Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:40, 22 September 2006

Timothy Usher

Sorry about the delay, I've been gone for a bit. Yes, Timothy told me about it, and I'll take a close look at the page sometime soon. I'm still inacive however, having just returned from a week away from home (and only here for a few days before flying away again). Dmcdevit·t 05:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hijab

I just put two verses more on Hijab from Qur'an and now it gives the impression as "head covering" is not part of Shariah. If you also feel it, do let me know. TruthSpreader 09:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually thought of an interesting example of my own, which I definitely cannot put on Misplaced Pages. As the Qur'an says:..and let them wear their Khimar (coverings or head-covering) over their bosoms, and not display their ornaments... It is similar to if someone says to me that I should close buttons of my shirt. Does that mean, that I should always wear shirt or it means that I should not show my bare chest to others. Because I can still wear some other dress and still follow this rule. So I think, this verse is just emphasizing on chest covering rather than head covering and it is totally taken wrong by most Muslims. But look at this: . Cheers! TruthSpreader 15:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Barnstar Award

Please offer your opinion, vote, or whatever about your choice for the image to be used with the Islamic Barnstar Award at the Barnstar proposals page. Although there is consensus for the concept of an Islamic Barnstar Award, some editors would like to change the image for the award. I was just thinking you should be aware of this discussion because you have contributed to Islamic-related articles, received the Islamic Barnstar Award, or have contributed to the Islam-related Wikiprojects, etc.--JuanMuslim 03:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You can mention your comment as well as which image you support at the link I mentioned.--JuanMuslim 14:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Files

Yes, I have received. Thanks for that! TruthSpreader 09:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Mizan

Salaam, I created an article on ,Mizan, for quick reference. Maybe it'll help someday. TruthSpreader 04:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I have added the sources. TruthSpreader 08:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi once again

I was just wondering if you can provide any Qura'nic verse where any reference been made about the life beyond our earth or on this subject. thanks phippi46 19:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

I believe that Jews have a lot of difference among themselves. If you would ask a Ribbinic Jew or Hissinic Jew and then a progressive Jew, you will find a lot of differences. So you cannot generalize your ideas regarding Judaism by just talking with a Jew. Although, we Muslims tend to differ from each other on basic issues a little bit less than what Jews would differ with each other. For example, a progressive Jew (at least my friend) doesn't believe in a physical afterlife, but other Jews would disagree with him. In theory, it is a huge difference of opinion especially if said by a renouned scholar. TruthSpreader 09:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

But interesting enough, in many things, we do share a lot of trades. For example, Jews love to play with words, as this Jewish fellow replied to a comment on first commandment that it is the denial of all gods and not injunction of one God that will make us successful. Our scholars sometimes have such stupid discussions, which to me, are just making excuses to have your own belief. But I must say that, it was a good conversation. TruthSpreader 09:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Tahrif

I have no doubt that all religions did come from the same God, so theoratically speaking, they all have to advocate the same objective; which we don't see. So if all Muslims have the same Qur'an, the probability is very high that it is the same Qur'an from Prophet Muhammad(interestingly, even with some basic differences, Shias and Sunnis have the same Qur'an). But when we talk about issues like usury, people forget that prohibition is because of ethical reasons, and I would strongly disagree that Morals change with time. And I believe before people actually point out that Islam needs a overhauling, they should present problems in Islam, as our understanding of the religion can be faulty but the not the religion which is meant to be in this world till Judgement day. Every thing in religion has a reason, and I learned this way, and I am a strong advocate of this approach. But the important thing in our learning of the religion is that we are not taught Morals but rather religion is taught first (considered to be a substitute for Moral teachings), which I don't agree. A person has to be first human, then a good Muslim. Islam can only be appreciated if you have good Morals, otherwise results are in front of us. As I always say to my friends, you can be a good person without any religion, but religion gives you a good reason to be good, even in complex cases of Moral dilemmas. TruthSpreader 12:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sir a religion give us a chance to be a good human, this was the basic principal of nearly all the religions. I disagree with respect that a person has to be a human first and then good muslim. I think a good muslim is a good human, the problem come to interpetret the meaning that some take differently. The God send his messengers only to improve the human beings, in order to make them better. What kind of changes you think are necessary to improve Islam, if I ask ? phippi46 23:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• • The most important reason for the religion is the success in our afterlife, which with no doubt, is the most important thing as this life is limited but the next one is forever. It is also evident that those people who accepted Islam in the early days of Islam, were the ones who had strong appreciation for truth, and at least were abstaining from things like telling lies and dishonesty. Preaching morals are described in the religion under the term 'amr bi'l-ma'ruf wa nahi 'ani'l-munkar, and the reason behind is that, first a human is asked to have good morals and then he will be a better recepient of the truth, otherwise there is no benefit of putting best books on the back of a donkey. And I will re-iterate, what I just said in my previous message, that Islam doesn't need any change. Our understanding can be faulty but not the religion itself. TruthSpreader 03:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Polygamy

I just made a few changes in this article, and I think Mizan is the best article, I ever created on wikipedia. It can be used to improve so many articles on wikipedia. BUT I need time to do that. :( TruthSpreader 15:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

HI

Sorry for delay, I was busy doing something else. I will be able to feedback on your recent work, as soon I finished reading it. In the mean time, I saw that you are no longer active on Misplaced Pages. I hope to see you back in action soon, take care. phippi46 16:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Rights and obligations of spouses in Islam

Salaam, I have changed this article. You should have a look. TruthSpreader 18:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Salaam, Nice to hear from you again. I edited another article, Women in Islam. I wanted to move Women in Muslim societies to this article, but User:Zora resented, as she said that even though we don't have credible source to link offenses like honor killing with Islam, we still need to present it. So I created a complete article altogether based on jurist opinions. Now I have asked User:Striver to secularize the latter article (remove the Islam banner and replace with contemporary controversies of Islam plus giving socio-political reasoning for the events rather than religious reasoning). If you can also help in this process, that'll be great.

Secondly, you asked about Shia Muslims, I am ready to call "The people of the book" as Muslims, so Shias are definitely Muslims in my dictionary. But remember, salvation in the afterlife is not on your assosiation with any group (even identifying yourself with Islam is not enough), it is based on certain rules. As in Qur'an: . So these are the positive qualities, which a person should have. The negative things are: a person should not have killed an innocent life, he should not have denied a true messenger after it becomes evident to him, and he should not have decieved others in law of inheritence (that would apply only to Muslims to my understanding), otherwise Qur'an promises eternal damnation.

FYI: while it is true that Shias & Sunnis have the same Qur'an (I'm not arguing this issue at all), I wanted to point out that "Bismillah" is actually counted as an Ayah, at least by Sunnis. There are 114 instances of "Bismillah" in the Qur'an (the same as the number of Surahs); one Surah (At-Towbah) doesn't have it at its beginning like the other 113, while another Surah (An-Naml) has it twice (at its beginning and in the middle). Clearly, the number of times "Bismillah" was revealed is of significance. Salaam. (posted on TruthSpreader's talk page. --How's my editing so far? Call 1-800-2GOOD4U! 08:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am going to the forum, which I told you. Do pray for me. TruthSpreader 15:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you please take care of Rights and obligations of spouses in Islam and Women in Islam for a few days, as I think, there is some serious POV coming. TruthSpreader 18:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

Barnstar, awarded by User:Itsmejudith to Aminz for his contributions to the article dhimmi and just being always fair and cheerful 7th September 2006

Excellent Work

Hi Aminz, first of all cong. on new Barnstar... I think if this trend continue like that, we may have to recommend you for President :-) anyway, I read your work on page you send me for view and possible feedback, I must say, that you have done a great job, and its wonderful. What you have suggested as guidlines, I think no one will argue on it. As you know the realibility of some one is always relative, there will be some scholors, who are well known and admired by many, but still there will be some who dont like them. As I was reading the talk pages on Islam related articals, I have noticed that still this is the case, where alots of quotes and information was not accepted by many editors, because in their view the person is disputed. I personally agree with your recommendations of people, as reference on any Islam related articals. I think all these poeple are reliable enough to work with. I am sorry I dont know still Mr. Fred Donner, I think I missed him some how. I am very much carefull when its come to Sharia, there are alots of miss understanding about it and well as you know there are alots of different openions are "versions" so my suggestion that when ever we talk on it, we should ...well how I say be very carefull about. Similarly, I think you will agree with me when its come to the topics like, violence on the name of Islam, or slavery and other topiscs, where a non friendly picture of Islam presented, is important issue. There are alot of miss information on it, and alots of these can be found on wikipedia also. I agree with you on one thing, as you answerd someone, I m sorry i forgot where, that some of these things were not related with Islam, but with the time when these things happend. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) married many times, but at the time it was also a cutome or let say tridition. There are whole alot of things which can be present with that, offcourse if 200 hundered years later, we as humans find a way to slaughter Chikens in more "Decent" way, who knows if you use method we use now, you will called "Butcher" or non civilized.. you know.. I agree, that the matter related with religions are sensetive and difficult to present, but we can only try and hopefully our work may be seen as neutral and positive. phippi46 16:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• wow.. man thanks alot for Barnstar.. you have definately got my vote, when ever you run for President, tell me. :-) I hope we will be able to get a neutral point of view on our work. As you mentioned there is something for me.. I can't wait to see.. any way thanx alot again for your kind Barnstar, take care phippi46 22:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

re:Thank You

no problem at all Aminz- vandalism has no place on wikipedia. if i can be of any help whatsoever, just ask. ITAQALLAH 06:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam

I see my reverted has been already restored by User:Truthpedia. I still don't think it fits very well, but I defer to you and the other editors on how to phrase Lewis' ideas. Thanks for understanding my concerns. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Islam and Slavery

hey Aminz, what's the correct tag for proposing a suggested re-name of an article? i'm working on this article currently and it seems to co-incide with Arab slave trade in what the actual purpose of the article is. i suggest that documentation of historical slave trade in arabia be in its relevant article, while "Islam and Slavery" can perhaps be renamed to "Slavery in Islam" anc concentrate more on the islamic position on slavery as per islamic texts and scholarly commentary. what do you think? ITAQALLAH 21:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

oh i found out that "Slavery in Islam" is a redir to "Islam and Slavery". still, i would like to propose the title change of the article. ITAQALLAH 21:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of merging this section into the Slavery in Islam article? TruthSpreader 04:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I originally took the whole article from Mizan. I refered it before enumeration. You can access this article from . TruthSpreader 04:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right! If it would become necessary to free the slaves then those who would be handicapped, old men and women, and children would be forced to become homeless. But I am just concerned that whether I am giving a wrong impression or not. If I am, please change accordingly. As the article does give this reasoning as well. TruthSpreader 06:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You are again right, but what a good option it is that you are a slave, and you have a right to choose. So you can choose which option suits you most. But God does not like slavery in general, as Qur'an used the word "free the necks", and you can feel the flare in it. TruthSpreader 06:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-06 Victim photo from 1981

I have responded on this case, with my comment at the bottom. You might to read it and comment on it. Thanks, Iolakana•T 18:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Salaam brother

Hi Aminz

I expect you have seen in the decision on HE's arbcomm case that it is has been ruled acceptable to use traditional Muslim terms such as "Salaam, brother". May I take this opportunity to say use this expression to you because 1) as we all know Salaam means peace, and I wish peace to you and to everyone around the world and 2) because I regard you as a brother, since in my experience you treat everyone you meet in Misplaced Pages as your brothers and sisters.

I liked reading your explanation about your interest in comparative religion.

I would also like to show that use of this expression cannot create a hostile atmosphere for non-Muslims, since I happen not to be a Muslim myself.

Peace to all Misplaced Pages brethren and sistren. Itsmejudith 20:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Good work

I really appreciate your work at Dhimmi article. It is improving. I also appreciate your input at Muhammad. Thank you.--- ابراهيم 21:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

thank you

thanks for your work on the islam and slavery article Aminz.. the lead was something that really needed a bit of work. i think the state of the article is much better than it was before (i still have some more stuff to add i think). cheers :) ITAQALLAH 06:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

do you think that the "Treatment of the slaves" section should be merged into the first paragraph of "slavery in islamic jurisprudence"? because they both essentially say the same thing and the treatment of slaves is part of the fiqh of slavery. ITAQALLAH 08:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

sure, no problem. the only reason i say is because i would assume in the books of fiqh that treatment of slaves would be included under the chapter of slavery. i think user truthpedia included some quotes from Lewis on the issue of changes made on the advent of islam (check first para in "slavery in islamic society"), if it doesn't fit there then in the treatment section would be ok too. ITAQALLAH 08:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ghadir Khumm

Salam.

There is debate about Ghadir Khumm in Talk:Ali. Please write your idea there.--Sa.vakilian 08:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, Aminz, that is very kind of you! It has cheered me up on what has been a somewhat depressing article.

Regarding the image, it's true that from many perspectives, this is anti-Zionism, not anti-Semitism. The reason I feel it's appropriate for this article is that this is what the new anti-Semitism boils down to (in many ways) i.e. a disagreement about what is anti-Zionism and when it crosses the line into anti-Semitism. The image is an illustration of the confusion. On the one hand, it's about anti-imperialism, anti-capitalism etc. On the other, the Jews are depicted as backing up Satan, there are Nazi symbols mixed with the Star of David, and so on, and these are all classic anti-Semitic motifs. It's that synthesis or ideological confusion that goes to the heart of the new anti-Semitism debate. In addition, the image has been discussed in the media and on blogs as representing anti-Semitism, so it's not just a bunch of Misplaced Pages editors who are saying that. But thank you very much for agreeing not to press the issue. I'm still trying to make contact with the artist in the hope that he will agree to release it under a free licence, and if he does, we can use it anywhere we want, so then it could go on the Anti-Zionism page too. I'll let you know if and when I'm able to reach him.

I very much support you on the issue of academic sources, and I'm currently trying to find strong academic sources who argue that there's no such thing as anti-Semitism. We have Brian Klug saying it, who's an excellent source, but beyond that I'm not having much luck. If you come across any, please do let us know.

Thank you again for the barnstar. It really has helped a lot. :-) SlimVirgin 10:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

hadith

Do you know any way to convert hadith no. to the one's used on USC website. It can be quite handy as I find many references like that on books but then to find hadith on USC website is a mess. i.e. Muslim 1661 would be x book and y hadith No. Maybe there is a formulae, I am not sure. TruthSpreader 10:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I am already aware of this template. If for example, someone says that Bukhari 3362 (from Arabic version). How can I convert this into volume No. book No. and hadith No. in Muhsin Khan's translation. TruthSpreader 00:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Jihad

Salaam, Do you think that User:Truthspreader/Jihad will be acceptable. As it is very lengthy now. TruthSpreader 02:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Check this out:I asked: If there is no state or ruler of the Muslims? He replied: In this situation, dissociate yourself from all groups, even if you have to chew the roots of a tree at the time of your death. (Bukhari: No. 7084)

How do militants legitimize their struggle????? TruthSpreader 02:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you write less but with quality and I write more but always with the fear that am I pushing a POV or if someone else will find the POV before me, maybe he/she will change in such a way, that it will distort the whole article. TruthSpreader 12:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Salaam, would you like to give us your input after my recent changes to the article, Jihad, as article is now lengthy. I think its length is justified by its importance and number of details involved. If you have some other idea, do share with us. Cheers! TruthSpreader 14:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Salaam, I just put some extra information on Jihad#Jihad_as_warfare. I think that the whole argument pivots on the interpretation of these verses. I am definitely with the "proponents", as I don't feel that the whole "Muslim Nation" is a bunch of "chosen people". I wonder how others think this way. TruthSpreader 09:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't Shia Muslims have clergy, which would have the authority to do so! TruthSpreader 10:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting! I actually believe that even Jesus is not returning and I have put the detailed argument on Jesus in Islam under "Second coming". Ghamidi thinks that maybe Mahdi was actually Umar bin Abdul Aziz,Umar II, which people changed it for their own political benefits of their times. TruthSpreader 10:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Beside many other concerns, I do feel that Qur'an wouldn't make such a passing remark on such a huge event. If you read Gospel of Barnabas or even canonical Gospels, you will see that Prophet Muhammad or paraclete has been talked about again and again. Even Torah has many explicit references of a new prophet. If Jesus do come back, and we don't accept him, we will be infidels and Qur'an didn't even care to give us some clues or stressed us to believe in him, rather it seems to deny it. Cheers and Salaam! TruthSpreader 10:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As Qur'an says:Indeed those who are opposing Allah and His Messenger are bound to be humiliated. The Almighty has ordained: ‘‘I and My Messengers shall always prevail’’. Indeed Allah is Mighty and Powerful. 58:20-21. This clearly shows that God protects his Messengers. Similarly Moses dared to go to Pharoah, even there were prophets before him, just because he was a Messenger and not only a prophet, and he had the protection of God. And if people do kill ambassadors of God (Messengers), this definitely brings question on authority of God. Furthermore, it is very strange for Islam to accept that someone's suffering can bring salvation. Rather Islam asserts that every thing on the day of judgement will be on merit. So when these scholars say that Jesus died and then raised, it means that God does not allow people to dishonor his Messengers even their dead bodies. TruthSpreader 10:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you that we need God's grace. I believe that the difference between pure monotheism and others is that you ask God's grace directly, while in others, you go through a channel. Nice talking with you and have a nice sleep. TruthSpreader 11:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Itmaam-i-hujjat

I just edited this article. This article deals with the punishments by God. Any comments? TruthSpreader 05:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Salaam, you may find this discussion useful:User_talk:Itaqallah#Ghamidi. TruthSpreader 06:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Salaam, just asking about Islam and Slavery, you wrote, "The modern" Javed Ahmed Ghamidi. I think if he differs with classical understanding of slavery issue, then this term would be more suitable. I think he just put all these steps together which have had already been discovered by other Muslim scholars before him. TruthSpreader 06:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

As you said once, it doesn't surprise me that Muslims took things in wrong way. But I have changed the text, I hope that it would now suit more to the context without changing the prinicipal stance. TruthSpreader 09:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Aminz, you seem to have violated the three revert rule. Remember that reverts don't have to be related. Please self-revert before someone reports you.Opiner 07:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad Image

Please note that according to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. that image is not protected by copyright. Also note that multiple other sources vouch for the location and authenticity of the image in question. Captainktainer * Talk 04:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

hey Aminz

you shouldn't let peoples' provocative or questionable behaviour get to you. take it easy, and stay as cool as a cucumber.. it will certainly pay dividends :) ITAQALLAH 07:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That will be a good exercise, as we may turn those sources into a complete article, such as, "Muhammad as a reformer" or "Muhammad as a social reformer". TruthSpreader 07:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you try:. TruthSpreader 07:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It used to have a limited free membership, that would allow you to translate arabic text! TruthSpreader 07:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Aminz, you seem to have violated the three revert rule. Remember that reverts don't have to be related. Please self-revert before someone reports you.Opiner 07:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)