Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jihad may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
from the Extremists|date=January 23, 2007|publisher=HarperOne|isbn=978-0061189036|pages=222–223}})</ref>
not considered one of the "[[Five Pillars of Islam|pillars of Islam]]". According to one scholar ([[Majid Khadduri]], this is most likely because unlike the pillars of [[Salah|prayer]], [[Sawm|
jihad]], "refers to women joining the jihad by offering sex to fighters to boost their morale". (According to Malaysian intelligence officials quoted by the ''Strait Times'', as of August 2014,
Good work on the Jizya Article, I might join in and help you out, I see lots of un-needed tags in the page that need removal, by providing them with pages Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Ivanov:, @Al-Andalusi:, thank you very much, I'm very glad that you're both willing to help improving that page! Cheers! :-)
Expanding on my reply on my TP: since I'm not going to read the discussion there per your request (and personal preference!), could you point me to the exact proposed/disputed passage from the article sourced from this Arabic text? If you can tell me which aspects of it were disputed, that might be helpful too. Eperoton (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sure; So basically, the dispute boils down to a request by RLoutfy (talk·contribs) to show that a certain source (Taha Jabir Alalwani (2003), La 'ikraha fi al-din: 'ichkaliyat al-riddah wa al-murtaddin min sadr al-Islam hatta al-yawm, pp.93-94. ISBN9770909963." to be precise) does indeed link verse 10:99 to apostasy. He insisted that I had made "POV translations" of this source and that it doesn't support that claim. To counter his accusations, I provided screenshots of the meant source: (see box below)
1.Page 91 : He mentions that there are a lot of Qur'anic verses that maintain that religious freedom in its entirety must be saved, and hence apostasy shouldn't be sanctioned. 2.Page 92 He starts mentioning them, and he starts by talking about the verse Q.2:256. 3.Page 93 He mentions many other verses amongst them 88:22. 4.Page 94 He mentions 10:99 in the 6th line. 5.Page 94 (cont.) He says that a group of people (qawm) distinguish between original unbelief and apostasy, and claim that the verses that give freedom of religion to non-Muslims do not apply to apostates. 6.Page 95 This is a continuation of his discussion, see it for the context.
— CounterTime
It should be noted however that RLoutfy (talk·contribs) has no knowledge of arabic.
The author's basic position on punishment for apostasy is clear enough. Though on the first page he doesn't mention apostasy and speaks in generalities, on the last page he's very emphatic that he interprets the Quran as threatening only punishment in the afterlife (3iqaab uxrawi) without a provision for punishment of this world (3uquuba dunyawiya) for apostasy. Could you give me the exact wording of the disputed statement about 10:99? "Linking" is a rather vague term. He quotes this verse in support of his general position about the Quranic view of religious freedom, but he cites different verses (and alludes to others without specifying them) to argue against the view that 10:99 and other previously cited verses apply only to "original disbelief" (kufr asli) and not to apostasy. Does that sound right? Eperoton (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Eperoton: Well, basically that's been my position, since RLoutfy (talk·contribs) has no knowledge of arabic he gave no argument as to why my reading was incorrect, and he only quotes a mistaken translation by Nancy Roberts. Could you please post what you just said in the relevant talk page? Thanks in advance. 21:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)[reply]
It appears that you and Steeletrap are both violating the three revert rule. Please stop reverting edits on that page, regardless of what Steeletrap does. If you continue, you may be blocked, which I hope is unnecessary. I'm posting the same message at Steeletrap's page. - Lindert (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lindert: Oh sorry, thought that WP:3RR involved only the "same material", when, in point of fact, it involves "the same or different material". But in any case, I stopped editing at that page until a consensus is built in the talk page. 11:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)[reply]
Bani Qurayza (Jews of Yathrib) were charged by somebody
This is not dispute of the choice of verb, but only an attempt to remove the passive voice that has no subject as actor: "were said" to "somebody said", presumably Muhammad "said", "charged", "reported" but somebody (Muhammad) made the charge to instigate the action against the Bani Qurayza.
Please help just restructure this sentence to have a known actor (e.g., Muhammad, the Muslims, etc.)
Anyone might be responsible for the charge if the noun/subject is not specified.
@HerbM: Hi; We're talking here about historical reports, so it would go as "It is said [in historical reports] that ..." As such I think it needs no change, particularly when such a change would constitute a violation of WP:SAY. 16:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
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.
if you have time go through the article's exhaustive references section what are you writing, where is edit war going on. dont message me, byeeVakthruthva (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
I see you stopped commenting in the talk page of the Expeditions article. Please do not stop. Please list all your remaining concerns and I will at least attempt to answer them even if I cannot provide a solution--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright so can we agree on a different wording than "This was the first Constitution of democracy in the history of constitutional rule."? This is obviously not the case and has been discussed several times on the talk page and there are many other documents that are considered the first written constitution. But instead of simply removing the whole sentence maybe we can work on rewording it to something that is more agreeable "This was the first constitution in the history of Islam" or something like that so how about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamadovich (talk • contribs) 08:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hamadovich: Hi, thanks for the suggestion. I, however, don't agree since that's different from the wording and the intended meaning mentioned in the given sources. If you actually look at the talk page you'll see one source which is explicit on discussing whether it was the first constitution in the history of the world, Hamidullah, Muhammad. The First Written Constitution in the World: An Important Document of the Time of the Holy Prophet, 3rd. ed. 1975, Ashraf Press; Lahore, Pakistan.
Although the rules and regulations of a country can be found in a more or less written form everywhere, yet, in spite of strenuous search, I could not find any instance of the constitution of a country, as distinct from ordinary laws, reduced to writing, before the time of the Holy Prophet Muhammad()صلى الله عليه وسلم. True, Mann Smriti (500 B.C.) mentions the duties of a king and the Artha Shastra (Science of Politics) by Kautilya (300 B.C.) and the books of Aristotle, written about the same time, contain complete treatises on politics. Aristotle described the constitutions of 1584 of his contemporary city-states in many countries, including India.5 From among these monographs, only the constitution of Athens has come down to us. It was discovered on papyrus in Egypt just 50 Vears ago and was published in the year 1891. It has also been translated into English and other languages. But writings of this kind are either in the nature of text-books or “advice-books” to princes, or are historical accounts of the constitutions of certain places. None of these enjoys the dignity of an authoritative constitution of a state issued by the sovereign of the country.
Is related to the Batn Rabigh Caravan Raid because in the batn rabigh caravan raid it mentions That sa'd was the first to shoot an arrow on the muslim side. That fact is also mentioned in the sahih bukhari hadith.
@Misconceptions2: That's the precise definition of WP:SYNTHESIS: 'Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.' Kindly adhere to WP policies.
Both the Batn Rabigh carvan raid and the sahih bukhari source mention that Sa'd was the first to shoot an arrow in the name of Islam. Do you agree or disagree? It is explicitly stated that he was the first to fire an arrow for Islam in BOTH SOURCES.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Misconceptions2: But there is no explicit mention of "Batn Rabigh Caravan Raid", what you're trying to do violates WP:SYNTHESIS. Again, kindly adhere to WP policies.
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
@MusikAnimal: I'm extremely confused, I was blocked for edit warring when I only made 2 reverts, and I didn't revert the last edit by DJ SG Gayashan.
I'm also very active on that talk page, being amongst those who reached a consensus before 26 February 2016 (i.e. before the re-coming of Misconceptions2), and I'm the one who made that page protection request.
@Al-Andalusi: I have some other articles in my 'to-ameliorate list', but I'd be more than happy to offer some help. Since I'm not familiar with the issues in these articles, could you please resume them? Thanks in advance.
@Diannaa: Okay, sorry, I actually planned to edit that part based on M. Zawati's Is Jihad a Just War?, I thought first about deleting that part, then editing conveniently based on Zawati's book, but I actually opted for the other available option. Thanks in any case.
I admit to being weak at correctly editing wikipedia content and , in particular , the annotation of sources inline and in the References section .
The saheeh international translation of surah 9 from the qurayn as quoted for the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion#Islam is located here http://www.quranonline.net/html/trans/options/sah/9.html . The quotations from surah 9 debase the reference to surah 2:256 , as forwarded by Michael Bonner , see [5] . The implications of surah 9 are that forced conversion is a tenet of islam and that double speak is being employed by those claiming the contrary , as claiming that conversion is not compulsory while implementing duress for non compliance implies the former claim is absurd . Given the history of islam , including the sources and citations from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence_in_India imply that surah 9 was and is a basis for religious pogroms against polytheists and non believers with reference to the following claim , " 9:33 It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, although they who associate others with Allah dislike it. "
Before I bother to update the page again , hopefully correctly , are you going to dispatch the content based upon insufficient sources for surah 9 ?
According to tradition associated with chronology of the qurayn [6] , surah 2 was written 74th out of 114 , while surah 9 was written 113th out of 114 surah . The saheeh international translation relates the following in surah 9 , " 9:29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. " , where jizyah is a subjugation tax of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmitude . Also related in surah 9 is the following , " 9:5 And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. " , where https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat is a tithing of believers who are thus converts .
Hello User:CounterTime, I removed the sentence "This was the first constitution of democracy in the history of constitutional rule", because it is to laden with modern concepts. Probably for effect. The language should be more precise. Also the sources pose some questions. The first publication is clearly (from the summary) a book that, however sympathetic, makes a point that has more to do with today's issues than with history. The second one ia accompanied by a quote that doesn't mention democracy and the third one has no accompanying quote at all. We should consider more careful language. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hebel: We should keep wordings as they are—as much as possible—mentioned by WP:RSs, such as the Khatab & Bouma source, which says in a non-implicit fashion: "The Constitution of Medina is the first Constitution of democracy in the history of constitutional rule." We shouldn't edit these words based on mere opinions, such as the ones you stated, otherwise WP:SYNTHESIS would have been allowed. So, kindly, please revert your changes. 18:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
Hello User:CounterTime, I think we need a quote from a work of a certified and dispassionate historian of constitutional law. Not from a work of sociology or hermeneutics. We also should not quote sources verbatim, but that's another question altogether. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hebel: Remark how your argument shifted from, '[w]e should not apply this modern concept to [sic] this situation', to 'we need a quote from a work of a certified and dispassionate historian of constitutional law'. Do you have any valid reasons for ignoring what WP:RSs say, and preferring your own opinion over them?
@Hebel: I'll remind you that this subject was discussed previously on the talk, the previous consensus was that the "constitution of democracy" wording be kept, you deliberately changed that wording without consulting the talk, or, even, being aware that there existed such discussion in the talk. I invite you—yet again—to revert your changes, and discuss the matter in the talk to build consensus, instead of engaging in tireless reverts.
As far as I can see, the earlier conversation was more about what a constitution is, and whether it was the first one. That is not my point. I don't object to using the word constitution. I see that including the word democracy was a means to end another conflict. That in itself doesn't make it a very satisfactory reason to include that word. Let's copy this conversation to the talk page. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@CounterTime:, You say "Remark how your argument shifted from, '[w]e should not apply this modern concept to [sic] this situation', to 'we need a quote from a work of a certified and dispassionate historian of constitutional law' ". That's not a shift. Perhaps I should have said that your preferred sentence needs a quote from a work... etc. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hebel: That's a shift, you first ranted about democracy being a modern construct, and the term shouldn't be used for earlier pre-modern times, then you started ranting about the sources, as if these 3 ones weren't sufficient.
In all cases, you violated a consensus that maintained that expression, and this, without first consulting the talk. For the third time, I invite you to cancel your deletions until a consensus is reached in the talk.
Hello, I think that the word "Ummah" may cause confusion, since according to the dictionary definition of the term Ummah [7], it refers to the worldwide community of Muslims, which do not include Pagans, Jews and Christians. Don't you think it would be better to exclude it or revise it, perhaps mentioning 'community' instead of Ummah. Xtremedood (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Xtremedood: Hi. The Constitution of Medina itself states that Medinan Jews form with the Muslims one ummah, with that term. So I think we shouldn't drop it, when the very text uses that term.
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!Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hebel: Hi again, I'd like to recall what I said earlier to you: "Please don't ping me anymore.", and this implicitly means to no longer message me about stuff I no longer participate in, Regards. --CounterTime (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring at Criticism of Quran
Here is your notice of the warnings received, my plea for you to acknowledge good faith efforts, and now the tag to bring in an administrator to verify your discouraging and unhelpful activity. I've already asked you previously to assist, and understand the effort of assisting finding citations prior to indiscriminately deleting the edits of others. == Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion ==
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. HafizHanif (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, CounterTime. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
No reliable sourcing present to prove notability, and I was unable to find significant coverage from my review of English-language sources. There may be sourcing in Arabic, but as I am unable to read that language, I have to take this at face value.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
