Misplaced Pages

User talk:Salman01

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grenavitar (talk | contribs) at 22:46, 30 June 2006 (→[]: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:46, 30 June 2006 by Grenavitar (talk | contribs) (→[]: comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hello, Salman01, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Dr Debug (Talk) 22:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Salam!

I gues you are a Shi'a and new to Misplaced Pages. Welcome!

We have some ground rules here in Misplaced Pages, and neutrality is one of them. That means that we cant write (as) or (saw) after our Prophet, as you did in the battle of Khaybar article.

But dont let that intimidate you, every single Shi'a editor is needed!

Here in Misplaced Pages, every single line is a strugle, a strugle to write something that everybody can agree on, and that take some time to master. I welcome your effort to do that!

If you want to write me something, do it here. And also, take a look at this:

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild

Your brother in Islam, --Striver 23:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Karbala

The Battle of Karbala article needs to be split into two parts: first, the battle as described by the early historians, and later, by academic historians. Second, the battle as embroidered and mythologized by Shi'a Muslims. Salman, your edits belong in the second section. You are giving only the Shi'a POV. But this is a secular encyclopedia! We can't assert Shi'a belief as fact.

I'll try to go split the article right now. Zora 00:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Salman, we can't let that list stand. It is full of explicitly Shi'a religious language. If you want to praise those people, make sure that each one had an article, and then we'll give what is known about that person (in NEUTRAL fashion) and then perhaps add a para on the Shi'a view of that person. Look at other encyclopedias, like the Encyclopedia Britannica. Do they have that sort of language? No. It is not encyclopedic. Zora 04:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Khalid ibn al-Walid

Salman, why don't you check out Khalid ibn al-Walid and see how they're whitewashing Abu Bakr's enforcer?Timothy Usher 04:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sakina=

Salman, wondering why there is NPOV tag. Also, you should probably state the source of your material -it looks very much like it was only a little changed from the linked website, so you could be accused of plagiarism is you do not state that most material is from this site. (I know it is not 'exact', but in some places, that would be close enough to call it 'copying') WP:CITET is helpful for how to do this. The other thing, it is very hard right now to tell if it is a history or just a story. If you look at some other biographies, Abbas_ibn_Ali for example, and break up your article that way, it will start to look more like biography than story. (that will also help make it look less like the website) Not criticizing; just some hints to help improve the page & prevent someone from jumping on it like is often the case with islamic related things here - I noticed you had asked for some comments/help like this. Bridesmill 20:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Husayn ibn Ali

Salman, you changed the spelling of the name. I think that Husayn is preferred by people working with Arabic, and Hussein by people working with Persian original sources. However, since Husayn was an Arab, it makes sense to use the transliteration from the Arabic. That is the form of the name that is used in the academic sources I consult. Husayn can come first, Hussein can be the alternate. Yes? As long as people can find it.

You were also using emotive and honorific language: calling Husayn "Imam Husssein", Muhammad "Prophet Muhammad", changing "killed" to "martyred", among other changes. That is the language they use in Shi'a religious texts, but it is just not appropriate for a secular encyclopedia that is used by non-Muslims, for the most part, and if by Muslims, generally Sunni Muslims. You shouldn't use language that makes readers feel uncomfortable.
Please read some academic histories of Islam and see how regular historians write. Jonathan Berkey's The Formation of Islam is a good introductory text, with lots of references for further reading. This will also make you a better informed Muslim! Zora 02:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Salman, there are millions of us who do NOT believe that he was a martyr. You cannot turn the article in Shi'a propaganda. Zora 02:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom case

Hi, if you have any concerns, see here please , and participate by submitting your evidence (only), in a civil manner, and in a different section; if you feel appropriate. Thank youZmmz 04:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, not me

Salman; I have not touched your Sakina page; check the history and you will see this. I mentioned on the talk page that I didn't think it deserved a copyvio without some discussion first, (read above) and I mentioned to striver that it had been tagged with a copyvio. I'm trying to be helpful, not screw you around - if you read what I wrote and check the history of the page, that should be obvious. You should also note there is a page Sakina bint Husayn, I'm thinking they should probably link ot each other? Bridesmill 23:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, not a prob my man - I know how easy it is to get real torqued when that kind of stuff happens....Bridesmill 03:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sakina bint Hussain

First, please learn how to talk to other people; reserve "bro" for your real-life buddies. Secodnly, please read WP:NPOV before contributing and understand that not every editor and reader is Shi'a. If you wish to insert pious terminology like "bibi" or "martyred", please confine such edits to the "Shi'a views" section. Pecher 20:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Salman; 'killed' includes martyred - like everyone who is martyred is also killed; but not the other way around - easy solution here is to say he was killed, and to say also in the Shi'a section that "Shi'a consider him to be a martyr". It's a value judgement to say his is a martyr - not everyone believes it. But it is also important that people realize that to Shi'a, he is a martyr.Bridesmill 21:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I know the difference; but they are related - like being killed, put to death - this happens whether it is for a cause or martyrdom or not. Martyrdom 'adds' to the significance of that death. Either way you are dead - it is just that as a martyr your death means something different and spiritually the reward is different, in that there is diffrent honour and potentially faith involved, and the respect that is due to you by those still living is different. But either way you are dead. And the problem is, as a rule, the people who put you to death don't agree that you are a martyr, and often others who had nothing to do with the conflict don't know or don't agree either. So we can have revert wars forever, or find a way of expressing a truth everyone can agree to - he died, and add the truth that Shi'a agree to - he is shaheed in the eyes of Shi'a. It is not possible to argue that in the eyes of Shi'a he is shaheed - and being able to say that without having to get into a revert war means allowing others to understand Shi'a better. Wiki is about teaching, not forcing people to agree or believe. Let me try something with the text. And I am not Muslim, by the way. Why I am here is, I suppose, a long story. Bridesmill 02:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Salman; I understand what you are saying - but this causes a revert war that will never stop. Those who are not Shi'a and do not believe he was martyred, can point at the physical body of a martyr and say they are physically, medically dead. Yes, alive spiritually (at least in the eyes of Shi'a) and therefore not 'totally' dead - but there is still a physically medically dead body left behind. Therefore to say they are not dead may be correct in the spiritual sense, but physically, medically is just not accurate. You cannot force others to believe everything you believe - this is what causes conflicts. You can only say what is universal - in this case, there is a medically dead body that meets the physical prerequisites for a doctor to declare them 'dead' and someone to collect the insurance. Then you can say that you believe them to be martyr and therefore have a different status. But there must be a common ground that can be found.Bridesmill 17:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes; Salman - but within the piece it must still refer to every piece of Shi'a belief as 'According to Shi'a' or something of that nature. To say 'this is the way it is' only invites disbelief, and people perceiving that it is all nothing but propaganda - WP is about teaching and explaining, it is not about 'the Shi'a way or the highway' - if people want that there are many websites they can go to; what is here must be presented ina balanced and neutral way - not denying your belief, but allowing others to learn rather than be forced to agree. The problem is, there are others who are martyrs to their people - and when they put up an article and say 'so-and-so was martyred', the only argument there can be is a bunch of people saying 'my guy was martyred, yours was killed' 'prove it' 'it is so' 'says who?' 'my imam/priest/rabbi, this hadith or that hadith' 'ah, but ours is right and yours is wrong'. There is no conclusion to that - one can only explain a belief, not just say 'it is so and if you don't like it go away' As long as people talk and discuss, I am certain that a way can be found without needing to betray any belief (I just tried another version - have a look and say what you think). I thank you for discussing these things; Salaam, Bridesmill 22:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Salman, I am not arguing with what the Holy Quran says, and I have read Baqarah more than a few times; but this is spiritual - not physical. have you seen a martyr? Believe me, they have every physical attribute of any other dead body. So unless you know how they died, and agree that they died defending truth, only Allah can determine if they are a martyr or someone who is just killed. There is no disrespect in using the terms 'killed' and 'dead' as long as the acknowledgement is made that this person is considered a martyr (look at Martyr here, or ]). Perhaps the Martyr piece needs to be expanded a little to explain better the Musilm understanding, and wikilink the word 'martyr' on the Sakina page so that people will go and learn. I am confused that you want to push a very not WP:NPOV and not WP:V here - you say 'Every Shi'a', or 'Every Muslim', but this is not the encyclopedia for Muslims - it is for everybody. So if as a devout Muslim you want others to understand Islam, here is the place to do it in a scholarly way, not just to say 'this is the way it is and if you don't like it, tough' - that only angers people and does not convince anyone of what Islam really means.Bridesmill 17:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Shahrbanu

All three quotes said that the story of Shahrbanu was a LEGEND. As in myth. As in "NOT TRUE." You aren't reading well, Salman. The existence of Shahrbanu is also not demonstrated, but I'm going to have to find that Iranica article again. They use a strange spelling. That article said that early texts do not mention this woman, and that she is an invention of later ages. Zora 18:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, found it. You have to go to the main page of Iranica and type Shahrbanu into the search box. Then you get the article on ˆAHRBAÚNU. The article says:
Genesis and development of the legend of ˆahrba@nu. According to the oldest sources that have come down to us, the historic mother of the fourth Imam was not much of a princess. Ebn Sa¿d (d. 844-45) and Ebn Qotayba (d. 889) describe her as a slave, originally from Sindh, called GÚaza@la and/or Sola@fa (Ebn Sa¿d V, p. 211; Ebn Qotayba, pp. 214-15). Neither do any of the scholars of ancient history that have chronicled, at times with great attention to detail, the invasion of Persia by Muslim troops and the fate of the last Sasanian sovereign and her family, establish any relationship between the wife of Imam Háosayn and one of the daughters of Yazdgerd III (Bala@dòori 1866, pp. 262 ff.; idem 1974, pp. 102-103 and 146; Táabari I, 1879-1901, p. 2887 = Táabari IV 1960, p. 302; Ebn ¿Abd Rabbeh III, pp. 103 ff.). The same is true for a wide range of sources and authors quite different from each other, such as Keta@b al-k¨araj by the Hanafite judge Abu Yusof (d. 798) and the ˆa@h-na@ma of the pro-Shi¿ite Ferdowsi (q.v., d. 1019) both of whom, though surely for very different reasons, took an interest in the destiny of the last king of Sasanian Persia and his descendants (Abu Yusof, p. 30; Ferdowsi IX, pp. 358 ff.).
In his al-Ka@mel, the philologist Mobarrad (d. 900) seems to have been one of the very first to state that Sola@fa, the mother of ¿Ali Zayn al-¿AÚbedin, was the daughter of Yazdgerd. He strongly emphasises the nobility of the woman and, in general, the grandeur of the Persians (Mobarrad II, pp. 645-66). However, his contemporary, Abu Háanifa Dinavari (d. ca. 895) only casts the daughter of "Kesra@" as a captive in the presence of ¿Ali, during his caliphate (656-61), refusing the latter's offer to marry his elder son Háasan. The account does not even mention Imam Háosayn. ¿Ali thus liberates the princess, granting her total freedom (Dinavari, p. 163). The nobility and pride of the Persian princess as well as her complicity with ¿Ali are henceforth to become quite regular themes of the account in its different versions as it develops. During the same period, the chronicler Ya¿qubi (d. 904) and the heresiographers Háasan b. Musa@ Nowbakòti and Sa¿d b. ¿Abd-Alla@h (both d. ca. 912-13) are among the first Shi¿ites to allude in passing to the fact that the mother of Imam Zayn al-¿AÚbedin was the daughter of the last Sasanian king (Ya¿qubi II, pp. 246-47 and 303; Nowbakòti, p. 53; Aæ¿ari, p. 70). In the second half of the 9th century, Sáaffa@r Qomi (d. 902-903) delivers a long and detailed version of the account, containing especially striking details, in the form of a Hadith or saying attributed to the fifth Imam Moháammad Ba@qer: under the second caliph 'Omar (r. 634-44), the daughter of the last Sasanian king is brought captive to Medina. Light radiating from the visage of the princess illuminates the Prophet's mosque where the caliph presides. An invocation in Persian by the Princess provokes the ruler's temper. ¿Ali intervenes in favour of the young princess and makes it clear to 'Omar that events unfolding are beyond his understanding and that he should step aside. ¿Ali then authorises the princess, with whom he speaks in Persian, to freely choose her husband. The chosen one is Háosayn to whom ¿Ali announces the good news that the young woman will be the mother of his child, i.e. the next Imam (Sáaffa@r, p. 335, no. 8). Sáaffa@r's account contains some noteworthy details: it is the first time that the account is presented in the form of an Imam's Hadith, thus rendering it a sacred quality. It will subsequently become the first account in which the Persian princess is called ˆahrba@nu (and also Jaha@næa@h, literally, "king of the world").

Salman, that's an Iranian scholar showing clearly how the myth developed.

We don't have to present that as the TRUTH; we can say that Shi'a believe differently. But it is very clear, from that article and from the cites I gave, that academics regard Shahrbanu as a legend and not a fact. Please stop trying erase that POV. Zora 19:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes i know

It can be quite enervating to edit here, and some appreciation is always needed. But just be patient, i think you are doing a good job and will probably become much better. That is the good thing with wikipedia, you allways learn more about what you are editing, and you also become a better editor! I was a really horrible editor in the beginingg, i coul'nt spell and i didn't know the rules. You are having a much better start than i had :) Peace! --Striver 23:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Salman, regarding Umm-e-Salama. When a article of that lenght with that many contributors exist, most people prefere it to be moved after a consensus for doing so is achieved in its talk pagem, and not simply redirecting. Redirecting makes the article history go away, and that is bad. Also, it is my experience that one needs to heavily re-write texts in order to avoid somone comlplaining about copyvio, even if they are not. Thirdly and lastly, i try to make the "See also" sections a bit more denomination-neutral. I hope it helps, peace! --Striver 08:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

A Mistake

Salam. I'm a Shiite and I guess there is a big mistake in Fatima Zahra. There is written "According to Shi'a Muslims, Fatima Zahra binte Mohammed was Islamic Prophet Muhammad's only daughter" . I looked for a reference for it, but I can't find anything in Persian document. Please correct it.--Sa.vakilian 10:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear my friend, I live in Iran and most of us are shiite. I told you that I looked for it in persian documents which are written by shiite but I can't find any reliable refrence. If you could read Persian I whould put their linls here.--Sa.vakilian 02:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask from Rasool Jafarian and tell you the result.--Sa.vakilian 10:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Salam!

Salman, is "binte" really a better tranliteration than "bint"? If yes, why? --Striver 11:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Salam bro :) Yes, you where right! I asked my father, and he supported what you said. I just learned a bit more Arabic grammar :) --Striver 19:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Abu Talib

Salman, reagarding this, dont you agree that it is better to use "-" instead of " " in names, that is "Abu-Talib" rather than "Abu Talib", so that non-enlish people better see that it is a single name? --Striver 15:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, i hope you are in the best health as well!. Well, regarding the name, i argue that it is better to try to focus on "x ibn y". When someone has a first name that goes "a b c ibn x y z", its makes it harder. For example, "Abd al Mutalib ibn Abd al Uzzah". Its very hard for a westerner to get that. Its beter to have that as "a-b-c ibn z-y-z", as in "Abd-al-Mutalib ibn Abd-al-Uzzah". Its still the correct tranliteration, but it makes it easier to read for western eyes. Peace. --Striver 20:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, you corrected me with regards to "binte" being more correct, and im greatfull to you for that, but unfortunatly, i dont agree with you on this issue. Lets just Agree to disagree. Peace.--Striver 22:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Qasim ibn Hassan

You submitted a lot of material to that article which is the same as from http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=28682 There is no reason to believe the material isn't copyrighted (much less neutral)... please be careful and don't add such material to articles.

Also, It is quite neat that you speak Urdu. :O gren グレン 22:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, you shouldn't move everything from bint to binte without discussion! I have always found bint to be much more common. gren グレン 22:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
You are also putting images as copyrighted book covers when there is no evidence that they are book covers and you are not using them to illustrate books (which is the whole reasoning for fair use). Image:Battle.gif, Image:Battlefield.jpg, Image:Khundaq1.jpg are all examples of that. You also have some labelled as public domain even though the site claims copyrights. You should brush up on some of the guidelines... if you hav any questions, ask... but, please and remember to talk about your moves and edits and don't just do them arbitrarily. gren グレン 22:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


Sorry, I am going to revert a lot of your additions. Many are copyright violations and moves without consensus. I know you are a new editor and I am sorry... but please refrain from moving any pages without consensus or adding large amounts of material. Adding material is 1) a copyright violation 2) doesn't adhere to Misplaced Pages neutrality policies 3) is not academic material 4) is not formatted. All of these things mean that users have to spend enormous amounts of time fixing up articles that were previously fine and risking copyright action. Your last edit I've seen is "17:18, 30 June 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Striver" and anything prior to that we can safely assume that you didn't know the rules. But, please learn because it is disruptive. It can be difficult to learn Misplaced Pages process at the beginning... so, feel free to ask any questions... just don't continue doing any of that. Thanks. gren グレン 22:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)