Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:13, 21 May 2006

AAA765 is taking a short wikibreak to get ready for exams and will be back on Misplaced Pages once the exams are over.

I am currently taking a break from Misplaced Pages

Archives

/Archive 1

/Archive 2

Islam Peer Review

I am requesting a peer review for the Islam article. If you have any suggestions, please let us know. Thank you very much. BhaiSaab 01:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Re Genesis

The notion that Hebrew, or any other attested language, is the "original language" is demonstrably false. Not that you'd said that, but it's a common interpretation.

Who is the author of Genesis? Or, receiver of revelation if you prefer? There is no claim that anyone witnessed the events described, nor is there any claim that they were revealed. It's just an old story, and doesn't claim to be anything more. Several other claims of Genesis have been unambiguously and indisputably debunked.Timothy Usher 06:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

People doing evil in the name of religion

Aminz, yes, Muslims did that. Also read about the persecution of the Bahais in Iran. That was even WORSE -- and it's still going on.

I don't think that there's a religion in the world that hasn't been used as justification for horrible, horrible things. I don't know if you've heard of the Nagasaki Martyrs -- they were Japanese who converted to Christianity in the 17th century, and were tortured and killed because they wouldn't give it up. Buddhist priests, Zen priests, approved of the torture. That's MY religion.

It has less to do with religion than it has with human nature. A warning to us not to be too self-righteous, lest we end up killing and feeling completely justified. Zora 10:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes even people without religion can do this for example. I don't think that the article like other articles is particularly neutral though, so you should probably question what's written. --a.n.o.n.y.m 19:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

re: Blanking

Because, impersonator or no, "This user will be condemned in the Judgment Day and will go to Hell" is an attack, something explicitly forbidden on Misplaced Pages. For more information, see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Snoutwood (tóg) 21:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not he 'deserves' it is subjective and irrelevant. From WP:NPA: "There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them." It doesn't matter that he's an impostor. We don't attack or insult people. Snoutwood (tóg) 22:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I know. It's too bad, but that's the way it goes. However, attacking him won't solve the problem. If anything, it inspires him to do it again. Some people (trolls) like that: it's why we don't feed them. You may also want to take a look at Misplaced Pages:Do not insult the vandals (it's not policy, but a lot of people, including me, agree with it). Snoutwood (tóg) 22:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. Snoutwood (tóg) 22:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for everything

Thank you Aminz, for your assistance in my unheeded defense, and reverting my user talk page from vandalism.Timothy Usher 23:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey checkout the Muwatta template

Template:Muwatta «₪Mÿš†íc₪» 13:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmi

I'll take a look at this and try to understand the situation.

Since you're Persian too, you might want to help out at Persian people#History. We're having an inter-Iranian problem over the broader definition of who Persians are. Even though some sources clearly state Persians are of mixed ancestry, some users insist on saying Persians are "descendants of Aryan tribes", which is immediately contradicted by the next statement saying Aryan tribes intermingled with the local populations (Elamites for example, but also others) upon their arrival on the Iranian plateau.

All I'm asking is for the statement to be replaced with something more neutral. Perhaps something like "Aryan tribes began migrating from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the 2nd millennium BC." I don't know why some users insist on using the terms "descendants" and "Aryan" next to each other.

The other side shows very little flexibility or respect. This issue has escalated beyond imagination and some users are actually trying to get me banned from Iran-related articles. As a result I've had very little time for anything else (such as the dhimmi article, which I've visited before).

Could you look into this and let me know what you think?

Aucaman 10:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'm Persian too, if these users let me. There's something else I need to tell you too, but I'll tell you once this whole controversy is over. It would be our little secret. Aucaman 11:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Na man ye modati hast az riazi dast keshidam. Hala shoma rahat boro bekhab. Man ye tag mizaram roo najis ta moshkelatesh bar taraf beshe. Aucaman 11:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Are man badan barat tozi midam. hala shoma felan BORO BEKHAB. farsiam nanevisi behtare, chon vazia momkene chizayike migio eshteba tarjome konan :| Felan shab khosh. Aucaman 11:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Re WP:AN/I

I agree that we shouldn't get into the rest of it. One of the editors involved here has a substantial record of abusive diffs, establishing a pattern of bullying, gratuitous insult and unrecanted false charges alike. To me, that's not the immediate issue. 3RR was the reason given for the block, and when they realized AE'd miscounted, AE changed the subject while Sean Black blanked his talk page. The honorable response is to publically admit that the charge, and the block which was explicitly based on it, was wrong without further qualification. That's what I'll be requesting.Timothy Usher 10:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Aminz,

I saw your comment here, and I think you don't entirely understand what the page is about. It's not about the Iranian nationality (which includes Persians, Kurds, Azeris, Baloch, etc.), it's about the specific Persian ethinc group. As you know, Persians comprise 51% of Iran's population. By looking at this map you can see that Persians, Azeris, Arabs, and Kurds in Iran are all separate ethinc groups, but are the same nationality, Iranian. —Khoikhoi 22:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Khoikhoi,

I personally do not belong to no minority group of Iran but after coming to US I feel I can understand them better. As to your comment, I am afraid I disagree since based on what I have read about Judaism, being a Jews unlike being a Musim or Christian implies descending from Issac(like being "Seyed" in Iran but with the difference that being "Seyed" has nothing to with being a Muslim). So, Jews believe they are descendents of Issac who was Hebrew. Now, saying Iranians are descendents of "Aryans" automatically proves Iranian Jews are not Iranians. All the issue is about the word descendent. To persians this may not have much importance but to Jews it has. --Aminz 23:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, first off, you agree that most Persians are descendants of the Aryans, right? Incidentally, the term has nothing to do with the Nazis, and is not an "outdated racial theory", as Aucaman claims. Secondly, I'm Jewish too, and I can tell you that things in the Torah are not necessarily historically accurate.

Let me give you some sources.

Encyclopædia Britannica, the most authoritative encyclopedia on this planet, says the following in their Ethnic groups of Iran article:

The Persians, Kurds, and speakers of other Indo-European languages in Iran are descendants of the Aryan tribes that began migrating from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the 2nd millennium BC.

Also, the Columbia Encyclopedia says the following:

The Aryans came about 2000 B.C. and split into two main groups, the Medes and the Persians.

The fact of the matter is, there is absolutely nothing with the History section of the Persians page, and there's an overwhelming majority that agrees. Going on with this issue would probably just start up another edit war, and it's not worth your time or mine. —Khoikhoi 23:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any discrimination. Anyways, the problem is about 100 users disagree with you, so I guess you'll have to discuss it with them. —Khoikhoi 23:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

*Sigh*. I tried, I tried. —Khoikhoi 23:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how you can make such a huge generalization against 40 million people. In what way are they racist? —Khoikhoi 23:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

But the problem is that you're generalizng. Saying "all Persians are racist to some extent" is a somewhat racist statement in itself. ;) I'd just prefer it if you said Many Arabs don't like Persians, instead of using the word all. —Khoikhoi 00:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, how do you say "nice talking to you" in Persian? —Khoikhoi 00:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sweet. Can you type that in Farsi script? Khoda-hafez. —Khoikhoi 01:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! —Khoikhoi 01:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, revert it quick

Aminz, you don't get to vote in an arbitration. Only the arbitrators do. They are elected annually, I believe. Revert quick! Zora 22:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Heheh, you're the third person today who has stepped into it. ;-) (That said, I appreciate your intention to help, very much.) Lukas 22:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha! That's hilarious!Timothy Usher 05:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah, you can't change anything on that page, it's just the jury who get to edit it. Unfortunately... :-( Lukas 22:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, of course - It just seems to be entrenched Misplaced Pages jargon in that sort of case. But then again, in English, we do commonly say "somebody is (not) civil" when we want to express he acts in a civil (or uncivil) way, don't we? Anyway, we have more serious problems now than that... Lukas 22:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Najis

Having read through you and Pecher's latest clash, is the dispute on this page solved? Seems that Aucaman did some good work here.Timothy Usher 05:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Bernard Lewish on Najis article

Hi Aminz, you are possibly right, however on wikipedia we are not supposed to state the author of the source in the articles text unless there is an opposing reference *and* if the original source is considered unreliable. Bernard Lewis however, is considered reputable and reliable enough. Feel free to add another reference so that you can spell out your complaints without it being original research. Usually by virtue of the name of the author of a source appearing most people will assume the article is suggesting that the person is biased.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC) P.S. Can you respond on my talk page as I tend to forget to check the other people's talk pages.

Well its not common sense to me. I am admitedly not an expert on shiism or anything, but I think I am probably more knowledgable on it than an average person and I really wouldn't have the foggiest idea that it is common sense to Shiite Jurists.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The reasoning you provided not only doesn't seem like common sense but seems quite esoteric (to me, probably not to you though). I think you are just going to have to provide a reference for this one man. I understand what you mean though, for every culture there are things that have become so ingrained in their collective consciousness and memory from such a young age that it is near impossible to understand how some poeple do not already know it. I guess that is a problem with having such a heterogenous community on English Misplaced Pages.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say that Bernard Lewis is definetly reputable and reliable enough to stay in the article. I do understand that he is sometimes controversial, but I would argue that for an academic who writes on controverisal subjects and is as well-known as Lewis is, the criticism that has been directed towards him is relatively mild. Compare what has been said about Edward Said and you will see what I am talking about.

My suggested solution for you would be to add opposing references that ilustrate your viewpoint, but be careful to use reliable sources and not add original research.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmi

I'll post on the talk page shortly. However, note that your version of these sentences

"Dhimmis were guaranteed their personal safety and security of property, in return for paying a special capitation tax known as the jizya and accepting various restrictions and legal disabilities. "

was changed to

"Dhimmis were guaranteed their personal safety and security of property. They had to pay a special capitation tax known as the jizya and accepting various restrictions and legal disabilities. "

is actually a little more critical of Sharia, in that it suggests (correctly) that the "protection" was really just a threat. You may be familiar with the phrase "protection money" in regard to the Mafia; merchants would pay or be unprotected (from the Mafia itself, naturally).

I agree that Pecher's version is marginally more neutral in that it's less interpretive, but I don't object to either one.Timothy Usher 06:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note "marginally"! As I've said above, your version (the first, correct?) is overtly neutral, but suggests that the Dhimmi were given "an offer refuse."Timothy Usher 07:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope that my recent edits have solved at least the section title dispute. No doubt there will be others, but as this one had no easy solution, maybe the next ones will be solvable (?)Timothy Usher 09:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Good luck on your exams!Timothy Usher 09:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

More to come...I can't see the logic to the organization of sections...for example, how is "Marriage" "Social and Psychological" rather than "Legal"? It's both social and legal.Timothy Usher 09:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Muslim

Also note the latest discussion on Muslim.Timothy Usher 07:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"(I think this should be good)" does not quite explain how you are taking the discussion into account on Talk:Muslim. Please re-read and discuss? Shenme 07:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No need to think "sorry" or "whoops" - we all bring things to WP. (I'm trying to explain myself further, too, but I type slowly - more comments there soon) Shenme 07:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Doroud

Just wanted to say that welcome to Misplaced Pages, we have a good few Iranian editors on here, there was some trouble with Aucaman but please do not rush in to conclusions without understanding the situation - no one is trying to be "racist" here. Ba sepaas, -- - K a s h 19:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Template

After some thought I decided to create this smiley template, as I thought most of the arguments in the talk pages are due to misinterpretaion of what is being said, hopefully these smileys will help us (at least me !!) communicate in a much more friendly manner. Hope you all will like it.

• {{smiley|1}} will produce (Friendly smile)
• {{smiley|2}} will produce (Confident)
• {{smiley|3}} will produce (Mocking)
• {{smiley|4}} will produce (Hysterical)
• {{smiley|5}} will produce (Hurt)
• {{smiley|6}} will produce (Very Sorry)
• {{smiley|7}} will produce (Sleepy)
• {{smiley|8}} will produce (You are Nive)
• {{smiley|9}} will produce (I am not happy)
• {{smiley|0}} will produce (No Comments)

 «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  20:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

More Smileys for you

• {{smiley|10}} will produce (Congratulations)
• {{smiley|11}} will produce (I am in deep trouble)
• {{smiley|12}} will produce (I am innocent)
• {{smiley|13}} will produce (Sceptical)
• {{smiley|14}} will produce (Upset)
• {{smiley|15}} will produce (I am shocked)

 «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  19:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

No. I compromised on that. Timothy didn't even participate in the discussion. I see enough disagreement over the name that the article can be moved back. The proper way to move it would be to go through RM, not like this. If it is continued to be moved then Isa will be locked from moves until an RM consensus can be reached. --a.n.o.n.y.m 21:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

AE, if you think the page needs to be move-locked, please be sure to request that at WP:RFPP. Tom Harrison 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I know. I am fine with this name, which was proposed by Tom. I see only Pecher and Timothy disagreeing with both it and Isa. Palmiro, Aiden + others would like Isa better, but most are willing to keep this name. --a.n.o.n.y.m 21:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes this name is the compromise even if Isa was the best in my opinion. We can't have it moved anymore. If RM is made, then I am definitely sure that no consensus will come out of it and the article will have to remain at Isa under policy. So I think that instead of complaining Timothy should find this as the best. --a.n.o.n.y.m 21:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor wrote, "Timothy didn't even participate in the discussion."

That's junk. I've been very involved in the discussion from the beginning. As for the portion of the discussion which has unfolded on his talk page, I quit that portion because it had been determined that he "owns" his talk page and can alter comments thereto post facto, compromising the integrity of the discussion.Timothy Usher 01:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Timothy you did participate in the discussion. Just confirming. --Aminz 04:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

History of slavery in the United States

Aminz,

I was wondering what you think of this article: History of slavery in the United States. Do you think it too critical?Timothy Usher 02:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Template

Thanks for the info! —Aiden 18:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Multi-page confusion

Aminz, I must have been thinking about the Criticism of Islam page. Or an edit on the talk page (?).Timothy Usher 06:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I reacted as if you were criticizing this edit I'd made earlier . Someone had writting "Critics such as Muir have argued that Muhammad ordered the torture and execution of her husband after the battle at Khaybar", but the source (at least one of them) is not a critic but an unqualified Muslim admirer, Ibn Ishaq, while "...but this is disputed by some Muslims, who argue that he was killed in battle" is unsourced.Timothy Usher 07:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Montazari's explanation:

"After Safiyah became a hostage, there were a few people who wanted to marry her. But since she was the daughter of the chief of the tribe, the Prophet in consideration of he social status, did not allow others to marry her. Safiyah herself was reluctant to marry ordinary people. Therefore the Prophet (pbuh) for the sake of protecting Safiyah, accepted to marry her."

Is completely at odds with Ibn Hishaq's of Muhammad tossing his cloak over her. Where is he getting this from? What verses? What hadith? Perhaps there are some, but from what I see here (perhaps editted?), Ali Sina has gotten the better of the Ayatollah.Timothy Usher 07:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Blog you might like

Aminz, you might like this blog by a Pakistani Muslim. He's an amazingly good writer, a modernist, and someone who is willing to bare his uncertainties in public. Zora 23:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you read this? It's called the Serenity Prayer:

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

by a Protestant clergyman named Reinhold Niebuhr. Emphasizes just how hard it is to keep a balance between submission and effort. I think I have a tendency to give up too soon, myself. Zora 07:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Rani, etc.

Oh, I know. I was alerted from Zora's talk page a few weeks back; I couldn't believe my eyes. See, now, wouldn't it be a crime to cover that up?

Can you believe what that Shez 15 just wrote (the unsigned comment above yours)? Zora may ignore it, but I've reported it.

Sorry I've not responded to your hadith, which as you say, contradicts Ibn Hashaq...although does not speak to the specific issue with the husband, nor does it quite say that Muhammad married her for charitable reasons, only that she was presented to him on this ground...but it does contradict Ibn Hashaq, so there's some confusion here. I think we need to find more hadith to see where the apologists are getting this from.Timothy Usher 04:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Mumtaz

Well then check Indian actress Mumtaz out, as she was of Persin origin, her pic in the wiki article is not very flattering but you may google and get some better one's.Haphar 12:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Islam

Hi , I have included a new image in the talk page of the Islam template, please make your comments about it to be included in the template, thanks BTW all the very best for your exams  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  18:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hello

Hey Aminz,

Sure, no problem. :) I noticed that you've been getting into some conflicts on certain pages. If you ever need an admin to intervene if you don't think the situation isn't getting any better, I have some names for you. Cheers, —Khoikhoi 05:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Jesus intro

"Jesus (8-2 BC/BCE– 29-36 AD/CE)"

But wait...isn't the "Christian POV" that he was born 1 AD, died 33AD, then rose again 33AD and lives to the present? 1-33, 33-present? How come this isn't represented? How come the text doesn't at least say, "According to D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo and Leon Morris,..."Timothy Usher 05:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Khaybar

Thanks - looking forward to it; hope things go well w/ your exams. I understand the general background; though Al Ahzab gives good context, not sure if it is 'the' cite we need. Would also humbly suggest that militarily it would not make sense to attack there 'just because they broke an oath' - there really wasn't very much to be afraid of tactically, (esp from perspective of a presumably intelligent & courageous commander....). Kind of bizare to chase folks out of town - and then pursue them a while later to kill them: why not just kill them right away. Which makes me think some of the more recent Islamic interpretations may be apologism, which I think is uneeded and in many ways insulting to Islam. But the point needs to be made that there is a heck of a lot more to this than what Stillman and the encyc of Islam assert. Personally would like to see this thing get to where Badr is (i.e. FA status). Bridesmill 17:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The Past Has Passed

As you requested, I avoided talking to and interacting with you for the past several days (although not intentionally; I just have had no reason to). However, I hope you're still not holding a grudge for something I thought wasn't a big deal in the first place (note my tenth axiom). joturner 22:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Subst

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. --Cyde Weys 02:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Rules of war, Najis, et cetera

Hi Aminz; I don't think I can usefully mediate on this, and I can't act as a neutral admin. I've begun to wonder if this is an area to which I can usefully contribute. I have no special knowledge, beyond having read a few books. The pages are tremendously divisive and time consuming, and I really end up making little significant improvement. I'm going to try to move away from these, into areas that I know more about, and that are less difficult to edit. I'll look in from time to time. Good luck with your exams. Tom Harrison 23:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Persian people

I would like to remind you that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia - where only verifiable, reliable, sourced information are welcomed, currently the article and that sentence are well sourced and there is absolutely NO NEED for it to be reworded, as result of LONG and exhausting discussion it has had. I recommend you do NOT take this forward because of reasons I explained to you on the talk page. -- - K a s h 00:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Look, you do know that Aucaman has been banned from editing Iran-related articles and was also banned from editing Misplaced Pages for a week, and you know the reason for this is because of his repeated vandalism to Iranian articles as well as calling Cyrus (Koroush) an illeterate murderer , correct? you do know this and you would like to make him happy? Very interesting. If you would like to know my religion, it is Zartoshti, and I am not happy with you baradar. Good night. -- - K a s h 01:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I am guessing that was your message? If it was, and since you keep writing in Persian let me do that as well then.

Aziz, keshvar goshayi haye Koroush kenar, Keshvareh mara dorost kard. Mas-aleh in nist ke adam kosht ya na kosht, va agar yek nafar goft Koroushetan kasi nabood be joz adam-koshe-bisavad, to azize man bayad yezareh fekr koni ke bibini in adam che ghadr nefrat dareh be Iran va adamaneh Irani. In heech rabti be din nadareh, agar mikhahi Persian Jews ro khosh-hal koni, be Ahmadinejad raey nadeh, nemikhad biyay inja moshgel eejad bokoni. To gofti blocket kardan, man inkaro nakardam, man va chandin doost baraye do mah zahmat keshidim baraye in mas-aleh va hala to mikhay biyay ke in adam ro khosh-hal koni? mageh bikari?! in agha pedareh maro darovordeh! harchi fohsh bood in va oon doostash be ma goftan, az terrorist, pasdar, melli-khah, etc. Mikhay doshman khoshhal koni? chi begam behet? Salamat bash. -- - K a s h 08:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Khoob, basheh, man bikhiyalesh shodam! Fekr nakonam vaghe'an ham besheh kari kard. Shad bashi --Aminz 10:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

...at your request. Best wishes, Tom Harrison 01:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Aminz 01:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Best, Aminz! You'll do well, I'm sure.

You could always create another username, you know...Timothy Usher 01:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm It is tempting ;) --Aminz 10:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Tom, can you please unblock me "if it is possible". I am done with my hardest exam. Thanks --Aminz 22:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. I hope it went well. Tom Harrison 23:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, I am still blocked. Maybe it is because my IP address is blocked (24.7.102.19). Can you please unblock this as well. Thanks --Aminz 01:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked the ip; how now? Tom Harrison 02:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

A revert to the Dhimmi article

Can anyone please give a revert to the Dhimmi article for the sake of God? I added this to the article but it was reverted by Pecher:

Allameh Tabatabaei in Tafsir al-Mizan commenting on a tradition that the above verse has "abrogated" other verses asking for good behaviour toward Dhimmi's, states that "abrogation" could be either understood in its terminological sense or its literal sense. If "abrogation" is understood in its terminological sense, Muslims should not deal with Dhimmi's but in a good and decent manner.

In order to avoid RS pretext, it can be modified in this way:

Allameh Tabatabaei in Tafsir al-Mizan commenting on a tradition that the above verse has "abrogated" other verses asking for good behaviour toward Dhimmi's, states that "abrogation" could be either understood in its terminological sense or its literal sense. If "abrogation" is understood in its terminological sense, Muslims should not deal with Dhimmi's but in a good and decent manner.

Thanks --Aminz 10:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Joturner

Thanks for the tip... I definitely wanted to vote support on his RfA. ;-) Netscott 08:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've already seen this, though thank you for forwarding. I think this is a real mistake, and somewhat an indictment of WP, that it's as lopsided (so far) as it is. Joturner is bright and hard-working. These are good. But he is too young to stand in judgement over anyone, a point underscored by recent experience with Sean Black, and admin tasks include this. Would you want teenagers on your jury? Although he does use his real name, a very big plus to credibility in my book. Further, will he take or solicit admin action in Islam-related articles? The second point is very important, because the current system invites favor-trading between admins. Two admins can functionally evade the rules simply by agreeing to block on one another's behalf. It's important to know they won't solicit it, either, as per Anonymous editor.08:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand your desire to let people know about Joturner's RfA Aminz, put please vary your talk page messages to avoid being labelled as a spammer (which is blockable). Netscott 08:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there a problem there? I've already voted, if that's the issue. Regards, Palmiro | Talk 13:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Aminz, I can't

Aminz, I can't be an administrator. I'm too abrupt and short-tempered. Not only that, I've made so many enemies (especially Iranian, Salafi, Shi'a, and Hindutva ones) that my RfA would go down in flames. It would be interesting, in an ugly way, but I'm not up to it now. I appreciate the thought, but I just don't have the temperament required.

How did your exams go? You know, if you want WP to help you in school (which it can), you should be working on engineering-related articles :) Zora 02:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, I can't think of a Persian editor other than you who approves of my edits. Zereshk and ManiF are particularly vociferous. I'm an anti-nationalist and I want that POV included too when I work on Iran-related articles. I have Indian editors angry at me, but I spend less time on South Asian articles. Oh yes, I have one American angry at me too, he thinks I should leave the US, since I'm not a loyal patriotic American :) No one understands. That's the penalty of having off-beat opinions. Zora 02:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Response to your inquiry

I'm sorry but I simply can't accept that. Man shaak daram ke shomaa Irani bashid ama in masleh baram ziaad mohem nist, chizi ke baram mohem hast ineh ke in shakhs sabagheh kheili baadi dareh dar maghalat marboot be Iran vaa Iranian, vaa man be hich onvan namitonam azash hemayat konam. Man kheili baeed midonam ke hich Irani hazar besheh az ishoon hemayat koneh. --ManiF 04:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Man dar topicha Islami ziaad faal nistam, hamnjoor ke shoma dar topicha Irani ziaad faal nisti. Pas bavar kon zamani ke man migam in shakhs sabagheh besiaar baadi dar topicha Irani dareh. --ManiF 05:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Tafsir al-Mizan, Allameh Tabatabaei, verses 2:83-88
2. Tafsir al-Mizan, Allameh Tabatabaei, verses 2:83-88