User talk:Eperoton/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Please note I am not the filing party but rather a DRN volunteer. JQTriple7 (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Translation of a certain sentence.

Hello, would you mind improving one of my translations from arabic to english? Cheers! 21:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Hi, CounterTime. I'll be glad to help if I can. Eperoton (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delay, didn't saw that you responded. First I wish you a happy new year! :-) Anyway, here's the relevant passage

و دعوى النسخ هنا مروية عن إبن زيد، وهو شديد الضعف لا يحتج به، و عن السدي و قد أسلفنا حكم إبن الجوزي عليه، و عن الضحاك و هو لم يلق إبن عباس و لم يسمع عنه

It is from Mustafa Zayd's book on abrogation, more specifically in his discussion on whether Q.9:5 abrogates Q.2:256, my proposed translation is:

This [view] is reportedly narrated from Ibn Zayd who is extremely weak, no one uses his sayings to make an argument, and from Al-Sidi, and we have already mentioned that Ibn al-Jawzi [considered his book on abrogation to be unreliable], and al-Dahak who never met Ibn Abbas and never heard of him.

I feel that there's plenty of room to ameliorate this one, keeping in mind that I expanded a lot to translate some things, like "لا يحتج به" which I rendered as "no one uses his sayings to make an argument".

For the context please see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Baqara_256#Abrogation_debate_and_other_views

Regards.

Thanks in advance.

21:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

A happy new year to you as well, CounterTime! It seems a bit tricky to strike a balance between translating this language into idiomatic English without taking liberties. Some observations: 1) the word "da3waa" seems to convey a sense of disagreement or skepticism (Wehr-Cowan gives "allegation, pretension, claim"), 2) a literal translation of the phrase "rawaa 3an" isn't idiomatic in English; Wehr-Cowan gives: to pass on, transmit (3an h.- sth. on the strength of an authoritative source), quote (3an from a source); 3) the expression "laa yuhtajj bihi" could perhaps be translated more literally; 4) you may want to supply the exact comment about Ibn al-Jawzi as well. Let me know if you disagree. How about the following? "The claim of abrogation here stems from Ibn Zayd who is extremely weak and is not used to support argumentation; from al-Sidi, and we have already noted Ibn Al-Jawzi's judgement regarding him; and al-Dahak who never met Ibn Abbas and never heard of him." Eperoton (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, wouldn't "heard of him" be "yasma3 bihi"? Would the expression "yasma3 3an" mean something like "heard him himself", perhaps? Eperoton (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: That's much better, I would suggest this version:

The allegation of abrogation here is narrated from Ibn Zayd who is extremely weak and is not used to support argumentation; from al-Sidi, and we have already noted Ibn Al-Jawzi's judgement regarding him; and al-Dahak who never met Ibn Abbas and never heard of him.

Where "yasma' 'anh" would better be rendered as "never heard of him ('anh)".

Thanks again for your help. :-)

Cheers!

11:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: No problem. If you don't like "stems from", I would suggest "is based on a repoprt by" or "is narrated on the authority of", because "narrated from someone" doesn't quite work in English. Eperoton (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@CounterTime: P.S. I'm still wondering about "yasma3 3anh". I believe it's commonly used in the sense of "heard of" (i.e., heard his name mentioned) these days, which is why I passed over it the first time, but I decided to double-check Wehr-Cowan and didn't see this usage listed there. I believe that the preposition may have a different sense in classical usage. Lane's dictionary (see p. 1427, [1]) gives it as synonymous with "sami3 minh" with translation "he heard it from him, as related from him, on his authority." The sense "heard his reports with his own ears" also seems to make more sense in the context. Eperoton (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Okay, so we would get something like this:

The allegation of abrogation here is narrated on the authority of Ibn Zayd who is extremely weak and is not used to support argumentation; from al-Sidi, and we have already noted Ibn Al-Jawzi's judgement regarding him; and al-Dahak who never met Ibn Abbas and never heard from him.

What do you think?

BTW there's a standing dispute over a certain translation here, would appreciate much your input. (Just look at the box, don't look at all the lengthy discussion,)

Thanks again.

16:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: How about "never heard his reports" for a more idiomatic turn of phrase? The dispute on the other page seems to be semi-dormant and there's more text there, so I'll look at it a bit later. Thanks for helping me keep in touch with my Arabic studies. :) Eperoton (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Hello, just learned some two things which may further help us in determining the correct translation of "yasma' 'anh", I'll explain that to you later on. Cheers!

12:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Well, that's a cliffhanger. :) Eperoton (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Here's a passage that may help us

The transmission of the Hadith of the Parent Killing His Child from ʿUmar that does not pass through ʿAmr (found in Ibn Ḥanbal's Musnad) includes the problematic link between al-Ḥakam bin ʿUtayba ← Mujāhid bin Jabr. Al-Ḥakam was a known mudallis, with Shuʿba bin al-Ḥajjāj warning that anything he received from Mujāhid without explicit audition (samāʿ) was passed in the form of a book (Ibn Ḥajar, Tahdhīb, 2:390). Since this Hadith comes via the phrase 'from (ʿan),' which does not denote audition, this narration is unreliable.

— Jonathan A.C. Brown, Misquoting Muhammad, pp.295-6.

So it seems here ʿan would mean, in this "narration evaluation by traditionalists" context, to not be referring to audition, which Mustafa Zayd explicitly states when he says lam yasmaʿ ʿanh. What do you think? What would be the proposed amelioration in your opinion then? CounterTime (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@CounterTime: Actually, I made a correction to my reply of Jan 2 but didn't have time to save it before your reply. I misread the format in Lane's dictionary on this point. He lists "sami3 minh" with the meaning "he heard it from him" separately from "sami3 3anh" with the meaning "as related from him, on his authority". It didn't seem to make a difference to me at the time, but now that it's been amplified by Brown's comment, I realize that it does suggest a different reading. If we take "sami3 3anh" as a technical term that excludes personal contact, the passage we were translating would mean something like "never met him or heard reports narrated on his authority" (i.e., never met someone who heard his reports first-hand). It does correspond better to what we know about the use of this term, though, frankly, I'm not familiar with the technical language of this literature well enough to speak with confidence on this point. I would be curious hear Reeves.ca's take of this. Eperoton (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: It seems the point of contention here is "عنه", so let's break it down:

• If we extract the target from the inflected preposition, then "عنه" becomes "عن إبن عباس"
• Now, the phrase would become "لم يسمع عن إبن عباس"
• In this context, "عن" literally means "about"

Thus, the phrase would literally translate to "has not heard about Ibn Abbas" - which is idiomatically awkward in English, but the meaning can be correctly translated to "has not heard of Ibn Abbas." I hope this helps somehow. Regards, Reeves.ca (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Reeves.ca. So you don't buy that "sami3 3anh" is used here in the classical sense given by Lane and Brown? Eperoton (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not that I don't buy it, it's that you're unintentionally linking two different forms of the verb to mean the same thing. Allow me to explain:

* "سمع" is a form called الماضي (Perfective aspect) and is used to expresses the general verbal meaning of the root (س م ع) - to hear

* "يسمع" is a form called المضارع (Imperfective aspect) and is used to describe habitual/continuous actions

Thus, they have the same root word, but not the same grammatical meaning. I encourage you to get familiar with the different verb forms as it will help you tremendously with Arabic translation. The phrase "لم يسمع عن" puts emphasis on continuously "not hearing about", i.e.: not knowing the person. I hope this makes sense. Regards, Reeves.ca (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Reeves.ca: Ah, it didn't occur to me that verbal aspect would differentiate between these meanings. How would you negate this expression to preserve its classical sense? With maa + perf? Eperoton (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Reeves.ca: But then the meaning that Mustafa Zayd would want to convey wouldn't stand, I'll try to search for a narration in exegesis books in which al-Dahhak narrates on the authority of Ibn Abbas. CounterTime (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@CounterTime: Could you please provide the exact citation for the sentence in question? It's just so awkwardly phrased that it could be misconstrued (i.e.: My translation may not hold) that I would like to get a third opinion (but I need the original source). Thanks - Reeves.ca (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Reeves.ca: Here's the original wording:

و دعوى النسخ هنا مروية عن إبن زيد، وهو شديد الضعف لا يحتج به، و عن السدي و قد أسلفنا حكم إبن الجوزي عليه، و عن الضحاك و هو لم يلق إبن عباس و لم يسمع عنه

As taken from the book al-Naskh fi al-Qur'an of Mustafa Zayd. One should note that this book is addressed to specialists in the field, which may explain why Mustafa uses such general wording without making further specifications.

If you want me to give you more context from that passage from his work then just ask.

Regards.

19:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@Reeves.ca: Although I couldn't find a report containing Al-Dahak and Ibn Abbas as referring to abrogation, from my experience, this is most likely talking about a certain report linking them which the author (Mustafa Zayd) deems to be weak since Qatada never met or heard of Ibn Abbas. I think this is the most probable interpretation.

20:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

He's talking about Abd Allah ibn Abbas, right? Is it plausible that someone from that milieu wouldn't have heard his name? Eperoton (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@CounterTime: Could you provide me with the exact location of the text? (Section, chapter, page, etc...) Thanks - Reeves.ca (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Please re-read the quote from Misquoting Muhammad as an example. (it doesn't mean that he never heard of who Ibn Abbas is, or who he was, it rather refers to his reports)

@Reeves.ca: From the Mustafa Zayd book right? I also have an archive.org link to it, do you want me to send you a direct link to the page in which that passage was taken from? If that's what you're asking then here it is : (beginning from the 8^th line) https://archive.org/stream/reaq1#page/n513/mode/1up

21:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Yes, that's also the interpretation I prefer myself, so I'm just raising an additional doubt about the alternative interpretation. Eperoton (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: I've been meaning to get back to this as the arabic phrasing has been gnawing at me: I've consulted with a few friends, who's proficiency in Arabic is outstanding; they all believe that there is ambiguity in the sentence structure and that the phrasing is generally weak; whoever the majority agree that it most likely means "from him" rather than "about him" - there is still disagreement, so I'll pass the passage along (Thanks CounterTime for sending it) to see where it leads the conversation. Clearly we've gone outside the scope of your needs here, but this has been truly entertaining, educational, and humbling. Keep up the good work folks! Reeves.ca (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@CounterTime: Also, "السدي" would be better translated as "As-Suddi" not "Al-Sidi"

@CounterTime: Another pedantic note, "الضحاك" would be better translated as "Adh-Dhahhaak" instead of "al-Dahak"

@Reeves.ca: Thank you for taking the time to look into this question. It's been a real pleasure to host such an interesting discussion on my talk page! Eperoton (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Reeves.ca: Thanks, looking forward to their response.

As for "السدي" it seems that it's as-suddi, didn't pay attention to its chakl.

For "الضحاك", it is better to transliterate it as Adh-Dhahhaak because of the chada in the daʾ (ض), however in that format it is a bit too long, and we may use ISO standards of transliteration to get Aḍ-Ḍahāk, there's no need to make a repetition of 'h' since there's no chada on the haʾ (ح), could you please check that?

And thanks to all for this great discussion!

12:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@Reeves.ca: Here's further evidence, Mustafa Zayd states in pp.537-8

.و لكن نجد إبن الجوزي يسند دعوى النسخ في الأية إلى إبن عباس أيضا، و لكن بطريق الضحاك الدي لم يلقي إبن عباس و لم يسمع منه

Also on p.543:

.و هو منسوب إلى إبن عباس رضي الله عنهما برواية الضحاك، غير أن الضحاك لم يلق إبن عباس و لم يسمع منه كما أسلفنا

23:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Then there is no doubt about it ("منه" can only be interpreted as "from him"). The issues is definitely resolved :) . Thanks for clarifying that. Cheers - Reeves.ca (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Reeves.ca: There's just one tiny problem, how would I phrase it so as to clarify that meaning? 17:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@Eperoton: Do you have any suggestions? 15:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: How about "never met him or heard reports narrated on his authority"? Eperoton (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: I was more thinking of making a "Mustafa Zayd states that X, Y, and Z" rather than a direct quote (which we already finished). 19:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: It depends. I don't have enough context to paraphrase this passage. Is Zayd referring to a hadith with ibn Abbas in the isnad or an argument allegedly made by Ibn Abbas? And does he call ibn Zayd (I'm not sure who that is) weak as a faqih or as a transmitter? If you leave it as a direct quote, it's clear that he's casting doubt on this claim, and you don't need to clarify what he means exactly. Eperoton (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: (Yes, he's talking about an isnad linking Ibn Abbas to al-dahak) Okay, I'll leave it as it is for the first part, then I'll state: "He then adds that another report contains a weakness in its chain, as "Al-Dahhak never met Ibn Abbas" or something like that. What do you think? 22:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: That makes sense. Eperoton (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Okay thanks, I think now we can safely state that the issue is solved! Thank you for your help, and thanks also to @Reeves.ca:! That was a really nice discussion :-)

Cheers!

10:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Arman

Hi please come to this talk page .Arman ad60 (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Peterwoodwilson

Thank you for your reply Eperoton. I am delighted to hear from you. But let me tell you that what ever content I have provided in the section of your article is what I have researched when I was in Africa. I haven't published it anywhere so I was unable to cite it for reference, kindly you add it as I am publishing it for the first time on Wikipedia itself. I hope that this would help you to add my edited content to your article. Thank you Eperoton

@Peterwoodwilson: Unfortunately, Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:No original research) does not allow us to add content based on unpublished research. All content has to be supported by a published reliable source. Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for more detail. Eperoton (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok.. Thank you Eperoton. I am very grateful to you for your reply.

Review of a certain edit.

Hello! Hope you're having a good time. :-) Would you please review this edit of mine, I'm afraid that the wording may be misleading a bit, or is it only me? Anyway, thanks in advance! --CounterTime (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, CounterTime. There are happier subjects than the articles I've been working on lately, but I'm glad to see that they're being improved. Kudos to you for finding all those sources! I'm guessing that you're referring to the word "sanction", which may mean both "approve" and "punish". Though its meaning is reasonably clear in this quote (otherwise it would read "sanctioned a man FOR killing"), I personally avoid using it because of this potential for confusion, especially given the international audience of WP. I would suggest the following paraphrase: "Killing one's wife or sister for tarnishing her honor or that of her family has not received approval from any Islamic scholar of note, in either medieval or modern era." Eperoton (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, as always perfect wording! CounterTime (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Islam-related articles

Thank you for your contribution to the Islamic related articles. I've been meaning to come back to some of the articles you're tackling, but you beat me to it.

That said, and slightly off-topic, I had to ask you how you managed to learn so many languages (and not just in Indo-European languages family)? Your proficiency is remarkable (reviewed your translation discussion above with CounterTime). Reeves.ca (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Reeves.ca! Reading and hearing various languages just happens to be something I enjoy doing regularly, and anything we do regularly adds up over the years. That said, I still haven't managed to master three languages at a native or near-native level as you have. Though I don't think you meant it that way, if you see me editing things you'd like to work on yourself, don't hesitate to let me know. I'll have no trouble finding other subjects to look into. Eperoton (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, I thank you for your edits. I would be foolish to admit mastery of anything, let alone any language. However, my life has taken me down a winding path that forced that upon me. I am now grateful for it, but It wasn't so when I was younger. I have tried learning German, Greek, Spanish and Japanese; however I found it impossible to retain anything without surrounding myself with native speakers for a substantial amount of time. You seem to have a natural affinity to linguistics that I envy, or you've spent a lot of time in different places, or both. Wikipedia is better for having you. Regards, Reeves.ca (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Islamic prophet infoboxes

Hi Eperoton. I certainly wasn’t intending “to make potentially controversial changes to articles en masse, without testing the water for disputes and establishing consensus”. That’s why I posted about it in a couple of different places and included links in my edit summary. The removal of honorifics at least seems uncontroversial since it is just following MOS guidelines. In any case I’ve replied elsewhere. Cheers --☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 03:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Socialism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Socialism. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

History of Islam

Hi, you were editing the article History of Islam. I think there are some problems in the sections "Asia" and "Africa". Please try to improve them if possible.Arman ad60 (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

rvt in Jizya article, 21 January 2016

"Rm synth on revolts: doesn't distinguish the poll tax from other". The cite does not specifically use the word jizya but does specify that the Christians avoided the tax by converting to Islam. (Putting this on your talk page to avoid cluttering the ongoing discussion on Jizya talk page) --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie: In the early Islamic period to which the episodes in that statement partly belong, the question of taxation is complex from both substantive and terminological standpoint. We've gotten a consensus to follow Brill's Encyclopedia of Islam in devoting the article "jizya" to the poll tax (see the disambiguation at the top), while explaining its origin and crystallization in the history section. For the "jizya rate" section, we need to make sure that the source is talking about the poll tax and not the land tax or unspecified communal tribute. For early Islamic Egypt, the jizya article in EI2 argues against a "previous belief" that the poll tax was not a significant burden compared to the land tax (both of which were levied as a communal tribute and apportioned at the discretion of the community), so the situation is tricky and trying to infer a statement about gravity of the poll tax per se from that vague statement about revolts and conversions gets into synthesis territory. Eperoton (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Muhammad

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Muhammad. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit the Islam page

I want to edit the Islam page. In number of Islam followers 1,7 billion. The sources : http://www.gordonconwell.edu/resources/documents/1IBMR2015.pdf.--Aldibravo (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Aldibravo: Please post your message on the Talk:Islam page. Eperoton (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Muhammad selling slaves". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 6 February 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 03:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 174.95.7.198 (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@174.95.7.198: I don't think that's fair on behalf of Eperoton, you yourself violated the three-revert rule:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhimmi&diff=702431253&oldid=702430782

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhimmi&diff=702436279&oldid=702435885

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhimmi&diff=702437828&oldid=702436755

Regards,

17:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Reference to phonological research on "motherese" is considered good science, albeit contoversial. Please undo your deletion. Abdulwahab Mohammed Azzam (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Abdulwahab Mohammed Azzam

AE proposal

Hi Eperoton, I saw you supported my suggestion about 1RR on Muhammad and opposed the 500/30. Thanks! I also think the 500 is unnecessary, as several users said, though the 30 days part could be useful to avoid users making socks to circumvent the 1RR if it's put in place. Admin EdJohnston suggested that if I proposed this at AE with the support of a user "from another point of view (on Talk:Muhammad)" then it would likely pass. Now, looking at RfCs and discussions, you and I have had different views on most subjects. At the same time, I know you're a really good user, you don't edit war, you don't insult other users, you remain calm even in heated discussions and you present good arguments for which you find sources. In short, we often have different opinions but I always respect both your views and your behavior. That's why I thought to take up EdJohnston's suggestion to propose the 1RR and 30 days on AE, but skipping the 500 edits part, if you think that this is something you would support. All the best! Jeppiz (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Jeppiz. Your fair-mindedness and efforts to build a collaborative atmosphere are greatly appreciated. I would support that proposal. Eperoton (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll file it today. All the best! Jeppiz (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Done I filed the suggestion here. Thanks again for your support and keep up the good work! Jeppiz (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Well, I've learned something new about WP acronyms today. In light of the comments at ArbCom and on Talk:Muhammad, I would suggest limiting the proposal to 1RR and revisiting additional restrictions later if that proves to be insufficient. Eperoton (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I also learned something new. You're absolutely right. A bit busy today and won't have much time for WP, but if I refile in the right place, I'll stick to the 1RR. All the best! Jeppiz (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration withdrawn

Hello Eperoton, this is a message to inform you that an Arbitration request in which you were named a party (which can be found here) has been closed as withdrawn. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

Your recent editing history at Islam shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. FRDHU (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Did you read this warning yourself? I have started a new section on the talk page about your addition two days ago. Yet both of you continue to edit war instead of responding there and trying to build consensus for your disputed addition, as you are required to do by WP:DR. Eperoton (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Political correctness

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Political correctness. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Muhammad selling slaves, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Muhammad selling slaves, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

not in the src

Hello, just wanted to leave a minor explication here (not in the src=source). It doesn't seem—to me at lest—that Hoyland criticizes jizya as being discriminatory, in other words, he didn't characterize it as being in any way unjust because it was on conquered people "irrespective of their religion or ethnicity". Hope you get what I mean, regards. 16:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: It's not clear that any of the sources cited in that place "criticize" jizya, which is why I moved that word to the second part of the sentence. However, Hoyland does call jizya (along with other policies) "discriminatory". Personally, the notion of discrimination doesn't make much sense to me outside of the modern nation state, but that's a term commonly applied to pre-Abbasid taxation in RSs. Eperoton (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

On the Shafi'i, Hanafi & Maliki articles

Hello, just wanted to bring your attention to a certain issue with the Shafi'i, Hanafi and Maliki articles. As you can see, all of them contain:

3 Views

   .1 Apostasy
   .2 Blasphemy
   .3 Stoning
   .4 Dower
   .5 Slavery
   .6 Other views

or

3 Views

   .1 Apostasy
   .2 Blasphemy
   .3 Stoning
   .4 Violence
       3.4.1 Theory of perennial war
   .5 Slavery
   .6 Other views

This seems to be clear-cut WP:POV, why are they specifically focusing on these elements instead of focusing on the distinctive features of each madhab, how it began, ...etc? a quick look at the arabic counterparts of these articles shows something entirely orthogonal:

https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A9 (<- especially this one)

https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B4%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B9%D9%8A%D8%A9

https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AD%D9%86%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%A9

What are your suggestions? 19:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Wow, thanks for pointing that out. Yes, WP:NPOV requires articles to reflect RSs proportionally, and that means not focusing on specific aspects of the subject much more than RSs do. In this case, the articles look nothing like RSs on the subject, being mostly an accumulation of currently controversial rulings. In that respect, they are not only unlike the Arabic versions, but seemingly unique among their counterparts in other languages. They are also unlike the articles Sharia and Fiqh, presumably because more editors have been keeping an eye on those general articles. There's no reason why these topics rather than the hundreds of other topics covered in the Kuwait Encyclopedia of Fiqh should be treated here, and the content should be moved to the corresponding topical articles ("Apostasy in Islam", etc), preferably with verification, as I suspect there's some synthesis there. I also want to look over the treatment of the madhhabs in other RSs and try to improve the articles in other ways. Each maddhab has its own article several pages long in EI2. Needless to say, their section headings aren't called Apostasy, Blasphemy, Stoning, etc. Eperoton (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: When will you be planning to start work on them? 20:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: General improvements will take some time, but I want to start a discussion sometime this week to probe consensus about fixing the NPOV issues you pointed out. Since they are the same for these three articles, I'm planning to do it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam‎ and link to there from the individual pages. Eperoton (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Muhammad selling slaves, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Another dubiously written and sourced article that will need attention

Hello! Hope you're alright. I have found another article—or should I say 'piece of an article'—which would need an entire rewrite, the article in question is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment#Islam and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_and_corporal_punishment_in_Islam

Regards, 16:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Ah, so much stuff to do. :) I'll keep an eye on those article, but I'll gladly let you take the lead on this and other controversial issues and focus on more general historical topics myself. I'm just about to write something about those NPOV issues you brought up in the previous section, though. Eperoton (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Alright, I also follow some of your additions on the articles you're concentrated on, and I can't but say that I really appreciate your work, keep it up! On an entirely orthogonal issue, most Wiki articles that quote Qur'anic verses heavily rely on this website http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/ which lists 3 translations: Yusuf Ali, Pickthall and Shakir (e.g http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/015-qmt.php#015.009). Do you think that there should be an improvement in this regard so as to rely on more modern translations, for e.g., Abdel-Haleem's one? 17:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Thanks for your kind words, CounterTime. I'm not familiar with the different translations of the Qur'an, but I see that the topic has been discussed last year at Template talk:Cite Quran. Eperoton (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Abdulwahab Mohammed Azzam

Hello. Our team of linguists has made contributions to muqatta'at, citing the Hebrew Theory of one of our team https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/593714. You have deleted this important contribution several times. Do you object to the publication of hypotheses that the unexplained letters in the Quran may be spoken in Hebrew?

Please comment on Talk:Taqiya

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Taqiya. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to discuss a controversial article you edited previously

You are invited to comment on the article "List of expeditions ordered by Muhammad" in the Wikipedia Administrators Notice Board. Your input is highly valued as you edited this article previously.

Click here: Controversial Islamic Article-90% of page wiped out by Muslims, possible bias to comment--Misconceptions2 (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

removal of template

kindly check my discussion with other editor regarding your messages, the article is well sourced with inline citations, over a period of time. I did not remove the article deletion template, pls dont send message to me, and stop teaching Vakthruthva (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Vakthruthva: Removal of templates has to be justified at least in the edit summary and preferably on the talk page. Eperoton (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Watch out for this vandal

CriticalRationalThinking is going on some vandalism trip around Muhammad articles. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Alexis Ivanov: Perhaps not vandalism, but some certainly not policy-compliant. Worth keeping an eye out for. Eperoton (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

He is fighting against one of the editors I assume is an administrator in his talk page. His current performance will simply make him blocked Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Opinion Polls

Hello.

Sorry about bothering you two months after the fact, but we previously talked about adding a matter-of-fact "Opinion Polls" section to the Islamism page. I have been, and remain, very tired and overworked, so I have not been able to write the section yet.

However, if I would find the time and energy to do so, do you think that I should insert it into the above-mentioned page, or would it be more appropriate to do so in the Islamic fundamentalism page? Thanks in advance for any help. David A (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@David A: Sorry, David, the subject had slipped off my radar. As I think the article on Islamic fundamentalism makes clear, the use of that term is too varied to connect to poll data meaningfully. Some questions in PEW's poll are already covered in Sharia, Apostasy in Islam and other articles, but I think it makes sense to discuss the polls "Religious Leaders’ Role in Politics" and "Islamic Political Parties" from Chapter 2: Religion and Politics in the article on Islamism. Eperoton (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking of statistical facts such as that, if I remember correctly, 52% of all Muslims want Sharia laws, and that, for example, 88% of all Muslims in Egypt want the death penalty for apostasy. The kind of statistics that are highlighted in the pedagogical "By The Numbers" YouTube video from the Clarion Project. Wouldn't this logically qualify as fundamentalism? David A (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@David A: No, that's synthesis, different conclusions can be reached, let's take Egypt as an example, "In the West, calls for the Shariah are viewed with confusion and fear,accompanied by media flashes of bearded rage and reviving receded memories of medieval inquisitions. Polls demonstrate that for Egyptians,conversely, the 'Shariah' is associated with notions of political, social and gender justice. In 2011, 80 to 87 percent of Egyptians polled wanted the Shariah to be a source of law in the country. Even amid the political chaos in early 2013, a full 58 percent of Egyptians still said that the country'sl aws should strictly follow the Qur'an. 28 Few Egyptians, even Islamist politicians, could explain exactly what that would mean. The place of the Shariah in their consciousness seems oddly similar to the Constitution for Americans; all venerate it, but few have read it in its entirety No one knows what applying it always means."

Regards,

18:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@David A: CounterTime brings up a good point. More generally, to discuss a poll in the Islamic fundamentalism article without violating WP:SYNTH, we would need to cite a RS which applies that label to a survey response. It may be possible to do it, but I wonder how informative that would be, given that the term is used in many different ways. The same concern applies to a lesser degree to Islamism, though I think there's a better rationale for doing it because the article deals with a broad category of "political Islam". Eperoton (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, regardless of personal perceptions, if I remember correctly, just for a few examples, around 200 Million women have been gender mutilated, several Islamic countries have death penalties for homosexuality or apostasy, and Saudi Arabia just had a "science council" declare that women are to be perceived as subhuman livestock. And I have seen lots more facts about the issue in the following pages:

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

I think that Wikipedia has an intellectual, moral, and social responsibility to not set valid fact-based information about problems with extremism within Islam under lock and key. As the secular Muslims in the Clarion Project and Quilliam Foundation recurrently say, the best way to reform/modernise Islam is to bring forth the problems into the light, and have an informed dialogue about them. Not to pretend that they do not exist. Othervise nothing will ever get any better. David A (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@David A: Coming as it does in the middle of our discussion of how best to report the PEW survey and other similar polls, this tirade strikes me as misplaced and not a constructive contribution to the conversation. Let's get back to the specifics of the relevant articles and policies, please. Eperoton (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I apologise if I went off track, or came across as rude. It is just that CounterTime's comment made it seem like he made an argument for that people who support Sharia laws automatically support modern humanist social justice and gender equality values, which seems strongly contrary to the statistics of their actual opinions that I have read, whether in the PEW poll of 38000 Muslims in 39 countries or othervise.

Anyway, to return to the topic. As I mentioned earlier, I am not a scholar. I have just read lots of statistics concerning the issue during the last year, and would greatly appreciate help to evaluate how best to integrate the statistics into Wikipedia articles, so the public at large can get a matter-of-fact awareness of the issue. David A (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@David A: My point was that taking these statistics and making conclusions based on them can lead to contradictory results as I showed, and, WP is not a soapbox (please read WP:SOAP), it isn't a promotion platform so as to propagate your beliefs, as your paragraph suggests: "I think that Wikipedia has an intellectual, moral, and social responsibility to not set valid fact-based information about problems with extremism within Islam under lock and key. As the secular Muslims in the Clarion Project and Quilliam Foundation recurrently say, the best way to reform/modernise Islam is to bring forth the problems into the light, and have an informed dialogue about them."

Regards,

14:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@David A: Per WP:NPOV, our mandate as WP editors is limited to reporting interpretations of poll data found in RSs. CounterTime quoted an interpretation of Egyptian polls on Sharia from a RS. It's something we have to take into account. The PEW survey is already reported in several articles. I made a tentative proposal of incorporating other questions from it into Islamism, though it's a tricky case that needs to be examined more carefully in light of the exact contents of the Islamism article, which I haven't read closely in its entirety yet. If you'd like to incorporate some polls into Islamic fundamentalism, the first step would be to round up RSs which associate that label with poll data. Then we could comply with both WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH by fairly reflecting the view of those RSs as well as the quoted view from Jonathan Brown's book. As with any topic that is subject to polemics in the public sphere, we also need to be extra careful about meeting the criteria of WP:RS. I hope this helps. Eperoton (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't mind if different contradictory statistics are incorporated as well. I just think that we cannot ignore the matter-of-fact negative ones, and do not think that this should logically be any stranger than writing about strong scientific evidence for global warming. To not allow the more reliable statistics to be shown would mean that Wikipedia turns into a soapbox in the opposite direction, due to not taking its responsibility to inform the public about facts seriously. After all, deliberate omission would be a far more biased than scientific reports without further comments.

If you check my history in-deep, you will find that I helped to include criticism of the movies "American Sniper" and "300", which are both anti-Muslim. That is not my angle in this. I just don't believe in keeping important facts about serious issues under wraps, which shouldn't be a particularly extreme point of view.

Anyway, I appreciate the helpful advise. I am very busy running a large entertainment wiki, so I do not know when I will find the time to assemble the more important statistical data, but if/when I do so, how do you think that I should approach it? Should I post a proposal of the section into the Islamic fundamentalism talk page, and ask for feedback? David A (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@David A:

(1) I don't think that's the case for someone who relied on POV sites such as the following, http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx

(2) If you find enough RSs interpreting these polls (which, following your analogy, would be like finding enough peer reviewed papers assessing and discussing the evidence for global warming) then that would be more than excellent.

I would, by the way, recommend you this excellent RS, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, authored by John Esposito with Dalia Mogahed (2008) ISBN 978-1-59562-017-0, which not only makes polls but also interprets them. I think that this particular source should be used extensively in these particular discussions, since it is "based on 6 years of research and more than 50,000 interviews representing Muslims in more than 35 predominantly Muslim countries. Accounting for more than 90% of the world's Muslim community, this poll is the largest, most comprehensive study of its kind." (I also think that gathering a lot of polls would be just a waste of time, as you're basically just "re-inventing the wheel", RSs such as the one I proposed already made such work)

16:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

It doesn't matter that the site itself is biased. The list of statistics seems well-sourced and matter of fact. To quote a local popular left libertarian YouTube celebrity, just because a Nazi said something, and I personally vehemently oppose his world-view, does not make statements about the sky being blue automatically wrong. It was one of the most in-depth sources that I found when Googling the issue. However, as I said, I do not mind if you include other statistics. What I do mind is if somebody tries to censor any statistical or scientific facts that do not fit with their personal ideology. David A (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@David A:

(1) Well sourced? Do you think that sources such as those coming from Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer are reliable?

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/07/40-of-indonesians-would-wage-war-for-islam

(2) WP policies makes it clear that one shouldn't combine multiple sources to reach a conclusion, per WP:SYNTHESIS. Instead one should rely on RSs, such as Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, authored by John Esposito with Dalia Mogahed (2008) ISBN 978-1-59562-017-0, who will interpret these poll results.

(3) And again, WP is not a soapbox (please read WP:SOAP).

Regards,

18:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@David A: It's up to you if you prefer to sound out your proposal on the article TP before making the edit, but I would recommend paying close attention to reliability of sources and ensuring that your interpretation of the polls as indication of fundamentalism is explicitly sourced. The reason we should only use RSs on WP is not because that's the only place where accurate information is to be found, but because it's WP policy, and in controversial matters this policy is nearly certain to be called out. On another note, I think you'll find it easier to create a collaborative atmosphere if you avoid implying that people who disagree with your editing proposals are out to censor the truth. Eperoton (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@David A: Here's an example from Who Speaks For Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think by John L. Esposito, Dalia Mogahed, particularly on your polls on genital mutilation, see what they state and how they do that (page 117): "The World Health Organization estimates that the practice sometimes also called female circumcision, affects 100 million to 140 million girls and women a year, both inside and outside predominantly Muslim societies. According to the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), at least 90% o all women are circumcised in Egypt, Mali, Guinea, and Sudan, while almost no women are circumcised in Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Wherever Nehberg goes, he says that "this custom can only be brought to an end with the power of Islam." In December 2006, a conference of high-ranking Muslim theologians, hosted by the Egyptian Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa, and attended by the prominent Egyptian scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi, agreed that the practice of female genital mutilation is irreconcilable with Islam."

In sum, interpretation of polls will always need RSs.

20:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Fair enough, but I have read that there are plenty of additional problems regarding the treatment of women in several Muslim countries. David A (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@David A: Oh boy, not wikiislam again. See Chapter 4 of Who Speaks For Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think by John L. Esposito, Dalia Mogahed, for non-biased information.

11:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Well, if you have link to a pdf of the survey, or preferably a summary of the statistics, I am obviously willing to take a look at them. However, I do not think that you should categorically dismiss the findings of other reliable comprehensive polls, such as the ones from PEW research (especially more recent findings than 2001-2007, which is the time that your survey took place), simply because you personally dislike the results, and/or the people summarising them. David A (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@DavidA: That's not my position. What I said was that interpretations of these polls should come from RSs, not one's own opinion.

09:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Do you speak arabic

See http://mohd.hawarey.org/kitab07.html click the image of the book, it says "Dr. Mohamed Mosaab Hawary" is the author on the image. The book is on the page of this hawarey http://mohd.hawarey.org/en.html (Mohammad Hawarey aka Dr Dr. Mohamed Mosaab Hawary) and not Mosab Hawarey. Just tell someone who speaks arabic to translate this page for you: http://www.hawarey.org/images/rehla1.jpg --Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Misconceptions2: I can read it. Let's take this back to the article TP, please. Eperoton (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Julius Wellhausen

Hi! Just informing you concerning my recent edit on the jizya article, I quoted Wellhausen from another source (Daniel Dennett), and that was his reference; I can't read Deutsh, so can you please look into the edition that is in your disposal further to find the correct page? Thanks in advance. 15:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: I do want to read this whole chapter at some point, but you can verify an English translation yourself (the cited page corresponds to pages 281-282 here) if you'd like to get rid of the tag before then. Eperoton (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: I guess this is the relevant passage:

Umar II did not succeed. By the method he tried the deterioration of the finances was inevitable. The principle of the inalienability of the tribute-land could not be carried through, and the change of property was no more put a stop to than the change of faith. The later practice reverted to the method of Hajjftj, but with a difference, which, though materially small, had much formal significance. There was, in fact, a distinction drawn between Khar&j and Jizia which had not existed before. The Jizia, according to this, rested on the person and only affected the non-Muslims, being a load removed from their necks when they were con- verted. The Khar&j, on the contrary, rested on the land and did not degrade the person ; it was to, and had to, be paid even by Muslims owning tribute-land. Since the land, at any rate, was the chief object of taxation the poll- tax was really a small sacrifice. 1 Thus cheaply did the exchequer settle the claims of Islam. It was a piece of legal finesse, an expedient which was only resorted to of necessity, for to the plain human understanding it was certainly not the land that paid the tax, but the owner of it.

7 Neither was the poll-tax ever exacted from the new Muslims, the Hawaii, in Kufa and Basra. They only felt slighted because they were not received into the Diwan of the Muqatila and made participa- tors in the pension, and in this respect they aspired to eqnal rights,

No?

17:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Hmm, which part of this do you think corresponds to the statement attributed to Wellhausen? Eperoton (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: I'm not so sure, I think I'll just leave the ref to Daniel Dennett. 17:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Yes, I suppose citing Dennett for this will work. I'm not comfortable with the idea of doing it if direct verification fails, but it's not against policy. Eperoton (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Okay, thanks, that's what I did. Issue fixed. 17:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Discretionary sanctions on all pages regarding Muhammad

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Muhammad, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— MusikAnimal ^talk 16:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Zahiri

The school of thought was only classically identified "Sunni" the source u added mentioned it once being part of sunni. Zahiri later was excluded from Sunni see here [7] [8] You also have access to oxford press and most sources label it extinct. So kindly revert your edits. Misdemenor (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Misdemenor: Ok, fair enough. I think you're oversimplifying in referring to the "Sunni consensus" as simply "Sunni", but I agree that the Amman Message is not the right context to refer to its historical classification. Eperoton (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Eperoton. Sorry to butt in, but given the blatant rejection by Misdemenor and the reversion of his edits by multiple other users across several weeks, I feel the need to speak here. Across multiple notice boards, Misdemenor attacked myself and several other users personally over this issue, and was even caught in a clear lie about me supposedly meatpuppeting on the Zahiri issue.

In short, reliable sources make it very clear that Zahirism is Sunni and is extant, and Misdemenor knows that. Unfortunately, he's stated his dogmatic religious belief that Sunni Islam can only ever be four schools even though there is no official body of consensus (his source for consensus points to a Mamluk Sultanate judicial ruling a few centuries ago) and thus he rejects any reliable, academic source from mainstream public universities that go against his view because he believes that such a thing is theologically heretical.

I know this might not be your cup of tea, but after being one of several users Misdemenor insulted personally over what should be a routine issue of improving sources on the encyclopedia, I feel I ought to mention to someone he's trying to push his personal religious views to. Sorry if this message came as a disturbance. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

What are these attacks/insults you speak of? Questioning your supposed advocacy is not an insult. I have never called you a snake either so where did that come from? Stop portraying me as some sort of vicious wolverine, its slander. Misdemenor (talk) 07:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Translations in the Jizya article

Hello there! As you may know there are some AR RSs that were used in the Jizya article, original citations were given and many translations aren't complete, would appreciate if you could improve the existing translations, and help me in completing the others/ (Of course, if you have the time for)

Cheers!

16:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Hi, CounterTime. Ok, I'll give it a try. I haven't forgotten about rationale, by the way. I've rounded up a bunch of sources, and realized that summarizing them with due weight is a complicated task, because they represent very diverse perspectives. I'll lay out my findings on the TP for discussion, now that the other debates seem to have quieted down. Eperoton (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Insert title here

Hi again. Can you please have a look at this, in particular the very last paragraph there? What are your suggestions?

Regards,
20:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: I've had my eye on this and other sharia-related articles for a few weeks. Most of them are in bad shape. I've been reading up on the subject and starting to tackle some of them when I got sidelined by non-WP matters a few days ago. In this one there's much confusion between four different subjects: 1) classical fiqh, 2) classical legal practice, 3) modern sharia-influenced legislation, and 4) modern debates about sharia. Untangling these issues will take a lot of work. Looking at the article, it's even hard to know where to begin, though I think the tagging you did was the right first step. Unlike the maddhab articles, those recent subjects of controversy seem to belong here, so what's needed is just a better discussion. Given the poor quality of the article, it shouldn't be difficult to get consensus for positive changes, but with its 480 watchers, it's probably also easy to turn it into a battleground. I think our time would be better spent accumulating small changes than having big arguments that don't go anywhere, so I would recommend proceeding circumspectly. For one, it never hurts to verify the sources, and some of the material here looks very suspect. If you have time, you might want to start with that. Eperoton (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@CounterTime: P.S. There's an extensive recent overview of debates surrounding "Islamic Law and Human Rights" in The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Law. This is a good basis for rewriting these sections. Eperoton (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Thanks, those are great points. I'll definitely check that source. By the way, there's also the Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Law which will be released sooner or later, so I'll definitely keep an eye on that. In the meantime, I'll continue working doing some minor works on these articles until I find sufficient time to dedicate.

18:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Upon closer inspection, the overview in the Oxford Handbook is useful, but limited to English-language and mostly academic sources. Here's an another overview that's broader in scope in terms of sources, though narrower in its subject (women's issues): "Muslims, Human Rights, and Women's Rights" by Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad, in Religion and the Global Politics of Human Rights, eds. Thomas Banchoff and Robert Wuthnow. Eperoton (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vedas

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vedas. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Sharia/ apostasy

Thanks, Eperoton. Please have a look now. Also, check the talk page. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Christ myth theory

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christ myth theory. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)