Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:54, 13 September 2006

Archives

1 2 3

Acting uncivil in Talk:Council on American-Islamic Relations#Discuss splitting off of criticism

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Netaji 06:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Point out which comment you found to be uncivil. BhaiSaab 15:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"petty excuses to hold a double standard" was not a personal attack. BhaiSaab 15:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was, Janaab.Netaji 00:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

See WP:NPA#Examples. BhaiSaab 00:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Revert war

I will revert your changes to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh tomorrow unless you provide a non-biased reference. HRW has been exposed as anti-Semitic. You might like that, but the civilised world reviles anti-Semitism and all the ensuing bias that comes from it.Netaji 00:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggesting that you are anti-Semitic is not a personal attack. You have explicitly stated that you hate Israel. That is an anti-Semitic statement.Netaji 00:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The anti-Defamation league has produced detailed surveys that point out that most critics of Israel are merely using the superficial distinction of Israel vs Jews as a veil to hide their anti-Semitic hatred. If you criticize Israel, there is a statistical probability of significant value that you have anti-Semitic views, even though you are unaware of it at the conscious level. I suggest that you interact with Jewish groups and educate yourself about anti-Semitism and the evil that it has spawned in the muslim world today. This is for your own good.Netaji 00:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Not arbitrary at all. produced by esteemed scholars.Netaji 00:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Curious

Hi, Bahi Saab. What happened to Timothy Usher and Pecher. Why they have resigned? I am curious. Can you please give some information? Thanks --- Faisal 00:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I got my answer while reading His Excellency arbitration page. --- Faisal 01:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

islam by country

some people are trying to erase the pic i had uploded first they reverted it now i have recieved this message

"Hi. This image you uploaded (Image:Muslims population.gif) says that it is copyright with all rights reserved. The link which is supposed to point to the permission to reproduce the image does not appear to mention anything which gives permission. Could you please identify where it says that the image can reproduced for any purpose, otherwise (especially given the copyright text on the image, and the notices above on this page) I think it may be fair to assume that no permission has been given. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)"

please help!Madman 0014 12:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)User:Madman_0014

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 02:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Citecop

I was unaware of the block though I heard netaji was blocked for some time.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Bakasuprman

i think he is a sockpuppet of Subash_Bose... I have provided evidence here... evidence --Geek1975 09:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Check User

Hello there. Sorry, but only people with checkuser access are allowed to see a contributors IP address, and they are listed here. Thanks, 17:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto for you too=

Stop vandalizing other users' pages. 66.38.180.253 21:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide an example. BhaiSaab 21:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

here: 66.38.180.253 21:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether it's true or not is irrelevant - you were blocked with the reasoning provided by an admin and the notice can be taken down when and if you are unblocked. BhaiSaab 21:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The allegation is totally false and a simple checkuser request can prove that, which you chose not to do. I couldn't care less about being beeing blocked nothwithstanding the fact that the block is completely unfair and shows the total stupidity and arrogance of some admins. However, clearly you have no business to "vandalize" any user's talk page. And if you think you can do that, I reserve the right to do that too. 66.38.180.253 21:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not up to me to perform a checkuser. BhaiSaab 21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Robert Spencer

There is a dispute there. Can you please join the discussion. --Reza1 00:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Help on Robert Spencer

Would you please help me on Robert Spencer. Some editors keep removing sourced material on Robert Spencer. (The controversy section). Thanks. --Reza1 18:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your presense. THANK YOU SO MUCH --Reza1 02:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Subhash bose's talk page

You may want to assume WP:AGF there. Calling him a "liar" violates WP:CIVIL.

As for warnings, yourself and Timothy Usher warned me the same way, and Timothy Usher and Netscott vandalized my posts the same way. I am not calling all three of you socks. Heck, even I warn in a similar way of Netaji. Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not call him a liar. I said I believed him to be lying. Please reread the message and do not misrepresent my statements. BhaiSaab 03:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If you believe he is lying, then you believe him to be a liar, because liars lie. Logically, then you branded him a "liar".Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This argument is non-sequitur. Liars lie, but not everyone who lies is a habitual liar. If you took my statement to be calling him a liar, than you're making your own assumptions there and I can't be blamed if you may think Subhash bose is a liar. BhaiSaab 03:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes but a person who lies is a liar just like a person who swims is a swimmer. Therefore you called him a liar because you said he lies. If a person played basketball during a period of time he would be considered a "Baller" for that period of time, therefore in that time span, you called him a "liar" because you said he "lied". Its not non-sequitur. Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not call him anything. You're making your own inferences. I don't care if you think Subhash bose is a liar. BhaiSaab 18:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I never called him a liar. I see that your arguments have been exhausted and now you are left to try and twist my words.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A tactic that you seem to be quite familiar with. Don't you see the irony? BhaiSaab 00:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Pleas stop the inane squabbling again. "Believing someone to be lying" is a contravention of AGF and is a kind of personal attack. Blnguyen | rant-line 00:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

When someone states that I knowingly made false statements, it's perfectly reasonably to say that I believe they're lying. BhaiSaab 00:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

3rr

You do not get to bloat an article with material without explaining why it is relevant. Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AnneCr (talk • contribs) .

RonCram is trying to restart the wafa sultan debate on my userpage.

I thought you should know. Zazaban 16:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

God vs Allah

I put this on the discussion page but i don't think anyone read it.

Comments on Poll

This seems to have passed. BhaiSaab talk 19:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear friends. Hello. I’m new. Apologies in advance if the formatting gets screwed up somehow (WP needs an Undo button). If I may, I’d like to add an opinion, even though you have closed your poll (does that mean no one will read this?)

I find it a bit sad that Allah can so easily be reduced to God in order to avoid confusion. My points are as follows:

1. If someone types in Allah, Koran/Qur'an, Muhammad, or Islam then what they are looking for is easy to understand information. They want a perspective, an Islamic perspective. I think it is quite common knowledge in the west now that Muslims refer to God by using the name Allah. So therefore, the mere use of this name should not cause too much confusion.

2. If a tribe in the Amazon worships “Wibble” as their supreme deity and the method of worship involves wild orgies and eating sacrificial snakes, then I would be quite confused to read that they were worshiping “God”. A writer could easily say that they believe in one supreme being, thus making “Wibble” equal to “God” (complete with orgies and consumption of snakes). Wouldn’t the use of “God” in this case create equal amounts of confusion? (My Christian mother would probably react with “that’s no God I ever heard of!)

3. A Christian reading the page about an Islamic related issue may develop a wrong perception about Allah as a result of seeing the word God. After reading that Muslims believe in God, the Christian may think/assume that Muslims also worship Jesus (trinity: Jesus is God). I once saw an evangelist explaining how Jesus created the universe before he was born. Most Muslims would take issue with that.

4. As a Muslim, I have been taught that the name Allah predates Islam. I have been taught that Allah was always the name of Almighty God, going right back to the time of Adam. Ahmad Deedat, among others, make note of the similarity between the words Elohim (Hebrew) which can also be spelled Alah (with one L), and the words ilah and Allah (Arabic). (Source: http://www.jamaat.net/name/name3.html). Of specific note is the fact that Alah once turned up in a footnote in one version of the Authorised King James Bible because the authors considered alah, elohim and God to be synonomous. However, this use of alah in the Bible was immediately removed and it was reprinted without the offending word.

Please also consider the following opinion from one scholar: “Elohim, the Hebrew word for God, is derived from the word eloh, which means "god." The im is a plural of abstraction, appended at the end for respect. Allah is also related to the word ilah, which is Arabic for "god." Thus, these three words - eloh, alah, ilah - are etymologically equivalent, just as Deus, Dios, and Dio are equivalent names for God in Latin, Spanish, and Italian respectively. The proto-Semitic root for eloh, alah, and ilah is 'LH, which means "to worship." Therefore, the literal meaning of Elohim, Alaha, and Allah is "the one whom is worshipped."” (Source: Dr. Hesham A. Hassaballa: http://drhassaballa.blogspot.com/2005/05/do-we-worship-same-god.html)

The point is that Allah, while etymologically related to ilah, and eloh may not in itself mean ‘god’ in Arabic, although as noted above it can be interpreted as ‘the one who is worshiped’. It cannot be considered as an exclusively Arabic term, or an exclusively Islamic term. Also, as noted in the discussion points further above, Arabic Bibles (and also Indonesian ones) use the word Allah as being the same as “God”. Allah is not generally translated as anything else by the Muslim scholars that I know because Allah is used as the name of God and not a reference term. Some Muslim scholars, I think primarily those residing in Western countries, do make use of God instead of Allah. (For example see What’s Right With Islam is What’s Right With America, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf – Imam of Masjid Al Farah in New York). In this case, I believe that the use of God instead of Allah is more to do with public acceptance of a book (which will, of course, help sales) than to do with an academic discussion of the difference in meaning between the terms (no disrespect intended to the Imam – this is only my opinion and I could be wrong about it). The quotes from the Qur'an in this book also make use of God only. Allah has disappeared.

While there is considerable debate among scholars over whether Allah is a name or not a name, the point remains that non-Muslims will not be shocked by reading Allah in text relating to Islamic issues. To give them a steady diet of God (see Islamic concept of God) just detracts from the fact that they were keen to learn about what makes Islam tick. They wanted to know what makes Islam Islam. And one of those things is the use of Allah when referring to Almighty God. If some readers then consider that Allah is a different God to the Judeo Christian God, then in my opinion, that is a separate issue and one that should be dealt with separately and more fully in the section “see Islamic concept of God”.

From my perspective as a Muslim, being a Muslim and explaining Islam to others means referring to Allah. And then I explain that Allah and God are one in the same. But Jesus is not synonymous with Allah (unlike the Trinity). I am currently writing a book about Islam in Indonesia and I do make use of God instead of Allah in some sections, but I do so primarily when discussing western concepts of religion. In order to make it clear to the reader that I am referring to western Christian beliefs, then I use God. But when specifically speaking about Islamic issues, I tend to use Allah. Allah for me is synonymous with Islam in the Islamic world and thus should be presented to interested readers as a fundamental part of our faith, not an easily translatable and generic term like masjid/mosque.

My vote (although it’s probably too late) is:

Do not support. Use Allah in the text and in the quotations, because in my opinion, that’s what the reader wants to know about. Any reader who gets confused can exert themselves just a little more and click on “Allah (see Islamic concept of God)”. Kind regards. Hope my comments are useful. Sorry for the length. Iqraboy 17:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Women in Muslim societies

Salaam, I need your help here to alleviate status of women in Islam. Cheers! TruthSpreader 02:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraph for Muhammad

Please join the discussion created for this purpose on the talk page before reverting it any more. There appears to be a distinct difference of opinion occuring, and so the matter should be discussed to form consensus, or the prior consensus pointed out. LinaMishima 18:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin

OK il do that in future - we're going to have difficulty with the article for a while anyway PMA 17:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on September 4 2006 to Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations==

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 48 hours. William M. Connolley 22:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The reverts were way more than 24 hours. The changes were discussed already on Talk:Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations, if you care to look, but CltFn continually reverts against consensus. I've been unblocked by another admin. BhaiSaab 00:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I got the timestamps wrong, so my apologies for the block. However "way more than..." is wrong William M. Connolley 08:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World‎

The statement in the impact section is self supported , if you wanted to challenge the veracity of the list , so I provided a list from goodle scholar. If you want to see a list of books, then I can include them in the article, but that seems like it will bloat things up. You are only wasting everyone's time with these continual reverts.--CltFn 04:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This did use hagarism as a reference and you can even see extracts of what they said on google scholar.--CltFn 04:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Islamic critics

I'm surprised I haven't been complained against yet for deleting something with 60%, so to speak. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 23:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

CltFn

Thanks for your input onto the suspected sock puppet case of CltFn. I have decided to block the account, and so a checkuser is not needed for this case. Thanks anyway, though! Iolakana•T 17:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Kilo-Lima beat me to it. Tom Harrison 18:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Islam

I think this paragraph is very important and it should stay on this site.DAde 18:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I will post a additional verse for every revert you make.There are enough intolerant verses in the Quran.DAde 18:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. BhaiSaab 18:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Hindu and Muslim

Since Christian contains the link Criticism of Christianity and you insist that Hindu contain Criticism of Hinduism I hope you will agree that Muslim should contain Criticism of Islam. While I think that neither article should contain criticism section (because criticism pertains to religion, not people like Muslim, Christian or Hindu), in the interests of equality I am putting the criticism section on Muslim also.Hkelkar 18:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I will remove criticism of Islam link from Muslim article also.Hkelkar 18:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation?

Hi. Thanks for your note. I do not believe that I was committing 3RR violation. Particularly when two users (you and Basawala) were "gaming the system". Under such circumstances I believe I am justified somewhat. If you would like to dicsuss future changes I would be happy to debate with you in the talk page. Please don;t become hostile like Basawala.Hkelkar 21:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Types of Bismillah Halal

Hello there! I respect your deletion of one of the types of bismillah halal, but would also like to mention that I believe that there are people who do follow that type of bismillah halal. Is there any way we can compromise here? Thanks.Starwarp2k2 00:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If I could find a source, I would have done so long ago. And yes, adherents to the philisophy of "anything becomes halal after saying bismillah" theoretically do not exclude neither pork nor alcohol. My suggested compromise is to include it in the article, but also to include an unsourced tag.Starwarp2k2 17:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you want a source and so do I, but therein lies the problem. I know the philosophy exists but cannot find any valid source to accompany my assertion. Thus I proposed the unsourced tag. Why not let it serve it's function?Starwarp2k2 02:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Rather than deeming it as an insignificant opinion, can't that also mean that the topic of "halal" has not been turned into a science yet, and few if any scholars have tried to summarize "halal" because of the multitude of its definitions as well as the divisions it has caused among the people who adhere to any form of it? I keep repeating it, but wasn't this the very reason that the "unsourced" tag was created?Starwarp2k2 03:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Then this should suffice?Starwarp2k2 03:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No hard feelings?Starwarp2k2 03:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:

tell me why its not civil. I'm not reading through WP:CIVIl just to incriminate myself.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm keeping it on until each of the users apologize to me for their actions per WP:CIVIL.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Since I havent ran into you for a long time Ill tell you theyre mostly dealing with comments made against me by Dbachmann and TerryJ-Ho. Status quo is good because nobody reads those anyways, and if I moved it to a user subpage, another Fundywatch would happen. I'd rather we keep out of each others business and let the status quo stay. It was better when we were ignoring each other.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar is way more civil than Subhash_bose. In the last month Subhash has been blocked more than than he has been on normal activity. Hkelkar has never been blocked.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You're giving him too much credit.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Has Hkelkar used "Nein Mein Freund" anytime? Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Check this out . As well as the subjects of this user . So they not only are from the same country and studying in the same Univ, they even have the same subjects. Haphar 07:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

re: shahadah in Islam article

السلام عليكم

as far as i am aware, you added a cite for the current translation of the shahadah, specifically "ilah". would you endorse a change from "no god" to "none worthy of worship" as per the following sources (seemingly uses it interchangably, though the proposed change more frequently), ,  ? one could also do a yahoo search for other places which may render it in this way. also, lane's lexicon may be relevant here , . thanks. ITAQALLAH 00:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)