This user may have left Wikipedia. Truthspreader has not edited Wikipedia since November 2008. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
This wikipedian has retired (atleast temporarily) because of work to be done in real life. I wish best of luck to all those wikipedians who are striving to bring a Neutral Point of View to Islam related articles and wish them best of luck. Though, if someone wants to contact me, I am still accessible through e-mail. Salaam, Shalom, and Peace!
Hi, I came across the Inayat Bunglawala article and was shocked. He's a very prominent and moderate Muslim leader in the U.K., spokesman of the Muslim Council of Britain etc., but a couple of determined users had managed to write a page of 'terrorist' and 'extremist' accusations (obviously a concerted smear campaign). All I did was to add more neutral details to the page and move the dubious information to a section called 'Criticism' (without deleting even the outlandish claims), but already I'm being accused of 'forcing changes' on the 'group' (really just one guy). Any chance you/anyone you know could come and help out? We need more neutral and positive information, and the criticism needs to be balanced much, much more than it is right now. I feel like I'm on my own with that article, and I can't just leave it, because it's just not fair to have a smear page on Wikipedia. I need experienced people to help balance the page. Thanks so much.Jamal (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
As per WP:3RR#Reverting without edit warring. I unfortunately reacted when User:Proabivouac started removing sourced text, otherwise, the whole discussion can be read on the talk page. TruthSpreaderTalk 14:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is your THIRD 3RR block. You clearly knew what you were doing. The block is only for 31 hours, shorter than is generally given for a third offense. Please use the time to consider how to avoid any more 3RR violations. -- Yamla00:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.
I have eventually decided to open us an RfC for User:Beit Or, User:Humus sapiens and User:Jayjg. I have just started the page here [2]. Feel free to edit it. Here was my last try [3]. Like everybody else, I value my time and don't want to waste it. RfC takes time but it is just once.
you may wish to check p.37 of Serjeant's analysis of the constitution of Medina where he quite clearly affirms the existence of an agreement signed between Muhammad and (only) the Qurayza just prior to the battle of the trench. he explains it in quite a lot of detail, four paragraphs to be exact, which is why i'm a bit reluctant to attempt transcribing all of that out. do check it out though. ITAQALLAH02:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3RR on Banu Qurayza
You have been temporarily blocked again for 3RR violations on Banu Qurayza; see [4] When you return to Wikipedia, please use the Talk: pages for discussing proposed edits. Jayjg (talk)04:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.
Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying the site is still banned in Government ISP's of Pakistan, but not in other ISP's? If its still banned in Gov ISP's then you should say that in the article.--Matt5715:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think Ali Sina would lie and create a discussion with Khalid Zaheer? Second, if Khalid has said the site is banned, that means the site is banned. I'll reword the ban and put it back in.
"Secondly, Khalid Zaheer even hasn't put the discussion on their website, hence, we don't even have a secondary source to prove that discussion is even happening or not!"
We can say stuff like "some internet users have reported being unable to access the site". You just dont want that there, do you. --Matt5716:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was focused on Antisemitism related articles for awhile, but it seems that that article is also really in need of attention. Cheers, --Aminz17:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RfC
Hi Truthspreader,
Would you please check if you endorse this [5]. Feel free to change it or edit it. If you would like to endorse it please sign here [6]
Before doing that, please note that "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors, and can lead to binding arbitration. Filing an RfC is therefore not a step to be taken lightly or in haste."
Hi, regarding the RfC you certified, can you please add diffs showing your attempts to resolve the dispute? I can see only one comment from you, which wasn't an effort to resolve. As you know, both certifiers must have tried and failed to resolve things prior to the RfC being certified. Many thanks, SlimVirgin(talk)21:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of trying to resolve the dispute means pointing out relevant policies and joining actively in the discussion. User:TruthSpreader was quite active and has many edits on the talk page. --Aminz23:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Truthspreader, I see you're continuing to edit the page. Could you provide diffs, please, of you trying but failing to resolve the dispute? They should go here. Without them, the RfC will be deleted. It should be deleted already as it was posted 48 hours ago, and these diffs must be supplied within 48 hours, so please respond. SlimVirgin(talk)02:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quote
Here is the quote I was talking about from Ibn Taymiyya:
"If…they [Christians] mean that the Qur’an confirms the textual veracity
[alfa¯z] of the scriptural books which they now possess—that is, the Torah and the Gospels—this is something which some Muslims will grant them and which many Muslims will dispute. However, most Muslims will grant them most of that."
As you can see, I have a lot of choices.
Not only do I accept the complete textual veracity of the Torah and the Gospels from a religous perspective, I would go further and accept the sincerety of Saint Paul. For not only my sincerety-meter affirms it, I view Paul as an influential person. Without God's grace, he couldn't have achieved what he achieved. --Aminz23:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"In the account of Abraham's would-be sacrifice of his son (XXXVII, 102/100-107), the name of the son is not mentioned; and there was a fierce controversy among Muslim scholars over the identity of the son. At first most Muslims probably considered the “sacrifice” (d̲h̲abīḥ) was Isaac (cf. Goldziher, Koranauslegung, 79-81). This is explicitly stated of ʿUmar and ʿAlī by Ḳuṭb al-Dīn (Wüstenfeld, Chron. Mekka, ii, 37). A story is told of how a convert told ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz that the Jews had substituted Isaac (their ancestor) for Ishmael (the Arabs'). Actually the controversy came to be more concerned with Persian than withJewish rivalry for the Arabs (Goldziher, Muh. St., i, 144 f., Eng. tr., i, 135), since the Persians claimed descent from Isaac. Al-Masʿūdī (Murūd̲j̲, ii, 146 f.) quotes a Persian poet in 290/902 who boasted that his descent from Isaac the d̲h̲abīḥ was superior to that of the Arabs. Later representatives of the Isaac-party were Ibn Ḳutayba (Maʿarif, 18 f. ed. ʿUkās̲h̲a2, Cairo 1969, 30 f.) and al-Ṭabarī (Tafsīr on XII, 6 and XXXVII, 107; vol. xii, 86; xxiii, 46-9); they argued that God's perfecting his mercy on Abraham and Isaac (in XII, 6) referred to his making Abraham his friend and saving him from the burning bush and to his rescuing Isaac. The other party held that the promise to Sarah of Isaac followed by Jacob (XI, 71/74) excluded the possibility of a sacrifice of Isaac. Although Ibn Ḳutayba, for example, had seen Isaac mentioned in the Old Testament, Muslim opinion eventually gave full endorsement to the view that the son in question was Ishmael, the ancestor of the Arabs (cf. al-Bayḍāwī on XXXVII, 102/101). In the works entitled Ḳiṣaṣ al-anbiyāʾ by T̲h̲aʿlabī (Cairo 1312, 48-60) and al-Kisāʾī (Leiden 1922, 150-3) the story of Isaac is elaborated along lines reflecting extra-Biblical Jewish tradition."
I didn't say my own view ;) I have no particular view on this at the moment. I understand the verse but the Qur'an does sometimes go back and forth in time. The story of cow, etc etc. But honestly I dunno. I should think more about it. I don't think one should dismiss the other theory very quickly since there were scholars including Tabari who were supporting the Issac Theory. But I dunno to be honest with you. --Aminz12:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't add Islamic dress template
It's silly. There are arguments about what parts of the body should be covered, and there are garments. It's the coverage that's Islamic, not the garment. Muslims have worn many many different kinds of garments. Are you going to claim all of them for Islam?
Claiming "turban" as Islamic is especially pernicious. Many people wear turbans -- Muslims, Sikhs, Arab Christians, Jews, etc. When stupid Americans think that the turban identifies a Muslim, they go out and kill Sikhs. Muslims in the US don't usually wear turbans, they'll wear a kufi if anything. But observant Sikhs wear turbans as a religious observance. You want to put them in the crosshairs?
Can you please help with that article. I would like to add this to intro [7].
My argument is that WP:Lead says: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any."
Please have a look at this article [8] and the website in general. It seems that all the articles are written by university professors and experts.
Regarding certain verses in the New Testament, I found the following statement (on which I have no personal view yet).
When recourse is had to certain New Testament texts which appear to support an exclusivist Christian position these must be examined in light of the context in which they emerged. Statements attributed to Jesus such as his claim to be ". . . the way and the truth and the life" without whom there is no access to the Father (John 14:6) lose their exclusivist tendency when seen in the context in which they arose. A recent article by Professor Hugh Anderson, former Professor of New Testament in the University of Edinburgh, provides us with a scholarly counter to those who would invoke this text and others, for example Acts 4:12, in support of an absolutist position.
Yes, but I believe all the sincere Christians who try to familiarize others with Gospels which is also the word of God deserve much praise and thanks. --Aminz05:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know that the majority of academic scholars do not believe that stories of conquests of promised land by Joshua actually did take place as it is recorded? It was much slower and peaceful. Conquest of promised land took a long time and was eventually accomplished by the rise of David. So, from an academic perspective, there is no need to assume that the bloody incidents mentioned in book of Joshua actually ever happened. --Aminz10:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above source continues that :"The themes of exclusivity and tolerance have played a unique role in the relation between Jews and non-Jews. Behind them stand the various strands of Hebrew history which depict God on the one hand as wiping out all who stand in the way of Israel's conquest, and on the other hand commanding Israel to do so." The existence of violence in some cases is not denied but I think the scribes should have exaggerated the bloodshed in the Bible (probably viewing the bloodshed as a sign of power and dominance). On one hand I shouldn't say that (by presumption of correctness of the text) but I like to contradict myself in this particular case. --Aminz11:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Feminist Exegesis
What do you think of feminist exegesis? For centuries exegesis has been in the hands of men. They were mostly narrating the Hadiths. Did we have any famous early woman interpreter? I found a Feminist Torah Exegesis here [10] which is interesting. (the writer is a professor of religious studies) --Aminz11:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting the article, the feminist exegesis strategies are as follows:-)
Strategy one is: Notice women’s presence in the text. The second strategy is, notice women’s absence in the text. A third strategy is to critique texts from a feminist perspective and discover internal repair...A fourth strategy is to critique texts from a feminist perspective and offer explicitly external repair. You can give a whole sermon on something that is bluntly no good from our perspective in Torah, but then offer from the spirit of Torah, a repair of it from our perspective. A fifth strategy is, highlight a woman’s issue in a text, something that nobody ever saw before. And the sixth strategy is to highlight what we call women’s values. What are women’s values? Are there such values? Are they feminist values?
Hagar gives God a name. Abram has never done this nor has anyone else. Throughout chapters of the Torah, Abram needs signs to substantiate his covenant with God. Hagar is somehow more accepting, more comfortable with God. Hagar accepts her encounter for what it is. She takes the initiative and she names God. What courage! Hagar names God “El Roi,” God who sees me. This is in response to God’s naming her child Ishmael, which means, “God hears.” In naming God, Hagar affirms that God sees as well as hears.
So, here we have the story of Ishmael, who in tradition we understand to be the father of the Arab people, the brother of Isaac, who’s banished along with his mother, Hagar. And this Torah commentator notices that Hagar says: I’m going to give you a name God. You who see me. And that’s the only time in the Torah, until that moment, that anyone had dared to name God. And it is the only time in the Torah, totally, that a woman names God.
Right, but at some level, women's interpretations of the passages doesn't necessarily match that of men. Men and Women have their own specific focus. --Aminz01:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Muhammad, do you have Ibn Ishaq and other primary sources? Watt says:"It is reported that as Sa'd was coming to Muhammad's presence, he made a remark to the effect that since he is about to die, he must consider above all doing his duty to God and the Islamic community, even at the expense of former alliances."
Hope everything is going well with you. As you know there was a dispute over the Antisemitism article.
Some editors are disputing the very existence of a dispute on the Antisemitism article. Would you please have at the evidence provided here [12] and see if that testifies existence of some dispute over the neutrality of the article. Thanks. --Aminz12:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Israel
Muhammad, have a look at this [13] The claims about Ibn Kathir and Muhammad al-Shawkani are of particular interest. Khaleel Muhammad is Assistant Professor at the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University. Here is the interview [14]. He claims that the medieval exegetes of Qur'an--without any exception known to him--recognized Israel as belonging to the Jews, their birthright given to them. He claims The idea that Israel does not belong to the Jews is a modern one, probably based on the Mideast rejection of European colonialism etc, but certainly not having anything to do with the Qur'an.--Aminz03:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His argument is that in Quran "Moses says that the Holy Land is that which God has written for the Israelites. In both Jewish and Islamic understandings of the term "written", there is the meaning of finality, decisiveness and immutability." what do you think of that? --Aminz03:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "Qur'an only says that Jerusalem will be handed over to Muslims as it was given to Israelites in history", I can not see it in 17:1 "Glory to (Allah) Who did take His servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless,- in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things)." Could you please explain. --Aminz03:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He says: "Ibn Kathir (d. 774/1373) said: “That which God has written for you” i.e. That which God has promised to you by the words of your father Israel that it is the inheritance of those among you who believe” . Muhammad al-Shawkani (d. 1250/1834) interprets Kataba to mean “that which God has allotted and predestined for you in His primordial knowledge, deeming it as a place of residence for you” (1992, 2:41). " --Aminz03:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. It is too technical. And his argument might be ambigious.
According to the biblical account, the next generation of Jews entered holy land (the first generation died in the desert). The context is of course asking Jews to fight to enter the holy land that God has written that for you. Ibn Kathir holds that this refers to a promise which Jacob way back gave. I don't know. Khaleel Muhammad thinks that if a promise is given to someone using "written", it has immutability. It is too technical. --Aminz04:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article you recommended
Truthspreader, I looked at it and I disagree completely with the scholar. But I know you had good intentions. Happy New Year! Zora05:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support
Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMAtalk22:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zina - prostitution OK but also death required
Hi, I am curious abou the apparent contradictions between: AL-NOOR (THE LIGHT) 024.033 In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful
YUSUFALI: Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. ***But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),***
and
"stoning can only be prescribed for someone who habitually commits fornication as prostitutes," from the Zina article, with the following used to justify stoning apparently with no regard to the context created by the of the rest of the chapter.
Translations of the Qur'an, Chapter 5:
AL-MAEDA (THE TABLE, THE TABLE SPREAD) In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful.
005.033
YUSUFALI: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
005.034
YUSUFALI: Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
I am not accusing you of anything here - just wonder if we can find another POV to add to the article that takes a more (to my mind) logical course of reason. SmithBlue12:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you read this material the same way I do; Prostitution by slaves is OK but prostitution by free women deserves death? Or am I missing something? SmithBlue13:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working through this with me. Whilst I dont agree with the rulings themselves or the interpretation of Quoran 005.033 it has been useful to see the internal consistency of what you quote. SmithBlue03:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - having read more about Qur'an, Chapter 5:
AL-MAEDA (THE TABLE, THE TABLE SPREAD) 005.033 I come to realise its probably not the interpretation of it I disagree with but rather the translation. In English "to strive" is to work towards a definite conscious goal that is more personally important than any other consequence of my actions. If I strive to climb a mountain then I cannot have causing avalanches as more important to me than climbing the mountain. So in English it makes no sense to speak of a prostitute striving through prostitution to spread disorder in the land. Even with deliberate negligence of possible harm they do, they would still not be striving to spread disorder. I've looked at a few different translations and they all use strive and often also reference effort. Do you have another way of looking at this apparent mistranslation? SmithBlue12:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Truthspreader, I'm working on the [Namus] (honour) article. I understand that Namus is not mentioned in the Quoran but would like to know what Islam has to say about cultural practices that result in women being killed by their family. I am looking for an Islamic view of families who kill female members who lose the families honour - can you point me to something in the Quoran or a Hadith that addresses this? SmithBlue07:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quote used to support namus is "The Qur'an states,
Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.[1]
Whats the worse case scenario if the woman still wont obey the man? Does this become a case of; "Qur'an, Chapter 5:
005.033
YUSUFALI: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;" ? SmithBlue09:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
International experts? What does that mean? It takes one strong-willed professor (the advisor) to get a thesis accepted. Arrow74008:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I've just created some more articles on Islam and I was wondering whether you might be interested to have a browse on them and contribute to them:
I agree with you on all the points you raised. There is a lot of material written about modernity and religous intellectuals stuff, many of which are secondary sources. What we can do is to put all of them together, compare them. That's a kind of research, though not original research. And I think that would be valuable. But we are all busy I know. Maybe in a couple of years, we would have comperhensive articles. I think it is important to *know* what we know.--Aminz08:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that gives us a fresh approach to Qur'anic stuidies :P I seriously recommened you to play this game. IT IS FUN!!!!!--Aminz11:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Tin
Very Interesting! Since we have Mountain Sinai and City of Peace, it makes quite sense that "Fig and Olive" refers to places and to Jesus. Nice! Is Ghamidi the first who translates it this way? BTW, regarding "Fig is a village situated on this mountain", I am interested to know if this is also mentioned in the Bible. Thanks --Aminz06:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prisoners rights in Islam
I acknowledge that in Islam prisoners are not only to be fed well, but also not to be physical, sexually and emotional - where can I get a credible source of information from regarding this? I read some document on prisoners that they are allowed to be tied up when they cause some kind of trouble in prison but I haven't got the article and I'm not sure whether I'm giving out the right information. I heard that they can be tied up. When is it that the prison guards are allowed stop the prisoners, hit them up and tie them up? --Fantastic4boy04:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's very interesting reading. Ali Sina's responses could be more concise. If you try hard and use sufficient brain power, you can make any book make sense, but what does this mean? If you'd like we can discuss the points in the debate via e-mail. Arrow74022:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an email exchange on this topic would be worthwhile as Ali Sina has already laid down the contradictions quite well. In general you always seem to use the liberal scholars as sources. This is presenting a minority view to the exclusion of other views. I don't want to have to struggle through difficult Urdu texts to post to wikipedia so I can't really balance this out, and I can't read any other Muslim language. I guess I could try to get English translations of Ibn Kathir, Ibn Jawziyya and the like. Could you try to use those sources as well? I also have a question about Ghamidi, and about yourself I guess. You reject the hadith entirely? Arrow74006:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the Quran can't be understood without extra material because it isn't clear without the historical context, what was written when so you know what abrogates what and what's the final word on a subject, etc. If you reject the hadith and traditional tafsirs how do you know your interpretation is faithful? Arrow74008:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alas that Khalid Zaheer also reject Hadiths may not be totally but most of them. I cannot agree MORE with above post of Arrow that if you reject hadith then chances of getting misguidance increases. For example Ahmadi says that show where in Quran written that Muhammad in last prophet. When one show them Quranic Ayat then they translate it wrongly as "Seal of the Prophets" (superior of prophets) instead of taking as last prophet. Then they also reject Hadith. Hence one cannot have arguments with them any more. In Arabic one word has 100s of meaning (unlike any other language) hence if you do not see context and hadiths then you can go any way you like.... At LUMS we used to have much better people like Dr. Muhammad Ali Maud, Dr Haroon Atiq Babr and many others. Have you heard of person name Pervaiz (I am not sure about his name 100%). He used arabic dictionary and create a new translation of Quran that suits him. It is famous as Pervaizi Fitna. (He used to like in pre-patition India, I will try to find more info about him) --- ALM21:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW Khalid Zaheer knows me and I know him. I had been LUMS student for four long years and got a chance to attend many of his lecture during that time. --- ALM21:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can make any book say anything you want, as I saw a Muslim preacher on TV say recently. So what's your opinion on the (offensive) wars of the first Caliphs? Arrow74020:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was talking about the Quran. Militant Muslims interpret the Quran a certain way, and he was saying, well you can read those things in the Bible or even Shakespeare if you try. That seems to be what Ghamidi does as well, just with the opposite interpretation, and to do it he has to jettison some of the hadith. For example saying that surah 5 overrides surah 9 is a little hard to swallow, since sura 9 was the last surah Muhammad delivered. So regarding the early wars, you're saying that because the heads of state refused to become Muslim, God wanted the people who knew Muhammad, and only them, to wage war on their nations, killing and enslaving. The question is, what was the understanding of the generation of Muslims after Muhammad? Why did they continue to wage jihad? In fact this jihad continued for hundreds of years, until other powers in Europe and India had sufficient strength to push back. Saying that those wars were only allowed for the early generations seems pretty far-fetched as that is a modern idea that no one thought until the 20th century. Arrow74019:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding abrogation, it is necessary as there are places where the Quran contradicts itself, there's a list here; some of these can be explained as mistranslations, but most can't, I think. For example, it says that wine "has some benefit," but in another place that it is "an abomination." There is no way for these two verses to be reconciled. Arrow74019:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt that wine has many many benefits (especially when taken in small quantities). However, when it has more harms than benefits. That’s why it is banned. Every thing has benefit. Having sex with multiple girls has benefits, eating pork has benefits but we have to see if benefit are more or harms. --- ALM19:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even know this Verse 2:219. It clearly say that it has some benefits and some harmful things. but harmful things are more than benefits. I doubt that answering-islam will have told you that because they are master in giving half picture of things. --- ALM19:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<reset>Yes in fact it seems there are five verses on alcohol. The first says that strong drink is a sign of God's provision for humanity, the last says it is an abomination of Satan's handiwork. There is a discussion of all five here, though you might not want to read it. It says that there is wine in heaven as well. If you just say that the one about it being an abomination abrogates the other ones then there's no problem. Arrow74020:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Truth is that Quran end drinking slowly because that society has drinking in it a lot. Things come in sequence so they can be better prepared slowly to change themselves. In start it was prohibited to drink and go for prayer and so on. Until it was totally prohibited. However, I do not see in that process that any verses get abrogated. All still hold and still it is prohibited to go for prayer while drunken. Still wine has benefits. Why it is required a verse to be abrogated, I never found that need. If there is a verse about Muhammad wives and his wives does not exist any more than verse still hold. We cannot apply it but why it is abrogated. I have attended lecture of some yacky people who do not accept Hadith and then abrogate all the verses of Quran that have objection from west. I simply hate them more than non-Muslims. --- ALM20:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever property of wine existed that caused it to have some benefit and be a sign of God's providence for man exists both before and after the verse saying it was an abomination of Satan. I guess in Islam Satan's abominations can have some benefit, and be a sign of providence for mankind. This is in line with the theme in Hindu mythology that demons are only fulfilling their karma. Arrow74006:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True but not as you said about Hinduism! There is nothing in this world which is 100% evil. An evil thing must have a good thing associated with it, otherwise no body will do evil. One only needs to see that a particular act has more evil or good. TruthSpreaderreply06:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to describe a sign of God's providence which provided some benefit, even if it were a net negative, I would not call it an abomination of Satan. Would you? The total abrogation view is the only workable one in my mind. Then you of course have to explain that. Arrow74000:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I haven't conveyed my point properly. Even somebody steals, the good aspect is that the person is getting some thing to enjoy his life, but the bad aspect is that you are getting this benefit at the cost of the someone else's lost. This aspect dominates the good aspect. And hence stealing is considered bad. But when Satan wants to convice us, Satan always brings forth the good aspect and hides the bad aspect. This is how people trick their concious and do bad things. I hope it would clear the discrepancy. TruthSpreaderreply00:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very satisfactory if the verse were referring to the act of drinking, better yet the act of yielding to the temptation to drink, but it is referring to wine itself. Arrow74000:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When Islam prohibits something, it also gives some ettiquettes to save you from temptation. Just like fornication is prohibited in Islam, but Islam also expect people to adhere to certain code of conduct to save from unnecessary temptations in life which would lead to this result. Secondly, as ALM also mentioned, verse [Quran2:219] is pivotal in this case, which prohibits all intoxicants, which is now for all times, but some verses, as ALM also mentioned might be related to slow and gradual prohibition. TruthSpreaderreply00:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Intercession
Hi Truthspreader,
I was interested to know what you think of the following discussion between God(or an angle, i dunno) and Abraham about destruction of Sodom (people of the Lut, the prophet). I think it is Intercession, isn't it?
20 Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."
22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD. [e] 23 Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare [f] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
26 The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake."
27 Then Abraham spoke up again: "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?" "If I find forty-five there," he said, "I will not destroy it."
29 Once again he spoke to him, "What if only forty are found there?" He said, "For the sake of forty, I will not do it."
30 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?" He answered, "I will not do it if I find thirty there."
31 Abraham said, "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?" He said, "For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it."
32 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?" He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."
33 When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.
Of course, only God is in control. But intersession can be one of the means through which God enforces his will. Just as God gave us free will but at the same time we do what he decides. I feel prayer and intercession have many common elements. Anyways, thanks for your reply. Cheers, --Aminz00:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TruthSpreader, the main point I think is that as long as we are in this world, we should ask and pray to God and only to God. But in the hereafter, I think there is intercession, but as God has planned it. --Aminz00:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting! Did Ghamidi already decided to put them in 10 categories or they turned out to be in 10? :) Interesting! The Tawrat article in EoI might also give us some information. Cheers, --Aminz00:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
Hi Muhammad,
Do you have any suggestion where it is the best place to add the following quote from Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, p.464?
"One who submits to the divine will is called Muslim. In the Qur'an, the word Muslim refers not only to humans but also to other creatures and the inanimate world. From the Qur'anic point of view, this is not surprising. The divine will manifests itself in the form of laws both in human society and in the world of nature. In Islamic terminology, for example, a bee is a Muslim precisely because it lives and dies obeying the shariah that God has prescribed for the community of bees, just as a person is a Muslim by virtue of the fact that he or she submits to the revealed "shariah" ordained for the religous community. In fact, the Qur'an maintains that "every animal species is a community like you", thus implying that God has promulgated a law for each species of being. From its beginning, Islam never made any distinction between what has generally been known in the Western tradition as the "laws of nature" and "laws of God." In principle, there is harmony between the laws of natural phenomena and the laws of the prophets governing human societies since both kinds of laws come from the same source: God the Law-Giver. In asserting such a view, Islam provides an illustrative example of how it seeks to establish points of convergence in the encounter of religion and science..."
I am going to sleep.
In general I think the article in EoS&R on Islam is very well written.
It's a nice story but it's very POV. When they do a compilation like this they probably find someone and just use whatever he says. The translation of 6:38 doesn't seem to be in the sense of the USC translations. Also the idea that the laws of nature are God's laws was of course a tenet of Western civilization, that's why monks were scientists and so on, and the great Western scientists said these things. In fact the Christian worldview gave rise to scientific revolutions while the Islamic one did not do so to nearly the same degree. The "People of the Book" became the People of Books while the Muslims did not. Anything trying to state that Islam is superior with regards to fostering scientific research should be omitted. Arrow74019:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arrow, I suggest you provide sources for your statements because most of them, to me, seems unfactual(based on what I've read). --Aminz22:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Truthspreader, Islam and science article is a good candidate; I was also thinking of Muhammad and animals? Rest of the article is also very interesting especially the way the article starts:
According to Muslim tradition, in 611 C.E. at the age of forty, Muhammad of Mecca received a revelation from God during a spritual retreat in a cave on Mount Hira outside the city. God's special envoy who brought the message was the archangel Gabriel. At Gabriel's instruction, the illiterate Muhammad recited five short verses that portrayed the spirit of the new religion. In this first revelation, Muhammad - thus by extension all humans- is called upon to know the unknown in the name of God, whose nature is to create things. Humans are then reminded of how, from their lowly animal origion, they became thinking and knowing creatures thanks to God's generous gifts of instruments of knowledge that are best symbolized by the pen. Knowledge is the supreme symbol of God's infinite bounty and the key to his treasuries. Through sacred knowledge-that is, knowledge through and for the sake of God-humans can attain salvation. In thus emphasizing the saving funtion of knowledge, Muhammad's maiden revelation as well as many other revelations that were to follow, clearly portrayed the new faith as a way of knowledge. As for Muhammad himself, as told by Gabriel, he had been chosen as the new messenger of God. Fourteen centuries later, Muhammad is widely regarded as one of the world's most influentual persons.
Aminz, as I believe I've expressed before, you've displayed an uncanny knack for finding the most speculative, most POV, least informative, least concrete/factual passages in what otherwise might be good sources. These passages are literary criticism at its circular finest. Is there any evidence that this is the intended meaning of the passages discussed, or is just someone saying, you can read it this way if you like? It's not something believed (or even thought about) by a significant number of people, and so is not notable as a popular religious belief. If these ideas have a significant history among Islamic scholars, this would be notable. Who is the author?Proabivouac07:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If so, it should be presented as such. I only observe that the quotes Aminz has put forth say nothing about famous theories in early or medieval society.Proabivouac08:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I labelled your edit a sermon because it assumed a stance of religious advocacy. What bearing has this upon the questions I've posed above?Proabivouac09:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You think I've taken passages out of the context. That's not a kind accusation. I'll email the article for you so that you can read it yourself. --Aminz09:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sent. Now Proabivouac can explain us why the above quotes are "the most speculative, most POV, least informative, least concrete/factual passages in what otherwise might be good sources." --Aminz09:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's "depository" and I wish that you had said that in your message to me or sent me a message saying that links to forums aren't allowed. I would have deleted it myself. Clear explanations go a long way.
Discussion continued
Is the list of themes complete? It has been my sense that the Quran has lots of commands to obey Muhammad and rejoice when he manages to subjugate others, and that list seems to prove me right. So the Ghamidi school seems to have reduced the objectionable content of Islam by ignoring lots of sahih hadith and saying that violent verses only applied to the people around Muhammad. I can't comment conclusively on the coherence of this approach, though I can say that it seems to be a new idea. That's not to say that Muslims haven't been getting it wrong since after the Companions died out, I guess it's possible. However Ghamidi still has the problem of Muhammad's own actions to deal with, and the belief that God would have those verses be effective even for a short period of time. In your view are the verses on making Jews and Christians feel subdued and killing polytheists no longer applicable? If you care to tell me I'd like to know why you think God would say those things at all. Arrow74006:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you seem to have justified Muhammad's brutality by saying that it was a harbinger of things to come. Even people who disagreed with Muhammad out of personal conviction or fear were killed and enslaved (and tortured) because they would pay the price for that at judgement day anyway. So you've pushed the barbarity all the way back to God; it was acceptable for Muhammad to behave that way because that's the way God is going to treat his creations on judgement day anyway. I'm sorry, but such a being is not forgiving, merciful, or compassionate. Arrow74023:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
God would be more merciful if he didn't damn anyone and instead gave every soul infinite time to achieve perfection. This is part of my conception of a perfect God. Arrow74003:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arrow! If this would happen, as you describe, it can only happen with some being which doesn't have free-will and freedom. If we have a free-will (which is wonderful - and I hope that most of us would go to paradise to enjoy it to its fullest), then this world is a place to test that who is worthy of going there. Otherwise, God could create animals and send them in paradise. TruthSpreaderreply03:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if Hell is temporary then there's no problem but then everyone's going to heaven eventually so what's the point of earth? Also lots of people don't make moral choices, like people who die as infants. Others are conditioned strongly by their environment and upbringing. Suicide bombers are often brainwashed from birth; we can't place full blame on them. Others are raised in more spiritual, charitable households and have a better chance to be good. The doctrine of Qadr seems to have some truth in it. There were definitely some people in the Hijaz who were going to reject Muhammad no matter what just because of the way they were raised, and they're damned. It would be better to give them another chance. Arrow74003:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"intrinsically, every human knows the basic ethics and has the ability to know about one true Diety." I can't agree with you there. Some people are just born without morals, like serial killers. People's level of morality and ethics are dependent upon birth, and the inherent ability to improve oneself with varies from individual to individual. Arrow74004:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Muhammad, Would you please let me know what do you think of my comment on ALM take page, dated: "03:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)", and what do you think of Pact of Omar? Thanks --Aminz04:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Muhammad, I think you are commenting on a different edit. I mean this one: Much of these laws were later copied from Byzantium and Persian Empire legislation. Pact of Omar is believed by western historians to be produced later and attributed to Omar. And it can be explained completely based on the secular and cultural elements. Let me give an example to explain what I mean: Today many people kill animals and eat them. Assume that the science come up with a way to artificially produce meat. Well, people will eventually stop killing animals. Sometime later they will see killing animals as an extremely bad thing. Then, I am sure, some people will come and say. What? Prophet Muhammad slaughtered animals? What a terrible religion Islam is? And the critics will add it to the "Criticism of Islam" article. Now, still, we have to see how the Dhimmi regulaions were imosed. This article [14] from the Journal of Semitic Studies, Oxford University Press states makes the following point: "in spite of the existence of discriminatory laws against Jews and Christians, such as 'the Pact of 'Umar', the prohibition against learning Arabic and reading the Qur'an, or laws compelling Jews to dress in distinguishing clothes, they have rarely been applied. Hence, the status of the Jews as ahl al-dhimmah normally enabled them to lead safe and peaceful lives under Islam, only occasionally disrupted during the times of certain rulers or their vizirs, or when conditions in general began to deteriorate within the Muslim empire." Lewis states: "The usual definition of tolerance in pre-modern times was that: "I am in charge. I will allow you some though not all of the rights and privileges that I enjoy, provided that you behave yourself according to rules that I will lay down and enforce." Those later Muslims who made up the Pact of Omar were men of their time. It would be strange to expect them to give us legislation we have now in 21st century.--Aminz 03:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I wrote it in reply to your comment: Unfortunately, this is true, as per the interpretation by most contemporary jurists, atleast to the best of my knowledge. --Aminz04:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This gets back to the question of relative morality. Is something that is wrong always wrong, or is there no fixed right and wrong? Arrow74004:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] More information(From Dhimmi article Encyclopedia of Islam): It states that it is hard to find the precise nature of the rulings of early Muslims because "since the relevant texts have often been altered, and sometimes fabricated from the whole cloth, as a consequence of the differing concerns of Muslims and non-Muslims at later periods."
The article continues explaining the situation and regulation of early Muslim regimes: "Certain regulations have the temporary character of the demands made on a subject population by an army of occupation: dwellings, food-supply, intelligence, and security against espionage (it is as an example of this that we must understand the prohibition, on which later rigorists were to insist, of the wearing by Dhimmīs of Arab dress, since in fact the natives and the Arabs dressed differently). But the essential—and lasting—stipulation concerns the payment of the distinguishing tax or Jizya [q.v.], which was later to develop into a precise poll-tax, and which, expressing sub-jection, was to inaugurate the definitive fiscal status of the Dhimmī's; this was in conformity with the usual custom of all mediaeval societies where non-dominant religious communities were concerned. Precautions must have been taken to avoid clashes between different communities, which at first enjoyed such friendly relations that buildings could be divided between Christians and Muslims; but it was only in the amṣār that restrictions on the right to construct new religious buildings could already from that time be maintained. The preservation by each community of its own laws and peculiar customs, as well as its own leaders—this also in conformity with the attitude of all mediaeval societies—must have resulted in the first place from the situation as it was rather than from any formal decision. The autochthonous non-Muslims, who were often unaccustomed to bear arms, were only exceptionally called upon for military services." --Aminz04:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pact of Omar
Muhammad see, there are striking similarities between the Pact of Umar and the Theodesian and Justinian Codes. Based on this Modern historians suggests that perhaps much of the Pact of Umar was borrowed from these earlier codes by later Islamic jurists. Modern historians hold that At least some of the clauses of the pact mirror the measures first introduced by the Umayyad caliph Umar II or by the early Abbasid caliphs. --Aminz04:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Western orientalists doubt the authenticity of the Pact, arguing that it is usually the victors, not the vanquished, who propose, or rather impose, the terms of peace, and that it is highly unlikely that the people who spoke no Arabic and knew nothing of Islam could draft such a document. --Aminz05:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EoI states that it is hard to find the precise nature of the rulings of early Muslims because "since the relevant texts have often been altered, and sometimes fabricated from the whole cloth, as a consequence of the differing concerns of Muslims and non-Muslims at later periods." --Aminz05:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But worldwide domination is the goal of the umma and the weakness of the Muslim world is viewed as a temporary setback. However your ideas about emphasis seem reasonable. Arrow74008:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you admit that Muhammad and his successors were warlords? Why would God ordain that his religion be spread (if only at the beginning as you claim) by violence? Other religions spread quite well without it. Arrow74017:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, not "spread the religion" exactly but spread the control of the Islamic state. Converts would then be ensured through enslavement, being forced to pay special taxes, and having other restrictions on life. Why would God ordain that the state where his religion was the state religion be spread through violence? Moses and Joshua probably existed but the stories are largely made up, at least there is no evidence that they are true, see [20] this article. David is much more historical. Also all the Muslim warriors you mentioned were completely convinced that they were waging jihad, and I think they were right. This woman mentions it on Muslim TV here. But if you're the kind who gets upset at hearing opposing views you might not want to listen to it. I think it's strange how you're claiming that the majority of Muslims have been wrong about Islam, and Ghamidi's modern discoveries are the truth. Also maybe you could explain to me why you believe that "making partners with God" is immoral? Arrow74018:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing is that you have to differentiate between the original religion, which is kept in Qur'an and Sunnah of the prophet and secondly, what the Muslims have exemplified. I am already aware of this fact that Jihad has been used to legitimize aggression, but that doesn't mean what Islam really teaches. Hence, History of Islam is not Islam, though sources of Islam i.e. Qur'an and Sunnah (which is essentially not hadith) did come to us without any flaw. And this is why, scholars today after 1400 years can say that Hijab was not part of Islam's early society. This is the aspect of Islam which I love. You've the distortions of history, civil wars took over the early Islamic society after the death of Usman (ra), but still religion is safe. Just as western Islamic scholars are skeptic of many hadith (not all) and especially reports about early Islamic eras, I am as well. And I can still watch the video, which you sent me and feel contented because I know that religion (which is in Qur'an and Sunnah) is not what she is talking about, but what she is saying about Muslim youth, it can be true to some degree.
Just a final note on scholars. Scholar himself is not a basic source of Islam. He is a secondary source. I as a Muslim, never took any oath in my life that I will follow any scholar or any school of thought. As a Muslim, I am liable to follow someone who (at least to the best of my knowledge) is following Qur'an and Sunnah. And I've found Ghamidi's opinion mostly correct and coincinding with the language, grammar, and style of Qur'an. I don't find a discrepancy in it. Rather, classical scholars should be asked this question which you asked me, that if Islam really advocates equality as per their understanding and Qur'an purports it strongly at different places, then how can there be so much difference between Muslims and Non-Muslims without any solid reason (rather I must say, you should ask contemporary Muslims). TruthSpreaderreply18:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Monotheism is the basis of ethics. I don't know how you will disagree, as you are rejecting one God, who created you, and gave you all the blessings to enjoy this life and you are rejecting or making partners with Him, who don't have any role in the first place. Although, humans have excellent rationals for it, this is why idalotary has been practiced by humans, but they are unethical people because they are completely dishonest with themselves. And who can tell they are dishonest, *only God*. (note:if we would have a prophet at the moment, we might be able to ask him to ask the God about someone's heart condition, but because there is no prophet, hence no one can judge simply by his prejudice). TruthSpreaderreply18:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Muhammad's ancestors were polytheists because they thought it was the truth. Same with the polytheists who opposed Muhammad. Arrow74019:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arrow! The story which we know so far, from Qur'an and traditions is that they were living in a very materialistic and brutal life style. Tribal warfare was a norm. Society was based on vigilantism. And tribes also had different Gods. How much they knew that it was wrong? only God knows, but I am pretty sure that after looking a peson like prophet, they would have known what is truth and and what is not. As prophet, who never took any training in warfare (but was able to bring the most sustainable change in this world) and whose pesonality is venerated for chrisma for honesty and fairness (as watt also mentions in the beginning of his book, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman). What critics of Islam portray about prophet is simply wrong because it is ahistorical. And even with their best efforts, a person with a little intelligence knows that how much truth is there. You can taunt anyone, take a very narrow perspective and forget more authentic ones, but my understanding so far is that if Islam is understood properly, it is a challenge to other religions intellectually. Its tenents are simple and straight forward. And as watt also says that it was simplicity and adaptability of Islamic society that made it a success. We know very little of first 100 years after the prophet. But the success of Islam shows clearly that it was a giant leap in human advancement. And lastly, the language of Qur'an still amazes people, and me and you know that western scholarship couldn't remain aloof from accepting prophet's honesty :) TruthSpreaderreply00:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the list of positive aspects of the Islamic view on ethics is appropriate, but should be balanced with contrasts with ethics in other systems. Arrow74006:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation was requested a while ago, and Ive responded. None involved in mediation has responded however. I am requesting your presence at the article to resolve any disputes. Thanks. -Ste|vertigo01:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
THANKS SO MUCH!!
-- I looked at the article about women in Islam, about a year ago, and you've still managed to change any biased or non factual statements regarding womens rights. Kudos!!MOI22:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rajm article
In the Rajm article, you mention:
The most common Muslim view is that stoning is the appropriate punishment for adultery Zina committed by a married man or woman with someone who is not legal to him/her. and A minority of Muslims disagree entirely regarding its legality, arguing that it can not be found in the Qur'an, and the practice goes against some verses, such as those in Sura an-Nur.
Hey. I've just started an article on Islam and racism. Perhaps you might want to have a look at it. I've started the article by putting Koranic verses as references, but you may want to add some more academic source of information to the article. Thanks. --Fantastic4boy08:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate accounts
A checkuser request has shown that you are using multiple accounts, some of them abusively. I have chosen not to block this account since it has not been used abusively, but in the future please avoid using multiple accounts. Any further misuse of this account will result in it being blocked indefinitely. MastCellTalk17:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation
In the future, do not paste entire copyrighted paragraphs verbatim into wikipedia articles, as you did here from the Deniz Kandiyoti source. Hopefully your other edits have not been similar to this. Thanks, Calliopejen105:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I came across Dajjals page on wikipedia it was written that he will claim to be jesus.Whereas i have read and listen that he will claim to be Allah.In a hadith also, like in this one Volume 9, Book 88, Number 245:
Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, "No prophet was sent but that he warned his followers against the one-eyed liar (Ad-Dajjal). Beware! He is blind in one eye, and your Lord is not so, and there will be written between his (Ad-Dajjal's) eyes (the word) Kafir (i.e., disbeliever)." (This Hadith is also quoted by Abu Huraira and Ibn 'Abbas).The sentence and your lord is not so clearly states that he will claim to be Allah.I tried editing it but some other user says my sources aren't reliable and he changed it back to jesus.Now i have just added the 2 hadiths which state that he will claim to be Allah in the dajjals page in the references and i have edited it.Please come and put some light on this dajjal page as i was searching for a muslim over here.Legalpepsi (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Claims of Evidence for Other Religions as the One True Religion
I've heard that there are many proofs and evidences for Islam as the one true religion. For example, there are many miracles that are proofs or evidences for Islam. There are also proofs that the Qur'an is inerrant and infallible and inspired by Allah.
So if you claim that there are alot of proofs or evidences for Zoroastrianism to be the one true religion, what are you going to say about the claims of other religions, for example Christianity, to be true and the one true religion? What are you going to say?
Answer me either in my user talk page or E-mail me at bowei@tpg.com.au.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!
Hi Truthspreader! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! 14:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Request help with evaluative diversity article
Hi, Truthspreader. I'd like some help with the evaluative diversity article. It attempts to recognize contributions to this issue by major spiritual traditions, and I wonder whether if you might know of Islamic contributions that were missed. Langchri (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello friend, are you a member of WProject Islam? Because I'm unsure who else to contact, since the Talk Page is dead and going without any response, after an issue (dispute) arose. Kindly refer to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Review for the full discussion; Is it four "Rashidun" or five Rashidun caliphs?
Nonetheless, despite my attempt to get a community consensus/input (to no avail) and civil discussion, the corresponding user has gone ahead and reverted/re-edited the articles again, and I'm in no mood to edit war with a user who can't be reasoned with personally by myself. See: [21]
Would greatly appreciate your input, and any other Project members you can tag along to settle the dispute once and for all, which ever direction you guys decide to go with. DA1 (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
