Misplaced Pages

User talk:RiskAficionado: Difference between revisions

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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:49, 18 October 2006 editArrow740 (talk | contribs)7,908 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 20:02, 18 October 2006 edit undoOpiner (talk | contribs)1,257 edits ResponseNext edit →
Line 171: Line 171:
==Response== ==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) 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)

==Edit summary==

But maybe not since your removing the pictures as VANDALISM? Your edit summary pretend to be only one thing but then look! Funny how its always happening with you.] 20:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:02, 18 October 2006

This is RiskAficionado's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
Archive
Archive
Archive

Hello

Reference: Your message

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. --Bhadani 02:49, 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. TruthSpreader 02:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

How so? If you care to respond put it on my talkpage. Arrow740 03:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad as a diplomat

I'll try to help as much as I can. Cheers and thanks again for such a good article. --Aminz 07:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad's letter to Mukaukis

David Samuel Margoliouth in page 415 (p.365 of the book) of the his book has the image of the discovered letter of Muhammad to Mukaukis (believed by several scholars to be the actual document). David Samuel Margoliouth was a famous orientalist but wrote his book in 1905. I don't know if the pic is copyrighted. --Aminz 01:23, 30 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" --Aminz 01:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Jurji Zaydan died in 1914. God bless him. Can we use his works since he is died? --Aminz 01:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Al-Hilal was a journal itself :( --Aminz 01:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Nectar

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 () 12:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Review updated

Thanks for pointing me that Sealed Nectar is secondary source. I've updated my review. — Indon (reply) — 16:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:

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, --Aminz 08:26, 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. :) --Aminz 01:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Contributions required

Can you please help in improving article on The Quran and science? They will soon delete it if not extended and improved. Thank you. --- ابراهيم 01:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser request

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.Bryant 03:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC), checkuser clerk.

Please insert the code letter as soon as possible. Daniel.Bryant 05:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad as Diplomat RFC

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. --Alecmconroy 16:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Itmaam-i-hujjat

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! TruthSpreader 06:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The Quote

Hi Itaqallah,

I'll provide the quote soon. I know it doesn't take much time, but sorry for being late. --Aminz 20:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Good Job on the talk page of "Muhammad the diplomat" article. --Aminz 20:25, 5 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'll provide the other quote for you soon. --Aminz 08:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I've missed the other paper by Nadia. TruthSpreader might have it. I can also download it tomorrow. Bye for now --Aminz 08:41, 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, --Aminz 00:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sent. --Aminz 00:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've responded to your email. I need to run now. Cheers, --Aminz 01:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

unintentional deletion

Wessam Reda 20:27, 6 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 Reda 20:32, 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.

Wessam Reda 20:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The person's name is FaissalIF!!

Wessam Reda 20:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

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. Arrow740 03:12, 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. --Aminz 12:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Barelwi

Please avoid a revert war Barelwi page.

Siddiqui 21:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for these wonderful edit at The Quran and Islam page . God bless you. Please keep doing some work and I will try to join when I have some time. --- ابراهيم 21:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Help in al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock

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. Almaqdisi 11:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you

--BostonMA 16:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Article

Salaam, What do you think of the article, which I sent you. You reckon, it is worth putting on wikipedia??? TruthSpreader 15:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


Moore article

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. Arrow740 07:03, 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.vakilian 15:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Contact

Alikum Al-Salam, I wonder If there is anyway i can contact you on private? Thank you ColdFire 17:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you get my e-mail yet brother? ColdFire 03:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you --ColdFire 03:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


Thanks

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. Arrow740 07:50, 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?--Thameen 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. Arrow740 18:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary

But maybe not since your removing the pictures as VANDALISM? Your edit summary pretend to be only one thing but then look! Funny how its always happening with you.Opiner 20:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)