Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Yes you are right I did not actually take the pic "kaaba1.jpg' and "kaaba2.jpg", but rather scanned them from a book. I guess I made a mistake attributing them to me. I must correct this mistake. How can I do that?--] 20:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes you are right I did not actually take the pic "kaaba1.jpg' and "kaaba2.jpg", but rather scanned them from a book. I guess I made a mistake attributing them to me. I must correct this mistake. How can I do that?--] 20:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
==Response==
Why would I do you a favor when you reverted my additions without any proof that I was lying about where I got the information? Yes I have the books. In fact I have many others as well, and will have still more in a little bit. "it is equally as worse" you said. I thought english was your first language? You have gotten dumber the longer this has gone on, probably because you would have to be kind of dumb to believe that the embryological passages in the Quran are divinely inspired. I'm laughing as I'm writing this. I'll further respond on the talk page. ] 18:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I thank you for your message and convey my Ramadan greetings to you. As regards AE, I am also highly concerned and worried. He used to be very active. I do not understand any reasonm for such a long absence. May God keep him well! I am not sure of the notice, let us wait for few more weeks. I will try to sent wiki-mails to him. More people should mail him. Regards. --Bhadani02:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Raids by Muslims
what about the saying of Prophet Muhammad for Abu Basir who started looting Caravans, he said: "Woe to his mother! What excellent war kindler he would be, should he only have supporters". I think this saying shows that he was against any militant activity. TruthSpreader02:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I hope its copyright is released. The pic is taken from "the Cairene journal Hilal (editor: Mr. G. Zaidan)" Samuel says. Al-Hilal was "the most prominent Arabic literary-scientific journal well into the mid-twentieth century" --Aminz01:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
of course, It appears that "sealed Nectar" should be considered a notable source documenting the Salafi point of view. Nobody ever said that notable sources must be neutral. If they are not neutral, however, they must be identified for what they are when they are cited. dab(ᛏ)12:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I know Itaqallah. I, myself, was confused why the original sources were writing it in that way. I had the very same observation. I justified it for myself that the academics either reject existence of all the letters or accept their existence. But you are right. It is better to move the sentences around. Cheers, --Aminz08:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I'll quote it for you soon. Also, the major work on the article was done by you. Yeah! The current status of the article is not comparable with its previous status. Thank you very much. :) --Aminz01:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
You recently compiled and listed a case at request for checkuser. For an outcome to be achieved, we require you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the request for checkuser page. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. Daniel.Bryant03:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC), checkuser clerk.
Thanks for the kind words in response to my first RFC on my talk page. Sorry to see that there's such a frustrating situation over there, but sometimes these sorts of things can actually be just the catalyst for creating a really great article. I'll put the page on my (rather long) list of things to do, so maybe some day a few months from now, I'll hop in and help bring it from "Almost Good" to FAC, assuming you guys haven't done it first. --Alecmconroy16:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Salaam, Can you please have a look at this article and see if this can be improved as it has been nomineed for deletion. Cheers! TruthSpreader06:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Exact Quotes: Irfan Shahid's review of the article published in the Cambridge history of Arabic Literature:
"His presentation, however, could have been more effective: (1) the preelslamic material should have been clearly separated from the Islamic and this should have been reflected visually in the divisions of the chapter; (2) even the Islamic portion should have been divided in the interests of clarity into Muhammadan, Orthodox or Patriarchal, and Umayyad; (3) pree Islamic prose might have received more attention from Serjeant in view of his conclusions on literate pre-Islamic Arabia and since it is usually treated unceremoniously partly because of the ghosts of authenticity; (4) the discussion does not make a sharp distinction, as it should, between artistic and none artistic prose; (5) many of the documents are examined from the viewpoint of their contents rather than their form and literary qualities; (6) the position of Mubammad in the development of Arabic prose should have been more clearly and decisively treated; (7) the rejection of the authenticity of Mubammad’s letters to the rulers and monarchs is unjustified. Recent research has established the authenticity of the Letter to Heraclius, although Heraclius himself may never have received it and the embroideries surrounding the letter have, of course, to be rejected."
I think I've missed the other paper by Nadia. TruthSpreader might have it. I can also download it tomorrow. Bye for now --Aminz08:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I think on that passage, Ifrin is trying to suggest the better presentation of what is written in the cambridge history of arabic literature. I don't think he is commenting on the content, but rather on the form. But I can send you the file. Cheers, --Aminz00:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
sorry Itaqallah, somebody took off my talk and yours and when I replaced again, I didn't have your comments to add. Please feel free to add the finge minority part if you wish. Thanks for guiding me my dear friend.
Wessam Reda20:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear friend Itaqallah, somebody is erasing my talk. It seems he doesn't like fringe minority talk like you ;o) Please help me find out what is happening to my talk everytime, I'm a new comer, and please accept a new friend for this prestigious page.
I have posted this passage to FayssalIF, for your info
Dear editor, the article I'm writing sounds like a brainstorming fashion, but this is how I choose to write about Islam. It's my style of writing. Yet, if you read it carefully, you'll see that I'm giving solid definitions for "Hijab", "Four wives Marriage", "Islam by the sword", "English version of Quran", "Somking in Ramadan" and others. Please let me keep those definitions in Islam page, in a diplomatic way of writing.
Your criticism of me
Many of the links you had were to my own talk page as an anon or to other people's talk pages. You're saying that I can't have debates with people on user talk pages?
Otherwise I have to admit that parts of three of the quotes you linked to were out of place, and I'll keep from addressing things not regarding the article in question in the future.
In general I think that criticism of the approach of editors to an article or to the entire article as a whole is appropriate on talk pages. My comment regarding Dawah was expressing my honest opinion about the article, and it is clear from the talkpage that I was far from alone. Maybe you should try to see it from another perspective.
I only claimed to be "something of an expert" on theology after being brusquely told that I wasn't one.
If someone else uses a talkpage inappropriately and I respond to what that person said, you should start your criticism with the person who started the debate. You have least one admin to take to task. Arrow74003:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Encyclopedia of Islam
Hi Itaqallah,
I think there is currently a problem with the website. I can not get access to the articles. I think they are uploading Encyclopedia of Qur'an as well. If so, that would be great. --Aminz12:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I am editing the Articles of both al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock. And the non muslims there keep reverting claiming that the Dome is not a mosuqe but rather a shrine or a temple. See discussions of each article please to have more idea on what has been going on. Thank you. Almaqdisi11:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Where can I find it? Was it published in the Journal of the Islamic Medical Association, or the Journal of the Islamic Medical Association of North America (or both)? Please answer on my talk page. Arrow74007:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Mubahala
Salam
I want to write something about this issue in Ali article. Please show me some sites which represent Sunni viewpoint.At first I wrote what I want in Eid al-Mubahila, then I want to copy some part of it in Ali. So please check it. God bless you.--Sa.vakilian15:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for abiding to the rules of wikipedia. Though you do not enforce them when it comes to fellow Muslims you are the only one who doesn't break them in your own edits.
I don't really understand why you're doing all this though. Arrow74007:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
You are Right
Salam
Yes you are right I did not actually take the pic "kaaba1.jpg' and "kaaba2.jpg", but rather scanned them from a book. I guess I made a mistake attributing them to me. I must correct this mistake. How can I do that?--Thameen20:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Response
Why would I do you a favor when you reverted my additions without any proof that I was lying about where I got the information? Yes I have the books. In fact I have many others as well, and will have still more in a little bit. "it is equally as worse" you said. I thought english was your first language? You have gotten dumber the longer this has gone on, probably because you would have to be kind of dumb to believe that the embryological passages in the Quran are divinely inspired. I'm laughing as I'm writing this. I'll further respond on the talk page. Arrow74018:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
