User talk:AAA765/Archive 11

Barakat Ahmed

Found some more refs. If you have any additional biographical material, (year of bith, year of degree, present and past positions), please add, or post on my page. DGG 23:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sunni-Shia relations

Salam. Can you please check this article. I found it terrible. Some parts of it like Practical Differences Between Sunnis and Shi'ahs looks irrelevant, also nothing has been written about Umayyads era. It suffered from lack of reference and and incorrect information. God bless you--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

On your user page, you said you dislike Bernard Lewis and Samuel P. Huntington. May I ask why?--Sefringle^Talk 03:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Because they introduced the concept of "clash of civilizations". It was introduced by Lewis and was later picked up by Huntington. --Aminz 03:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Unclear

The edit summary here made no sense, please try again. Arrow740 08:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

When X criticizes Y, we don't usually follow it by criticism of Y. In Criticism of the Qur'an say, when we quote all those critics, we don't follow it by their criticisms. --Aminz 08:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not the same situation. An attack on a website is allowed a response. Arrow740 08:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Attack on a religion is worst than attack on a website. --Aminz 08:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

We definitely shouldn't be attacking one another's religion. Is someone doing this?Proabivouac 08:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is about how a response to CAIR's charge against Jihad Watch should be made; through random criticisms of CAIR? No unless they are closely related which is not the case here. If Jihad Watch answers to the criticism made against it in that way, then yes we should mention that Jihad watch responses in that way. --Aminz 08:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's half of what you removed. We should have some rejoinder of Spencer's to CAIR. Arrow740 08:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I restored the half. If you could find spencer's response to CAIR's criticism (rather than Spencer's criticism of CAIR), we can add that as well. --Aminz 08:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Or, a more general comment on CAIR. Arrow740 08:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest you contact Spencer and ask him to post something as a direct response to CAIR's specific criticism. That should be fast. As to general comments, I don't think they can be added as a response to CAIR's criticism; it is like adding general comments about Spencer himself in Criticism of Islam article wherever we quote him. --Aminz 08:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Childbride

Why don't you join on the talk and stop filling the article with blather from suspect sources? Arrow740 01:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Jamal Badawi is not a suspect source. --Aminz 01:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Make an argument on the talk. That's one of many. Arrow740 01:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Islam#Predestination

Salam, How are you?

When I was reading Shiit Islam of Allame Tabatabee I found that this section can be improved on the basis of his description. He has explained these terms reasonably. I write some parts of it:

• Destiny and Providence:The Holy Quran in its teachings has called this reign of necessity Divine Destiny (qada'), for this necessity issues from that Source that gives existence to the world and is therefore a command (hukm) and "Divine Decree" that is certain and is impossible to breach or disobey. It is based on justice and accepts no exception or discrimination. God Almighty says, "His verily is all creation and commandment" (Quran, VII, 54), and "When He

decreeth [qada] a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is" (Quran, II, 117), and also "(When) Allah doometh there is none that can postpone His doom [hukm]" (Quran, XIII, 41)... The Holy Quran has called this aspect the truth "Providence" (qadar) and has related it to God Almighty who is the origin of creation, as has been said, "And there is not a thing but with Us are the stores thereof. And we send it not down save in appointed measure [qadar]" (Quran, XV, 21). In the same way that according to Divine Destiny the existence of each phenomenon and even which occurs in the cosmic order is necessary and cannot be avoided, so also according to Providence each phenomenon and event that occurs will never trespass or disobey in the least degree the measure which God has provided for it. [1]

• Man and Free Will: At the beginning of Islam among the Sunnis there were two schools that were concerned with the theological aspects of human action. One group, holding the view that human action is the result of the unbreakable will of God, considered man to be determined in his actions and held human free will to be devoid of any value and sense. The other group believed man to be independent in his actions, which did not depend upon the Divine will and were outside of the command of Providence (qadar). But according to the instruction of the Household of the Prophet, which is also in conformity with the literal instructions f the Quran, man is free (mukhtar) in his actions but not independent (mustaqill). Rather, God the Almighty through free will has willed the act. According to our previous analysis, God the Exalted has willed and made necessary the act through all of the parts of the complete cause, of which one is the will and free choice of man. As a result of this kind of Divine will, the action is necessary but in it man has also free will, that is, the action is necessary with respect to all the parts of its cause, and possible and free in choice with respect to one of those parts which is man. The sixth Imam - upon whom be peace - has said, "It is neither determination nor free will but something between the two." [2]

Can you write a good summary to replace with what is written in the article.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

New article you might find interesting

Political thought and legacy of Khomeini --Leroy65X 16:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured article review for Austin Nichols

Since you have previously voted for the featured article Austin Nichols, maybe you are interested in the current featured article review. – Ilse@ 23:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fact tag

Did you read the section? Arrow740 09:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The Constitution

All of your edits, summarized here, made the article worse. Arrow740 08:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I of course disagree. --Aminz 08:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Page 44 is not about conquering Mecca. Arrow740 08:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the reference from books.google.com [3] --Aminz 08:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have the 1960 printing, the pages are off by two here. That's my page 46. But feel free to revert because this excuse might still work. Arrow740 08:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If you have Serjeant, look at page 31, the note on #5. Arrow740 09:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Also page 32, when Muhammad assassinated Kab he broke the treaty first, and had acted against the economic interests of the Jews with his raiding previously. Arrow740 09:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

By Serjent, do you mean the "constitution" article? For Lewis, I will take a look at p.32. But for now, I need to get some sleep. --Aminz 09:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What are "the two different treaties?" You only included this line because it contains the word "unacceptable," which is a bad way to edit. That sentence makes no sense without explanation, but you included it because it contained a word to forward your POV. Also you removed sourced content that Bell first proposed the recension idea, on the basis of your personal POV. This shortly after your update to your userpage. Arrow740 20:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, two different treaties are those recorded in documents A and B. We are writing what Serjent proposes (A modified version of Bell). The rest of your comment is nothing but false speculations. --Aminz 20:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

To your first response, obviously. The point is you didn't care that our article does not mention them. You only care about the "unacceptable." Also you make no justification for your removal of the Bell, so I assume my reasoning was correct. Arrow740

We have summerized the content of documents of A&B in words; in fact, it was in your original edition and I didn't change it. Secondly, my removal of Bell? Did you add it that I have removed it? I don't understand what you are talking about? Serjent modifies Bell's proposal to make it more likely. This article is not about the history of development of one proposal. We can present its latest version. --Aminz 01:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Article in Farsi (?)

Hi Aminz

Someone created the article Islamic Azad University of Rasht, which in the Articles in Need of Translation project, they believe is in Farsi. If you had a minute to give it a quick look and see if it is in Farsi or not it could save the article from deletion. If it isn't worth saving, then fair enough.

All the best

Itsmejudith 13:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No, by the time you got to the article someone had reduced the article to a stub, which seems fine. Thanks anyway. BTW I really like the flowers on your user page. Itsmejudith 08:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Cult religion

please avoid from calling other religions by the title "cult" (unless you have a valid reference for this) as you did in this edit: "other cults (including Christianity)". Jaakobou 00:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I echoed what the source said without giving it a second thought. The sources are not necessarily neutral. I'll correct this next time. --Aminz 00:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Passivity

Aminz, it is believed by me that a request is being asked by Proabivouac that passives won't be used by you anymore. Anytime you find yourself doing this, turn the sentence around until it is direct. There are times when a passive is appropriate, but these are rare relative to the frequency with which you deploy them.Proabivouac 03:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jle.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Jle.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bleh999 23:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice image

Where did you find this?Proabivouac 07:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

From Nature article. It don't have its patent though :) --Aminz 07:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Brother see ANI. It has report against you. Wassalam. --- A. L. M. 12:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, I filed this "report against you", and explicitly did not ask that you be blocked. There is nothing to fear, actually.Proabivouac 12:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI

User:Arrow740 after his first block by User:Durova said: [4]. He classifies users (and himself) according to their religion. --Aminz 23:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That's an overstatement. -- tariqabjotu 23:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Which one? Arrow's attitude towards Islam is clear: [5], [6], [7] “Muslim societies are backward because of Islam” --Aminz 00:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The classification piece was an overstatement. I'm not sure what reaction you're expecting to those three links. -- tariqabjotu 00:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you've convinced me: Arrow740 must be banned.

Seriously, Aminz, why are you digging through Arrow740's contributions from eight months ago to try to prove what he thinks? We're Wikipedia editors, not thought police. You're think Islam is great; last November, Arrow740 thought it was bad. You suggest editors who don't agree with you shouldn't be editing these articles; last November, Arrow740 suggested that editors who do agree with you shouldn't be participating in discussions to block those who don't.

I am more curious as to what you meant just now when you wrote, "But in my worldview, you've lost the day and I mean this."[8] Is this about judgment day again? This a serious enterprise, but it shouldn't be an emotional or a religious one. Thinking of it that way makes things crazy and unmanageable.Proabivouac 02:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL violations

Please desist from these uncivil claims. There is no evidence for your claims, and you should not repeat them without such evidence. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are talking about Aminz's claim that Beit Or is Pecher, then please note such claims are made all the time. Infact, Proabivouac (who is generally very CIVL and respectful) called a disruptive anon "my associate"[9], and had earlier accused me of sockpuppetry.[10] You Jayjg, infact, have made numerous (false and uncivil) allegations against me. Thus, I wouldn't be complaining.Bless sins 20:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't claimed you are a sockpuppet of anyone, and this is about Aminz and Beit Or, not about Provibouac. I'm not complaining, I'm telling Aminz to desist from his claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Which claim you are refering to? --Aminz 00:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Aisha

Considering that you first found this, this insertion of a POV proves that you put defence of Muhammad on wikipedia over truth. And no that was obviously not me. Arrow740 12:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You are completely wrong. The question is not when Aisha was married (pre-menarcheal). The question is when the marriage was consummated. I am quoting F.E. Peters here: [11] or here: [12]

--Aminz 19:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Pre-menarcheal means before mensis. I have made this clear to you three times now. It appears you are now purposefully misunderstanding words? Arrow740 20:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you purposefully misunderstanding words. The question is not when Aisha was married (which is when she was young) but when it was consummated. --Aminz 20:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no point in my attempting to communicate with you further at this time. Arrow740 21:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AAA765 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please see below.

Decline reason:

WP:3RR allows for blocking even if the raw number of reverts is not greater than three. Additionally, edit warring and disruptive editing are not permitted. Finally, you have been blocked multiple times for disruption/3RR. — Vassyana 02:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Link to my AN3 case: [13]- User:Tom harrison's decision was to protect the page. User:Blnguyen changed Tom's decision and issued a one week block for me.

I sent emails explaining my situation for User:Blnguyen but got no response back so I'd like to ask another admin to take a look at this issue.

The outline of my unblock request:

1. I have not passed 3rr (Consecutive edits at a time count as one)
2. The page was already protected by User:Tom harrison so a one week block doesn't seem to be preventive in this case.
3. I have been very careful not to pass any 3RRs during the last seven months (around last 7/19 of my whole presense in wikipedia) by other people's advice.
4. Since there were allusions to my edits to Islam when it was posted on the main page, I'd like provide an explanation of what was going on there.
5. Explanation of the three reverts I made yesterday.

Point Number 1: Consecutive edits at a time count as one count as one. I was looking at two versions of the article and making changes in one round. The edit of Merzbow in between was unrelated. (Also please see [14]).

Point Number 4: The story is the following:

• Two days before the presentation of the article on the main page, User:Beit Or rewrites a whole section(s) of the article. User:Arrow740 adds a lengthy passage about Sikhism and Islam in a place where it is supposed to talk about all denominations of Islam.

• Beit Or's edits divides editors into three groups. Those who support the new version: such as User:Arrow740, User:Proabivouac; Those who are not happy with it: such as myself and User:Sa.vakilian; Those who are okay with both versions such as User:Merzbow.

• Those who like the version edit-war to preserve it. The new version gets its way to July 1st, the day Islam was posted on the main page.

• Believing that this new version doesn't pass the accuracy, neutrality required of FA articles (cause that section was just created), I tried to add POV tag to the article or temporarily add material that somehow brings neutrality back to the sections. All my actions were reactions to what I believed to be unfair. I didn't start anything. I didn't have any problem with previous version of the article that achieved FA.

In short, if some editors can rewrite a whole section of the article just before its presentation on the main page, then what's the point of an article being FA? What's the point of having a peer-review process and producing high quality articles?

Point Number 5: This is the continuation of the same story as mentioned in point number 4. In reverts such as these ([15], [16]), I am restoring the pre-Beit Or versions of the article. Other users restored exactly the same thing: [17] (edit summary: restore consensus version of the Umayyad passage, other version is too narrowly-focused). Also, please see this one [18]. Also, please note that the reason Beit Or (and supporting him Arrow740) revert back to their version. This point is discussed in Talk:Islam#Umayyads. Please read comments from "22:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)" onwards. As argued there by User:Merzbow and User:Itaqallah, the other version is too narrowly-focused. Beit Or and Arrow740 claim that John Esposito's book (Oxford University Press) is not a reliable source on this [19],[20]. This is clearly a pretext for reverting. As mentioned on the talk page, The Cambridge History of Islam and Lapidus's book (Cambridge University Press) could be used in support of Esposito's book.As a matter of fact, our article uses John Esposito quite often (showing its general acceptance).

Thanks for reading all these :P

--Aminz 16:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I support Aminz' unblock request, and hope Blnguyen will consider reducing it to 'time served.' Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Aminz 16:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I wouldn't just reduce it to "time served", the block is far too long. "I've been very careful not to violate 3RR" sounds a lot like "I've been very careful to make sure I don't revert more than three times in 24 hours". The latter sentiment might be successful when facing admins who strictly count reverts (which, oddly enough, Blnguyen said he usually does on ethnic/religious articles), but it does not do enough to stop the problem the 3RR was intended to prevent – edit-warring. As Merzbow (talk · contribs) himself stated on Blnguyen's talk page (and Aminz also mentions here), his edit 02:46, July 3 (UTC) is unrelated to what Aminz was reverting and close in time period and thus Aminz's surrounding edits could have been considered as consecutive, merely interrupted by an edit conflict. That being said, Aminz was still edit-warring and has been edit-warring quite a bit on the Islam article recently (although making sure not to revert more than three times in 24 hours). I would block for edit-warring nonetheless, but we are going to have serious problems if we're going to have others who are willing to overrule because there were not four reverts in twenty-four hours, per se. My recommendation for action here is to protect the article, commute Aminz's block to "time served", and come to some sort of agreement on whether discretion can be used in the future on volatile articles like this even when 3RR is not strictly broken. -- tariqabjotu 17:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You changed your mind halfway through your post, TA. And if you wish to bring up the fact that he unblocked me yet again, I will have to again point out that - as was noted at the time - I had not violated 3RR, and I was not being as disruptive as Muslim user Aminz, who was also at 3 reverts, and Muslim user Dashes who had by my count 5, but you did not block. As was further noted at the time, two of my three reverts were merely restoring sourced content removed by an editor unfamiliar with the sources, editing the article for the first time on main page day. As was pointed out to you later, that person was likely a sock. I had 3 reverts then without a warning or a report filed, I was blocked. Coupled with your leniency for Muslim user Itaqallah recently who had violated 3RR, your block of someone with my views is discomfiting. Whether or not someone has violated 3RR should be the most important factor in blocking. It doesn't seem that that is the case with you. If you had a record of fairness, I wouldn't even notice, but you don't. Arrow740 19:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, when you write "I tried to add POV tag to the article or temporarily add material that somehow brings neutrality back to the sections. All my actions were reactions to what I believed to be unfair," it convinces me that you have yet to reflect upon why this string of tagging[21],[22], [23], [24], [25], [26] was universally acknowledged as disruptive. Such use of tags as a sort of "fourth revert" (and in this case also a fifth one), aimed at visually marring articles when you don't get your way, has proved controversial, yet you went ahead and did it again under the bright light of the main page. Since this was reported on ANI, you've shown a certain vindictive streak, for example, leaving me this dramatic message,[27] and using the occasion of a policy proposal at the Village Pump to name four editors as bad guys who should be blocked.[28] I don't have a strong opinion whether you should be unblocked or not - I imagine you probably will be - but I'd really appreciate it if you would take some time to reflect on and take some responsibility for your role in this, instead of demonizing and threatening to get back at everybody else.Proabivouac 17:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that is key here. Ever since the main page day all of us on all sides of the issue have tried to be more congenial except Aminz, who has become more disruptive, which led to his four reverts. Arrow740 19:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest protecting this talk page, since Aminz uses it as a platform to attack other editors. Beit Or 17:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Really? I don't think so... he's making an (albeit lengthy) unblock request. For the record, I disregarded Aminz's fourth and fifth points because they are not valid reasons for edit-warring (not that there are valid reasons for edit-warring). -- tariqabjotu 17:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This "unblock request" includes attacks against Proabivouac, Arrow740, and myself. Beit Or 18:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call them attacks, more attempts to blame others for his own behavior.Proabivouac 18:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Even so, these are no good reasons for unblocking, which may happen when the editor admits errors and agrees to mend his ways. Aminz doesn't admit any errors on his part and quite militantly so. Beit Or 18:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

We can ignore points #4 and #5. I was explaining the background of what I did which I think is necessary to make the diffs comprehensible. Yes, adding POV tag or clarify me tags is not good for FA articles when they are on the main page and I understand this better now. And by the above unblock request, I didn't want to "attack" anybody. What I was doing was to explain why I was quite unsatisfied with that section? What was the background against which what I did happened, not that why what I did was right. I think the answer to that question is expressed in point #4 which I believe is factually true. --Aminz 20:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, the more fundamental point is that your tagging spree - adding "clarify me" to every sentence after your POV tag was removed - can't be interpreted as a good-faith effort to improve the article, rather you were throwing a hissy fit because you didn't get your way. There is also the issue of using tags as substitutes for fourth reverts, see this discussion for an example where it really was a fourth revert, and your strange explanation that it didn't count as a revert because you found another quote to justify it, nearly suggesting that the maintenance of the tag was a goal in itself. While it's generally good not to approach 3RR too often, several of these problems would have been avoided by not giving into the temptation to use tags as parting shots of protest in edit wars.Proabivouac 20:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "clarifyme" tags, I was trying to convey to the reader that those sentences may be problematic; that you should not trust in what you are reading as a consensus version. That there is something behind what you are reading. A POV tag says this for the whole section. Clarifyme can say this for certain sentences. --Aminz 20:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This is so ridiculous, Aminz. What's the point of denying something that's completely obvious to every single observer? At the very least, you've admitted that the clarifyme tags were indeed substitutes for the removed POV tag. But even if you can find someone who thinks the POV tag was a good idea, you won't find anyone who can say with a straight face that adding clarifyme to every sentence in the section makes sense or is a normal way of editing.Proabivouac 22:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

He is also distorting the facts. His reverts were not consecutive and for the record Sikhism was already mentioned in that section. Arrow740 19:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am refering to this [29]. --Aminz 20:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That was a very good edit. I wrote Islam and Sikhism on that day. I don't know why you opposed that. Arrow740 22:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

For the reasons mentioned by Itaqallah here [30] . And Proabivouac completely agreed with here [31]--Aminz 22:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

We could have had a new section then, if it was skewing that one. It's not a big deal, that's why I didn't really mind, or participate when you started revert warring with other editors who supported my addition. Arrow740 22:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not that the edit was bad, but that 1) it devoted almost all the space in "others" to Sikhism, and 2) it was added to the article on main page day without discussion. One might argue that Sikhism deserves its own small subsection, but to introduce it at that time, with everyone on edge, pretty much guaranteed an edit war. What I don't like here, Aminz, is that you're happy to appeal to the logic of the latter point in this instance, but then turn around and decry it as WP:OWN where it's substantially less justified: your post 3RR shenanigans were plainly disruptive, Arrow740's edit was not.Proabivouac 22:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If technically it's not 3RR as is the admins professed blocking policy then it should go. At any rate it is way too long for the mess this page is. This is article is having a tough time as is accepting contributions from new editors. A sense of WP:OWN has snuck in that almost any edit will find itself edit-war reverted without even explanations with the version that can be edit-warred kinda stuck. Only material added by the same editors seems to even stick regardless of sourcing. Personally, the atmosphere appears to be one of a battle-ground with editors continually getting jumped on and where good-faith is hard to come by with. Maybe it's just natural for these kind of articles. Block placed on technicalities are only fueling the flames with editors resorting to gaming the system instead.--Tigeroo 19:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It's four reverts. He should have been blocked on main page day as well. Arrow740 20:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, do not move my comments from the posts I was responding to. Arrow740 21:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Since those comments were not directly relevant to my unblock request, could you please move them to your or Tariqabjotu's talk page rather than mine. --Aminz 21:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am permitted to respond to TA's unfortunate attack on B1Nguyen where he posted it. Discussing your actions is part of my reponse. I have no idea what your excuse is about moving my "I think that is the key here" post. Arrow740 21:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This section is about my unblock request. --Aminz 22:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It's also about the Sikhism edit. Can we just have a truce now? Arrow740 22:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad mediation update

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad --Sefringle^Talk 04:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll read it and comment. --Aminz 04:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yellow badge and antisemitism

Hi Aminz

The yellow badge is definitely related to antisemitism, because of the Nazis. This is quite independent of how we interpret the medieval period. Best wishes. Itsmejudith 10:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's definitely correct. But my point was that it was an anti-"jewish" practice when it was applied uniformly to both Christians and Jews. --Aminz 10:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, please note that the other version of the article says that Jews were singled out for that (which is incorrect).--Aminz 10:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's keep separate the medieval period, when there was no racial antisemitism but an anti-Judaism that was also anti-Christianity, and the modern period when racial antisemitism occurs. Regards. Itsmejudith 21:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Judith, let's at least agree on some matters. We know that this wasn't specifically applied to Jews. The version Humus sapeins and Beit Or, and Karl Meier support says: "Over the ages, Jews were 'singled out... in ... Muslim countries..." That's obviously incorrect.

And we know that the enforcement of this was highly erratic but the intro doesn't say this. Instead it says "Over the ages, Jews were singled out..." That's also incorrect.

Whether it was antisemitism in the context of medieval Islam or not is a matter of definition. I suggest we first fix above matters which are not matters of definition but pure facts. --Aminz 22:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Aminz, you may wish to know that an article you created has recently been listed for deletion. ITAQALLAH 15:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Aminz, the United States National Security Council isn't a reliable source on what is or is not a distorted version of Islam. Additionally, it is silly to characterize the governments of Turkey and Tunisia (of all places) as "reforming" Islamic law by adopting Western legal codes.Proabivouac 08:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

1. We are using that source and we should faithfully represent it if we are using it. Please also don't pretend that you don't know Lewis's quote in that regard.

2. The Oxford Dictionary of Islam says: "The past two centuries have seen major reforms in Islamic family law: Tunisia rendered polygony illegal on Islamic grounds and established equal rights for men and women in divorce; Turkey also forbade polygony, but as a result of a wholesale adoption of the Western legal code."

Now, if you feel really smart and myself and "The Oxford Dictionary of Islam" silly, you can have your opinion for yourself. Please do me a favor and keep it for yourself for I am not sure if I requested to hear that. --Aminz 08:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

1) I may indeed be forgetting something, but I don't recall Lewis saying that it sprung from a distorted version of Islam, only that there is no scriptural or historical basis for it. Innovation and distortion are very different ideas.Proabivouac 08:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you consider Nazism a non-distorted version of Christianity? --Aminz 08:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-sequitur, Aminz.Proabivouac 08:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comment is not meaningful to me. Lewis says Al-qa'eda comes out of Islam as Nazism from Christianity.

Then Lewis is just following Godwin's law himself.Proabivouac 08:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where this is going at but it is unfortunate that one needs to prove that Al-qaeda follow a distorted version of Islam. --Aminz 08:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I see. Arrow740 09:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Some might, with approximately equal credibility, asssert that sitting at a computer and editing Wikipedia neutrally is also a distorted version of Islam.Proabivouac 09:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

2) Stop usin[hg "Oxford" to mean "Esposito." That's polygamy, incidentally, not polygony. At most, this supports that the government of Tunisia made it polygamy illegal on some unstated Islamic grounds - Turkey is said here to have abandoned Islamic law.Proabivouac 08:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop using what? What does Oxford has to do with Esposito? There are many many editors. What's your point? --Aminz 08:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, Esposito is the editor.[32]Proabivouac 08:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor in chief. But there is a 3 page list of editors at the beginning of the book. --Aminz 08:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

War

Watt says Muhammad was being aggressive, Cook says the same thing. Lewis is vague, but does call it an act of war (you remember the definition of this, I hope). "The state of war between Medina and Mecca provided the occasion for its exercise. Raids on merchant carvans were seens as a natural and legitimate act of war." He is saying that the raiding started the war (as an act of war). Then the war became the occasion (time) when the raiding happened. Don't ignore Watt and Cook. What happened to this stance toward Watt? Arrow740 08:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Watt says the Razzis were made by Emigrants from Mecca who considered themselves being mistreated by Meccans. As far as I remember your quote of Cook regarding the satanic verses said that the Meccans bitterly persecuted Muslims. It is true to say that Emigrants started the raids, but it is not true to say that they started the hostility. They acted in the context of hostility and lewis's quote is clear on that point("The state of war between Medina and Mecca provided the occasion for its exercise. Raids on merchant carvans were seens as a natural and legitimate act of war" ). --Aminz 08:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There was hostility because Muhammad was disrupting the social order in Mecca. The issue here is who started the war. The scholars say the Muslims did. Arrow740 08:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

For whatever reason, there were hostility and active persecution towards the group of Emigrants by Meccans. Lewis says that created "The state of war".--Aminz 08:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No. The second sentence is not true. Regarding Cook, your "as far as I remember your quote of Cook" precedes a false statement. He says that relations between the two groups became bitterly hostile. Arrow740 09:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You can check out any sources, say EoI, if you would like to read about who was persecuting whom in the Meccan period. --Aminz 22:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Arrow740 05:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party is now active, and your input is requested. Further information is available at the Mediation location, Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Kind regards, Anthøny 16:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

RFM

Hi Aminz -- there's a request for mediation involving you, me, Arrow740, and Proabivouac concerning Muhammad -- please reply:

[33]

Peace, BYT 13:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi, Aminz, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, Giggy _U^CP 04:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on RFM Muhammad

Personally, I'm focusing my efforts there. Peace, BYT 10:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

SV

It was probably referring to Guillaume's reconstruction. The EoQ and Rubin also say it was in Ibn Ishaq's sira. Rubin says that ibn ishaq circulated reports of the incident, and tabari says he heard it via ibn ishaq. You can look at the EoQ extract on the talk page of Muhammad. The scholars say it was in Ibn Ishaq. Welch's "presumably" indicates that he has not addressed the topic in the detail that Rubin and Ahmed have. Please don't ignore this, and don't try to remove statements that the story was in Ibn Ishaq again. You will only provoke edit wars. Arrow740 10:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not in Ibn Hisham's edition of Ibn Ishaq and hence Welch says it "presumably" wasn't there in Ibn Ishaq. Guillaume and Rubin (who already believe in historicity of the incident) at most "guess" it was in Ibn Ishaq. --Aminz 01:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your last sentence seems to involve a red herring and a personal opinion about how those scholars came to their conclusions. If I'm interpreting it properly, that is. Arrow740 01:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your comment is not comperhensible.--Aminz 01:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, Tabari, who like Ibn Hisham was a student of Ibn Ishaq's student, claims to have gotten it from Ibn Ishaq. In any event, two of three is enough to say "the" in a general context. "The earliest biographies" isn't the same as "All of the earliest biographies," as you seem to assume, whereas "All but one of the earliest…" sounds like a pro-verses argument, as if there were dozens with it and only one without. Even saying "Two of the three earliest…" sounds like a pro-verses argument (albeit a more measured one.) Conversely, if we said, "Not all of the earliest…" this would sound like an anti-verses argument, even though it literally refers to the same thing. Were you aware of how these sound to a native speaker, I am confident that you would prefer the less specified construction. Trust me on that (or ask someone else to be sure.)Proabivouac 02:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Does Tabari say that his only source was Ibn Ishaq?

"The earliest biographies" sounds to me like "All of the earliest biographies". Thanks for the information about how these sound to a native speaker. If we are writing about the earliest biographies, Ibn Hisham is one-third of them. "The earliest biographies" doesn't seem to me to convey that.--Aminz 02:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"The earliest biographies" is consistent with "All of the earliest biographies", but it's also consistent with "most of" or "some of." Example, if you have four sisters, and two of them tell me something, it's perfectly fine to say, "Your sisters told me that…" It could mean "all of your sisters," but it certainly doesn't have to, nor would it be assumed.Proabivouac 02:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Rubin and Ahmed both did detailed analysis of the records of the incident, and both concluded it was in Ibn Ishaq. As did Guillaume. For the third time, Tabari said he got it from Ibn Ishaq. Stop saying it's disputed. An admitted "presumption" from one person doesn't measure up against this evidence. Maybe you should try addressing what I'm saying. Also, itaqallah recently reverted to a very neutral version at Muhammad. You keep violating NPOV there. Stop. Arrow740 04:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, by showing that there are scholars who believe that it was in Ibn Ishaq, you have refuted my saying that there is disagreement over its inclusion in Ibn Ishaq (whose text is lost). In order to show the dispute, one needs to show two different reliable sources saying different things. Welch in EoI says: "This curious story, which is also found in Ibn Sa`d (i/1, 137 f.) but not in Ibn Hisham and presumably not in Ibn Ishaq, is rejected by most Muslims as a later invention."- That is enough to establish that saying "it was in Ibn Ishaq as a fact" is problematic. There is a very simple logic behind my argument. --Aminz 06:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, but you didn't communicate it. Can you please explain this post. Arrow740 08:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, there is also a difference between, "The earliest biographies" and "the earliest biography." Remember not too long ago when Arrow740 listed all the places it was found? We don't need this kind of detail here.Proabivouac 05:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You pointed out that these terms mean something different to native speakers. So, I have reason to believe in the point unless someone else disputes it. --Aminz 06:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Act of war

Do you want me to link you to another dictionary? Lewis doesn't say how the war started. Watt and Cook do. Obviously, we have to do more than look at one source, put words in Lewis' mouth, and ignore other sources. That's what you're doing. Lewis says the raids were an "act of war," what does that mean? Arrow740 14:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Lewis says the "state of war" provided the occasion for what was a legitimate act of war, i.e. the raids. --Aminz 21:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Lewis doesn't say how the war started. Watt and Cook do. Obviously, we have to do more than look at one source, put words in Lewis' mouth, and ignore other sources. That's what you're doing. Peters terms Muhammad's methods "aggressive political violence." Arrow740 21:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, readers would naturally conclude from the way this source had been presented that Medina (not just the Muslims!) and Mecca were at already at war prior to the Hijra.Proabivouac 08:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That could be cleared up. Instead of Medina, we can say Medinan Muslims. --Aminz 08:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

We won't, because it's false. Arrow740 09:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 04:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Muhammad. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 08:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

3RR

Aminz, your editing has been very aggressive.Proabivouac 06:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your good reference on RfCU.Proabivouac 20:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. The very point that you think the two users are the same constitutes an evidence to me because of your past experience dealing with sockpuppets. --Aminz 20:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No thanks for this bizarre edit and summary: [34]. Arrow740 13:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740, the summary's not bizarre, just a little ambiguous: does he mean your personal interpretation, or Rodinson's? No reason to be snarky; just ask.Proabivouac 21:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP SENDING THESE MESSAGES: [This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Aminz 03:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)]

AND PLEASE STOP YOUR EXCESSIVE VANDALISM, DELETIONS AND GROSS EDITING OF BATTLE OF THE TRENCH. The things you are deleting are referenced to the Qur'an and to IBN ISHAQ, both considered worldwide on all sides of the issue to be authoritative. If you have additions, or moderate, respectful changes, please make them. You have been reported to administrator Natalie Erin. Regards, 68.230.102.217 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.230.102.217 (talk) 04:03:02, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Anon, please stop screaming at Aminz and state your concerns in a reasoned manner or not at all. If you continue this confrontational behavior, you may be blocked.Proabivouac 06:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Proab. --Aminz 07:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"But later retracted" is already mentioned in the very next sentence. Arrow740 07:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You removed over 4400 bytes of sourced facts to reliable sources. Arrow740 07:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Pure interpretive sentences. e.g. reading the mind of Muhammad in the Banu Qunayna (to which Watt doesn't agree) and other sentences. We should say the facts, not personal interpretations of the facts ("Islam changed" etc etc)--Aminz 07:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Your second sentence is quite remarkable, coming from you. Your post preceeding it is quite forgettable (Ibn ishaq states Muhammad wanted to execute the Banu Qaynuqa men but then ibn Ubayy grabbed his cloak etc etc). Arrow740 07:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have read Ibn Ishaq and he doesn't say what Muhammad wanted to do. --Aminz 08:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

So have I, and the inference is quite clear. Fortunately we have trained historians to relate history explicitly. I ask anyone reading this page to look at this mass removal of sourced text by Aminz. Arrow740 08:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"Inference" --> Personal opinion. Watt doesn't say that. The rest of the sentences are of the same nature and are replaced by factual statements without giving undue weight. --Aminz 08:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If Watt "disagrees" as you stated above, provide the proof. The rest of your removals is removal of sourced fact as anyone reading the diff will see. Arrow740 08:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Rodinson's reading of all the sources is worth much more than your reading of one, in any case. Please note this for the future. Arrow740 19:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

See Watt, Muhammad the prophet and statesman, p.131--Aminz 21:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It'd be nice if we could address these disputes one by one on Talk:Muhammad.Proabivouac 08:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not. --Aminz 08:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Do not oppose sources that are not opposed. Watt does not say that Muhammad didn't want to kill the Banu Qaynuqa (your claim that he did is false), and Watt doesn't say that Muhammad didn't order any assassinations, just that in the instances of the two poets that he may not have known about the assassination (which he requested) until after. If I tell you, "make this article reflect the Muslim POV" without telling you specifics, if you go and do so, then I wouldn't know about what you did until after. Arrow740 18:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

See Watt, Muhammad the prophet and statesman, p.131 where he says: Muhammad was insisting that the Qaynuqa must leave but was prepared to be linient about other conditions and that Ibn Ubay argued that presense of Qaynuqa with 700 fighting men can help Medina against Meccans.--Aminz 21:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing there about an execution either way, what a surprise. Arrow740 00:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Muhammad was insisting that the Qaynuqa must leave but was prepared to be linient about other conditions"- Don't play games Arrow. --Aminz 00:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Elonka family articles

Aminz, if you have an issue with Matt57 on a particular article, please address it there, or open an RfC about that dispute. Alternately, if you have an opinion about the Elonka family articles, please take a look at them before weighing in. (Ideally, one forms one's opinions after one looks at what's being discussed…)Proabivouac 03:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've responded on Matt's talk page. --Aminz 03:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Islam and modernity

I was pretty impressed with how you managed to improve the dhimmi article. It's still slanted, but before it was just atrocious. I've been doing a bit of research on the modernist, reformist movements in the Islamic world in the 19th century. I'm not really ready to fully amend the article, but I managed to hunt down several very important people from that era. I figured you might want to take a look, even get a head start if you feel so inclined. I anticipate giving this article some solid research and attention over the next few weeks, but would appreciate some help -- if only to keep Islamophobes out. (See the talk page, if you have further comments.) 65.95.142.252 05:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi 65.95.142.252. I am a little bit busy in real life. The issue of modernity is certainly an interest of mine, but I do not feel I know enough about it to be able to be helpful there. I was hoping maybe some knowledgable editor picks that article so that I can read and learn something from it :) So, I look forward to see your contributions on the modernist, reformist movements in the Islamic world in the 19th century. --Aminz 11:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That's alright. I don't know very much, but I do have some good books I've been reading. I'll see what I can do. Please do check back in now and then, if only to keep the "OMG there are no modernist muslims" people out. I imagine I'll get around to it in the next week or two. 64.231.193.211 16:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Joel Feinberg

I'll do you a favor by telling you that no one cares that you've found an "expert" whose views you can interpret so as to support your own. There are many such people and none are authoritative. You're wasting your time with the subpage. Please give this up so that I don't have to spend time in the future telling you this again when you bring this to a wider forum. Arrow740 06:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't need your "favor". Thanks --Aminz 09:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)