Misplaced Pages

Archive
— 25 September 2006 — 2 November 2006 — 1 January 2007 — 27 January 2007

Image:Ulucamii-turkey-2001.jpg

Hello Itaqallah, PD-user tag means the user has released/lost all the copyrights, so there is no restriction of use of any kinds. The images which are not free for commercial purposes can not be public domain images. I am not sure the uploader at wikipedia and flickr are same. I am not sure about your second question. Could you explain it again. Regards, Shyam 12:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree with you. Once a user releases the image in public domain. (S)He could not expect to get any credits from the other users of the image. I would like to thank you for trying to contact the uploader. If the uploader on flickr and Vcrs are same then please request her to change the license on flickr accordingly. Thanks, Shyam 13:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Slaves

This is disingenuous, you can easily verify that information yourself. Arrow740 19:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

do you recall my explanation as to why any such attempted verification by myself would be insufficient? ITAQALLAH 19:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's in the book that's all that matters; having ascertained that you will have verified it. Arrow740 20:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

in fact, no it isn't all that matters. part of verification includes checking the accuracy of the translation (such as for the brief overview attributed to him), as well as ensuring that he has been faithfully represented. ITAQALLAH 20:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

assessmnet log

Salam alaykum.

Do you know why this page is empty?--Sa.vakilian 04:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

will try to find out soon.. ITAQALLAH 10:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Armyrifle

Yep, I reverted in October. Masha'Allah. Though, I would like to ask you what Madhab do you follow, and what are your thoughts on music?

I've taken to following the Hanafi Madhab, but I'm getting conflicting views on music...

JazakAllahu Khair Armyrifle 23:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you are reluctant to declare your choice of madhab to the wikiworld. Arrow740 07:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

i see no reluctancy, you need to drop the presumptions. i simply prefer not to use wikipedia as a forum for my personal views. ITAQALLAH 16:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting response. Arrow740 20:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hkelkar

Thank you for notifying me of the CU case. I was aware of the results of the CU and have indef-blocked Rumpel. Regards, - Aksi_great (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

. Thanks once again. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Prisoners of War in Islam

Salam (peace), I see you've been editing Priosners of War in Islam. Feel free to copy an paste from an already neutral and well-referenced section: Islamic_military_jurisprudence#Prisoners_of_War. No need to re-invent the wheel.Bless sins 01:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

wonderful, thank you. ITAQALLAH 01:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Salah

Hmmm. Yeah. I was looking for "Salah" in Encyclopedia of Islam but there was no article on that. There was however an article on "Salat". But you must be right. Cheers, --Aminz 02:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Allah

Itaqallah, I wonder if you might not have something to contribute to this active discussion.Proabivouac 08:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

it's a theory which is hardly entertained by academics. those who do mention it seem to be refuting it, as in R. Marcus's review of D. Nielsen's original piece about this moon-god theory where he underlines some rather significant flaws (cf. Journal of Near Eastern studies, vol. 6, #1, p.60). apart from that, i haven't found very many academics actually discussing this theory let alone giving it credence. a lot of the books in that google search provided on the talk page simply mention nothing of this theory, while others are simply not academic. one of the most recent proponents has been missionary Robert Morey, and this is probably where the theory gained popularity in terms of internet polemic. i'm still looking around for any more academic commentary on this theory. ITAQALLAH 15:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Misconceptions about the Shia

Itaqallah, I'd like to draw your attention to this article. This is ridiculously unencyclopedic, wouldn't you agree?Proabivouac 08:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Attention Please

has the last line suspecious. I think the last one and a hafl line of this paragraph is not correct. Please correct it if it is wrong. Wassalaam VirtualEye 10:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

For the welcome

I thank you for your welcome, Itaqallah (and appreciate your username). I hope to become, in time, an active member and contribute to the greater good. I'm very interested in keeping my opinions from influencing my work and equally interested in removing the forceful and destructive opinions of others. There's a lot of cleaning up to be done. Although I jump around everywhere, I am -for obvious reasons- heavily interested in Islam-related topics, which I see is your main interest. I look forward to working with you. Peace. --RumiNationZ 19:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

no problem at all. i wish you all the best in your wiki activities. if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. ITAQALLAH 19:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Shahadah

Greetings. Thanks for explaining for revert of my removal of what I consider to be a false translation of the shahadah. However the 'reference' is a polemical and not a scholarly site. If there is a well-established dictionary which has 'ilah' translated as 'God worthy of worship', we can let that 'translation' stand. Indeed, in your comment on my userpage you admit that it is not a translation, which makes me wonder why you reverted. I agree that it would be relevant to put this interprepation somewhere in the article, as such, rather than as a translation.

Additionally, this 'translation' (unintentionally) opens up the implication of polytheism, which I'm sure all Muslims would want to avoid.

Peace, Drmaik 06:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Islamic propaganda pages

The article is biased and unencyclopedic. I am obviously not the only person who thinks so. Get over yourself. IF and ONLY IF you promise that you and your friends will not start an edit war, will I participate in the article besides keeping the tags in place. I have no desire to have you start another edit war and then have your friends the biased admins step in to abuse their power again. The tags, however, are perfectly valid and remain until the article is fixed or deleted.RunedChozo 17:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC) If you consider this inflammatory, get over yourself. I'm staying within the bounds of policy and that's that. If you promise not to edit war, then I'll contribute. Otherwise, YOU are the one who is deliberately making it so others can't contribute, so the tags stay. RunedChozo 17:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hypo on wikipedia ?

Is This User an admin of wikipedia? I wonder what lame one-liners he is sending on the talk pages about Muhammad (SAW). Totally illogical. No answer to the dozens of points raised by the wikipedians against the picture, but just sending one lines to give the illusion as if many people are supporting the picture on the article . How can I know if this user is admin? Some people are pretty cheap here, they dont feel any responsibility to answer the points but just to cast their vote and run away. VirtualEye 05:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

VirtualEye was posting incoherent essays about his feelings. Arrow740 05:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I express what 'I' feel or have opion about right or wrong. Because I have my own brain in my head and my own conscience. Sorry, if you do not express what 'you' feel or think about right or wrong then I will be justified to conclude that you have someone else's brain in your head. This seems funny, but alas its not.VirtualEye 09:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I'll try to understand that it's not funny. Arrow740 03:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

The only reason I did it is because someone was trying to stop the debate citing WP:SNOW. Arrow740 17:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you can inform me as to what I should ignore in advance next time. Arrow740 17:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you have an impersonator: . Arrow740 01:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Your style edit, your style edit summary. Arrow740 01:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, that's an improvement. Arrow740 19:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice try. I'm flattered that you'd go to the trouble of impersonating me on a forum just to try to get me blocked from wikipedia. You really could have done a better job. I assure you that no matter how many times you try to get me blocked from wikipedia I will never enter a state of submission. Arrow740 21:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I would hate to be responsible for provoking you to incivility. Please, calm down. Arrow740 22:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Tagging

It is interesting that some of those editors who complain about "tagging" are comfortably add tags to the articles. --Aminz 22:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Science and technology refs in Islam page

Hi Itaqallah. I know that the unreferenced nature of the section is a big gap in the article. However, I'm going to have some trouble finding all the necessary refs. I added the section as a kind of stub placeholder because it is so important within the history of the Muslim world, as I'm sure you'll agree. I wrote it up mainly from the articles that it references. Some of them cite their references, others not. In the meantime, if you can suggest a good text for an overview, I'll look it up. Itsmejudith 23:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't done more on this and I'm going to be on wikibreak now. I have found some book references which look to be relevant and hope to look them up, with a view to adding them when I'm back, or may email them to someone who can help.Itsmejudith 22:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Suggestion_.28untainted.29

You voiced your opinion in the original straw poll which has caused some confusion. Please do the same in a new version, Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Suggestion_.28untainted.29, which should be clear and allow us to better assess consensus. gren グレン 22:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Poll on every little issue

Please sign if any of these things applies to your understanding of this issue. Please put you name under all of the options you think would be acceptable. You can sign all or none of these, I'm hoping this will give us a more-fine grained understanding of the issue. futurebird 23:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Shia Sahaba? /notable shia muslims

Salam Alaykum. I think this part cause misunderstanding and we should add some notice there. I put a comment in talk:Shia Islam#Shia Sahaba? /notable shia muslims. Please read it and write your idea there. God bless you.--Sa.vakilian 03:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The Prophet Muhammad image dispute

Assalamualikum, I have a suggestion, based on wiki policies of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, to solve the dispute over images of our beloved Prophet.

I have put a template here as to how we should resolve the dispute. Please leave a comment regarding this on my talk page. If you like this template please don't put it up yourself. I am looking for some sort of concensus. If you don't like the template please leave a suggestion for improving it.Bless sins 03:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

go ahead

Assalamualikum FAH1223 07:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Alim777

Is blocked now... I agree with you that the removal of the lead image on Muhammad doesn't fall under WP:VAND. (→Netscott) 20:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Eid Mubarik Stamp

Assalam-o-Alliakum, I have uploaded Image:Stamp_Eid_Mubarik.jpg, hence use it. Wassalam. --- ALM 17:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

ALI SINA

Trying to get your attention towards the Faith Freedom page. My eidts are being deleted for no reason. I have made some comments regarding the article and its presentation. which violates many of the Wiki rules.

would you like to discuss. I am not against deleting the article or anything. Rather i am for putting the article in its right perspective. for example.1) the article alleges that it has 20,000,000 visitors. I agree however i state that it has only 1200 members who write ever wrote on its fourmns. I state that all the stuff on the website is read around only 10,000 times out of the 20,000,000 visitors it had. all this has been referenced by me (site meter is the ref:)Aditionally each visitor spends 5 minutes or less on the entire site and less than 5 seonds on each page.

Then there are violations of references. No outside references are given. If given they are reports of Ali sina himself. How can that be credible when speaking about his own self. Z2qc1 04:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

You are removing sourced material and claiming that you are removing OR. I suggest that you remove the material which is not sourced and address any issues you have with sourced material methodically. Arrow740 18:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not that FFI poster by the way. This is actually quite funny. Arrow740 18:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're biting the newbies or whatever they call it. It might be easier for you to revert everything but what you should do is remove the OR and discuss the rest. Arrow740 18:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that itself wasn't biting. Arrow740 18:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ramadan riots

ASA. Desperate help needed on islamophobic article Ramadan riots which is actually the same thing as French riots. Claims that the french unrest in the ghetoes was motivated by hatred of jews and christians as allegedly commanded by the quran. Support speedy deletion. Aaliyah Stevens 00:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad caligraphy

We need to find more caligraphy of Prophet. What you think about Belongings on of Muhammad, do you think anyone may go in lead. Furthremore, these coins also have calligraphies them too . I will welcome your comments about these pages. Wassalam. --- ALM 16:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Very old stoned ayats etc . We can have them all on wikipedia because {{PD-old}}. Wassalam. --- ALM 17:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Muslim converts

Please do not add unsourced names to this article; adding unsourced names of living people is a violation of WP:BLP. If you want to improve the article find sources for any names you would wish to add. Carlossuarez46 01:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• One person's settled fact is another person's contentiousness. As for the dead; without sourcing including them violates WP:V. They need sourcing too. Carlossuarez46 01:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If you want to add back all the dead people and tag them all for cites, be my guest, I prefer not to add unsourced material myself but to each his/her own. Carlossuarez46 01:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Zakir Naik

Good move. Thanks for helping me keep a lid on this sad POV magnet of an article.Proabivouac 03:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Arrow740 08:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, check the history: we agreed to stub it from a whole bunch of uncited POV from both the pro- and anti-camps, and we've been evenhanded in keeping it all out. I do agree with many of the criticisms - it is absurd (as well as quite unorthodox) to state that Muhammad was prophesied in Hindu scripture (for starters) and repugnant to support Osama Bin Laden. However, that doesn't mean we can turn this WP:BLP into a platform for our opinions, cited to Youtube videos. At the same time, Naik's - excuse me, Dr. Naik's - minions keep flooding it with material from the IRF's own website. It's a bloody mess.Proabivouac 01:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

email

you have SatuSuro 13:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Thank you for your response SatuSuro 13:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Islam enslaves the children

Levy p.79 'the children of the marriage of two slaves are slaves and belong to the owner of the woman. Bold textIf the free man marries a female slave not his own, the children become the property of the woman's master (author note: this is case also if the children of a slave girl are born of an irregular union.)Bold text ... Bold textThe children of the married slave-girl (not an umm walad) will be slaves and belong to her owner, whether their father is a slave or a free man.Bold text

News to you. DavidYork71 14:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification. you have misread: he is not talking about children borne from the master and his slave. he is talking about children the woman already has. ITAQALLAH 14:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

you made the remark on my talk that 'any child born with at least one parent free is also free' and I provided the passage which shows you that, unfortunately due to the nature of Islam, it is only the case where the one parent owns the other as slave

DavidYork71 14:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

any children that a master has by his slave are free. ITAQALLAH 16:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I admit fault in my latest revert at Islam and slavery. Arrow740 01:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

your recent contributions suggest that you have been spontaneously, habitually, and disruptively reverting over a series of articles, without really looking at exactly what you've been reverting to. what i find worrying is that, from at least my perspective, you seem to be acting the meatpuppet, and reverting "for" DavidYork, who unfortunately saturates his contributions with less than neutral original research (as you know full well), merely illustrates this concern. ITAQALLAH 03:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed not. Your incivil accusations of such have not gone unnoticed, however. Your wholesale reverts are the source of any problem you have with my edits the last couple of days. In the instance I referred to above, I didn't look at the whole diff. Having realized the extent of the removals I noted my mistake here and on DavidYork's talk page. Arrow740 07:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

wholesale reverts are the only way to deal with wholesale violation of wikipedia policy. i see nothing "incivil" about my observations. ITAQALLAH 17:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Verifing information

Do it yourself! Hypnosadist 17:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Karl Meier

I believe that you also have some problems his edit waring. If so then please post them on ANI report against him. Thank you. --- ALM 21:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Editting style...

Hey there. I know that a certain editor is causing frustration. But we have to be careful about how we tackle it. large scale reversions just aren't going to work on this one. Help me slowly but steadily work through each issue with clearly stated reason for each step. I know it's frustrating. Notice how i went through a lot of his edits from 6 march and commented on each one. And I documented each step. Documented, rational, well-argued reasoning will win out - not reversion wars. For example, i went through a number of his on-line citations and proved that he had misrepresented them, and I modedifed the article to reflect what the references actually said - I am sure you agree this is a good result. As I documented it in the talk and edit summaries, we can go back and refer to it when tackling it. I've found that this approach eventually wins out with him. Help me on this one please. :-) Of course I'm open to suggestions and your opinion on the battle. kind regards. Merbabu 23:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

yes, a lot of work. But, i presume you saw my reply to Aminz's comments on the talk page. I'm happy to start at a GAC version, and then move forward. Merbabu 00:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Further: I might be setting myself up for a fall, DY has placed a suggestion on the talk page as requested. I’d encourage you to rationally explain any objections etc. At least if others are persistent in being reasonable, DY will too one of two things: (1) he notice and use the opportunity to be reasonable himself (a good thing) or (2) be unreasonable, which will be clear to all and thus ‘hang himself’ metaphorically speaking (I know which one I think is more likely). On the other hand if everyone behaves combatively, then DYit is just another edit war.Merbabu 01:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The Black Stone

I guess you aren't going to let anyone know how the Black Stone is going to have two eyes and a tongue to explain itself. And in citing a source; this would be difficult since nobody knows about this aspect of the Black Stone; at least no one besides you and me at this point: and Gabriel; the "voice of God" who was walking around in Paradise singing when he found Adam and Eve hiding in the bushes. Could you put what I wrote back and just take out the "hidden signifigance" part?Unicorn144 01:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC) let me know! I believe I have discovered that the answer to my "deletion" problems comes from not putting the sources directly in the additions themselves; at this juncture I will add the sources with your templates or use whatever methods I can conjure so that folks can see that

A. I am not just making this stuff up and

B. It is based on serious research going back decades and is impartial; objective: and verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unicorn144 (talk • contribs)

Previous consensus?

Itaqallah, you wrote, "as for consensus, the previous consensus version was a lead without any image." A few questions:

• When was this consensus in effect?
• What evidence, if any, shows that there was such a consensus? (There may be some, but I've not yet seen it.)
• Upon what considerations was this consensus based? (It was only mid-way through mediations that I'd heard any argument other than that after religious taboo.)
• How many editors were involved in this decision?

Proabivouac 10:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

from WP:CONSENSUS: ""Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it." - for as long as i can remember prior to this dispute (i've been checking through the history: back through Aug 06, and probably even a year on top of that), there was no lead image, and this was one of the constants in the numerous disputes involving the lead. when a disruptive editor then recently decided to edit war in order to include a lead depiction, many editors removed it. as we know, the page was then locked on that version, rewarding the unilateral efforts of the edit warrior (he certainly racked up 4+ reverts in much less than 24 hours). ever since, there has been dispute over the lead images. i took the image out of the lead as soon as the article was unprotected, stating that there was no consensus on what we were to do regarding the lead, and we shoud thus return to the previous version until we conclude mediation. hope that answers your questions. ITAQALLAH 00:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Shia Islam

Salam Alaykum. Please check my seditions in this article. --Sa.vakilian 12:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Systematic vilifying of Quran in WikiQuotes

Please do something about this: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.109.195.211 (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Re WP:USER

Hi Itaqallah, does this satisfy your concerns?Proabivouac 00:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Explain your removal of links from Criticism of Islam

ItaqAllah, explain to me the vandalism you committed by removing VALID links to FFI and Prophet Of Doom.net in Criticism of Islam. As Arrow said, "attempt to justify your edit on the talk using WP:EL". Go on now. --Matt57 13:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)