Wikipedia

Talk:List of former Muslims/Archive 1

< Talk:List of former Muslims
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Bookku in topic Requesting help in article expansion

For anyone who thinks this page should be Deleted, read this

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Undoubtedly, there will be many "people" or a group of people who will panic and want this page deleted as soon as possible. Now, List of converts to Islam already exists and so this is a list created just like that list, of Notable people who have left Islam. Now relax, spare yourself the trouble and dont nominate it for deletion because it wont be deleted. Thank you. --Matt57 06:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

As noted on Category_talk:Former_Muslims: ... one possible reason for concern might be that renouncing Islam is a death-penalty offense under Islamic law, and that people have had fatwa death penalties declared against them, or have actually been killed, for statements or actions deemed "disrespectful" to Islam. Under these circumstances, putting this category on such a prominent website might well be seen as increasing the risk of death for those listed on it. The same is not true for a category of converts to Islam. I make this comment not in advocacy but as a possible answer to your question. -- SAJordan 07:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I knew people would somehow try to get this page deleted. Now, people only from your group will want this page deleted. The fact is, these people who have left Islam are already out there. People already know about their apostacy. Someone tried to get the Category deleted and it wasnt deleted. See you there on the CFD page.--Matt57 14:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
What "your group" do you attribute to me? And why do you allege that I "will want this page deleted"? You asked why people were concerned about this topic, and I undertook to answer your question — not in advocacy, as I said above. -- SAJordan 19:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Followup: after posting the above, I went to the deletion vote page where you eloquently and persuasively argued that other lists should also be deleted. You've convinced me. So I've just joined "your group" favoring deletion. Congratulations! -- SAJordan 20:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
So let me ask you: Whats wrong with List of converts to Islam? Why do you think it should be deleted? lol. I only said that IF this page is deleted, THEN so should be the others. I'm not saying that these pages should be deleted, period. I'm only arguing for a fair treatment. Now, I think these pages should exist by all means - just like the public thinks on that Voting page. --Matt57 14:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
It was the point at which you said — ... I will request the deletion of other lists as well such as List of Muslims, and its many Sub Lists which are linked on that page. If somehow List of Muslims page is also not deleted, I'll take this matter up to Arb Com. — that convinced me. "Fair treatment", after all. -- SAJordan 15:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair treatment aside, you're not telling me why you think its OK to delete List of Muslims or List of converts to Islam.--Matt57 15:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

If possible, can you give a short 1-2 sentence explaination on why or when these people converted, or who they are.--Sefringle 22:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It also must be sourced to assure we're not "outing" people.--T. Anthony 12:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we need to improve this article and display information in a better way. First by profession, then an alphabetical list and then more if possible. Tabulating and pictures would be nice if possible. Infact, right now I can think of a picture of Nonie Darwish, she has one on her page. Pictures will make this page look nice. We have to improve this page fast because the "others" (you know who) will want to get it deleted. The "Former Muslims" category was a target of Deletion as well. --Matt57 14:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I got Nonie's picture in. You guys, bring in more pictures too. There's a great Shoebat picture on the internet for which I've asked permission. See how nice the page looks with pictures? And this is very important for this page considering how dangerous it is to convert out of Islam. I think it would be pertinent to note at the top of the page that converting from Islam is a death penalty by Sharia law (or hadith etc). I'll see what I can do sometime. Meanwhile, please make some more improvements. --Matt57 14:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

List orders

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Since this is a list, it should be a list by:

  • Alphaphabetical order
  • Profession
  • Country of Origin

It would be nice if we can have a table which can sort on a click. I wonder if thats possible here. --Matt57 16:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I added some annotation in a few places, this is acceptable or even desirable, and also more sections. I'll try to alphabetize the sections a bit better here soon. A table is neat, but also a lot of work. Sorry to tell you I'm not committed/interest enough in this article to do that, but good luck.--T. Anthony 16:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the sections. I hope others join in as well. I can handle making the table if you tell me what we should put there.--Matt57 04:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It depends on what you want to do with a table. In a list like this I think a section on their current religious status is a natural. For example what they converted to or if they're now secular-humanists or atheists. In cases where it's not clear, including those where they're uncertain for themselves, you can put "uncertain" or "undefined." A section for sources is also a good idea as it reduces the chances of listing people who don't want to be listed. Other stuff, like a section for pictures and such, depends on how much you want to do. Most of the lists at Wikipedia:Featured lists#Religion and beliefs are tabled and can give you a sense of how to do it.--T. Anthony 05:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

relevance?

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

what is the reason for having a "list of people who left Islam"? did they leave Islam because of Islam? or did they convert to X because of X? where is the precedence for having "list of people who left X"? simply, if an ex-Christian converts to Islam, he is placed in the "List of converts to Islam" and not duplicated in the "list of people who left Christianity", and neither is any other convert duplicated in "list of people who left Hinduism", "list of people who left Athiesm". who says they converted to another thought through negating their own? ITAQALLAH 04:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Your query has been answered now on the AFD. The list is here to stay. It will be back on the project's page as well. I hope that makes you happy. --Matt57 06:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ali Sina is notable with respect to Islam articles (but not Pokemon articles).

Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

The following text is suggested and is being removed usually by saying he is non-notable and non-existant.

This is wrong as with respect to apostacy and Islam he is very relevant. Pseudonymity is no grounds for rejection as there is precedent that Apostacy in Islam can have inhumane consequences. Obviously what Ali Sina thinks of Pokemon is not notable as he hasn't commented on it before. I suggest we reword to,

as that removes the wikilink around his name. Ttiotsw 04:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

my main concern was that "Ali Sina (Pseudonym)" by itself probably wasn't worthy of mention: the list is for those who reach the level of notability required for biographical articles. mentioning FFI along with it, which is notable, complicates matters slightly. regardless, Ibn Warraq's book on its own is not an establishment of notability at all. despite the fact that the pubication is not something i would call "independant", there are dozens of other personalities who give their "testimonies" in that book who are dreadfully non-notable, such as "Kamran Mirza" (not the other Kamran Mirza), "Azam Kamguian", "Faizal Muhammad", some people only known by their first names such as "Nadia", "Faiza", and another simply referred to as "A Malaysian ex-Muslim". therefore, it cannot be argued that mention in this book alone grants a non-notable figure the right to be mentioned in a list about notable ex-Muslims. ITAQALLAH 15:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

A Pseudonym can not a be an entry if i create a book that becomes notable were i say i was a ex-Jew, do i get there? A anonymous person saying he is ex-something can not be takes as a RS. Were is his proof? Its a good gimic to claim being a ex-Muslim, it will sell you more books, but i see no evidence. --Striver - talk 15:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that this is a pseudonym, is there verfiable sources to show that the person in question was once a Muslim? --BostonMA talk 16:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The notability of Sina and his Faith Freedom International organization was recently established during an AfD debate. If we require that the person should provide us with his or her picture, home address and what not, then Sina is not the only apostate that should be removed from the list. Fact, however, is that we got no reason to doubt his claim that he an Iranian and a former Muslim, and as long as that is the case he's an ex-Muslim because he says he is an ex-Muslim. -- Karl Meier 16:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
the notability of FFI was established (apparently) in the previous AfD(s). not so for Sina, however. ITAQALLAH 17:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
His claim to be a former Muslim may or may not be true. Whether we choose to doubt him is beside the point. Assertions in Wikipedia require reliable sources. In this case, our source is anonymous. The notability of Sina and Faith Freedom Internation does not imply that Sina is a reliable source. --BostonMA talk 17:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not Ali Sina is a reliable source doesn't matter when we are going to determine if he is notable enough to be mentioned on this list. That is an entirely different question. However, what does indeed matter is the fact that the organization that he founded and is still the most important person behind has been determined to be notable in a recent AfD debate. Another thing that matters that he has personally attracted a fair amount of media attention, and has been mentioned in several articles outside FFI. You can find the links to these articles in the external links section in the Faith Freedom International article. -- Karl Meier 22:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"Ali Sina" should be kept. Arrow740 00:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is to not support a particular view but to be an encyclopedia and present a consensus view on a particular subject. The reasons for excluding someone from one from this list if they are living is through the guidelines of WP:LIVING as it is describing someone (and with Muslims in some countries this can be a very grave and dangerous situation). The basis of notability on this page need not make them notable for their own article but inclusion here is on two grounds,
  • if they are notable enough for their own page on Wikipedia or,
  • if they are notable with respect to the subject on hand, namely apostacy or leaving Islam.
Notability guidelines in Wikipedia is quite clear on this. That Ali Sina (as a nome de plume) has contributed to a book from a notable source, namely Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out and it would seem clear that the word "leaving" and "Islam" to the man in the street means that the author supports or is happy to be associated with the concept of being in the catagory of being a "former Muslim" mean it does not fail WP:LIVING. It passes reliable sources (namely the scope of the book), and the notability in this subject area. We do not need to know the persons name. All we are adding is the name "Ali Sina" i.e. we need not verify his birth certificate but use the authorship of contributions under that name as a reliable source. The catagory does not state that notability must be outside of the field of apostacy only thus someone notable because they are the subject of this catagory itself i.e. it is self-referential to the catagory is still grounds for inclusion. For an alternative view a person who was a self-described atheist if they then contributed to a book on say Christianity and that was their main contribution they would be included in the list of former atheists and I would be quite happy to include them on that ground. Until the catagory description specifically excludes on the grounds on notability solely on this subject of apostacy it is not clear that Ali Sina can be excluded.
My reason for including such a long entry was because so many people have tried to remove the entry without adding comments. I'me happy to cull the text down to say,
Ali Sina (Pseudonym), well-known for being an online critic of Islam who has contributed to a book by Ibn Warraq called Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out.
As that removes the Faith Freedom International reference as that is ancillary to the person (the article is not a list of former Muslim web sites). Ttiotsw 05:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This article should be renamed to List of ex-Muslims

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Because we have other lists like:

So for consistency, we should have this renamed to: List of ex-Muslims. --Matt57 20:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree it would be a better name. Ttiotsw 05:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I decided to be bold and moved the page to List of former Muslims. My reason for choosing former over ex was to maintain consistency with Category:Former Muslims. GabrielF 06:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Support I don't have much opinion on the issue, but it is more consistent to do it that way. Though if you want to move it, it might be a good idea to nominate it at Wikipedia:Requested moves.--Sefringle 03:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

In some respects I think "former" sounds better and would almost favor switching the others to "former." Either way having this as "former" rather than "ex" seems to be only a slight difference, not worth troubling about.--T. Anthony 08:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll take back my previous suggestion and agree, lets keep it as it is since the other lists also follow the "Former ___" format. Actually that was a suggestion at a time the list had the name "List of people who left Islam". --Matt57 14:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Statistics

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

For consistency with the List of converts to Islam article, we should include some statistics on the number of former muslims.--Sefringle 07:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. You mean a number of apostates in the list? Not getting it, or perhaps your question is not valid anymore, the article may have changed. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah your right, I'll remove it (unless it is restored on the other article)--Sefringle 23:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll store it below for now --Sefringle 23:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Statistics blcokquote

It is estimated that there are as many as 200,000 former Muslims live in the United Kingdom.[1] Additionally, Ahmad Al-Katani suggests in an interview on Aljazeera that in Africa, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity every year.[2] Furthermore, although there are former Muslims in the Middle East, there are currently no definitive figures available as former Muslims are usually persecuted in this region (and may keep their conversion hidden from society), and therefore can not be reliably numbered.[3]

--Sefringle 23:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

New entry

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Please include the gentleman Daveed Gartenstein-Ross into the list of former Muslims. His website and book especially bare testimony to his apostasy. He has articles published as well. I simply am too busy for wikipedia, at the present moment. Thank-you, ladies. :0) Usedbook 05:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is notability. We can't include him if he is not notable, and the way we were figuring out who is notable is who has an article about them on wikipedia. If he is notable, please find some secondary sources that mention him, and create an article about him, but if not, we cannot include him in this list.--Sefringle 08:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems he is notable. I'll see about creating an article about him.--Sefringle 08:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Akbar

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Akbar was always a Muslim. Can someone provide the exact quote from the source cited that suggests that he renounced Islam? I haven't removed the source, just asking for a clarification.Bless sins 17:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing you mean the Akbar who founded Din-i-Ilahi. He did create this religion and there's reason to believe he was, possibly, one of the only adherents of it. Still I have heard people claim that he saw "Din-i-ilahi" as complementary/containing Islam and if so that might complicate things. By adding some additional syncretic belief system to a position as a Muslim ruler did he become non-Muslim or not? I don't have an answer.--T. Anthony 05:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Bless Sins recent edits

Latest comment: 17 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion

Why did you remove Carlos Menem? The source[1] clearly says he converted to catholism from Islam. --Sefringle 19:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you specify the exact quote that says so? Thanks.Bless sins 22:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

read the first paragraph of the article:

Dr. Carlos Saul Menem was born to Mohibe Akil and Saul Menem, two immigrants who settled in the province of La Rioja, Republica Argentina, in Anillaco on July 2, 1930. He was born to a Muslim family who allowed him to follow the catholic faith

--Sefringle 03:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, his parents were Muslim, but they allowed him to practic Catholocism. Presumably, he was never a Muslim.Bless sins 17:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, do you have a reliable source that Ali Sina has converted from Islam?Bless sins 22:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"Apostate", meaning One who has abandoned one's religious faith, a political party, one's principles, or a cause, a person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle. Ali Sina is a contributor to a book called "Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out" which is published by a notable publisher ( Prometheus Books ) and a notable author Ibn Warraq. On balance the source is thus reliable. Ttiotsw 23:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
BlessSins - why did you remove Anwar Sheikh? How is Ibn Warraq not a RS? If you want, I can bring multiple sources for his apostasy. In fact he was a famous apostate and his material should be mentioned in Wikipedia. He got the death sentence from 14 Islamic clerics in Pakistan. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The question is how is Ibn Warraq a reliable source? Pleaase bring your "multiple (hopefully reliable) sources", I'd like to see them.Bless sins 17:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Ibn Warraq is not a RS? Come on now. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. WP:RS. Why do you think he's not reliable? And you know there are more than multiple sources confirming the apostasy of Anwar Shaikh. We can put those in too.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's the ref information for Anwar Shaikh. I have the book with me: Page 285-292. Accoring to the last page, he calls himself a "liberal humanist" though, not a hindu. We can also create a new section on his own page "Views on Islam" from his testimony on this book. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
And here's the ref for Ali Sina's testimony: Page. 137-157, same book. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
"their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy". What makes you say that Warraq is trustworthy?Bless sins 18:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you serious about questioning Ibn Warraq's status of RS? Ok, for one, he's listed in List of Islamic studies scholars. I now feel like expanding that Anwar Sheikh article. Could you also provide a defense of your removal of the 2 Indian converts to hinduism? What makes you think he's not trustworthy? You know the law in the US - "innocent until proven guilty". Prove then that Warraq is not trustworthy. Unless and until you do so, he's an RS. By the way here's another source for Anwar's apostasy of Islam, mentioned on his article right now [2] --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Puh-lease. I already had a debate with you over whether Ali Sina is a RS. (A debate in which you said that Ali Sina's comments, that Muslims are bullies and have no dignity and honour, are true). It is up to you to show how Warraq is a RS.Bless sins 00:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
If thats the way you want to go then, fine. I added multiple refs now for Ali Sina and Anwar Sheikh. See, all this only resulted in the article being improved. And what makes you think Ibn Warraq is not trustworthy? RS says: "their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy". And Ali Sina being a RS is not an issue right now, and its irrelevant to mention this. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ali Sina is notable

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Sorry, I confirmed the edit before giving a summary. Here's the thing: Ali is notable. He has his own redirect here. Any questions? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Tell me then where is his own article? If he was notable, then there would be one. --MomoShomo 01:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Here it is: Ali Sina. If he wasnt notable, he would have his own redirect. Plus, have you read the talk page of Ali Sina? Ali has been covered by multiple sources included Asia Times. That makes him notable. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Minor amounts of coverage in obscure online-only news sources does not make one notable. The only exception to this is the Worldnetdaily article. If he was notable, he would have his own article, not just a redirect. That is quite simple really.--MomoShomo 01:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
His notability is proved on the link I gave you. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. MomoShomo 01:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I told you to continue the debate on the link I gave. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Qualifications for inclusion on lists such as this

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have recently started a thread at Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity#Qualifications for inclusion of "List of former (x)s" in which I am hoping we can standardize the qualifications for inclusion in such lists. Any constructive comments would be more than welcome. John Carter 14:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Nazarbayev

Why Nazarbayev is former Muslim, if page quoted as source clearly states: ”the president moved from being a professed atheist to proudly proclaiming his Muslim heritage”?

Problems with User:Number1KufiSlapper's edits

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
  • Abo of Tiflis - the only page where this person is cited in this book is page 50, which says nothing of any conversion.
  • Taslima Nasrin - the cited page says nothing of a conversion.
  • Kuldeep Manak - the cited page says nothing of a conversion.
  • Nafisa Ali - the cited page says nothing of a conversion and never states that she was Muslim.
  • Aashish Khan - the cited source is a Netscape user-submitted page, and it leads to a blog.
  • Nursultan Nazarbayev - the cited source states that this person converted from Atheism to Islam, not the other way around.
  • Akbar Gbaja-Biamila - the cited source doesn't even mention the person.
  • Alexander Bekovich-Cherkassky - this page is written in Russian and I don't see anything that indicates a conversion by this person.
  • Emily Ruete - the sources seemed to have been copied straight from the Wikipedia article page without any verification.
  • Ali Sina - this reinsertion does not address my reason for removal.
  • Humayun Azad - the source cited, a letter, does not mention any conversion.
  • As'ad Abu Khalil - I originally removed this entry for the reason in my edit summary. The reinsertion did not address that concern.

It becomes difficult to continue assuming good faith with these gross misrepresentations and carelessly inserted sources. Ibn Shah 04:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


Good faith? come on now Ibn Shah! You have a clear and detailed history of being AGAINST anything that be could be used to put Islam in a bad light Ibn Shah. DONT LIE NOW! YOUR KUFI HAS BEEN SMACKED OFF YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED FOR POV PUSHING!

Abo_of_Tiflis READ THE ARTICLE HOMEBOY! he was muslim but converted to christianity! Taslima Nasrin check her official homepage! Akbar Gbaja-Biamila http://blog.chargers.com/2006/07/akbar_gbajabiamila_keeps_the_f.html Nafisa Ali you didnt even read the cited page YOU LYING SACK OF @#%&! It clearly states she was born Muslim and conveted to Vedanta, a school of Hinduism later in life. Kuldeep Manak the man is a Sikh


I'm not even bother going on with this @#*, yo Ibn Shah grow up and quit deleting whatever you feel like it. Rest of the editors on this page, pay close attention to this guy! If he has it his way this whole page would be gone! EuroBrydGang

"Abo_of_Tiflis READ THE ARTICLE HOMEBOY! he was muslim but converted to christianity!"
You cannot rely on Wikipedia articles as sources for other articles. Please read the policy on reliable sources.
"Taslima Nasrin check her official homepage!"
The page you inserted does not state anything about her being a Muslim or a conversion. You can't expect the reader to do the work for you and delve into the website trying to find a citation.
"Akbar Gbaja-Biamila http://blog.chargers.com/2006/07/akbar_gbajabiamila_keeps_the_f.html"
That's not the sourced you used in your edit. This source is a blog but it's a subdomain of the official website, so I assume it might be okay.
"Nafisa Ali you didnt even read the cited page YOU LYING SACK OF @#%&! It clearly states she was born Muslim and conveted to Vedanta, a school of Hinduism later in life."
You're mistaken and clearly misrepresenting the source, as I did read it carefully. It states that her father is a Muslim, her mother is Catholic, and she is a follower of Vedanta. It does not say that she was ever a Muslim nor does it mention a conversion.
"Kuldeep Manak the man is a Sikh"
That's great, but it doesn't provide anything to prove that he was a Muslim before, nor did the page that you inserted say that.
I also don't understand why you need two accounts to edit one page. You may want to note that this policy and that I don't wear a kufi. Ibn Shah 05:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
sockpuppetry in this manner is unacceptable, as is the incivility. ITAQALLAH 05:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems that his original account was blocked for a username violation so he made a new one. Ibn Shah 05:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
ah.. i wasn't aware of that. ITAQALLAH 05:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so it's known, I've found two sources for Abo of Tiflis' conversion: an easy to read hagiography site and a published source on textual criticism which mentions his conversion. Therefore, I'm adding him back in. Just a heads up.--C.Logan 09:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ali Sina Disputed

Latest comment: 16 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion

Why is Ali Sina have a "disputed" tag after his name? It is pretty obvious that he is a former muslim.--SefringleTalk 21:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As of now the only source with some reliability is worldnetdaily. But it appears to be quite a partisan website. Such sources may be acceptable in some areas, but don't qualify as such for persons they themselves declare to be living.Bless sins 06:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
BlessSins, what about Asia Times? Forgot about that?--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
We all know what the real issue here is. Bless sins doesn't think he is notable enough for inclusion.--SefringleTalk 02:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Whatever Sefringle, your provocations won't work with me. Matt57, I don't the "Asia times" source you are talking about.Bless sins 01:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Read the article to find the reference. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
As he authored part of a book called Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out which is published by Prometheus Books (my bold) then to anyone reasonable "Apostate" means what this article is listing.Ttiotsw 07:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Matt57, there are only three sources:

  • Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out Prometheus Books (May 2003) ISBN 1-59102-068-9
  • Warraq is not a reliable source, and you know that.
  • FFI is not a reliable source
  • [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40473 Ex-Muslim's site trashes Muhammad]
  • Worldnet daily is a highly partisan source, not a neutral one like BBC and CNN.

What is the Asia Times source you are talking about?Bless sins 20:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

*Faith Freedom International- about FFI is owned by Ali Sina; this is practically a self-confession, or do you deny that the owner of FFI is Ali Sina?--SefringleTalk 08:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and Warraq is a reliable source. All the 3 sources you listed above, they're more than enough to assert that Ali is a former muslim. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you justify how Warraq is a reliable source? Sefringle: how do we know that the person who wrote that was a Muslim? A non-Muslim can easily feign that.Bless sins 02:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Warraq is a well known and published author on Islam related topics. Sorry it will stay in. There are multiple sources confirming Ali Sina's apostasy. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:RS says reliable sources "are regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" and "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Can you demonstrate that?Bless sins 03:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This is futile as I mentioned. There are multiple sources confirming Ali's apostasy from Islam. Can you demonstrate that Warraq is not trustworthy? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

<reset>The onus is on you to demonstrate he is a reliable source. WP:V says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Who is adding the material here, me or you? You need to show how any one (that's all I require) source is reliable.Bless sins 01:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The question of inclusion in this list is if the entry matches the criteria of "former" i.e. was but is not now. The reliability of the author Warraq is in fact irrelevant to this question because Ali Sina contributed a chapter to a book that is published by Prometheus Books. This is not a self-publishing house but an imprint that publishes many books from a wide variety of authors and in which science and humanism and the conflict with religion is a recurring theme. It is a "reliable" source and you are being unreasonable in claiming that a published book from a well known imprint in which the title clearly states Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out (my bold) isn't sufficient evidence to allow Ali Sina to be listed as a "former" Muslim. Why am I using Prometheus rather than the contents ? - because book publishers more or less control the book titles and jackets as part of the marketing of the book. So in the end the onus is on you to show Prometheus is unreliable. Ttiotsw 01:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Prometheus books is not reliable. Let me show you how. The publisher has published the following book: Hekmat, Anwar (1997). Women and the Koran The Status of Women in Islam. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. p. 209. ISBN 1-57392-162-9.. According to this book "Islamic is a clever propaganda simply created to allow Mohammed to do as he pleased". This book also calls Islam "a barbaric tradition". [3] The preceding sentences are an obvious example of an extremist source. The fact that you tie Ibn Warraq to Prometheus Books weakens your case.Bless sins 22:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I see, Prometheus Books have published 2500 books over the past 38 years and you've found one claim you don't like. Given that Islam was used as a vehicle to remove the extant religions in Medina or Makkah then I suspect we would find others including some Muslims who have the same sentiment regarding use of religion as a tactic. Obviously with some Muslims it would be how Christianity has been used as a subterfuge for military campaigns (Crusades anyone ?) so that isn't a partisan sentiment. Unless I read the surrounding text of this 10 year book I can't comment on the "a barbaric tradition" claim though in context of Womens rights, you must admit that Islamic nations are not exactly at the forefront of equality. Maybe you can contribute to say, Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia#Women.27s_rights given access to such books you reference above; not all of us have this reference to hand. Ttiotsw 05:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. Unless their is broad support in wikipedia to label Islam as a "barbaric tradition" and "clever propaganda", Prometheus books will remain an unreliable source. Also, per WP:V#Burden_of_evidence, you must demonstrate how Ibn Warraq/Prometheus books is a reliable source, since you are adding the content.Bless sins 02:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

daniel ali appears twice

please includes people from www.answering-islam.org

Converts to Hinduism

Latest comment: 16 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

The source([4]) doesn't say (to the best of my knowlege) that Aashis was ever a Muslim. What it does say is the following:

  • "We [Aashish Khan and his family] always worshipped Devi Saraswati and Goddess Kali."
    • Note that no sect of Islam worships Hindu godesses.
  • "...there was no formal conversion to Islam..."
    • He confirms that he never converted to Islam.

Annapurna Devi, while she did "convert" to Hinduism, it is unclear whether she was a Muslim. The source provided ([5]) certainly doesn't say that.Bless sins 18:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

C.Logan, are you justifying Annapurna's conversion by the following passage?Bless sins 18:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The marriage was somewhat unusual in that Ravi Shankar was a Hindu Brahmin, Annapurna a Muslim. (Khan insisted that his daughter convert to Hinduism prior to the marriage.)

Um, yes. You stated that it was clear that she had converted to Hinduism, but that the source did not claim that she was a Muslim... so here is a source which states that she was a Muslim.--C.Logan 19:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I did state that. But a source has to say both, that Devi was a Muslim and then became a Hindu. If we use to sources, then we are in danger of violating WP:SYNTH. Bless sins 19:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, the source obviously does state both. Additionally, though such a synthesis of information would seem to violate WP:SYNTH, I'm curious about the validity of this example. In an article, for example it would seem reasonable that one RS could be used to establish a birth religion, while another RS would establish the act of conversion. I'm not sure if this should be considered as a negative incorporation. For example, if an RS says that an individual was born and raised in Boston, and another source makes no mention of this but notes that an individual had moved to San Francisco when he was 17, it would seem reasonable that these two elements could be used without violating WP:SYNTH. We should be cautious, of course, with incorporating facts from multiple sources, but again, this seems very "to-the-letter", which I think is an improper form of judgment.--C.Logan 19:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The question of WP:SYNTH is interesting and I have asked it here (Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Conversion_and_WP:SYNTH.). Also, where does the source say that she converted to Hinduism (I know her father insisted, but she act upon her father's insistence).Bless sins 20:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Concerning Khan, it's an interesting case. His family seems entirely opposed to the claims that he's making, and have stated that he's lying. I don't know where our stance should be, here. His family claims they are Muslims, and that he is disgracing his family with his conversion, while he claims that they were never Muslims, and therefore he needs not make a formal conversion to Hinduism (he additionally claims that his father found it acceptable, interestingly). I can't make any personal judgments here. I suppose that his personal claims have some weight in the matter, even if they are "false", as his father claims.--C.Logan 19:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Thus, we need to find a reliable source that suggests he is Muslim. It is clear we can't tread on the statements of the person(s) involved alone. Can you or someone else find a reliable source that would justify Khan's inclusion?Bless sins 19:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You guys need to say in this article what your sources say. Not more. Not less. Especially if the sources contradict. You say "X says 'whatever'[ref] while Y says 'whatever2'.[ref]" or something similar. Sometimes the nit-picking details are best put in the ref/notes section. WAS 4.250 20:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but as this is a list, it is only afforded slightly more flexibility in sources than a category. Therefore, it is important to note that the listing here is based on the satisfaction of certain criterion, unless we decide to include a "Disputed" section, as has been utilized on other articles in the past. If Khan wasn't a Muslim, he shouldn't be included here. However, we have some people (his father, for example) saying that he and his family were Muslim, and we have himself stating that neither he nor his family were ever Muslim (there is other contradicting information as well. Which statement holds prominence? It's a complicated decision, made more difficult by WP:BLP.
If this were a plain article, there would be no great issue; as this is a list, however, we must adhere to certain criterion for inclusion.--C.Logan 20:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. In this case, as I've already suggested, we use reliable secondary sources. If the sources say he was Muslim, only then we include, noting the dispute.Bless sins 01:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Barack Obama provides a brief biography on of Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. in his book Dreams from my Father, page 282. He describes how Rev. Wright had become a Muslim.

Dreams from my Father, page 282 “He had grown up in Philadelphia, the son of a Baptist minister. He had resisted his father's vocation at first, joining the Marines out of college, dabbling with liquor, Islam, and Black Nationalism in the sixties.”

Rev. Wright got his Masters degree in “Islam in West Africa” Reverend Wright subsequently converted back to Christianity. http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/4d8a42cb-ede8-499e-b737-df7a0682f19c http://infidelsarecool.com/wp-content/uploads/WrightOnProgrMuslims070807.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebigbopper5000 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Dabbled in Islam" is not sufficient to characterize someone as having been a Muslim. The New Republic reference would seem to be more definitive, but there's some debate about that as well. Per WP:BLP, we should be cautious about adding potentially controversial material unless we have an unimpeachable source. Since Rev. Wright is back in the media, there's a good chance that we'll hear more about this. We can add him, or not, when we've got a definitive answer about whether he was actually a Muslim in the '60s or just studied it as part of his academic and religious training. Until then, I don't think he should be on this list. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. With someone of his profile, a conversion to Islam (or reversion from it) would have been explicitly stated by the media, esp. in the heat of the Obama-Clinton campaign.Bless sins (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a good source

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This source is not a good one. The article uses subjective terminology such as "Whatever God put on his soul" or "It was priceless." There is also discussion about the kingdom of God and sayings of Christ. None of this is surprising considering the article itself is an editorial, and not a news report. Can another, more reliable source be found?Bless sins (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:David Hicks.jpg

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The image Image:David Hicks.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama was never a Muslim

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, Barack Obama was never a Muslim. His biological father was an atheist of Islamic background, and his mother was a liberal Christian. I suggest you read this article: Obama: not a Manchurian candidate. The article states the following:

"Obama's campaign aides have emphasized his strong Christian beliefs and downplayed any Islamic connection. The Illinois senator was raised 'in a secular household in Indonesia by his stepfather and mother,’ his chief spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said in a statement in January after false reports began circulating that Obama had attended a radical madrasa, or Koranic school, as a child. 'To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago,’ Gibbs' Jan. 24 statement said."

The article dispels any unsubstantiated claims of an alleged Islamic upbringing. For this reason, I am going to remove Barack Obama's name from the list of former muslims article. Joyson Noel (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Balyuzi" :
    • {{cite book |first=Hasan |last=Balyuzi |year=1985 |title=Eminent Bahá'ís in the time of Bahá'u'lláh |publisher=The Camelot Press Ltd, Southampton |id=ISBN 0853981523 | pages = pp. 245-256}}
    • {{cite book |first=Hasan |last=Balyuzi |year=2000 |title=Bahá'u'lláh, King of Glory }} Changed ref to "Balyuzi-2000".
    • {{cite book |first=Hasan |last=Balyuzi |year=1985 |title=Eminent Bahá'ís in the time of Bahá'u'lláh |publisher=The Camelot Press Ltd, Southampton |id=ISBN 0853981523 | pages = pp. 265-266}}
    • {{cite book |first=Hasan |last=Balyuzi |year=1985 |title=Eminent Bahá'ís in the time of Bahá'u'lláh |publisher=The Camelot Press Ltd, Southampton |id=ISBN 0853981523 | pages = pp. 290-310}}
    • {{cite book |last = Balyuzi |first = H.M. |authorlink = Hasan M. Balyuzi |year = 1985 |title = Eminent Bahá'ís in the time of Bahá'u'lláh |pages = pp. 268-270 |publisher = The Camelot Press Ltd, Southampton |id = ISBN 0853981523}}
    • {{cite book |first=Hasan |last=Balyuzi |year=1985 |title=Eminent Bahá'ís in the time of Bahá'u'lláh |publisher=The Camelot Press Ltd, Southampton |id=ISBN 0853981523 | pages = pp. 335-350}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  Done. Unified cites for ISBN 0853981523 published in 1985. Reinstated page # visibility with RP template.
Changed ref name for 2000 publication.
SBaker43 (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Zohra Segal

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The article in question says that Segal was raised alongside Muslims and was expected to abide by Islamic traditions. It doesn't, however, say that Segal was ever a Muslim or that she covnerted from that faith to secularism. For this reason I will remove her from the list.Bless sins (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Please also see Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/archive26#Conversion. Both editors who responded said that if all you know is that a person was religion X at time a, and then religion Y and time b, without any specific mention of conversion, then its best to avoid saying he converted from X to Y. If you are dissatisfied, we can start a discussion again at the policy page.Bless sins (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Check out the following paragraph from the article. "Kameshwar Segal, the young dancer whom she fell in love with... This burqa-clad Sunni Muslim woman who flung aside norms to join Uday Shankar's dance troupe when she was only 23 — what a life she had led!" Plus, later on she states that she is an agnostic who doesn't believe in organized religion. As such, it can be clearly surmised that she used to be a Muslim at least until the age of 23, and later became an agnostic. Moreover, the article clearly states that she was brought up in Sunni Muslim traditions. For these reasons, i'm going to add her back. Joyson Noel (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Bieng brought up in any tradition doesn't mean she held that faith. Secondly, I'll repeat, please take a look at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/archive26#Conversion. Both editors who responded said that if all you know is that a person was religion X at time a, and then religion Y and time b, without any specific mention of conversion, then its best to avoid saying he converted from X to Y. If you are dissatisfied, we can start a discussion again at the policy page.Bless sins (talk) 05:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Current dispute

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm not sure about the curent dispute between Taz Manchestar and Matt57, but both should bring their dispute here on talk, instead of telling the other to do so.

In particular, this is not a reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Atheism is not an ideology

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Without wanting to rekindle a tricky discussion re the Atheism article, I note that the lead's mention of "non-religious ideology", plus the sub-heading "became Atheists" implies that atheism is an ideology. I would argue that it's the antithesis of an ideology.

HiLo48 (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

  Done I think it looks better now. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


Please add Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam also to the list. It is clear from his book "Wings of fire" that he does not embrace Islam and prefers his religion to be humanism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreejithsasikumar (talk • contribs) 21:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Katja Shchekina

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

When you look at her facebook it says she used to have a muslim name until her parents divorced. Now has a non-muslim name. On top of that, check out her pictures with crosses and things and stuff. I think its pretty obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigglyfidders (talk • contribs) 06:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC) if you don't believe me you can send her an e-mail on facebook and she would confirm it.Jigglyfidders (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Vague references to pictures of "crosses and things and stuff" & last names on a Facebook fan page -- not an official page, as clearly indicated there: "FAN PAGE (non officiel)" -- are not reliable sources. And only reliable sources can be used to source information on Wikipedia, particularly with regard to living persons. Wikipedia has an especially strict policy on that issue & not just any source will do (nevermind personal assurances as you've supplied above). I've therefore removed the material again; kindly stop adding original research. Middayexpress (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Jigglyfidders, please take the things Middayexpress said into account. I can't say it better. Airplaneman ✈ 20:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I've looked at the history logs of this page and noticed that many of the additions Jigglyfidders made are very problematic as to their sourcing. I have already removed some of the entries because the sources were nonexistent websites (not merely expired pages, but URL's to websites that never existed) and nonexistent books. 24.217.193.187 (talk) 05:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Nazli Sabri

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The article on Nazli Sabri does not mention that she converted, and actually identify her as a Sunni Muslim. The sources attached to her listing in this article are broken if not originally bogus. I suggest that if no one can provide real evidence of her conversion that her name be removed. Ahmed Khalil (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed this. -- 202.124.73.93 (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I've seen the changes. Thank you. Ahmed Khalil (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of former Muslims. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on List of former Muslims. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on List of former Muslims. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on List of former Muslims. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on List of former Muslims. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of former Muslims. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of former Muslims. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of former Muslims. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Akbar the great

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

There is no evidence that Akbar the Great ever "changed" his religion and left Islam. The Din-i-Ilahi which is claimed to be founded by him, and thus the one he converted to, is not a religion but a movement based on a statement of policy or a certain point of view. To claim that this is a new religion goes beyond what Akbar himself perceived it as since he never claimed it as such. He never actually coined the name Din-i-Ilahi either. Suggest removing his name from the list.

In general, this article is full of incomplete or bogus information which seem to be included to make a biased point of view and left in place by common complacency. It is meaningless to compile a list of converts to or from one religion or another. I am sure that many of the 1.5 billion Muslims are descendants of the original 100's of millions who converted from other beliefs to Islam, so do we make a list of the say 500 million souls who converted to Islam over the years? Was not Muhammad himself a convert, and his companions, and then all of the inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula, then most of the inhabitants of the Middle East and North Africa, then Iran, then Central Asia, then South Asia, then East Asia? And let us not forget Sub-Saharan Africa, and later Europe, and America. It is utter nonsense. The same is true for other religions. Most Christians are descentants of converts, millions of them. Hindus, Buhddists or whatever are all descendants of converts and we have 2 billion of them; their ancestors who converted to these religions must have numbered in the 100's of millions.

As for leaving a religion, most people noted here are only known because they claimed to have left Islam and thus became celebrated in biased media circles. But really, what is the importance of a person who changed religion to get married to a spouse of a different religion, or someone who wanted to get a visa and come to the West. These people are of no value to either religion, the one they left and the one they joined. As for the few who matter based on their own worth, then their conversion one way or another is only valuable if it was based on some religious insight, not personal gain (like a politician in order to get elected) or lack of belief to start with. And then, what is the point of compiling a list? Are we having a contest between religions to see which one will accumulate a longer list of converts? Sorry, but this is stupid.

I see that there is a request to delete this page, and I recomment its deletion. Ahmed Khalil (talk) 00:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I would probably agree with you if there werent pages on people leaving christianity and judaism.MilkStraw532 (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and I do not see the point of them all. If nothing, then they all should be confined to a certain criteria for inclusion based on the importance of the person and the basis of his/her conversion, and certainly should not contain living persons since these can change their beliefs as they wish before they die (as we can see that these lists contain persons who have changed their religion a few times already). Ahmed Khalil (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
this guy is contributing in the convert to islam list while he's giving us that crap [6] You're unbelievable man! --الزمخشري (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
It is obvious that your ability to comprehend is limited. My comments and contributions on this and other pages show my efforts to improve them as long as they exist on WP. I asked for corrections when needed and did not vandalize the pages by deleting or altering enteries without checking with previous editors. I added Diana Haddad becaus it happened that I had just read her page that day and that information was there. I will also add more people if I ever cared to find out their "conversion" status at some point in the fututre or happened to know it by chance. Anyway, as long as these pages exist I will continue checking them for accuracy. Having said that, however, I still question their validity, especially as all inclusive lists. And again, I voiced my concerns in the talk page as the appropriate place for discussion and DID NOT force my opinion on anyone by altering the pages myself in anny manner. Now, if you have something of value to discuss then be my guest; otherwise, go find some other venue for your crusade. Ahmed Khalil (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Requesting wider attention

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I felt article Islamic_literature is in bit of neglect so I added my note on talk page there, requesting to take note of Talk:Islamic_literature#Article_review. If possible requesting copy edit support. Suggestions for suitable reference sources at Talk:Islamic_literature is also welcome.

Posting message here too for neutrality sake


Thanks and greetings

Bookku (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Article on Ex-Muslims and Ex-Muslim movement

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Currently

Actually I have created article Islamic advice literature, Wikipedia does have an article on Islamization and Cultural muslim but main articles on Draft:Ex-Muslims and Draft:Ex-Muslims movement seem missing and current redirections are bit disheartening in the sense that those are just lists and not in encyclopedic article form, we can not read their experiences in an encyclopedic fashion.

Requesting inputs on newly initiated articles Draft:Ex-Muslms and Draft:Ex-Muslims movements

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

A. P. J. Abdul Kalam

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As I'm tidying up this talk page, I came across this comment that may have gotten lost:

Please add Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam also to the list. It is clear from his book "Wings of fire" that he does not embrace Islam and prefers his religion to be humanism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreejithsasikumar (talk • contribs) 21:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I did a preliminary check. There is a wiki article for A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, and it does say he was raised a muslim in the Religious and spiritual views section. More stuff about Hindu. If someone who is more familiar with this page will look at this and either add him to the list, or mark this thread done or no or something. Thank you. Normal Op (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Charles Wardle - edit warring.

Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Two editors are reverting each other with anon adding "Charles Wardle" and named editor removing this. Both are tagging with "vandalism" but it isn't vandalism - this is just a plain old content dispute related to notability. Firstly we only add notable people - the article starts, "list of notable people who have been Muslims sometime during their lives, but left Islam for another religion" etc etc. Charles Wardle doesn't have an article and I doubt anyone could make one.On looking at the links which support the claim then they are apostate then we have [7] which is The Dominion Post web site and [8] which is in Italian but Google translate kindly tells the story (and it is just a recap of the story) with the writer at the end commenting "Charles Wardle could be the result of an unbridled imagination, or entirely real.". So that story is just presented as a unverified account. There just isn't enough WP:RS to justify the entry. Given his claims from his web site of working for the NZSIS then methinks Walter Mitty but you never know; either way all we have is conjecture to date. Ttiotsw (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I did the reversion while signed in and not anon, as you mistakenly assumed. My reason for repeatedly removing Wardle's name from the list is the same as above. So, i am well within my rights to call the IP/IP's persistent addition of Wardle to the list "Vandalism". I suspect that Wardle himself is doing it. In fact, the IP's appear to be from New Zealand (the same country that Wardle is from). As such, the best course of action would be to request an administrator to semi-protect this article, so that only established users rather than anon losers, can edit it. Joyson Konkani 13:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
But I don't think that it is "vandalism" per se compared to the other nonsense that gets added as we must assume good faith with whomever it is that is adding it is not mens rea a vandal: but they are just a naughty boy. I too think that this story is manufactured and if it is the subject adding the content so that's just a matter of WP:COI and WP:RS. The guy should enter the chat show circuit and write an autobiography or something. IP protection won't stop them creating sleeper accounts. Better to educate them as to what the criteria is for notability and then they can aim for that. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I've already done so. User:Dhard2009 was the first to add Wardle's name. I presented my reason as to why Charles Wardle failed notability (lack of credible news references) and did not deserve to be in the list. Furthermore, i repeatedly asked him to discuss, so that we could reach a consensus on whether Wardle should be in the list. Yet, he simply chose to ignore me and this led to him getting banned. Now, the person keeps on re-inserting Wardle's names under different IP's. The references he provides also do not satisfy WP:RS. I have previously explained it in the edit summary, but to no avail. As such, i am well within my rights to revert the edits as Vandalism. Joyson Konkani 14:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, lots of the IP end up in the library at Auckland University and the other recent one is a Auckland dialup. The guy certainly seems to be on a mission. Shouldn't he be studying Art or something ? Perhaps his edits of Wikipedia are not vandalism but part of an ephemeral installation exploring the cross-border manipulation of media ?. Trouble is that blocking all IPs (or a country-level subnet) would go against the current ethos of Wikipedia of allowing anyone to edit. Maybe just better to use URL blacklist of charleswardle.com like we do for spammers. Ttiotsw (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? The guy is clearly vandalizing the article and has his own agenda. Yet, you keep excusing his edits as "actions of a naughty boy", "Conflict of interest" and "part of an ephemeral installation exploring the cross-border manipulation of media" (whatever that means). I really think that you are taking the good faith thing a bit too far. You sound quite ridiculous, to be honest. Furthermore, how did you know that IP's were from Auckland, considering that you did not make a user check request? Sensitive articles such as this are better kept semi-protected. I assure you that there are such articles in Wikipedia. For example, Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. And how do you URL blacklist of charleswardle.com like we do for spammers? Joyson Konkani 17:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
You are taking this way too seriously. You don't need a checkuser - an IP address is the least secure way of editing Wikipedia ! - do a traceroute on the IP - e.g. traceroute on 130.216.172.229 and you'll find a reverse IP of lb315-0b10.lbr.auckland.ac.nz which if you google the lbr.auckland.ac.nz clearly shows that it is the Auckland Uni library. I'm guessing the rest probably narrows it down to a specific console/port/device. This is why I never edit Wikipedia via IP and always logon. As for my "part of an ephemeral installation exploring the cross-border manipulation of media" if you paid attention to your adversary then you'll notice that they claim to have studied science and art at University. This whole affair seems to be manufactured so I was poking fun at the self-reference and absurdity in postmodernism. The "naughty boy" is an allusion to Monty Python, Life of Brian - in which Brian's mother says, "He's not the messiah, he's just a naughty boy" - as the crowd mistook him as the messiah. I think it's topical. I don't see how I'm I'm following WP:AGF when I accuse someone of being a misunderstood loner, a mistaken messiah and uses absurd self-references ?. OK, maybe I should just call them a vandal but Wikipedia should be fun and an intellectual exercise. For spam link blacklisting then see Wikipedia:Spam_blacklist or Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection may be better but like I said - he could just run sleeper accounts to bypass IP restrictions. Ttiotsw (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for elaborating. I'm sorry if i was a bit rude. It was because i found it impossible to understand you. Joyson Konkani 04:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I have requested page semi-protection. Hopefully it'll work. It could have been a 'bot but the 'bot removed my hidden edit tag (incorrectly) so it passed the Turing test. It's human. Ttiotsw (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well looks like *someone* is back from the Whitangi day celebrations and is editing back in *this* content. Ttiotsw (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Charles Wardle is on the list, but there is nothing in his article about religion. The note at the top of this Talk page says Do not list a person as having converted from a particular religion (example: Islam) unless there are references in their article to their former religious affiliation with citation backing it up. The following words do not appear in his article: "islam", "muslim", "religion", or "atheist" (the category he's in on this list). If the two citations at the end of his entry do mention something, then an editor should either add a religion notation to his article, or remove him from this list, or change the inclusion criteria. Normal Op (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Requesting article expansion help

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi,

Recently initiated Draft:Yasmine Mohammed as stub article. Pl. do have a look at the article and if interests you then join in expanding the same with suitable references.

Thanks and regards.

Bookku (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Peer review request

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Requesting peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Women in Islam/archive1,

Bookku (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Requesting help in article expansion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi,

Requesting you to have a look at


Requesting article expansion help, if above topics interest you.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 06:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ Muslim apostates cast out and at risk from faith and family Times Online
  2. ^ 6 Million Muslims Leave Islam every year Aljazeera (in Arabic}
  3. ^ [9]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_former_Muslims/Archive_1&oldid=1143740227"