we are brothers in this deen, I respect your opinion! & welcome it with respect, but brother don't commit the very thing you accuse others with! It but reveals your own un-objectiveness.

As such I don't understand your actions & the nebulous interpretation of terms used to define it, as I see it it equally applies to your own decisions to defend hateful slander in turn as represented on that divisive site. I understand you're a student, perhaps that explains it.

I welcome your comments.

fi hifz Allah! Wa salams

Enthogenesis 17:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

comment

Here you said that "the work for this user is done by two and sometimes three people". I just want to clarify that there's actually one person doing the editing for this account, because if multiple people are doing the editing then it becomes a role account, which isn't allowed in Misplaced Pages. If you have other people available to help with research tasks like translation, then that's fine, as long as only one person actually uses the account. I have no problem with your editing myself, the reason I'm posting is to give you a heads-up in case an admin sees your post and decides to block first and ask questions later. - Merzbow 02:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Islam

Not the right change in family section. You have not added deleted paragraph. --- A. L. M. 16:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Opps. It is correct. Sorry. --- A. L. M. 16:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

salamun 'alaykum warahmatuLlah || 23:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, let's acknowledge we have a conflict of interpretations, and that expressing our views is going to lead to problems. Now back to reality, I am person who did the "trashing" of al-Albanee. I stand by what I wrote.

My points in summary are:

• Sufis are not the only people who "have a negative view of his contributions" -- though if necessary let me be the first to stand by this concept... (that not all contributions are expressly positive.)
• There are non-sufi groups who share the above view. Yet as stated above, I'll take all the blame, (if I could).
• It is a fact, that's undeniable, al-Albanee did spend a lot of time in the Dhahiriyya Library.
• A hadith scholar from Aleppo, Sheikh Raghib al-Tabbakh, visited the Dhahiriyya Library in Damascus, and authorized him "in all the chains of transmission that I have been authorized to relate."
• They did meet and speak, and the sheikh authorized him with a general ijaza.
• THUS, the sufis do not deny this ijaza, (that of tabarruk) (d)(e).
• These, (and the above,) points are referenced to :

• As for the other considerations related to the ijazas, of al-Albanee, (I quote the same source as before,):

As for the final points provided about him not writing properly, or other things, I do not comment...

I generally don't respond to comments from anonymous users. You're just an IP address and I can't verify your identity. Someone else could come in and claim to be you, or some other issue like that. It's nothing personal against you, but understand that it's an identity issue that prevents any serious discussion.

As for the article, Nuh Keller is a very knowledgeable man when it comes to modern day Sufism and his tariqa. Regardless, he is also extremely biased and is known to promote historical inaccuracies in some of his work. He writes from the pulpit and not as a historian, and thus his criticism of someone he was ideologically opposed into is neither objective nor reliable. As an external link it is fine, because it is a valid opposing viewpoint. But as a reference for the article, it doesn't cut it as it's just opinion (and a historically disputed one at that).

As for the method in which you basically trashed the article, it wasn't because of the opinions you have. It's because you're an anonymous user whose identity can't be verified and you completely rewrote part of an article on a controversial person. That's not cool. This matter is closed for the time being. MezzoMezzo 02:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

WRT Maqaam

enerally when a page or parts of a page are "lifted directl from a source", it's best to hit it with {{copyvio}} and/or {{db-copyvio}}. The exceptions are ederal publications and really old stuff which are KNOWN to be PD, but even then there're reasons to not do that... 68.39.174.238 11:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks for the info on that. MezzoMezzo 14:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ali

Should a Salafi Nasibi be allowed to edit an article about Ali? Maybe You should back off and refrain from vandalizing the article and edit Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Wahhab articles instead. Take that as a vandalism warning not as a request. _Sonn 22:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wahhabi

I've replied on my talk page. --ROGER  11:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ali

Refrain from reverting every edit that goes against Salafi teachings. This monopoly on the article is getting very upsetting. _Sonn 21:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think both of us know you are monopolizing the article and acting like an innocent boy scout doesn't convince anyone that your edits are anything close to good faith. _Sonn 21:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

re:

و عليكم السلام, sure... i'll take a look. ITAQALLAH 02:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Chubeat8

I'll try and watch for our Canadiene friend in the limited time available. --Leroy65X 15:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo, i am quite certain that Chubeat8 has been using multiple accounts on the article/talk pages of Bin Baaz, that includes User:Swapant and that IP; all have exceedingly similar writing styles. ITAQALLAH 01:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

if the disruption is extensive (such as using the accounts to bypass 3RR vios) it may warrant a checkuser. however, as the link is quite obvious it may be easier to just request admin intervention on WP:AN/I (another alternative would be to make the case for sockpuppetry on WP:SSP). i'd opt to wait and see how things pan out i.e. if we get any more simultaneous contributions from Chubeat8 and his sock puppets. ITAQALLAH 03:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

glad to help ^_^ ITAQALLAH 15:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've reported Chubeat8/anon.Proabivouac 05:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Fatimah

Please see Talk:Fatimah#Overhaul article. You mentioned you had some good sources for this article. Could you add them to the references section here and we'll take it from there. Thanks. → AA — 10:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, The updated article is ready for review in the sandbox. Please leave comments at Talk:Fatimah#Review. Thanks. → AA — 15:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, be sure to add your opinion on the main talk page about the move to mainspace. → AA — 14:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Succession of Ali

There are some facts on this page which are not accurate and they need to be corrected and you cannot keep undoing them. The successor of Ali was his son Hassan from whom Mauwiyah took the caliphat through a treaty. There are many other missing or incorrect facts and I would appreciate if you stop undoing the corrections. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saazoawaz (talk • contribs).

Hi Saazoawaz, The successor to Ali was Muawiyah I (please read this article). The details of how Muawiyah became the caliph can be discussed in the articles but the entry for the infobox should be Muawiyah I. → AA — 20:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

vandal

i know i have prior vandal but i say sorry i am trying to be good user okay. please dont be mean. i just try to be good. i sory if made bad edit but i am in suficloob. i am sufi as well. i reform vandal and i am talking with adminstartors to find out rules of wikpedia. 69.115.13.5 00:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletionof Salat o salam Page

You deleted that without giving me a Chance to Defend . Is this WIKI Policy? or You are vandalizing Pages which doesnot Suits to you? Msoamu 17:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

as salamaulaykum

As salamualaykum brother, the Barbahaaree page was important to develop as it still needs work. There is another page, Debbie Almontaser, the needs attention since it has been flagged for deletion. How do you feel about it? If you can, go and visit the article to vote on whether to keep or remove it. Thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Debbie_Almontaser

Scythian1 13:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

re:

wa iyakum. it's always important to remember WP:NEWBIES and not be too hard on newcomers, especially if they don't fully understand the process or why their edits have been challenged. ITAQALLAH 20:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

it's also important to use template messages which start from level 1 (if there have been no recent previous warnings) as these are the most polite/introductory. also make sure any template messages are signed, so they can contact you about it if need be. ITAQALLAH 20:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As salamualaykum

As salamualaykum akhee,

I'll try to give it my best effort, although I have been heavily time-constrained of late.Scythian1 16:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Tahir ul-Qadri

Assalamu Alaikum (May Gods Peace and Blessings be upon you)

What is wrong with you and what is your problem. You and Itaqallah edit every page linked with Tahir ul-Qadri's or his books and works and you change or say it is not notable or say that it is not genuine or it is biased no matter how many references I provide.

Do you not know that he is one of the greatest scholars of this time and you can even phone up the head of al-Azhar and ask him. Even one of the famous Deobandi Ulema (I have forgotten his name) respects him.

I will not let you edit these pages in a negative manner just because he and his efforts challenges your point of view or school of thought about Islam.

You need to be more open-minded when editing here. Hasseniqbal192 17:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, Nice to hear that you do not intend to defame him on Misplaced Pages.

When you say that he has not received as much coverage and other scholars are more popular than him then you should know that he is ::the most popular scholar in Pakistan, He was elected as an MP/MNA there.

He also appeared on Pakistani TV everyday on the official Pakistani channel (Ptv).

Even now his lectures appear everyday on QTV for 2 hours everyday and his lectures also appear on Islam Channel every Monday and ::Tuesday. He has appeared on the Pakistani news many times and even the Australian news when he visited there. Benazir Bhutto also ::worked beneath him in the Pakistani Awami Ittehad alliance at one point. I have never seen a scholar who has received more ::international coverage as him. However, you do not research about the coverage he gets.

Ma'Sallaama Hasseniqbal192 16:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

by the way it wasn't me who made the article on him and before it was quite biased and made him look like the greatest scholar and a "thunder among the forces of evil" and it was me who made it much more neutral.... Hasseniqbal192 20:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

hadith

I recognize the problems in the lengthy duplicative articles on the hadith concerning the origin of the conflict between the Sunni and the Shi'a, and the ones on the doctrine of "temporary marriage." I personally think it would be quite possible to have an article on each individual hadith, since they all have a substantial later literature--but they should obviously be written not as a long quotation, but as an encyclopedic discussion giving various views--there is surely enough later secondary literature to discuss in the thirteen centuries of Islamic scholarship. But it might be practical to combine them by topic, and this should be decided in the appropriate workgroup, or if necessary through dispute resolution.

Prod in any case is for uncontroversial deletions, and it is clear that these will not be ones. You are of course welcome to pursue these deletions though AfD, but I strongly urge all those involved to find a better way of dealing with them, one which will improve the encyclopedia by providing an informative set of articles. DGG (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC) further discussion on my talk page.DGG (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Deobandi

I've watched you revert about five attempts by anon editors to provide links to last Friday's Times Online articles on the Deobandi in Britain. I honestly think you should give it a rest. The articles created quite a stir, and I think a lot of folks would like to introduce the links--this is not a sockpuppet case, but a case of general public interest (which will probably fade very soon). --Anthon.Eff 01:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for setting me straight. The Salafism article is quite good. It does mention that some consider Deobandi as Salafists, so this is all above my head. Also in the Deobandi article it says: "Deobandis claim these practices were never practised by the Sahaba and are considered to be bid'ah." which sounds very Salafist to me (the emphasis on the first generation and purging of innovation). In addition, the Sufism article fails to mention the Deobandi, but then again it makes a big point that Sufism is a purely Sunni movement, and my first thought when I think of the Sufi is of the Bektashi, which are really very much like the Alevi. Very confusing! Maybe you could tell me more. Sounds like you have some clear ideas on this. Ramazan Mubarak.--Anthon.Eff 16:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You can contact me via email by clicking on one of the userboxes on my userpage. --Anthon.Eff 18:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Your request at my talk page

Dear Mezzo, first of all, allow me to put your mind at rest regarding your "rambling" and any possible chance of you "boring me to death" - being Miss Verbosity myself, in fact maybe you should be careful that you don't end up falling asleep amidst reading my messages! :) So now that we've satisfactorily cleared that up, let's get serious and discuss about your concerns. As you accurately point out, this issue is complex, and not one I can easily reach a conclusion without proper investigation and delving deeper into its long history. I can readily observe it's indeed unpleasant, and much bitterness has been spilled here; so at any rate, I promise you a quick reply. Just give me a few hours, until tomorrow, and I'll share my preliminary conclusions with you and let you know about the proper actions that should be taken. Meanwhile, please try and relax, and take a distance; more often than not, a short break from the heat of the problem can do wonders. Love, Phaedriel - 18:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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