Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:33, 25 July 2006

Archives

/Archive 1

/Archive 2

/Archive 3

Actually

That would be a good article should there be an article comparing Baptists with other Christian groups, which is what Shi'a and Islam is doing. Can you think of a better title for a page comparing a subset of a religion with a superset of a religion? Trick is, it can't have "Misconceptions" in the title. I think the new article title is more than appropriate. Regards, - FrancisTyers · 22:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey man, thanks for your considered note :) I still have reservations about the name, but I think that it could be better at something like Views on Shi'a Islam? Basically if we follow WP:NPOV, we can't just have "Negative" or "Positive" in an article, we have to have both, to present both sides of the story. Would you prefer this new title, I think it allays both of our concerns. - FrancisTyers · 01:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, thanks again for your suggestions :) (I've accidentally clicked on your joke twice now) :) - FrancisTyers · 01:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

New Dhimmi editor

Hey Aminz. I was wondering whether/how you think we should welcome new contributors to the article? (You reverted text. I googled for Maimonides and conversion and Islam and it is all terribly controversial and complex and I don't have any academic refs yet.) Itsmejudith 12:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Im Levito. Im not sure as to which academic sources i could find due to the nature of the fallacy itself. I'll explain. The entire story of Maimonides converting to Islam was first spread by one of his enemies, who was a physician in morrocco i think. This physician wasnt very skilled and Maimonides exposed him as such which pretty much ended his career. This man invented the slander in question against Maimonides, however no one at the time took him seriously. The next link in the chain is the historian Graetz. I guarantee you that the historian that was referenced on the dhimmi page was only quoting Graetz's "History of the Jews". Graetz is the one who reintroduced this slander and because of his "respectability" within academic circles has led many other scholars to perpetuate this falsehood unwittingly. Graetz is the only other source for this slander, and it stems from his own mentor's virulent hatred of both Judah the Prince and Maimonides, who in his view were responsible for cementing judaism into clear cut laws and philosophies as opposed to allowing individual autonomy and liberty within observance and belief. As the forerunners of the "reform" movement these men had many personal reasons to attack the character and qualities of numerous individuals who would represent the traditional jewish way of thought which is that judaism is a divine religion and not one made by men. The hatred that the "maskilim" or members of the jewish enlightenment, and later the reformers, had for traditional judaism is well known and documented in their numerous attempts in germany to stamp traditional judaism out, even manipulating the secular german government whenever possible into aiding them. Ill be honest that i think it will be difficult to find hard core sources to support me, but on the other hand no one will find any source for the other side that isnt Graetz, or isnt referencing Graetz exclusively.

It would make me happy if you let my changes stand, but if we need more proof then ill see what i can do but i cant promise it will be soon.

Thank you for letting me know that you changed it, and for being so cordial about the whole thing, im a bit new to this and im happy i didnt cause any offense with my edit. Talk to you later.

oh and the Maimonides article you referred me to is pretty good except for the modern thing at the end. um i'm not getting involved there cause its just too much hassle and a general waste of time to try and talk sense into people that have a vested interest in believing something contrary to the truth.

Opinion vs. fact

This edit is but the latest example of your failure to distiguish between facts and opinions. That the Qur'an does not demand the earthly penalty for apostasy and that only the Shafi'is interpret Sura 2:214 as requiring to execute the apostates is a fact, not opinion; attributing this fact to Heffening makes no sense. It's disruptive to try and bring every single article that you edit must be reduced to the Criticism of Islam standard: Criticism of Islam is a collection of opinions by definition. I'm not going to level against you your favorite charges of selective quotation and misrepresentation (you've chosen to write that the Qur'an does not demand punishment for apostasy, but failed to write about the hadith, which do demand death penalty); I'm just noting your editing pattern. Pecher 20:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for letting me know about that one scholar whom I couldn't read(the fonts were completely messed up). Secondly, I said, "Heffening states X" not that "Heffening believes X". A scholar can state a fact. The reader will accept it as a fact if there are no other quotes made there. Now, as to your claim of "my selective quotation and misrepresentation", please have a look at the original article written by Heffening. I honestly summerized one whole long paragraph within its context. Heffening doesn't mention that Hadith there and that was why I didn't mention that Hadith in my summary. Also, I will be more than happy to learn about my editing failures and correct myself if I feel there is something wrong. --Aminz 21:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's pointless to attribute a fact to someone; only opinions may be attributed. Otherwise, the whole Misplaced Pages would read like "A says X" and would be everyone's laughing stock. Secondly, Heffening does write about the hadith, right in the paragraph after the Qur'an. Sorry, at this point, it's hard to believe that you've said it good faith given the fact that you attempted to post the whole article from the Encyclopaedia of Islam on the article's talk page. Pecher 21:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And my question is that how do you know if something is "a fact" or "only opinions"? Especially could you please explain how "Muhammad moved to attack Khaybar in order to raise his prestige among his followers, as well as to capture booty to sustain subsequent conquests." is a fact and not an opinion.

Secondly, I attempted to post the whole article from the Encyclopaedia of Islam on the article's talk page so that editors who have time may use it as a source for the article. Had I wanted to misrepresent the source, I wouldn't have posted the whole article on the talk page.

Thirdly, please note that I was editing the intro. I didn't mention any of the Qur'anic verse (to show they don't prescribe it) as well. Rather I just mentioned that they don't prescribe death penalty. I also added that Hadiths don't have the elements of the hereafter punishment and instead we have death punishment. The article already said that all five schools prescribe death penalty. There was a gap explaining why there are some who don't believe so and this gap was filled with the paragraph I added.

Fourthly, you are welcome to summarize the first and second paragraph again (by for example adding a couple of Qur'anic verses and also the Hadiths or however you feel is better). --Aminz 21:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

A fact is something people agree on; an opinion is something people do not agree on. No one seriously disputes what only the Shafiis deduce from the Qur'an a death penalty for aposatsy; no one seriously disputes that Muhammad's followers were diappointed at the Hudaybiyya fiasco and Muhammad needed a victory to regain authority; thus, these are facts. Pecher 19:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree, "A fact is something people agree on; an opinion is something people do not agree on."; The question then is that how do we know all people agree on something. It is common sense to me that once one scholar says "the Shafiis deduce from the Qur'an a death penalty for apostasy" it is a fact; however whether "only" they have such an opinion can be true or not (based on the knowledge of the author, the time he is living, etc. ) so, I go for saying "X says only Shafiis deduce from Qur'an such things..."

And it is a common sense that "some of the Muhammad's followers were disappointed at the Hudaybiyya", but whether "Muhammad needed a victory to regain authority" is a fact or not needs proof. Muir, I think, says that Muhammad gave promise to some of the Bedouins for a victory and he conquered Khaybar to have his prediction fulfilled. I am "sure" Muslim scholars dispute that Muhammad attacked Khaybar precisely for 1. in order to raise his prestige among his followers 2. to capture booty to sustain subsequent conquests. Such kinds of simplifications of events are the very nature of theories proposed by scholars and they well know that they are dealing with theories in the first place and not with facts. Facts are with God alone :P --Aminz 22:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I'm sorry. Mano bebakhsh lotfan! :-) Also I fell for that "Practical joke" of yours on top of the page twice in a row! I'm going crazy! --(Aytakin) | Talk 03:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Buddy its all good, I wasn't offended by it. I do admit my tone was a bit angry, but i don't like people editing my talk page. Any how, keep of the good work and lets hope this whole problem will soon go away! --(Aytakin) | Talk 03:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's Cool Down

Hi, you seem like a resonable person so I think that both of us should stop our discussion on InShaneee's page at least for the time being before it becomes too heated. I have no problem with you at all and apologize if I in anyway gave off that image. Anyway, lets wait at least until the afd is over to continue discussion. See you around and happy editing.--Jersey Devil 04:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Maimonides and other stuff - to do list

Levito, if you read this, get yourself a user page and then people can leave messages directly for you there. The page on Graetz confirms (but without references) that he was not a very reliable historian. And I see from Amazon that there are some biographies of Maimonides, but they are not universally acclaimed either. Amazing given that he was such an important figure in the middle ages, for Jews, Christians and Muslims in particular and learning and posterity in general.

Aminz, I reckon the Dhimmi article needs a to-do list. Starting with bringing in a greater range of academic sources. Restructuring. Etc. What do you think?Itsmejudith 13:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Itsmejudith, That's a very good idea. Unfortunately I have not already finished reading the Lewis book! But I think I can read two books simultaneously. Cheers--Aminz 19:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Your Arbcomm entry

It's not just Muslims who see Timothy Usher for what he is..Netscott's levied the same accusation against him after seeing him defend FNB's image of a pig with "Allah" written on it. People have noted the hatred in his rhetoric and his edits. Faisal, BhaiSaab, Netscott, and several others. I've noticed his sweet words in discussion with you, but aside from that, he's never been civil with a Muslim here. His editing on Islam-related topics demonstrate a single driven POV. I don't want to say much, least I get into trouble. I do find your defense of Timothy Usher despite all the evidence that points to his objectives here, troubling. His Excellency... 14:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you please give me more details about "FNB's image of a pig with "Allah""? Thanks --Aminz 19:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Getting out of hand.

This thing is really getting out of hand. Users are editing other people's talk pages, people fighting, Zereshk is suspended, InShanee is blaming me for this . Do you think we should get the Arbitration people involved? Plus I'm going on a trip tomorrow so you guys will have one less person, but i'll check back before I leave and try to help on my trip. khodahafez--(Aytakin) | Talk 21:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I am not quitting WP, since that is exactly what some of the people involved in the recent incident exactly want(ed). The more they gang up on me, the more my point comes across to everyone. There are lots of people following this incident. Administrative abuse is not a light issue.--Zereshk 02:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

HEY

haha I know! Man your talk page is fun, I really wanted to vandalise the page with the link on the top and I again fell for the new message joke. I'm losing my mind or something. By the way, tomorrow I'm going to Iran! --(Aytakin) | Talk 03:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

maghale sooe tafahom darbare iran

agar mikhahid vaghan maghale ra hefz konid , lotfan an ra eslah konid. hamantor ke be zareshl ghablan goftam alan in maghale khoob nist. behtare taghyyrati dar an bedahid.

and

Good buy.--Sa.vakilian 11:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetical question not directly referring to a particular user...Ask yourself: "What would a bigot do?" Try to influence the views of readers by selectively collecting the most damning pieces of facts? Edit war and argue to exclude any less POV-biased sources or views? Engage the targets of his bigotry, preferably with the assistance of fellow bigots, to vocally and openly demean them personally and ridicule their religion? What would a bigot do? And what have they done and what have they been doing? I've apologised for what I said earlier about you, but I haven't changed my mind in that I'd prefer that you not respond on my talk page. His Excellency... 15:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, you're right. Discussing the matter (related to the artticle: Misconceptions about Iran) beforhand is better. Thanks for the message. --Mani1 10:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You are Welcome

You are most welcome. Its not easy some time to share time and efforts to produced a good informative artical or just improve its context. I noticed your skills and I hope you will keep doing it. After all, we are all here to provide some information to the world. Take care phippi46 14:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil

Allegation of anti-Semitics to a decent user such as Itsmejudith is a personal attack and is inappropriate. "Please" don’t do it again. Thanks in advance for your consideration of my friendly reminder. --Aminz 22:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Since I never did it in the first place, I'll take your "friendly" reminder as a baseless accusation against me. Please refrain from such accusations in the future --Leifern 22:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If you never did it in the first place, I appologize for my comment. --Aminz 23:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking this up. I had notified netscott but will now tell him of the retraction. Itsmejudith 09:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

رای گیری برای حذف پروژه شیعه

سلام

الان یک رای گیری در خصوص حذف پروژه شیعه در حال برگزاری است لطفا در اولین فرصت بیا رای بده.--Sa.vakilian 05:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Your noticeboard

Hi, you've put your noticeboard into the article space where it doesn't belong. I've moved it to Misplaced Pages project space.

• Misplaced Pages:Iran,shiite and middle east related articles noticeboard/Incidents

--Tony Sidaway 07:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I just recieved your comment, Tony is correct for future reference you should never put Misplaced Pages-related stuff in the mainspace. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 10:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Another bit of scripture you might like

The great Way is easy, yet people prefer the side paths. Be aware when things are out of balance. Stay centred within the Tao.

Tao Te Ching verse 53 (Stephen Mitchell translation)

Itsmejudith 09:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Taoism will give you links, but there is also a western Taoism website that I love and found through googling but I don't think is currently linked. Taoism does not use stories but Zen Buddhism, which incorporated much of Taoism, does. I find parallels between Zen stories, which are full of paradox and try to unsettle fixed ways of seeing, and Jesus's parables. (If you read the parables directly without the layers of interpretation put on over years of official religion.)

“When they lose their sense of awe,

people turn to religion.

When they no longer trust themselves,

they begin to depend upon authority.

Therefore the Master steps back

so that people won’t be confused.

He teaches without a teaching,

so that people will have nothing to learn.”

Tao Te Ching verse 72

Itsmejudith 10:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Website is www.westernreformtaoism.org. Itsmejudith 13:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

~~~ has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding, {{subst:User:Cowman109/Smile2}} or {{subst:User:Cowman109/Smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Itsmejudith 21:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

I dunno if your iranian or not, and i also dunno if your one of the users who didn't take Inshaneee's reverts very well. But it seems you posted alot regarding this issue, mostly in the incidents page. I think it is for the best that we do let this matter go, he did his job and can't be blamed for that, i am sure you agree. Khoda hafez, --Spahbod ☼ 00:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I'm persian. Sure, I'll try to let it go gradually. --Aminz 02:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 5 minutes for reverting to the personal attacks on Zeresh's User page. I have also protected the page to prevent you, or anyone else, from reverting to the attacks. Attack pages are not tolerated on Misplaced Pages, and specifically reverting to one is a serious offense. Next time it will be for more than 5 minutes. User:Zoe| 02:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, please indicate on your user page that you are an admin. Next, I am standing for justice. I promise that you have not had even reviewed the case closely yourself. Please block for a week if it is not so. --Aminz 02:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to review the history. I only need to look at the User page, which is clearly an attack page. If Zeresh were really serious about doing something about the situation, he would have created an RfC, but that would have required actually doing something besides making personal attacks. I am coming at this from a completely impartial viewpoint -- I am only interested in removing the attack page. User:Zoe| 02:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings to you. I also came from a completely impartial viewpoint. But I was burnt by the intensity of the penalty InShaneee imposed on Zereshk (and how soon he did so). Why do you think Zereshk's user page is a personal attack. He is only writing what has happened to him. Where is the freedom of speech then? --Aminz 02:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, what if I want to give Zereshk a barnstar? I can't edit his userpage?????? --Aminz 02:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)