User talk:Zora/2005archive3

Islam

Do you by any chance have the feeling that the Islam articles are all kind of becoming insane these days? gren 02:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I need to start working on some articles that don't get vandalized or POVized, or whatever it is. I just got slightly frustarated on Talk:Jihad when there has been more blanket statements and then I saw the state of some of the sources... it's quite laughable actually citing the "Cruzan Family Homepage" which doesn't even seem to show where they got their sources. I think for articles like that we might need to at least demand paper sources, they aren't perfect, but you don't get the same kind of crap. I'm glad you found a good editor to work with... I've just been going into newpages some lately to do mindless work, or reading about the EU... people don't tend to hint at barbarism all of the time in that subject ~_~ gren 04:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The more I read Jihad, which I've been trying to talk with Zeno about, the more I see problem. I don't see how POWs is relevant, it's about warfare... which isn't exactly Jihad, related no doubt... and then Abdullah Yusuf Azzam is heavily quoted... which, is quote a problem... because... he's not mainstream. The last thing we need is more revert wars. How do you think the article should go and what is relevant in it? gren 18:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Ekshully..."

You probably thought nobody caught this dialect slip of yours on Talk:Muhammad, but I now know your secret identity. You are in fact Katharine Hepburn.

:)

Peace, BrandonYusufToropov 14:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad

Can you please take a look at the editor's poll I posted at the Jihad talk page here? BrandonYusufToropov 14:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NO, stay clear, stay clear for your own life... talk about an uphill battle. Whatever happened to IFaqeer and Mustafaa? gren 03:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I more or less share the same viewpoint as you. I think that Fazlur Rahman and the likes of him have good points to make but it still doesn't explain everything. Divine revelation in itself is an odd thing, especially when human written works show more compassion. I'm not sure a modernist with against warfare-typed jihad has to say their prophet was wrong, they just have to have a sense of moral relativity insofar as different needs for different times... or, deny a whole lot a tradition and historical assumptions. It's much easier for me and I'm glad I don't have to reconcile all of that. My problem is that the militant aspects are being heavily discussed. I really have a problem with a lot of the classical works and it's true that modern traditional thought draws heavily on that but they do discuss gradualism. You won't find modern Muslim scholars advocating slavery as far as I know whereas you will in earlier works. Zeno's problem as I see it is not portraying things in their time and context. Through history we have finally been able to do a better job of that with Christianity and granted Islam is slightly different case but not vastly different. Oh well, I just hope that no one was influenced to be a horrible bigot because of misconceptions about Muslims from any of our Islamic articles here. My goal is to not have these articles read as a big assumption that "if you meet a Muslim they'll be bad" -- which is what it borders on somtimes to me. gren 03:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've never read any Krishnamurti (I think you left out the 'n') -- in fact... it's all new to me as of two minutes ago. I think that point is very interesting (but I too agree that community is good). People want to think they know the truth. It never ceases to amuse me people who will say what they believe is true and then not know even their own scripture yet theology. And within (most) religious communities expression of doubt ruins your chances of doing anything in the hierarchy. It's much easier to exploit and make extravagant claims about your religiosity if you don't mind dishonesty or stretching the truth. I think I am probably too cynical in these matters but... oh well.

For some reason the mention of theosophy reminded me of anthroposophy a subject I wish to look more into just because I went to a Waldorf School until third grade and I thought it was great. Whether that was because of particular circumstances or the philosophy that governed it I do not know. I appreciate small parts of most things... but I'm guessing that verges on cultish. gren 04:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely understand, no problem

The unfortunate thing is, if things actually calmed down there for a couple of consecutive hours, we could all start working on the questions you raised recently there. But believe me, I don't blame you for laying low on this. Peace, BrandonYusufToropov 03:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting in Muhammad article

I actually hesitated removing "the" from "had only the one wife". Mostly it was just gut feeling that it *sounded* better without "the" : ) Btw, I really admire your contributions, I keep coming across your edits, and you're a star Wikipedian in my view. --MPerel ^( talk | contrib) 05:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to be admin?

Would you like to be admin? Your work gives positive sign of quality and dedication. It would be easier for you to deal with vandals.

I can nominate you some day. While success is not sure (the voting seems to be infested by sockpuppets, trolls and various ... recently) one may try. Pavel Vozenilek 12:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, thanks for your work. I bet you don't get many thanks for keeping Wikipedia clean of crap. "Loosing temper and being prone to confront people easily rather than jolly them into proper behavior" may be quite appropriate tactic when dealing with people who think anonymity allows them anything. Pavel Vozenilek 17:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User Amir85

I 2nd to what Pavel Vozenilek says. Thank you for your action against Amir85! I am writing articles on hellenism and the like, which often concern Middle East topics, and I am like you driven to despair over much of what is written. Extremists and nationalists who frequently abuse Wikipedia for propaganda of the worst kind! There is no denying that the influx of people grown up in dictatures and taught only nationalistic and biased views of history and religion often is a severe problem. A user like Amir85 (he's Iranian) probably believes in the propaganda he writes, because he's never learnt to think critically about it!

Wikipedia must address this problem: in some way; IMHO the access to controversial subjects must be controlled, lest the dictionary should fall into disrepute. I would be glad to assist your work if there is anything I could do! --Sponsianus 14:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalistic religio-fascists like Amir85 that should just shoot themselves in the head and do the world a favour. ☺ --Chaosfeary 01:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zora and people who frequent Zora's page

Just a quick note to let you know that family problems necessitate a wiki-break. Thanks for all the help and hard work. Prayers, please; Godwilling I'll be back eventually. BrandonYusufToropov 15:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisment?

Hello, Zora,

if you have time, have a look at this: There is this person (IP: 62.47.132.187) who creates links lots of Bollywood movies (for example, see Saathiya) (also on the German version of wiki) to the site SPICE, were you should be able to find information on Bollywood movies, only that the information there is very, *very* basic. Looks like someones trying to promote his/her site. Do you think it`s save to remove those links, since SPICE does not really give any information on the linked Bollywood movies/actors/actresses or should I leave it?

If you don't sign your messages, I can't reply on your talk page. Yes, that's linkspam, it's bad, I've been removing it when I see it. Now the guy is hitting pages that aren't on my watchlist. Delete on sight. I'll see about filing a vandalism report. Zora 22:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad page and YOUR vandalism

Zora, Farhansher's delusional ramblings clearly violate WP:No Personal Attacks and as such fall under [1].

I will not remove it any more today as I have already removed it three times. However, it has no basis to remain there.Existentializer 23:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Islam poll

[2] I thought you might be interested in this.Heraclius 17:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Qiyamah vandalism

I'm almost sure the various anon users who have been doing personal attacks and vandalizing this page are actually one person. I put this under vandalism in Progress. The page should be probably be protected...i doubt blocking these sockpuppets would do much good. freestylefrappe 19:27, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I think you'd be interested in Universaliss's (the various anon users) talk page. Especially Dmcdevit's conclusion that Universaliss's comments on the Qiyamah talk page were somehow...acceptable... freestylefrappe 00:19, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Salam!

Take a look att this : Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild

Ma salam!

--Striver 16:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam#the Prophet

Ahhhhhhhhh-hh-, do you think I am justified in saying this? To me it's just mind-boggling. gren グレン 13:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure the extent with which you mean what you said... but. I do agree that many should be changed. Casual references shouldn't be "the Prophet" or "the prophet" I do think when the emphasis is on community beliefs then "the prophet" is appropriate because the emphasis is on the fact that he was a prophet. So, I was not against any changing but if you look at the changes that have been made by the new editors trying to "NPOV" our apologetic tone (~_~) it seems that it is just any use of that title is deemed to be POV. Good writing (or so I think) will change what he is called by the circumstance (talking about the Medina days it would be good to reference him as the leader). Of all the things to complain about it may not be important but I think it's indicative of the changing tide and how mass edits are coming and reason is leaving. I hadn't ever noticed it until now (realizing that you had not written Fitna) but now I see the war was referenced at First Islamic civil war. Congratulations man. uhh, flashback about sari wearing... I don't know, sorry, we're all androgynous here. Oops, I didn't want to strike congratulations -- that still stands... I'm an idiot. gren グレン 05:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

Filmfare Question

Yes, youre right about the Filfare Awards page and I didnt even notice, I had just gotten it in my mind that it must be the film name and the director...and I do think that the director would make a good third column, how do you feel about it? I am assuming that producer is being put on there because theyre the ones who actually receive the award for best film??? Zephyrprince 16:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Idiocy and Contemporary Islam

Well, I fail at being humble and moreso at remaining un-annoyed but, at least I still have room for improvement else I'd just be bored and watch Devdas all day (or try to find the 1956 version). I wish I could take care of other's spiritual well-being but it seems there's a fine line between helping and hurting... I can't tell which I do.

I read your contemporary Islam section and I think it covers the spirit well... how there are very modernist movements and then ones like wahhabi and salafi which are against the western modern... and then traditional in the middle saying "what's happening". I do think it needs changes and while I thought Zeno was way off base in his outright criticism he does bring up some good points. dar al-Islam and Harb are very loaded insofar as their many definitions. Your usage would need to be clarified in that regard. As for Islamism I don't think you quite cover all of its strains because Islamism can be relatively unobstrusive and nonviolent. We typically don't see that in the west but it exists. I created User:Grenavitar/Contemporary Islam with your version in hopes that we can all discuss on talk:Islam and then hopefully make a good section that people agree on... I don't know if the page is a good idea or will work but I hope that it might lead to something agreed upon. Thanks gren グレン 21:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cresent symbol and the Ottoman Empire

You have recently reverted the cresent symbol from Template:Islam without discussing it in the talk page. The idea that usage cresent symbol is limited to the Ottomans is false, as explained in the talk page. The cresent symbol is used by Malaysia in its flag, as well as by Pakistan - two countries that were never under Ottoman influece. Also, as proven in the talk page, the cresent symbol is also used in the holy mosque of the Kabbah, despite the fact that House of Saud fiercly opposed Ottoman rule and fought against the Ottoman Caliphate. I have pointed this out in your talk page not because I wish to debate this here, but because I wish to draw your attention to the fact that your point of view is contested in the talk page where your absense is noted given that you are reverting in the midst of an edit war. --Zeno of Elea 23:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Qiyamah

I have tried and tried to fight against the vandalism on Qiyamah. I was banned by User:Dmcdevit for my efforts. I really no longer have the patience to deal with this nonsense. I have contacted Striver for help, but I was hoping for your participation (and input) as Universaliss's comments towards you have been less than apropo'. Thank you for your help. -Freestylefrappe

If you want the whole story, read the talk pages of Universaliss, FSF, SouthernComfort (now), me, and the article (okay, tht sounds like a lot, but it just the same stuff repeated) I don't feel like telling you all again. It's fine if you want to get involved, I welcome others. But let me finish FSF's story, he was blocked for 24 hours (not banned) for personal attacks, while the real vandal was blocked for a week. Now, if you are serious about wanting my help at Talk:Sayyid etc., I read the page and it looks to me like there's serious personal attacks and racism going on. I'd suggest you report it on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard so the wider community can deal with it. I see that there are already at least two admins who have warned the anon, so I think it's being dealt with. Anyway, I just want to resolve anything with Freestylefrappe, or you or anyone amicably; let's try to make an encyclopedia. Regards, Dmcdevit·t 04:45, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

And now after looking at it, I've blocked 69.111.161.69 for 48 hours, see User talk:69.111.161.69. Good night, I really have to get to bed. --Dmcdevit·t 07:43, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Kaaba

Aloha Zora !

Thanks for the positive comment on the Kaaba edits. Yes, all that new stuff has to be dealt with. I really don't like that huge list of links in 'people born in Kaaba' section - it's just too long and maybe even unnecessary. I'll take another look and see if I can at least shorten it somewhat. I was also hoping to find some better pictures (not computer generated ones) of the Kaaba, as the current one isn't too clear (IMHO). I think some of the links may have better pics. --Mpatel 11:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Islamic terms in Arabic

Saduj seems suspiciously like a strawman sockpuppet. If I have time Ill look over his contributions to that page. freestylefrappe 20:12, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Distributed Proofreaders

Hey. If you look here you will see an interesting discussion that I think you might be able to help me understanding. I think that the use of gutenberg through distributed proofreaders to get the Lane Arabic-English Lexicon in a free online format is a good idea... but, I only know about Distributed Proofreaders... well, I don't much. As I understand they take scanned images and run OCR and then proofread that OCR. Would their system work for Arabic text? I'm going to read their site some more to see but I figured you might know better. Also, I don't know what encoding Gutenberge uses (I was trying to view a Japanese text). Also, did you get my e-mail. Thanks gren グレン 13:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I went to DP-Europe and they were very helpful and the guy with the books scanned a page... apparently he didn't get Arabic OCR to work so we need to send it to the OCR pool to see if someone can get the Arabic working. I have the feeling that the guy would rather pay the 250-500 pounts he quoted to have it done professionally and quickly... and I think he's a good guy (as in wants to get this to people and fast for free) so I'm thinking that if he does that he would give DP-Europe the scanned images and end content if he has it so that they can still distribute it how they want. As for POD people, I'm sure people are getting more aware of PG for texts online (I know people can even find texts not out of copyright) so, just as many many people now know of wikipedia that didn't years ago... they will probably learn about PG and hopefully that will make those attempting POD releases will fail. Well, hopefully it will get online... I really don't have too much use to it... but I've see AJ Arberry's comments about its usefulness to Arabic linguists so I think it should be out there for people. Oh, actually, wheh you say pay on demand I assume you mean just for the etext. Are there any places that will print PG texts for you? If it could be done for about $5 that would be pretty nice. gren グレン 12:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, print on demand makes more sense than pay on demand... I looked at some of the books on Lulu and they seem like crackpots just writing because Lulu will Publish stuff... interestingly enough Amazon sells stuff from "Lulu Press" for a small markup. I wouldn't mind a place printing Gutenberg texts as long as they make a point of showing that it's free... I don't really have anything from PG I want printed though but I'm sure someday it will be useful... thanks for the tip. gren グレン 10:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Thanks for fixing up Luakini. I was tired and the user had vandalized a few pages and I was too worn out to search for sources on it. I end up editting random articles I don't know too much about as well... it's amusing to see how I get from one article to another and how I ended up creating Hopi Reservation one day... After reading the sources I know more about it than the article says... I'm not very good at writing while sourcing unfortunately. I think Special:Newpages or whatever it is can be quite fun... half of it is mindless wikifying and then every once and a while you'll stumble onto something interesting. You really can't get into arguments when you do that and that's a nice feeling. gren グレン 10:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Prophet" removal

Hi there! Guess I'm the anti-Muslim activist you're referring to. I realize that there are some tricky issues here. The difficulty with "Prophet" Muhammad is that I think, like Jesus "Christ", it asserts a supernatural relationship with the divine. Nor should any of the biblical prophets be referred to as "The Prophet Joel" or "The Prophet Amos", and so forth. I have removed one "Prophet Abraham". I think even uncapitalizing these honorofic terms is inadequate, unless a qualifier is inserted. I think the the "prophet Joseph Smith" also asserts divine guidance. "The Mormon prophet Joseph Smith" is acceptable in a first instance for precision's sake, and after that just "Joseph Smith" is enough. I think we could follow the same pattern with Muhammad: if it's not clear which Muhammad we're referring to in the initial reference to Muhammad in an article, then for clarity's sake put something like "the Islamic prophet Muhammad"; and all other references to just "Muhammad".

I'm eager to hash this out and come up with the appropriate solution. Like to hear more from you. Babajobu 22:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I very much disagree with the notion that "Prophet" is a "religious role, like priest or shaman". I can a imagine a hypothetical religion in which "prophet" was a common clerical position like deacon or rabbi or whatever. However, in Judaism, Christianity and Islam "Prophethood" is very much an extremely intimate, very supernatural relationship with a divine being, in which the individual who prophesizes is in receipt of divine revelation. It is not a "position", and it is not the same as the more colloquial usage you sometime run across. When Mormons say Joseph Smith is a prophet, they don't mean that he "tells it like it is". They mean God spoke to him. Same for Jews with Moses, Christians with John the Baptist, and Muslims with Muhammad (among others, for all those groups). Babajobu 22:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, fair enough, I'll stop making changes for now. Babajobu 22:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

However, I ask that in the meantime you not revert any of the changes I've already made. Babajobu 23:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll watch the VillagePump entry as I can. As far as stylistic issues go, I really don't see the loss of "the prophet" as intolerable. Most biographical entries in Wikipedia are stuck with just the name and a third person pronoun. And, honestly, I think "the prophet" in lieu of "Muhammad" is much more jarring and loaded than "the prophet Muhammad", which I'm not crazy about either. So I'd have to vote against using "the prophet" as the full reference in that way. Anyway, we'll see what kind of comments the Village pump post attracts. Babajobu 23:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zora, I don't see your question at the Policy section of the Village Pump. Are you sure it's there? Could you link me to it? Thanks. Babajobu 23:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Added a suggestion for some rough guidelines to the village pump section on prophet and POV. Interested to hear what you think. Babajobu 19:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WivesMuhammad

Hi, I saw you commented on my talk page about my discussion with Zeno. I personally don't know much about the subject except that many Muslims do consider them proper marriages. I suggested that "Muhammad's Harem" could be used... and despite the unfortunate connotation of Harem... it does have the meaning of a close relationship that could either be marriage or otherwise? That was what I thought... what do you think? gren グレン 10:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've gotten myself to the point where I don't see harem in that way... but, as I mentioned, I do realize it has another connotation. I don't see a problem with wives really but I was trying to be accomodating. I wish he'd show something notable that claims they are wives and not answering-Islam or FFI. gren グレン 10:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

birthday bida

You said "birthdays are viewed as innotvations"? Is that so... I thought it was mainly the practice of Muhammad's on how they did it and how it would raise him higher than he should be? I think that would be a rather strict view... whereas I think most just don't really celebrate Muhammad's birthday too much... but, they will recognize that it was... no? I guess I don't know so well but... gren グレン 08:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure, which is why I asked you first... because, this is just the impression that I have gotten from my readings... that Mawlid is forbidden by most because special remembrance of the prophet is the problem.... just like I don't remember your birthday... you aren't related to me except in this quasi world. But, when it comes to familial relations it's not a problem because that's family behavior and it's no competition to tawhid. I could be wrong. I was reading some on Mawlid... the section on Madih nabawi (something I know nothing about) is horribly generalizing... have you read anything you could cite about Islam and traditions with music? I have read some reasons why it some ban it... but I don't how pervasive that way of thinking is. Very soon... I have an exam on the economics of European integration... and... well, I should probably know what's going to be on it at least... that's followed by one on the American Western film... so, I'll try to look more into this when I'm done that stuff. gren グレン 08:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, too bad I don't sleep at night and fix up Asle Gronna instead of reading anything at all to do with what I need to know... but, yeah, I do learn more here, just not always the right stuff :) gren グレン 11:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]