User talk:Aminz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Be happy!! (talk) is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Hi Aminz,

I got your message dated 3/17/08. I like what you did. Thanks for making the reference links work (I read some Wikipedia sections on doing so - and I followed their instructions without any success). Now that we have the intro much improved (and the absence of circular definitions), I'd like to suggest moving the Anna Wierzbicka reference much farther down. I don't understand the basis for the Ilingot section so early on. I do think it's important to point out that there might be cultural differences in the conception of anger, it's just that it seems premature to have that particular section so early in the article. Not to mention, everything I know about Anger, is that regardless of terminology, it's a Universal.

The sections that presently follow, are decent (though still need much refining). What is sorely missing, IMHO, should be an introduction to the known research literature on Anger in general. There is a ton of interesting stuff out there (for example, genetic basis for; anger management). Because of my schedule, it'll likely be a slow process for me to find and cite articles, but that's my long term goal.

On a minor punctuation note: Commas and periods come BEFORE the end quote. For example: ." (or) ,"

Take care! Dan Litov --DanLitovPhD (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Aminz,

You're right, I haven't included citations in the past. I am working on rectifying this ASAP.

DiGiuseppe and Tafrate have published extensively on more current work.

Dan Litov —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanLitovPhD (talk • contribs) 10:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for your response Aminz. And I appreciate the hard work you have put into the Anger entry.

Anger is a very difficult topic. DiGiuseppe (who is considered to be one of the most knowledgeable authorities today due to his amazing literature reviews of the topic and well referenced published books) and also Novaco write extensively on the lack of definitional agreement of the term 'anger' amongst psychologists. Encyclopedic articles - like the Oxford etc. usually have terrible, circular references, replacing the word 'anger' with 'antagonism' or 'rage' or "bad feeling" in the very definition, which does not functionally explain what anger IS. What most psychologist at present agree (see both Novaco and Digiuseppe publications) is that 'anger' is an emotion in response to a threat of pain or loss (to anything the individual has an attachment too). I elucidated on this in the opening Wikipedia entry because according to modern psychological theory, you CAN NOT have an emotion without a -preceding- COGNITION. And if there is the cognition what is it? An evaluation of whether I can stop this threat and take action (...>anger) or I must leave (...>fear). And the emotion (by psychological definition) must have physiological correlates.

-Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanLitovPhD (talk • contribs) 10:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Imam Ali

Salam, Eid shoma ham mobarak.

Thanks for your help. I've really tried to write a good article on the basis of the reliable sources. Please check the sources before change anything. --Seyyed(t-c) 07:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion is good but the article is too long (96kb). There is a sub-article i.e.Identity of first male Muslim. What you've said is written in its lead without any source. We can add a source there.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess the article has described the issue well. --Seyyed(t-c) 11:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Please check Talk:Ali and write your view there. Thanks.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GAR:Muhammad in Mecca

Salam again

I'm reviewing this article. It's completely represent western rational i.e. historical critique and in contrast with POV policy. I remembered Henry Corbin's concerns when he says

"Typical of this perspective is the attempt to understand the prophet through his circumstances, education and type of genius...

You see, when the article go further than narration of the events and tries to analyze or judge the events, it becomes problematic. How can we solve the problem. Please write your idea on the talk page of the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you to read article of Britannica. It may solve some of our problems.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately this article has a lot of problem. Do you agree on withdrawing it.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes of course; History of Islamic philosophy p. 10.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GAR:Allah

Salam. I found this article very good. But I think you can add some more information about usage of "Allah" among Muslim. For example Muslims use expressions such as "Besm Allah ...", "In Sha Allah", "Alhamdo Lellah" as Zikr or i common speaking. Or there are some rules about it. We shouldn't touch it unless we have Wozu and Should keep it Tahir. There may be more information in some sources such as Britannica. Jaka Allah Khayr.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I found some Persian articles which may be useful:Tahlil, Basmale, Tasbih, Takbir, Takbirat al-Ihram. --Seyyed(t-c) 13:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I added my review i the talk page. But let User:Auawise tell us his view too.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcoming-message

Thanks for the message :) --Devotus (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Systematic bias in Wikipedia - A solution

Hi Aminz. I don't disagree broadly. Nor do I think most academics would. One of the biggest problem is translation. I think academics tend to know the limits in their fields better, generally. But when we use their articles we take them as more or less true and are not very good at representing the limitations. This is exacerbated through the idea of introducing new theories where you often make the strong case and then it gets picked apart in later literature. So, while the paper may make strong assertions the whole body of literature has tempered them. That's why I value Crone so much, actually. Articles like "What Do We Know About Muhammad?" show a baseline of things that we can say we know... it doesn't mean other things aren't true but it differentiates between types of truth values and what is strongest. I think that's important. But, without all of us becoming good academics I'm not sure how to resolve that.

Your solution was more focus on practice. And I'm not sure religion has always focused more on that--and I'm thinking of the kalam arguments in early Islam. Maybe you're biased towards the more fiqh-oriented Islam of today :) But, where would you want these practice guides? I am not sure how you would fit them into Wikipedia... not that I'd necessarily be against an encyclopedic-ly written howto... meaning, it describes how to but isn't instructional. I think Wikibooks would actually allow you to have a "How To Practice Islam" book... which as long as it remained non partisan and descriptive "Most Sunnis do this ... Shia modify this by not putting their hands at their sides ... and X does Y" it would be quite valuable as a straight up howto guide. But, if it's not on Wikipedia how does that affect systemic bias? Since systemic bias only refers to on Wikipedia... not on all the Wikis. gren グレン 13:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

There's another important problem, the philosophy and methodology which they follow. While positivism was dominant in academies the historians deny or neglect many issues and sources. But at present contextual and discourse analysis have overcome and historians pay attention to some other issues and sources. You can find Qadir khum as a good example in the work of western historians.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you should seek religious aspect of Islam not in historic books but in philosophical one such as Corbin and Schimel's works. I put some links in talk page of Bless Sins which you can use.


[edit] FAL:Twelve Imams

Salam Alaykum

I've nominated Twelve Imams as a featured list (here). Please pay attention to it. Thanks. --Seyyed(t-c) 04:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Please check the talk page of the article. We try to write something which is understandable for non-Shia and Shia. Please add your idea. Thanks.--Seyyed(t-c) 17:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SOrry

I finally got back to you on the reliable sources noticeboard...sorry it took so long, I'm so upset about this that I had to take a break. pschemp | talk 04:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ra:User:Auawise

Salam, I posted it for Peter Deer.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict Section

Regarding your Companionship towards the Muhammad article. The way it was described in conflict section is the correct area and wording. If you would like to help you can remove the wording which had been mixed in the article . --Mahmoud123 (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Amin you must accept Contributions that are being made by other Users. and further on any user can make edits in the article, if you dont seem to be happy with Conflict Section than discuss it with me. Wiki does not prohibit other users to contribute to article. and that Conflict Section was like that a couple of months ago, I just put it back up because it belongs there. --Mahmoud123 (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Sockpuppet User:C149

Hello! if you don't mind can I add User:C149 to this case as a suspected sock of the others? Thanks! --SMS Talk 04:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello! It is already added. Thanks anyways! --Be happy!! (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Muhammad. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Avruch T 21:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Avruch, 3rr rule does not apply to reverting sockpuppets of blocked users.
Can you point to that policy, and how it applies in this case (where the sockpuppet status is your suspicion, but not confirmed by WP:SSP or WP:RFCU)? Avruch T 22:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know where the policy was but I have seen its application to previous socks. How do I know he is a sock? Because his single-purpose accounts become active one after the other, all making the same edit to Muhammad article. It was on this very ground that Jmlk blocked several of the previous socks. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Please don't use edit summaries to denounce socks, there are better places to do this as you know. Otherwise you seemed to keep your cool pretty well in the face of some aggressive edit summaries. --BozMo talk 22:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi BozMo, This user is very persistent. Many of his sockpuppets have been so far blocked; all making the same incomprehensible edit. For example the same edit made by another sockpuppet of his , reverted by Admin User:Jmlk [1] (please see the section Conflict in Mecca). Jmlk has also blocked several of the user's sockpuppet's before. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It is more clear here [2]--Be happy!! (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The sockpuppetry case Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mahmoud123. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

Hi Aminz. I don't mean to assert that Islamic law/jurisrpudence as we have it today was formulated by Muhammad (it's well known that usul al-fiqh etc. were developed later), what I mean is the section should discuss the role that the Sunnah played in the codification of Islamic law i.e. jurists in forming the foundations of Islamic jurisprudence agreed upon the notion that the Sunnah was another crucial legal source after the Qur'an - al-Shafi'i was the most prominent spearhead in this regard. I thought it would be appropriate to discuss a little further the significance attached to the Sunnah from a legal perspective. This why it's important here: Muhammad's actions would later be enshrined as a source of Islamic law as well as Muslim culture, hence forming a part of his legacy. ITAQALLAH 23:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad in Medina

In Muhammad talk page i noticed you brought up issues about the current article. The edit seems to be part of Muhammad in Medina section and that information was just cut and pasted in same section just couple of lines down and then linked with expand because it mentions about Mecca. Anyways, if you believe it should be put up higher by the Muhammad in Medina before (Hijra to Medina) section it can be twisted. I just think because it mentions Mecca and Muhammad along with associates and then leads about the war seems to be right on. If it was in the old area where it just talks about Jews and their ways behind Prophet Muhammads back doesnt make sense. So its a debate between Conflict with Mecca which is the main reason or Hijra to Medina that mentions Jews and their ways behind Muhammad back and just Quoted where nobody can see and know the truth. --Mohun (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The box

The box here was needed because thats the exact URL mentioned in the movie at the end. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think what we have right now is ok because obviously the movie is more popular than the word, infact, I would have rather had the article on the movie there, instead of the disamig page. In any case, for now you should put back the notice since thats the URL mentioned in the film. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thanks, thats a better idea. I might do it sometime later after consultation because there have been some move wars on this.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Muhammad

Salam Alaykum. man darkhast shoma ra anjam dadam.

Unfortunately the article has neglected most of the important issues for Shias. I want to add some information on the basis of western academicians reports. I hope it wouldn't rise editorial war.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should mention the major events to complete the article. Now the question is what events are major? This depends on our viewpoints. For example relationship between the prophet(PBUH) and other religions is important for American readers but not for the Muslims. Or Ghadir Khum is important for Shia but not for non-Shia. I agree with you that this may not be a good place to discuss these in detail so you can summarize aftermath in a few sentences.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
If I added what Madelung has written in his book, an editorial-war would be rose. However this issue is important. Thus at least please add the first paragraph.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
You're correct when you said he believed he could use its money for poor; do something for the Muslim community, etc etc but in the Shia source and even in Madelung work the Fadak has a economic and political value. Please read this. You see, the issue didn't finished when Hazrat Zahra died. For example, you see Mamun give it to Imam Reza. --Seyyed(t-c) 08:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you that Ali wasn't eager to be caliph. Ali made a lot of garden himself and he was too wealthy. He didn't need Fadak. But as you see the issue is very controversial and I didn't want to cause editorial war. So I didn't go further.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I really don't insist on the second paragraph. Did you read the link? I think you'll find your answer there. But I really don't want that issues in the article. They are irrelevant to that article. --Seyyed(t-c) 08:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have problem with this:

According to Aisha after Muhammad died his daughter, Fatimah, and al-Abbas asked Abu Bakr to turn over their property, the lands of Fadak and Khaybar but he refused and told her that prophets didn't have any legacy and Fadak belonged to the Muslim community. Abu Bakr said to her, "Allah's Apostle said, we do not have heirs, whatever we leave is Sadaqa." Ali together with Umm Ayman testified to the fact that Muhammad granted it to Fatimah Zahra, when Abu Bakr requested Fatima to summon witnesses for her claim. Aisha reported Fatimah became angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude until she died.

--Seyyed(t-c) 08:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should discuss about it in Fatimah Zahra article. I used Sunnis narration which is found in Sahihain and I guess Madelung has clarified the issue very well. You can add what Madelung has said about humiliation of Ahl al-Bayt by Abu Bakr.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

There wasn't anything which connotated that the conversion is forcefully or not. --Seyyed(t-c) 08:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it necessary to write Umar, a companion of Muhammad, nominated another companion of Muhammad named Abu Bakr. It sounds bad. We can say some of the companions gathered in Saqifa and Umar nominated Abu Bakr.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Good night. God willing I'll add Ghadir Khumm too.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already discussed with Itaqallah about the issue and know his idea.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Even we should add the Prophet(PBUH) migrate to Medina with Abu Bake.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course that issue has been narrated just by Sunnis while Abu Bakr has done more important works. I guess he was Amir al-Haj in 9 AH. He helped and bought some Muslim slaves in Mecca from Pagans. I think leading the the pray is not the important work of him. Mesl inke bad khabet kardama. Bebakhshid--Seyyed(t-c) 10:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review:Ali

Please take a look at this article. Some of the Islamic expressions should be clarified.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen this:Noble Character of the Holy Prophet of Islam: Sira-i-nabawi--Seyyed(t-c) 16:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

Its authenticity and interpretation is subject to dispute. I think its value in the article borders on sectarian/polemical - I am concerned that the latter parts of the bio are becoming too Shia-centric, or to put it in another way, focusing too much on those aspects used by Shia in polemical debate or whatever you want to call it. Is Fadak really worthy of note here? Would it even be discussed were it not for the later polemic surrounding it (from both sides)? Again, the inclusion of select aspects (mawla, thaqalayn, fadak) is primarily because of their polemical/partisan value in one sect asserting advantage over another. I feel we need a balanced, circumspect summary. We discuss the farewell pilgrimage and give it a fair, representative overview. We then discuss death, burial, succession of Abu Bakr. We can then say, Sunnis believe that Abu Bakr was rightful successor, Shias believe Ali was rightful successor, and we can conclude with the expansion of the Islamic state, especially with regards to Musaylima and re-consolidation of Arabia in fighting the tribes which rebelled. But what I really, really don't want to see is the article succumbing to sectarian argumentation and "Sunnu-say, Shia-say" syndrome. ITAQALLAH 02:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Fadak: That's strange, because I always thought the Shia claim was based upon their fundamental doctrine of Imamate- that is, the apparent infallability and divine appointment of Ali and his progeny as successors to Muhammad. I don't believe Shi'ism rests upon a particular land dispute, but the episode in question is obviously something important to Shias. ITAQALLAH 18:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
It may be interesting for you to see my former discussion with Itaqallah in Talk:Ali/Ghadir Khumm. However at that time "The Charismatic Community: Shi'ite Identity in Early Islam" wasn't published. Dakake has deserved a chapter of her book to this event and explain which books have narrated the issue and how. As she shows it's not sectarian issue. You may find it even in anti-Shia works. I disagree with your suggestion, however let we discuss about the issue in the talk page of the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have another concern, in Muhammad#Aftermath I believe the section gives WP:UNDUE weight to the belief that Ali was supposed to be the next caliph, I believe the section must be somehow re-written. I support Itaqallah 100% in saying that the article must not succumb to sectarian argumentations. Imad marie (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Re your comment on my talk: Yes, but "Shia" as a distinctive sect with specific ideological beliefs appeared somewhat later. While indeed some people supported Ali over Abu Bakr, Ali eventually accepted Abu Bakr's leadership and advised him. Ali also accepted Umar's leadership too, similarly advised him, and was made governor of Medina (I think). The point being that it was only after the fitna wars that these lines of division resulted in fully fledged sects (previously it was just an indicator of allegience/partisanship i.e. Shi`at Mu`awiyya). Muslims who supported Abu Bakr during the era of the Rashidun weren't called Sunnis. My point is that the article needs to recognise that the Sunni/Shia sect formation occured later, and not during the time of the Rashidun caliphs. ITAQALLAH 19:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for Muhammad's life in Mecca

Salam Alykum,

I added something in Muhammad in Mecca and I hope it satisfies you.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What's your idea about what I've narrated from Madelung's book. There had been a common tendency among the earlier western scholars against these narrations and reports gathered in later periods; such scholars regarding them as later fabrications. Leone Caetani considered the attribution of historical reports to Ibn Abbas and Aysha as mostly fictitious while proffering accounts reported without isnad by the early compilers of history like Ibn Ishaq. Wilferd Madelung has rejected the stance of indiscriminately dismissing everything not included in "early sources" and in this approach tendentious alone is no evidence for late origin. Madelung and some later historians do not reject the narrations which have been complied in later periods and try to judge them in the context of history and on the basis of their compatibility with the events and figures.
It may be irrelevant to that article due to the fact that Madelung refers to Hadiths which relate to sectarian issue while in pre-Hijra era we have few issue which may be considered as sectarian. However He's used Hadith compilations as well as history book. Do former historians such as Watt use such sources? Can we generalize what Madelung has said about the polemic issues to non-Polemic ones and say post-Madelung historians are more emphatic toward Muslim records?--Seyyed(t-c) 12:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Please explain haw can I deal with Itaqallah.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Imagine what would happen if I added what I found about Califs in western works like this and this? What's your idea?

Man hame chiz ra mohafezekarane revayat kardam ta be in baradarn bar nakhore vali mesl inke dust darand har chi tu manabe hast einan biad tu maqale.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've asked them frequently but they don't accept. What should I do?--Seyyed(t-c) 08:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

The Barnstar of Justice
I hereby award this barnstar to Aminz for his tireless efforts improving Islam-related articles and make them NPOV. Thank you for your good faith and deed! --Seyyed(t-c) 03:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another systematic bias

Salam Alaykum

And Hafiz says

قدر مجموعه گل مرغ سحر داند و بس که نه هر کو ورقی خواند معانی دانست ... ای كه از دفتر عقل آیت عشق آموزی ترسم این نکته به تحقیق ندانی دانست

In fact that was too long. Can't you explain the issue precisely?

This is another case of systematic bias:[3] --Seyyed(t-c) 11:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad

Hi Aminz. I think we're close, but I still need some time to read through the article thoroughly, as I've only partially reviewed it. I'm still hoping that we can reduce the size a little bit more. A nice size (I'd say ~80-85kb here) and well sized sections shows that the article is crisp, concise, well-structured and clinical; not too wordy or convoluted in explanation. I was also thinking of incorporating the mission section into the Beginnings of the Qur'an section. I'll be sure to have a look at the Sunnah section too. Please give me a few days to finish off copyediting and trimming away excess material (sorry I'm holding you up) and I think we'll be ready for a GA nomination. ITAQALLAH 23:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I also believe there's the issue of the farewell sermon that needs to be briefly covered too. ITAQALLAH 23:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
There are different reports about Fadak. However if we want to prevent Shia-Sunni disputes, the best solution is western works such as Madelung. --Seyyed(t-c) 17:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
We can review what the sources say as a whole. ITAQALLAH 22:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding special capabilities: I think it's redundant and not of pressing relevance to the article. How many leaders do you think aren't, or weren't, convinced of their ability to lead? The case with Ali was naturally the same with Abu Bakr and the other people I mentioned. ITAQALLAH 22:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia of Islam

Hello Amin, Do you have access to Encyclopedia of Islam? If yes, does it contain articles about (Islamic creationism) or (Islam and intelligent design)? Can you send it/them? Thanks, Imad marie (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks :) Imad marie (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, can you please provide this from Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an: cosmology creation, universe, birth, intellect, adam and eve? The reason I'm asking for those is that I'm reviewing Islamic creationism. Thanks. Imad marie (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Amin, I am expanding Qur'an and science#Qur'an and creationism, comments are welcomed. Can you please provide BIOLOGY AS THE CREATION AND STAGES OF LIFE and BLOOD AND BLOOD CLOT from EoQ ? Thanks, Imad marie (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shia Islam

Salam Alaykum

A new wikipedian who is not familiar with the rules wants to insert his POV in the lead of Shia Islam. He has a bad sense about me. I put a comment for him[4] and this is his answer[5]. I think you can explain what is wikipedia for him better than me. Eltemase 2a--Seyyed(t-c) 16:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Guya natuestam khub tozih bedam. We don't have any problem on the talk page. But unfortunately this wikipedian wants to use wikipedia for propagation. You see, he's not familiar with the rules.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA

Hi Aminz, I'd rather we get the article Muhammad out of the way first because I think we are pretty close to finishing that off now. I think Islamophobia is close to GA standard so long as we figure out how to deal with the public discourse section and clean up an area or two. I'm also planning on overhauling Hadith with a comprehensive scholarly overview which will put it in good stead for GA. So you can see there's lots to work on. I'd like to work on Tawhid too, but I might just chip in with thoughts and minor edits for now. Regards, ITAQALLAH 20:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd think the black stone image was one of the more historically significant images given that it is one of the first depictions. If there's any image I think is out of place, it's probably the conquest of Mecca one because it's comparatively low quality, is right next to the Maome image, and we already have one image from the Siyer-i-Nabi anyway (the veiled one at the top). So I personally think the conquest one can stay in its own article. But you're right, it's difficult to conduct any sort of discussion about this without claims flying left right and centre. ITAQALLAH 21:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I really disagree with Itaqallah about this article. I think we should make more efforts. Unfortunately I',m too busy now and I can't help you with it. Eltemas 2a --Seyyed(t-c) 07:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tawhid

I have to say I really am impressed. Moving the article to the English title oneness of god was definitely a good move too, but the amount of work you've put in is impressive. One thing I did notice, is tawhid's significance to Sufism is mentioned in the lead. I would move that down, as tawhid has significance to Sufis, Shi'a, Mutazilah, and pretty much every other Muslim group. I'd keep the intro to the article non-group-specific. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read something like [6] and use them in your work.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
There you go putting the onus on me now, thanks a lot.  :p Didn't you disappear for quite some time? MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Weren't you on Wikibreak for quite some time before coming back? MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed

Hi Aminz. Accredited keeps on undoing my edits in my own talkpage. Furthermore he keeps on reverting at Banu Nadir. I don't know what normally is done in Wikipedia when you have such a problem, so I thought maybe you know what to do. Any tips? I'd appreciate it, thanks. --Devotus (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wensinck

I read Wensinck a long time ago. Yesterday, I got a copy of the book, and I'm going through it now (it's nasty -- not really a printed edition, it looks like a photocopy of a typed manuscript). I'm prompted by the fact that Watt didn't say anything, which is very odd, so it's possible that I could be wrong. Update soon. rudra (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Did I say nasty? It's a nightmare. I've come across several typos that have turned sentences into gibberish. This is apparently the 1982 edition of Behn's translation of Wensinck, published by Adiyok of Berlin, labeled as a "2nd edition" (strange, for a typewritten manuscript!). I'm going to have to get the 1975 edition published by Schwarz of Frieburg im Bresgau. rudra (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'm doing it mainly for my own benefit:-) When I see notable scholars apparently disagreeing without acknowledgment, I'm not so arrogant to discount the possibility that my reading was wrong. Right now it looks like I may have misread the thrust of Wensinck's argument (based on the fact that Watt was clearly a very careful scholar.) That is, Wensinck may have concluded that on balance all the Jews were covered in the original form of the CoM. (He agrees with Wellhausen on the dating of the earliest form to before Badr.) What make the typos really annoying is that Behn's English is fluent but not idiomatic (he's German, translating Dutch to English!) -- the phrasing of sentences is typically Germanic rather than Anglic -- so when there's a problem it isn't easy to figure out what he really meant to say (or rather, what Wensinck meant to say.) At some point, I may find things to add to the Constitution of Medina article. I think a little more coverage of Sergeant's analysis may also be a good thing. rudra (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

You should thank yourself rather than me. I posted that on there because your edits have been helpful, reliable, and have greatly improved wikipedia's coverage of articles pertaining to Islam.

While I know it's not your specific area of expertise, if you wouldn't find it offensive to do so, I would actually welcome your help editing and expanding upon certain Baha'i articles. I'm always a bit hesitant to try and completely overhaul a page even if it needs it, especially religious pages where you get fierce adherents on one side and devious polemics on the other. I have a couple specific projects in mind if you're interested. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I ask you because you are experienced at editing and improving articles pertaining to religion, particularly Islam. As to being offensive, many Muslim jurists have strongly condemned Baha'is (both morally and 'to death') and have accused Baha'is of being a zionist political movement as opposed to a religion. So, yeah a few Muslims I've mentioned the Baha'i faith to have accused me of being a spy for Israel and stuff like that (being American probably didn't help in that regard.) so while I wouldn't have assumed you would be offended I do respect you and your right to believe or otherwise and didn't want to give you the impression that I was trying to hook you into my religion. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Certainly understandable. I am also somewhat uninformed as to the nuances of Buddhist doctrine, so my edits on it are minor. Coincidentally, my knowledge of Islam was much more cursory before I started editing and maintaining Islam-related articles. Though I acknowledged its legitimacy before, my editing of Wikipedia inspired me to read my Quran a lot more, and the teachings and cause of Islam have become quite dear to me (also through the praise and commentary of Baha'u'llah.)
If you were ever interested in learning about the Baha'i faith I would gladly share with you what I can. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your valuable time needed for List of Marjas

I would be really thankful, if you spend some of your valuable time for the article List of Marjas, which is facing a recently initiated edit-war. I would like you to play your role in resolving it, and having some standars set for this article. Wassalam NEDian (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If you go to the earlier revisions of the page, you will find reference to a reliable list of Marjas by al-shia.com, all the references were deleted by newbies like LahoreKid and ShamsherAbbas during edit-warring. Take care NEDian (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Taking LahoreKid to CommentOnUserConduct

I am taking the issue of uncivil, personal-attack attitude of LahoreKid to the page CommentOnUserConduct (,one example of which is my talk page Syed.Nedian-TalkPage). Have your say at that page, if you think you should act in some way over this issue. NEDian (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please advise LahoreKid on his talkpage and not mine, Take care NEDian (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of marjas

What I did was remove marjas from the list whose status was not based on references. Syed.Nedian insists on adding people who don't even call themselves marjas, such as Mesbah-Yazdi and Jawadi Amoli. As for the others, I don't think clerics like Khamenei, Sistani and Fadlallah should be disrespected by being compared with other self-declared marjas who have very few followers, and most of the time are not recognized by their peers. LahoreKid (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm retiring soon but just to make it clear, after I was extremely civil and polite vis-a-vis Nedian, he insulted me by saying: By deleting Zanjani, you have showed your ignorance and hasty nature. He then had the nerve to report me and said that I was the one who attacked him. Too bad there are so many ill-faithed people like him walking this earth. LahoreKid (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Banu Nadir

I have been blocked for days from responding to you on the article talk page.

Here are the pertinent references on the armies composition in the Battle of the Trench.

7. ^ a b c d Lings, Muhammad: his life based on the earliest sources, p. 215-6.

8. ^ a b c al-Halabi, Sirat-i-Halbiyyah (Vol. II, part 12), p. 19.

Furthermore, the long standing text since June 14, 2006, that devotus deleted is sourced and referenced to Stillman (1979), p. 17 in which he states: "The Jews of this rich oasis must have clearly understood the danger they were in. Huyayy B. Akhtab had gone from Khaybar with his son to join the Meccan and Bedouin forces besieging Medina at the time of the battle of the Trench." Apparently, they were the exiled Banu Nadir Jews who again appeared with an army before Medina since no source makes mention of any Banu Nadir troops in the army. Your statement that indicates that Watt had said and modern scholars also agree that Muhammad attacked Khaybar because the Jews had furthermore "participated in attacking the Muslims" is false. Accredited (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review:Oneness of God (Islam)

Salam, I've just scaned the article. I think you've done a great work but it's not complete. There are important debates in Kalam about Tawhid Zati, Sefati and Afaali. It's written in the article that Certain theologians use the term Tawhid in a much broader meaning to denote the totality of discussion of God, his existence and his various attributes. But it's insufficient. I think we should clarify these three expressions. God as the Cause of Causes and God as Necessary being are philosophical terms which have been introduced by Al-Farabi and Avicenna. You can find more information about them in Avicennism. There is difference between Ahad and Wahid which should be discussed more.

You can find some good information in thses sources:

[8],

Also there are really nice descriptions of the issue in Hadiths such as Al-Tawhid of Shaykh Saduq.

Imam Ali says: The foremost in religion is the acknowledgement of Him, the perfection of acknowledging Him is to testify Him, the perfection of testifying Him is to believe in His Oneness, the perfection of believing in His Oneness is to regard Him Pure, and the perfection of His purity is to deny Him attributes, because every attribute is a proof that it is different from that to which it is attributed and everything to which something is attributed is different from the attribute. Thus whoever attaches attributes to Allah recognises His like, and who recognises His like regards Him two; and who regards Him two recognises parts for Him; and who recognises parts for Him mistook Him; and who mistook Him pointed at Him; and who pointed at Him admitted limitations for Him; and who admitted limitations for Him numbered Him. Whoever said in what is He, held that He is contained; and whoever said on what is He held He is not on something else. He is a Being but not through phenomenon of coming into being. He exists but not from non-existence. He is with everything but not in physical nearness. He is different from everything but not in physical separation. He acts but without connotation of movements and instruments. He sees even when there is none to be looked at from among His creation. He is only One, such that there is none with whom He may keep company or whom He may miss in his absence. --Seyyed(t-c) 12:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I found an article in encyclopaedia Islamica which may help us to write a better article:[10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15].
This classification is based on the approach. We have four approaches among Muslim scholars comprising Ahl Hadith's approach, Theologians approach, Philosophical approach and Sufi or Erfani approach. There is another classification which is based on the issue. In this classification we have Tawhid Zati, Sefati, Afaali and Wojudi. --Seyyed(t-c) 15:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

امین آقاي عزیز

من امروز خیلی فكر كردم و آخرش به این نتیجه رسیدم كه چون توحید مغز اسلام است و مهمترین موضوع
اعتقادی ماست به هيچ وجه نباید مقاله ای را كه واقعا خوب نیست به عنوان مقاله خوب معرفی كنیم.
توحید خیلی مهمتر از مقالات مربوط به انبیا و ائمه و قرآن است ولی ما خیلی موضوع را دست كم گرفته ایم.
هر چند به این مقاله ممكن است تنها در موارد تخصصی مراجعه شود ولی این موضوع زیربنای همه چیز است.
لذا من حاضرم هر كمكی از دستم برمیاد به شما بكنم تا یك مقاله واقعا خوب نوشته بشه به جای اینكه یك مقاله
در حد سوادمخاطب غیرمسلمان تهیه بشه. من به هر حال خیلی به شما ارادت دارم و
اگر موضوع این قدر مهم نبود حتما فرمایشی را كه تو نامه تون نوشته بودید روي چشم می گذاشتم.

التماس 2 آ

The Islamic Barnstar
God bless you! I'm impressed with what you've done in Oneness of God (Islam). It's really nice article.Seyyed(t-c) 18:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

We can reach good article criteria by adding Muslim scholar's interpretations and few points about oneness. En Sha Allah I'll introduce some good sources to you. Eltemas 2a--Seyyed(t-c) 18:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The reason

May I ask the reason for this edit?

It's reliably sourced and attributed. I find it meaningful as it gives us Banu Qurayza's perspectives on the issue. This is important, as many of the perspectives are not Qurayza's:

  • Sa'd dismissed the pleas of the Aws, according to Watt, because being close to death and concerned with his afterlife, he put what he considered "his duty to God and the Muslim community" before tribal allegiance This gives us Sa'd ibn Mu'adh's perspective
  • According to Stillman, Muhammad chose Sa'd ibn Mua'dh so as not to pronounce the judgment himself after the precedents he had set with the Banu Qaynuqa and the Banu Nadir: This gives us the prophet's perspective.
  • Daniel C. Peterson argues that this is because the Nadir felt responsible for the fate of the Qurayza, This gives what the Nadir thought of the events.

In this context I feel its important to tell the reader what the Qurayza thought of the events, as the article is, after all, about them.Bless sins (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I understand it now better but I think one needs to find other reliable sources on the issue and add them all together; instead of only adding one. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Banu Nadir

Hi Aminz. Do you have any ideas for solving this problem?--Devotus (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered mediation? That's normally the first of many avenues but do try to be patient, you are sometimes a little short...--BozMo talk 15:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ahl al-Bayt

I've been working on fixing the Ahl al-Bayt article. It's currently pretty bad and frankly I'm not experienced enough to fix all that's wrong with it. If you're available I would be most grateful for your help, as it's an important article, especially relevant to the Shia/Sunni conflict, something many westerners like myself don't understand fully. I'm hoping to get both Sunni and Shia editors that I find to be trustworthy to work on this project, so that it can get proper emphasis on both viewpoints without being unbalanced one way or the other. Do you have anyone you would recommend as well? Peter Deer (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What constitutes a source?

My reference to NASA in the Moon Splitting article came because I had encountered at least two muslims on two different internet forums talking about this, and with conversation with another muslim who runs a chippy I go to. If I pointed to the forum where at least one of these made the allegation that NASA found evidence of moon splitting would that be satsfactory?

If not what would it take to be allowed to stand.

I kind of get the feeling that this claim is an embarrasment to mainstream Islam so it must be covered up. I do understand this embarrassment which was why in my first revert I edited it to try and make it clear, this belief was not supported by mainstream Islam.

Stickings90 (talk) 07:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProjectIslam Collaboration

Salam bro,

Don't you want to participate in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Collaboration. Please participate in collaborative improvement of Sources of Islamic law, which is nominated as GA. --Seyyed(t-c) 09:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Setting the foundations for future Islamic articles

Join us here: User talk:Enzuru/ConstitutionIslam --Enzuru 01:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)