User talk:Afghana~enwiki/Archive 2

Shi'a Islam

You may want to remove Abdullah ibn Saba from the see also section in Shi'a Islam. I also don't see why you want to keep all these ridiculous fact templates from the intro. Alerttt (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Your efforts

Thank you for your efforts in improving Islam-related articles on here. This isn't pertinent to any one article individually but everybody deserves a complement for good work. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

And another note of thanks for your help at Ali. I think we are very close to resolving the issue in a way that will satisfy everyone, or at least a majority. Your assistance is invaluable. Doc Tropics 18:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Irano-Afghan

Hi thanx for your interest regarding this article. Seeming there is actually no racial theory linked as well as Iranians and Afghans sharing a long history language etc I think this is a good linkage between these nations. I see that you first argued for it then against it. I suggest you rethink your standpoint against it and make an argument for this link in the Iran history section as well as it can be used in the Afghanistan history section as well. Although there is barely 1 argument against it in the disc page, it says that the "consensus is strongly against it"... You are free to add your opinion, but again this is beneficial for the future of these nations. Tashakur Khahar Cyrus111 (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you do your surgery yet, friend? Kforpotassium (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Klax

• We have to keep tags so we know what needs to be cited. A while back I told the Shi'a Islam Task Force that I want to get the article to FA-Class status like Islam. So we started re-arranging everything to match Islam (I actually preferred the previous layout which I made to be like Ismailism but if Islam is FA-Class status it should be the model), and started tagging everything. We also moved lots of specific information out of the article into specific articles. There is still lots more to go in regards to sources, writing, and trimming. Like the branches section we may trim, notice the article on Islam has a very small one. For now, the introduction has to look very ugly until we can get more sources.
  
• Contribute to Talk:Ali. My views here are basically we definitely should mention cursing, but its proximity with modern Sunni Islam seems slim to me. Sayed Rizvi doesn't seem like he is going to argue deeply against this, so why don't you act as the devil's advocate in this situation?
• I've noticed an influx (that recently stopped) of Sunni editor(s) deleting Shi'a views from the Rashidun. Do you know why this might be happening? Last time something like this started happening on Abdullah ibn Saba (probably the same person who put it in the see also section) I googled around and found out that a GameSpot/GameFAQs board of mainly Sunni Muslims were trying to prove a point. Luckily I've had an account for years on GameFAQs so I went on the board and shooed them away.
• Something needs to be done about the Twelver article, it's one of the worst articles we have but it's the second most important after Shi'a Islam. We need to mention the history of the Twelve Imams, the Four Deputies and their competitors who also claimed to represent the Imam, the rise of the Safavids, and the Usuli defeat of the Akhbari, and the Alevi-Bektashi who are the largest native Shi'a Islamic group in Europe (once I was told by an Alevi that all the areas that are currently Sunni in Europe were originally converted by Twelver Shi'a Sufis, but were forced into Sunni Islam by the Ottomans, similiarly I heard something for Bangladesh kinda like that which is why Bangladesh still makes a big deal out of Muharram). This really really needs to be done, so if you're looking for something to do, I think you should shoot for it. This will also counter the balance you're worried about towards the Ismaili end of Shi'a Islam, because there are lots more articles dealing with Twelver Shi'a Islam (including the ulema) than Ismaili Shi'a Islam, and if they're written well, the issue should be more clear.
• Don't ask personal questions! :P --♥pashtun ismailiyya 08:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I know I have said more than a few times that I won't be coming back, but now I really have lost all energy to continue doing what I do and I have done much, unfortunately, to tarnish Klaksonn's name. You might have noticed a significant change in my attitude and style of writing.

I might stop by from time to time for a few minor changes, but I have already wasted many hours in this place editing and confronting relentless bigots, which, unfortunately, has turned me into a relentless bigot.

I hope for the moment that you could keep an eye on Umar at Fatimah's house, fix the Shi'a Islam intro and remove the ridiculous self-harming templates and and fix the death section in Fatimah, or revert it back to my version. I will stop by, occasionally, usually to revert edits changing someone's denomination and whatnot. Also, sincere apologies for the troubles caused to you or anyone else. Regards, Kforpotassium (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

All is accepted, your great knowledge of the teachings of the Twelve Imams and relentless fight in their cause won't be forgotten. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 20:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Nowruz

Salam! I believe you celebrate Nowruz and I wanted to congratulate you and your family on this auspicious day. It would be interested to add a section on the Ismaili viewpoint of Nowruz after Zoroastrianism. Nowruzetaan Piruz. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Award

Thank you for the award! Coming from a well respected and fair editor such as yourself, it has special value. Best regards, Nazli (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Lyrics on your userpage

Hi. You might not know this, but since the lyrics on your userpage are copyrighted, they would have to be covered by fair use, which is not permitted outside of the article/file namespaces. I have not removed the offending text yourself, as I figured you might have something else to put there (didn't want to blank out the majority of your userpage). As it stands though, the majority of your userpage is a copyvio, and must be changed. If you don't change it in a few days, I'll change it myself. Thanks, and have a good day. :) — neuro^(talk) 03:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It's no problem at all. I find it interesting that it took someone so long to notice the issue. — neuro^(talk) 04:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Would it be alright if I removed the offending content for now (I can leave the rest of the page intact)? Even a week is quite a long time for a copyvio to remain. — neuro^(talk) 04:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be done as soon as possible, really, I guess that is soon enough. Sorry to bother you when you are busy. :) — neuro^(talk) 04:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

How can ginaan Darshan diiyo moraa naath, by Sayyidah Imam-Begum, be copyrighted when she died in 1866? I'm curious. Ogress _smash! 05:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Also it's available on Ismaili.net/granths, so it might be copylefted or the like. Ogress _smash! 05:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Still don't understand how the lyrics can be copyri'ten when they are from before 1866... Or is it the specific translation you were using that was the issh? Ogress _smash! 05:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

>_>

Are you online 24 hours or something? And how did you know I was back?!?!?!?! Being stalked by girl is an awkard thought. I mean, of course I'm not going to be on wiki all the time.

It's not healthy to be here all the time.Malik Al Assad (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I've never been to University and don't plan to. So how does this cramster work? I have no idea. Why don't you study with a book instead? Malik Al Assad (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you teach how to make a good userpage? I'm completely illiterate regarding these things and it seems to be so complex. Like how to make a userbox and stuff like that. Malik Al Assad (talk) 05:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Lyrical Arabic

Hunh, I guess I always liked the Imam-Begum better so I forgot the silly Nippop jingle. Yoko Kanno or bust, I say.

Arabic is lyrical, but it is corrupting my brain like a nasty virus does your Word document. Currently my Arabic is dha'eef, like most of the ahaadiith narrations: WEAK. It's how they politely say you are failing. I'm to office hours tomorrow to get Special Teaching for the Idiot and I've still to finish reviewing the last year's worth of vocabulary and grammar... plus I've been proofreading my friend's gender theory thesis all bloody weekend at the speed of about 3 hours per page (I did maths after) so already my soul was broken. *sob* If I have to try to read another line of Judith Butler...

And I still have to give presentation tomorrow about my summer plans in Arabic, little does my prof suspect it will be "my cat and I will ski on the snow in the mountains after we defeat the she-ogresses because they eat human flesh blah blah blah" HAH. EAT THAT, STUPID ARABIC CLASS.

Bah. Now I sleep.

Good luck with your troubles. Ogress _smash! 06:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sespas/Tashakor

Happy Nowruz to you and your family and all members of the Ismaili Ja'mat who celebrate Nowruz. I hope you have a happy an prosperous new year. Best Wishes, Ali. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of quotation from Article Ali

Following quotaion is being removed continously by few users(especially one):

“ One morning Muhammad went out wearing a striped cloak of the black camel's hair that there came Hasan b. 'Ali. He wrapped him under it, then came Husain and he wrapped him under it along with the other one (Hasan). Then came Fatima and he took her under it, then came 'Ali and he also took him under it and then said: Allah only desires to take away any uncleanliness from you, O people of the household, and purify you (thorough purifying). ” — Sahih Muslim, Book 031, Number 5955

All editors are envited to have discussion on this issue.

Thanx

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanx for all your efforts. One more thing which I just found that reference # 26 "Fatima Bint Muhammad". USC. Retrieved 2008-12-19., this link seems to hold no relevant information(at least to the place/section where it is quoted). --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for filling me in; I was kind of wondering what that whole business with the cloak and everything was all about.... That was exactly my point, though: an encyclopaedia shouldn't leave a reader thinking "huh?" If it does, then it's unencyclopaedic. I think Faizhaider didn't stop to think that the fact that he/she/it/other knows the backstory is not necessarily indicative of the fact that everyone does. Like me, for example! RavShimon (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Pashtun, I noticed that this article was twice nominated for GA status, but failed both times. We seem to have several editors developing into a good working group, and I'm sure that with cooperative effort we could succesfully bring it up to GA quality. I hope you'll be interested in further participation. Thanks, Doc Tropics 21:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Aga Khan IV

It appears that you have been making certain assertions about the divorce of the Aga Khan IV and his wife. Have you any proof from Aga Khan's secretariat? So far, all you have provided is the links to one website and an encyclopedia, which is a syndicate of wikipedia. Can you prove categorically that Aga Khan and his wife has indeed divorce or their divorce is pending? i.e. like a press release statement from Secretariat of the Aga Khan in France? Unless you can provide that, your assertions are pure speculation and it is against Wikipedia policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.199.246.2 (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep the conversation on your talk page, thanks. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 22:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I see the Ismaili Wahhabis found you. Sorry. Ogress _smash! 05:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Afghan WikiProject invite

Thanks for the invite Ismailiyya, i've joined the wikiproject now. A question how do you upload the Daoud's Republic of Afghanistan's and the missing Democratic / Republic of Afghanistan coat of arms to wikipedia? i've tried but i'm unable! Thanks for your time --Im a Socialist! What Are You (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Tawheed in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim

Salam!,

Sorry for late reply, was little busy.

Here are excerpts from Sahih Bukhsri and Sahih Muslim:

---

Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 93:ONENESS, UNIQUENESS OF ALLAH (TAWHEED)

Volume 9, Book 93, Number 481:

Narrated Anas:

The Prophet said, "(The people will be thrown into Hell ( Fire) and it will keep on saying, 'Is there any more?' till the Lord of the worlds puts His Foot over it, whereupon its different sides will come close to each other, and it will say, 'Qad! Qad! (enough! enough!) By Your 'Izzat (Honor and Power) and YOUR KARAM (Generosity)!' Paradise will remain spacious enough to accommodate more people until Allah will create some more people and let them dwell in the superfluous space of Paradise. "

Volume 9, Book 93, Number 541:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, "Paradise and Hell (Fire) quarrelled in the presence of their Lord. Paradise said, 'O Lord! What is wrong with me that only the poor and humble people enter me ?' Hell (Fire) said, I have been favored with the arrogant people.' So Allah said to Paradise, 'You are My Mercy,' and said to Hell, 'You are My Punishment which I inflict upon whom I wish, and I shall fill both of you.'" The Prophet added, "As for Paradise, (it will be filled with good people) because Allah does not wrong any of His created things, and He creates for Hell (Fire) whomever He will, and they will be thrown into it, and it will say thrice, 'Is there any more, till Allah (will put) His Foot over it and it will become full and its sides will come close to each other and it will say, 'Qat! Qat! Qat! (Enough! Enough! Enough!) .

---

Translation of Sahih Muslim, Book 40: The Book Pertaining to Paradise, Its Description, Its Bounties and Its Intimates (Kitab Al-Jannat wa Sifat Na'imiha wa Ahliha)

Book 040, Number 6819:

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as say- ing: The Hell and the Paradise fell into dispute and the Hell said: I have been dis- tinguished by the proud and the haughty. And the Paradise said: What is the matter with me that the meek and the humble amongst people and the downtrodden and the simple enter me? Thereupon Allah said to the Paradise: You are (the means) of My Mercy whereby I show mercy to those of My servants whom 1 wish, and He said to the Hell: You are (the means) of punishment whereby 1 punish those of My servants whoml wish. Both of you will be full. The Hell will riot be filled up until Allah puts down His foot in it. The Hell would say: Enough, enough, enough, and at that time it will be filled up, all its parts integrated together.

Book 040, Number 6821:

Hammam b. Munabbih reported that Abu Huraira narrated to them some ahadith of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and one of them is this that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: The Paradise and the Hell fell into dispute and the Hell said: 1 have been distinguished for accommodating (the haughty and proud in me), and the Paradise said: What is the matter that the meek and the humble and the downtrodden and simple would find an abode in me? Thereupon Allah said to Paradise: You are a (means) of My Mercy. 1 shall show mercy through you to one whom I will from amongst My servants. And lie said to the Hell: You are a (sign) of My chastisement and I shall chastise through you anyone whom I will from amongst My servants and both of you, would be full. And as regards the Hell it would not be full until Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, places His foot therein, and it would say: Enough, enough, enough, and it would be then full and the one part would draw very close to the other one and Allah would not treat unjustly anyone amongst His creation and He would create another creation for the Paradise (to accommodate it).

Book 040, Number 6823:

Anas b. Malik reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said that the Hell would continue to say: Is there anything more, until Allah, the Exalted and High, would place His foot therein and that would say: Enough, enough, by Your Honour, and some parts of it would draw close to the other. Book 040, Number 6825:

'Abd al-Wahhab b. Ata' reported in connection with the words of Allah, the Exalted and the Glorious: We would say to Hell on the Day of Ressurection: Have you been completely filled up? and it would say: Is there anything -more? And he stated on the authority of Anas b. Malik that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: (The sinners) would be thrown therein and it would continue to say: Is there anything more, until Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, would keep His foot there- in and some of its part would draw close to the other and it would say: Enough, enough, by Thy Honour and by Thy Dignity, and there would be enough space in Paradise until Allah would create a new creation and He would make them accommo- date that spare place in Paradise.

---

Was'salam!

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ali: Clearing of dead/unrelevant references

Dear editor,

Few of us have concluded that this article needs severe cleanup and revamp. Intial steps of this have been started and as of now are underway one task.

• We'll take one task at time, have a review after its complition and move to another,
• One or two members will do the actual task while others can do periodic review and correction,
• Group of editors can take a task and devide it section wise between themselves
• During this process any major revamp or re-writing of article will be avoided.

You are invited for this activity.

Talk:Ali#Article_cleanup_and_revamp

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Yarmouk

hi, its regarding you recent edits to Battle of Yarmouk. The problem is not that you site any reference or not with your edits, but its the article's theme in which u are making edits. surely you will not mention about nature of sodium chloride in banana's article. Battle of Yarmouk is not a religious article to mention about shia, sunni belives. It's a Military history article and thus requires a highly "military theme" and "military tone" in it to maintain its quality as A class article. i afraid that Your recent edits might be giving it a more "shia-sunni-religiously-disputed tone. so please dont mind if i reverts them. feel free to make in it any constructive edits, relative to militarizing of article, spelling, grammar and style ect... regards. Mohammad Adil (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• ok

Mohammad Adil (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem

If you have any other similar edits that you would rather not remain in the history, just contact any admin. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Whilst here, I removed the most recent example and semi-protected this page for 3 days. Let me know if you wish this protection to be lifted earlier, since it means ip and new accounts cannot edit it for that time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Userpage history cleaned up - I really should have checked when I did this page - and I am indefinitely semi protecting it as there is no need for ip or new accounts to edit it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ja'far al-Sadiq

Hey, in your recent edit you changed "all living Shi'i" to "Some Shi'a"... I had left that line deliberately because it is often alleged that some of the Shi'a believe that his son went into Occultation, but only long-extinct groups did.

Plus, the next paragraph also begins "Some Shi'i"... Ogress _smash! 03:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the Twelvers believe he predeceased his father... it's crucial to their argument as to why Musa al-Kazim is the successor Imam. Ogress _smash! 04:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Accidentally left my msg for you on MY talk page. Sorry... read it there? Ogress _smash! 04:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Ismaili Vandal" Jerk is Back

Man, that guy is back again. He needs a different hobby... Ogress _smash! 17:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Barelwi

"If we were to pinpoint every fatwa saying which groups are not allowed to be prayed with by another group, we would have an artilce twice as large. Salafi opinion is especially small" This is a very fair observation - I was simply trying to navigate the previously existing NPOV dispute by citing something that enumerated some points distinctive about Barelwis. Would it be appropriate to simply saying something like, "Barelwis practice a form of folk Islam maintaining that Muhammad still lives, sees all, and intercedes, that some dead are 'saints', and that prayers at the graves of saints allow them to hear and intercede as well."? Thank you for helping me with this as I am still trying to learn the ropes. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LUbunkerman (talk • contribs) 17:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Good points all around as usual. Thank you for taking the time to correct me. LUbunkerman (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Umar and Umar at Fatimah's house

The attacks have been going on for a while. In this case it seemed like a large amount of material had been deleted for no reason from Umar so I restored it (though I probably shouldn't have used the rollback) and then reverted the other edits as well. There seems to have been some very unwarranted attacks on various caliphs in the past while. Some has been legitimate but a lot of un-needed attacks. I seem to already be involved to a certain extent. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 02:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Truthfully I'm a little surprised that no one has been upset with me yet. I've been editing Islamic articles for a while and there seems to have been little in the way of complaints. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 03:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that really most people can see that all I'm mainly doing is tidying up the articles. I try and pay attention to who is working on them properly rather than trying to push their POV. It's a lot better than doing this or working on the Christian articles. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 03:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Image

First thanks for adding the calligraphy, it makes the box look prettier. I just want to ask you about the software you used to produce that transparent PNG image, because when you view the template in Internet Explorer 6 the image looks fine, unlike many transparent PNG images that are not IE6-friendly. Suv483 (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply

No problem. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 19:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ya Ali Madad

Hey, that thing that you sent me, it wasn't actually attached to the email, so I still don't have it. And I wants it... Ogress _smash! 05:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Imamhusayn.png

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Imamhusayn.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Radiant chains (talk) 07:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Template

The approach should be simple, and idiot proof. As a start how about having something simple like "Branches" at the top with three links, Mustaali, Nizari, and Druze. We could also think about cutting down by removing the seven pillars sub section, and instead add "Seven Pillars of Islam" (linking to the Seven Pillars page) within "Concepts".--Water Stirs (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Imamhusayn.png

Thanks for uploading File:Imamhusayn.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Translation request, please

Greetings Ms. Pashtun Ismailiyya,

Could you kindly help me translate these two passages into the unique and wonderful Pashto language? Please.

"The sacrament of feet washing enables one to have a part with the Lord Jesus. It also serves as a constant reminder that one should have love, holiness, humility, forgiveness and service. Every person who has received water baptism should have their feet washed in the name of Jesus Christ. Mutual feet washing may be practiced whenever is appropriate".

"The Sabbath day, the seventh day of the week (Saturday), is a Holy Day, blessed and sanctified by God. It is to be observed under the Lord's grace for the commemoration of God's creation and salvation and with the hope of eternal rest in the life to come".

Your help would be Appreciated very much, Thankyou. (In return, I can help you translate your favourite article into the Chinese language). --A-eng (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Request

I am sorry to be so late, but I only check Wikipedia occasionally. I think the discussion has progressed to a finish in my absence already, though in the future I may be able to respond to other requests. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

pakhair raghlay khoyray..nice to meet a fellow pashtun..--Zak (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

salamoona khoyray my extended family has long since settled in peshawar from nowshera. it is good to meet you..--Zak (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Misc

Gee... thanks! A bit of acknowledgement can really make a guy feel good.... RavShimon (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Pashtun,

Thank you for your message. I feel that although Nizari and their fellow Isma'ili share much in common, major theological and social differences have occurred since the millennia of separation; combining so many desperate pieces of information with variations could be problematic to a new reader. I created the template as part of a long term strategy to represent Nizari specific articles such like "the history of the Shia Imami Isma'ili Tariqah" in the same vein as "the History of the Roman Catholic Church", or specific pages regarding theology, institutions.

I appreciate your efforts in representing Nizari fairly on the Isma'ili page, which rightly covers all denominations equally (unlike for example the Twelver page). However, do you not feel that since the Nizari are by far the largest and most well known denomination having a central gateway from which people with a Nizari specific interest can navigate can only help?

I tried to make the template as simple and uncluttered as possible, it is admittedly amateurish; in my defense it was bumped out in a few hours after reading the guides, and it's my first attempt at creating a template. --Water Stirs (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pashtun, having considered your point of view I agree; I strongly feel however that less is more; in terms of the design aesthetic, for example we ought to represent the three surviving branches distinctively from the numerious extinct branches. Having spent some time on the Nizari template I would like to contribute toward the combination, being a less proficient user than yourself I am happy for you to take the lead.

Also the original designer Enzuru seems to have left or been away, do you have any means of contacting him, just a thought?--Water Stirs (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh mate sorry to hear about your trouble, still glad to have you back. I thought you were "both" dudes tbh, explains your penchant for pink. I had no idea there were Pashtun Isma'ili, that would be an interesting article, something about Afghan Isma'ili; I wanted to know about the state of affairs in Afghanistan, are Imamate institutions running things? or is the Jamaat still split between the reformists and Sayyid Jaffar of Kayans family? I've been trying to find out, but to no avail, everything online seems to predate the war. --Water Stirs (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information on the Afghan Jamm'at, the Sayyid family seem to have been involved in quite high levels of corruption so it's worrying that their still involved in the Jammat.

Regarding the template, I believe the current template needs a large overhaul, extinct sects are intermingled with existent sects, there is no link to current leaders, it basically needs to be streamlined, and more focused. Unless one had read extensively on Isma'ili, you would have a hard time navigating though it. --Water Stirs (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Umar page

Thank you Pashtun for your message, and for keeping a distance for a while in order to allow the heat of the argument to cool off.

Although I agree with the principle of the suggestion, and the first two items concerning moving the Shia view items and Fatima house incident out from there since it's already in the Shia view, and to lock the page against new users and unknowns even though I feel this is not very productive considering old editors were involved in the edit war and vandalism anyway, I feel we'll have more scuffles considering that we have major differences of opinion on fundamental issues, like:

1- Source of information: You say you are iffy about using original sources of history, however you like to use modern books that quote those sources. That to me is illogical. The original sources of Islamic history were neutral and no Khalifa or politician had control over them and nothing was hidden, and if they are not good enough, why would a modern book taking information second hand from them be any better?! Those "mother of books" as we call them have been scrutenized for authenticity because people held it as a science and they noted every incident only with its reporter and who saw it and who witnessed it. Additionally, if a specific story or incident (especially controverisal) is going to be attributed to a source, that source needs to be named for what it is. If it is a Sunni history book then it needs to be that, if it's a modern secular research claiming to take from them then the research need to be double-checked otherwise it need to say "modern secular research claims", and if it's from a religious booklet called "Introduction to Shia Islam", it cannot be called other than religious Shia booklet. Would that be something you would accept?

2- Relevence: Information needs to be relevent to his biography, and not let the page become a toilet for every lover and hater legends and myths. The fatima house incident, as important or not as it may be to Shia beliefs, is nothing but a single incident that is irrelevent to his life's work and stamp on the World, yet it sat as 25% of the essay size of his biography. There was nothing about him introducing the laws to finally emancipate the slaves in the totality of the Islamic nation, or abolishment of the Mutaa marriage that protected the honour of women, or his established principals of leadership and justice that is still being taught today, or even something negative like not promoting general knowledge and being too focused on the Quran alone that he burned the books of the libraries in conquered lands because he thought they would be a distraction from God. Instead it just goes over and over about how he stood and shouted at the door and one story said he threatened and the other says he pushed the door, turning the whole page into a pathetic night of nail parlour gossip. It's like having a biography of Abraham Lincoln not talking about his achievement, or freeing of the slaves, or establishing modern America, or even discuss the Southern States perspective that he aggressed upon them and caused the civil war, but instead focus 25% of the biography on the night one of his servants claim he was drunk and hit his girlfriend, and then she was mad and threw a plate at him, one statement says it was a fruit plate, another says it was a dinner one! This is how I feel this whole issue has become. It's not relevent to the heart of the biography and not relevent at large to what his achievements are (whether positive or negative). I feel you spent far too much energy and focus concentrating on defending that story and its claim to be in Sunni books above the truth of the claim and the health of the article as a whole. Where are you on that issue?

3- Knowledge: What a biography and any encyclopedic material needs to be about is TRUE information, therefore priority needs to be given to knowledge. I am a student of Islam and Islamic history of many years, I have mosnad Ahmed, Sahih Al-Bukhary and Moslem, the books of Ibn Katheer, Sayyed Sabeq, Ibn Taymeyya, have mowattaa Malek and Shafie in full as well as Sonan Ibn Dawood and Al-Termethi and Al-Albani etc. If I can ascertain without a shadow of a doubt that a specific piece of information referenced to one of those books is fabricated, and I can demonstrate that using the source of the information, then false information needs to be removed until a stronger evidence is brought. The administrative structure that organizes the flow of information needs to serve that purpose: the delivery of authentic information and removal of disproven ones. You seem to be in favour of other rules that seem to turn this into a complicated process, when wikipedia itself is not that complex: edit based on knowledge. What I mean is that Everytime I wanted to correct those obviously faulty details and even some spelling mistakes, you reverted the whole paragraph and edited it in a way that preserved its faulty intent implicitly and only removed the explicit lie, in a way to guard some structure of rules that you defended, and more importantly single-handedly imposed and directed. On what basis do you want me to work collaboratively then?

It's based on these issues that I believe future collaboration will be doomed, unless you can tell me otherwise and address the above. --Sampharo (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Umar Page

Hi Pashtun,

I have read your response on my page. Thank you for the message and explaining where you were coming from. Let me explain a few things to further demonstrate where clash is coming from:

We can't use primary sources of history on Wikipedia, see WP:RELIABLE.

You see, i double checked that link and what it said is different than what you interpreted from it. The rule stipulates third party reliable sources. The article explains clearly that what that excludes is original research and ubnpublished material or unverifiable sources. Here are the issues:

First, the letter of the rule. To quote WP:Reliable: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." To you that excluded the old history books and proven references of actual incidents and I do not see at all how you arrived at that?! Sahih Al-Bukhary and Moslem and Mosnad Ahmed and Al-Bedaya Wan Nehaya to name just a few, have been written and published by the World's biggest publishing houses, verified by hundreds of sources both Islamic, muslim, and non-muslim, and more importantly is regarded by every one to be the leading authority on the subject.

Additionally, the letter of the rule as per WP:Original Research is: "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." That means a primary source refers to the wikipedian editor HIMSELF writing the analysis and making conclusions. For example, if I work in a museum and I have a cane claimed to be for Umar Ibn El-Khattab based on an inscription "For Khalifa Omar", and upon carbon dating I find the cane to be old enough to be in the time frame for Umar Ibn Abd Al-Aziz instead, and I try to write that directly on Wikipedia, THAT is original research. If I publish the findings and my friend takes my report and uses it to announce the finding on Wikipedia that the cane is not for Umar Ibn Al-Khattab, maybe you can say this is a discouraged primary source. But if the research is published, and the university verifies it and publishes their article, and a magazine now prints a manual saying the sword is in the Umar Ibn Abd Al-Aziz room as it has been proven to belong to him, and then I come and say "based on the museum manual" or "periodical magazine so and so" then that is reliable trustworthy source, and secondary as well. Al-Bukhary and Muslim and Ahmed Ibn Hanbal write what has been reported and verified through people and made secondary verifications on what sahaba has seen and heard, and they published their books that did not only stand the test of time, but are universally regarded as the most credible sources of history for that Islamic nation, that all the other books are using as references. Some would even use them when they criticize the period or even create a false context to attack Islam. To say these books are not reliable sources is rediculous, and to simply look at the book and verify that a claim on the page was false makes that Original Research is non-sensical. It is actually the dictation of Wikipedia policy that information needs to be verifiable, and that verifying the sources is required from all editors. Additionally, considering that the very nature of the books was collection of facts from various sources and verifying it, saying that you are iffy about quoting them is not sensible in any way.

Second, what exactly is the definition of a secular reliable source according to you? Would that require a non-muslim non-Arab, or would a non-cleric be enough? If it's the first then what would make an Asian or Western writer any more credible? If it is the second, I would understand if that was referring to for example, extracting history from a reliable secular source rather than a biblical one for example or a priest, using interpretation from outside the church. Islam and people following the Sunnah however have no church or clerics, and a Sunni scholar means scientist and researcher. There are three problems here therefore, and that is:

1- The books mentioned, Sahih Al-Bukhary and Mosnad Ahmed and Ibn Taymeyya and such in their nature are historical accounts and not preaching gospels. They are as authentic and neutral as it gets, for example they contain negative events with integrity like the assassination of Uthman Ibn Affan by a group and the involvement of Abu Bakr's son in it, or the battle between Ali's forces and the prophet's companions.

2- The very heart of the subject was what those Sunni books contained. That alone should nullify the requirement of a secular source considering that it is specifically a quotation. For example it is completely right for a wikipedia page on christianity to quote the bible if a writer is going to say "According to the bible, Christians believe Jesus is God and he is their salvation". To use a pamphlet written by a modern author that analyzed how Jesus is just a man, and says that the church knows that, then it is a corruption of accuracy and truth if a wikipedia page on Christianity says "Christian church believe that Jesus is just a man". Notice here that I chose an example which actually has truth to the fact (that Jesus is a man) based on secular findings and OUR beliefs, yet it still shows clearly that it is inappropriate to suggest that in the Christian page. In the case where we had the argument however, The Shia view was being shoved in the middle of a majority Sunni article and the event that Umar is said to have done has been attributed to false unverifiable sources. So EVEN if you usually don't accept early books as sources, considering that they are the ones quoted, their own verifiable testament should have been dominant.

3- Bias is a problem. Secular sources though are independent, many were made with supportive or malicious intent. An example is the crusades book by Robert Spencer, which is nothing but twisted drivel against the muslims and complete contextual alteration of the crusades and what happened in them in an attempt to confuse the conceded agreed upon historical records present in books both Western and Eastern, Muslim-written and secular. If as per your statement to me: "Any attempt to disprove a reference is WP:original research", that means that bias is impossible to dispute unless the source reference was important enough for someone else to care about publishing a book to disprove it. Naturally, that means the more eccentric and outrageous a biased book is, the harder it is to remove its references from a wikipedia page considering that nobody would bother to publish a book about it, since it's outside mainstream acceptance anyway. It is clear that following such an imposed rule would give power to the more eccentric sources, and eventually it corrupts the wikipedia original rules of reliability.

Based on the above, the whole approach you guys seem to have created (I don't know about User:Itaqallah, he needs to state his position here directly. Maybe you can invite him to explain) regarding insisting on modern write-ups rather than using older original books, and insisting on secular sources rather than general reliability, and keeping questionable material despite being shown false based on verification or otherwise, has the following fatal flaws:

1- WP:Gaming The System: This approach of not accepting any corrections made to information because that information survived early relaxation that may have been influenced by bias or lack of knowledge, and allowing only measured amounts of correction that satisfy your own rules violates this wikipedia policy. This approach uses one policy against the other, and creates an endless debate on which policy passes. Additionally, it directly violated the WP:Verifiability policy, where you called my checking of the references as wp:original research, when all I did was verified it and found it false.

2- WP:Reliability: The older books of history are much more reliable and unbiased as per the consensus of the global scientific community when it comes to Islamic history, and they are used as reference of articles in encyclopedic content and historical reference by muslims and non-muslims alike. To say you don't like using them is going against the very fabric of encyclopedic writing of verifiable information and against the established practices of universities around the World. On what basis do you expect such an unusual approach by the wikipedia community?

3- Interpretation and enforcement: Simply put, you seem to believe that your approach you arrived at with Itaqallah as you mentioned, and your own interpretation of wikipedia rules to be enforcable somehow or authoritative. I realize of course that an established working system should not be monkeyed with by every newcomer, but in this case like you recognized newcomers need to be introduced to the approach, not enforced. After all, Wikipedia itself says WP:Ignore all rules if it makes things better.

4- Old is gold: Your approach allows older written material to have more weight and practical shield against new editors despite new ones being much more knowledgable. As earlier explained, a biased reference to a biased book will endure as your approach and new rules renders most of their efforts useless considering any attempt at clarifying it is biased will be blocked due to it being WP:original research and removing it will be vandalism.

Anyway that was regarding the first paragraph of your response. please invite Itaqallah if possible into the discussion to allow me to understand his position and approach regarding this policy.

The only religious group that dislike him are Twelver Shi'a, but since disassociation (tabarra) from him plays very strongly into Twelver beliefs, that is important to note.

Then let's just say that: "Twelver Shia disassociated from him, and they believe that he is evil, for more please see W:Shi'a view of Umar." They already say everything in a separate page and therefore I don't see why the event or any other Shia view items should be mentioned in so much dragging detail in his biography. As for now it is there in the article with more influence on the page that his entire conquest and without mention of his idealic advances to humanity.

I thank you in general for your renewed faith and saying that you in turn will consider Good Faith in me. If we can get over the fundamental differences in opinion we have as mentioned in my analysis of your approach regarding Islamic writers, perhaps we may be able to work together without a clash. And I apologize for such a long message.--Sampharo (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

RE:RE:RE:Umar

Hi Pashtun, I promise I won't make this too long or argumentatives but I think we should reach an equal wavelength if we want to achieve something on Wikipedia

Primary sources

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.

I used the wrong link here, I should have used Wikipedia:OR. It states, 'Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.' You stated elsewhere that primary source material would be written by Wikipedia editors, but here it clearly states that there are primary sources already in existence (for example, The Diary of Anne Frank). You can use primary sources in order to clarify a point, but not to make one!

Ok, I can say we are approaching an agreement here. A source like the Hadith itself being reported in the companion's diaries is primary. However when it is published in Sahih Al-Bukhary and verified by him, considering that Al-Bukhary did not witness or write down the Hadith, but searched for it and classified it and verified it, that presents a case of BOTH primary as well as secondary. Secondary because it wasn't direct and it went through acceptable scholarly collection and verification, but primary because the Hadith or "Speech" itself was written verbatim without analysis. That I can understand. My thoughts though and that is matched by scholars and secular researchers is that historical incidents in Sahih Al-Bukhary were being reported and verified on a secondary basis, considering they are not verbatim copying, unlike the prophet speech. Same thing (much more so actually) with Mosnad Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, who not only verified and studied, but also analyzed and gave comment regarding the meaning of the events in many situations. However I do understand your point. I should find another book that did not directly collect Hadith to quote the analysis of it within. Agreed. But do you agree that we SHOULD quote the primary sources should they be quoted as reference and there is a dispute regarding the validity then?

When I said we didn't like using older secondary sources I meant Tafsir ibn Kathir for example, which bases its information off hadith and cites them. There is no set Wikipedia policy that I know of against using old secondary sources like Tafsir ibn Kathir, but there is a rule against using primary sources like hadith literature.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir is a valid point not to use as reference, because it is interpretation based on dictation. It is primary and religious. Agreed. Note though that the case is different regarding his other books like Al-Bidaya Wan Nehaya which is verified historical account, or other books which were analysis.

A cleric can write in a secular context, the point is that the purpose and tone of the work is secular in nature, not as apologetic material which would by its nature be intrinsically unreliable. For example, we can't use Shi'a or Sunni apologetic material to build up their respective articles; we should use sources from the academia. So, it's more so the content of the work than anything else.

Ok

1- The books mentioned, Sahih Al-Bukhary and Mosnad Ahmed and Ibn Taymeyya and such in their nature are historical accounts and not preaching gospels... Indeed they are historical accounts, but as you know, in secular scholarship today there is much criticism of these works, and then issues between Sunni, Zaydi, Twelver, Ismaili, Ibadi version of events make it much more convoluted.

Hold on here, The criticism about Sahih Al-Bukhary and Moslem are purely that they were too conservative in their verification and only accepted 100% confirmed Hadith and historical events with full tracking and multiple confirmations for every source. If anything that strengthens their position as a reliable source. Ibn Taymeyya and Ahmed Ibn Hanbal are scholars who had strong opinions that got the Shia sects angry with them. As you said however, this should automatically be of undue weight if we are taking not from their Fiqh and jurisprudence books, but from the historical accounts they analyzed.

It is not correct to use the Bible as a source on Christian articles, this is actually extensively prohibited.

Not even to disprove a widely controversial statement about what Christians BELIEVE? The stress here is about the fact that the discussion or paragraph is dealing with the Bible itself and Christian belief?

I do agree with you saying however that there should be no WP:UNDUE weight in articles. For example, Sunni editors kept noting that they don't believe in Muhammad al-Mahdi (the son of Hasan al-Askari), and I had to keep deleting it because it was just as silly as me going to the article on every Sunni caliph and saying Shi'a deny their legitimacy!

But that is what we have right now. Look at every Rashidun Khalifa page and you'll find it in every one of their biographies that they are not recognized by Shia because ..... and so on. Not only that but the biographies are littered with Shia opinion every three sentences, written in an emotionally biased language.

Secularism is not synonymous with correct, I agree with this and Wikipedia agrees with this. Biased works are not WP:RS! You can never use a Robert Spencer reference here because he has been heavily criticized by the mainstream academia as unreliable, and most of his works are as polemical as religious ones.

Agreed then. We need however to find a mechanism to weigh sources as acceptable or not.

User:Itaqallah is not active enough to invite to this conversation.

Will leave a message on his talk page to take a look when he has the chance.

This position was actually wrong of me...

Thank you for your your apology, which I accept.

2- WP:Reliability: The older books of history are much more reliable and unbiased as per the consensus of the global scientific community when it comes to Islamic history, and they are used as reference of articles in encyclopedic content and historical reference by muslims and non-muslims alike. To say you don't like using them is going against the very fabric of encyclopedic writing of verifiable information and against the established practices of universities around the World. On what basis do you expect such an unusual approach by the wikipedia community?

This isn't necessarily true. For example, Sirat ibn Hisham is accepted by almost no secular source on the life of the Prophet (AS) in its entirety.

I AGREE with not accepting Sirat Ibn Hisham, for many reasons it isn't accepted widely anyway. But Sirat Ibn Hisham is not an older book of history. It is a breakdown of the lost work of Ibn Ishaq and comparatively modern.

Wikipedia uses a method that is used in universities throughout the world: either you are synthesizing information from primary sources (original research like a thesis) or you are quoting other authors (secondary sources). Hadith literature is a primary source, just like the Diary of Anna Frank or other writings by historical figures witnessing events.

I am happy with THAT and would work on it. You will not find me open a subject of history or biography using Hadith as a source, but a secondary work that analyzed it. However if someone mentions that muslims believe this or that the prophet said that and sites the Hadith books, I will have to use those books to counter if his information is wrong.

--Sampharo (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

RE:RE:RE:Umar

It might be tempting to label Sahih Bukhari and other books of hadith as a good source to use, but generally there is still a degree of interpretation involved. It's arguable whether it is valid to use just Sahih Bukhari, but generally WikiProject Islam has not developed any articles by solely using hadith literature, and there are users and I believe administrators who are actively against it; they want contemporary literature that looks at the traditions; modern secular academia.

Let's not split hairs on this. I already said I understand they shouldn't be used on their own to make a new point. But I am ASSERTING the point that if they are quoted ignorantly and used adversely to support a false claim through a biased or unreliable pamphlet as in the situation I faced, then such quotations and usage will be removed and proof of invalidity can be used directly from them. I do not need a third party analysis to say that Mosnad Ahmed page 213 did NOT say a certain thing. A direct quotation from the direct source is more than appropriate.

You state that the only thing wrong with Sunni hadith literature is that it is too conservative. Ismailism does not have much of a hadith tradition, however from my studies of Twelver Shi'a Islam, the issue is the opposite; they believe Sunni narrations are not conservative enough in their approach...

Now we're going to start an argument again. Why would you do this? You already decided and actually suggested that Shia beliefs regarding Sunni issues can at the very least be excluded due to undue weight. Now you're coming back with this suggestion that the 10% will dictate what is or not acceptable to use in the 90% field. Not to mention that all these beliefs are religious in nature! Universities around the World consider Al-Bukhary and Moslem Saheeh to be authentic source of incident verification, that includes the USA and UK and European secular and non-muslim universities not dealing with theology.

Last habibi but not least, I agree we have to clean up the articles on the Sunni caliphs in order to present a better view. Unlike the Shi'a Imams (with the exception of the Fatimid Empire), their religious achievements are almost nothing compared to their political ones for the non-Rashidun. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 04:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Starting from after Muaweyya 1, there is no Sunni or Shia Khalifa, it was an Islamic empire and the Sultan was an heir to the throne, with the Amir Mo'menin title being nominal. As for the Rashidun Kholafa, the four were the Khalifas of all the muslims, whether they were Shia, Sunni, or non-muslim living as their subjects. Their insult is belittling all muslims, and their biographies need to be given a revamp and cleaned from all the undue nonsense and garbage that plagues it, including the attmpts at jabbing little insults and belittling details every two lines whether it is important or not. I haven't seen on any person's biography a mention of whether or not they were legitimate birth or bastards except in the Khalifas!! That needs cleanup, and I don't see how arguing about the validity of Sahih Al-Bukhary is more crucial than removing an undue unverified non-encyclopedic statement that says a Khalifa is illegitamate child. So what do you suggest to do about this? And how do we keep the hordes of angry polemics from vandalizing and restuffing the pages with more and more insignificant half-truths or at least undue tidbits? --Sampharo (talk) 06:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Caliph Umar

Hi, may be you remmember me, i had already told the Users at Talk:Umar that i am working on an article of Umar, the work is almost in its completing stages [1] with only few sections left, a review and copy editing, i need your help, for you being a shia user can help me in making article more "neutral" that will be agreeable by both shia and sunni Users. We have this crazy user User:Frank1829, and while i tried to convince him and bring him to the conclusion, he still stick with his opinion of adding every thing he want to the article whether relevant or irrelevant to the encyclopedic criteria of biographies. His response was very disappointing and its really pissed me off, although i strongly avoid personal attacks but i fear i lost control in my recent post. any ways dealing with that crazy user is use less and waste of time, i need your help in expanding the section of shia views in the article. I will provide you with a separate sandbox in my userpage where you can work on it. You are also welcome in making general edits in the article in my sandbox to make it more neutral.
Here is some thing what i strongly believe...

• shia sunni conflict is only in Umar's religious legacy, the matters that are purely concern with his status as a good muslim or good shaba etc etc like his involvemnt in buring fatimah's house etc that raise a point on his religious legacy. Keeping this in view i have created a seperate section under Legacy by the name "Sunni views" and "Shia views" and "western views of Umar". I think its fair enough, as it gives both the sects equal space to express their views.

• I have hardly came across any shia conflict over Umar's abilities as a "ruler" he is widely regarded as a military and political genius by neutral western scholars as you will see when i will quote them in the article in my sandbox. So i personally belive that we dont have any issue on the sections of Umar's political life that have sections of his reign as caliph, military expansion, reforms, political administration and treatment of non-muslims etc etc...

• As this article gonna be an encyclopediac article, so its must not have excessive sentence that may says "its sunni belibe and its shia belive etc etc " becasue it just gonna confuse the reader. The shia sunni belives as i have explained as mainly religious relating must be under their respective headings.

I will rather prefer a sensible and responsible user like you to the crazy user:Frank1829 for the contributions.

I am waiting for your response. regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 16:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• I dont know what is the conflict between you and other users on talk:page umar i never read that section, however the out line what i believe should be the standered of the article of umar is that as wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight says, thats in the absence of any third party source, the popular view, that is of majority view should be given weight. Can you give me an outline of the conflict between you and other sunni users ? perhaps i can arbitrate to deduce a conclusion.

And are you willing to expand the shia views section in Umar's artilce in my sandbox ? once i am done with the article, you can also make copy edits etc etc, i have invited other users too for this purpose, but they are sunni and to have a neutral article, shia writers must not be neglected. The Umar is currently under protection and only administrators can add it, i want the article in my sandbox to be once fully prepared and agreed before being finally pasted to the main page.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 05:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I am interested in what you think of these...

004.034 Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

002.222 They ask thee concerning women's courses. Say: They are a hurt and a pollution: So keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean. But when they have purified themselves, ye may approach them in any manner, time, or place ordained for you by Allah. For Allah loves those who turn to Him constantly and He loves those who keep themselves pure and clean.

024.002 The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.

Not trying to cause offense, just wondering what you think of them. Misortie (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I see these are fairly complicated issues which, due to a lack of understanding in there proper context can lead to people misinterpreting them as abuse of women in Islam. I understood that, I just needed a broader answer from an actual Muslim, oh and a Female one at that! Misortie (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misortie (talk • contribs)

Rollback

Hello Pashtun Ismailiyya, I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Acalamari 22:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'm sure you'll make good use of the tool. As for how I came across you, I saw your name appear on Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations, which is on my watchlist. Acalamari 01:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Another question for you.

"You seem intelligent and free thinking, and yet you follow a book that is nothing more than an outdated ideology, good for it's day but now has no meaning in modern day life", err, sorry for putting this to you but my brother insisted on me asking you this after he saw your replies to those three Koranic verses i asked you about. Again no offence is intended. Adam אָדָם (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

My name was switched, but this name is blocked!

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).

Afghana~enwiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Thank you so much for switching my name, but now I am blocked! I know this username used to belong to a blocked user, but I have never been blocked from Wikipedia!

Decline reason:

Apparently someone has been sending abusive emails from your account, presumably you. See WP:ANI#List so far and other sections nearby. Since your unblock request doesn't address this issue, we have to deny it. Mangojuice^talk 02:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

{unblock|1=You don't understand. I am not this member! My name was changed from User:Pashtun Ismailiyya to this member only today! This name belonged to an old vandal. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations&diff=prev&oldid=292144742 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations&diff=292438001&oldid=292437543 this link where it was approved.}}

• Please hold on while I contact the blocking admin. If I'm reading the diffs correctly, your story appears to be true. The username Afghana (talk · contribs) was reported to AN/I at 18:54, 25 May 2009 and you were not renamed until 13:48, 26 May 2009 the following day. --auburnpilot talk 03:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

See User:Afghana_(usurped). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, I saw this already yesterday, and I agree that they are two completely different persons. This was a regrettable error caused by very unfortunate timing in the renaming. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting rollback rights.

You earned it, keep up the good work! Adam אָדָם (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Names and Naming Convention Question

Are Afghan persons' names formed in the same way as Western European names, "given-name inheritable-family-name"; in the same way as Arabic names, "given-name lineage"; or in a different manner?

The reason I ask is that there is a big push to clear out all the pages in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter, four months ago there were 375,812 pages in the category today there are 44,816, including all the pages that do not need the parameter to appear in the correct place in a category. The main reason that I got involved in the matter is that I dislike the lack of concern that the missing parameter displays. There could be blp issues. There is an editor who claims that all persons from the Middle East are names in accordance with the Arabic system but has not given any references for this claim. This editor has done a lot of work on articles about the detainees at Guantanamo Bay and is understandably concerned that these articles are treated correctly.

His claim is that Abdul Karim (Guantanamo detainee 520) should be sorted under A for Abdul, in accordance with Arabic naming conventions rather than under K for Karim as I would infer in looking at the name. Note that neither the listas parameter nor the DEFAULTSORT value affect the page name in anyway. They only affect where the page will appear in an alphabetical list.

Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Your prompt assistance in this matter would be even more appreciated as the effort to clean up this category seems to have come to a halt partly because of this issue.

JimCubb (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response, your input and the reference, the wonderful reference. If you have time, would you look over the names in the Category:Afghan extrajudicial prisoners of the United States and apply DEFAULTSORT value and listas parameter values? Even if I were to do the research that would be necessary to get them correct and present the results of my research, the values will be much more likely to be accepted if they were to come from you. (I realize that you are coming up on Finals but if you could do a couple now and get past the discussion the editor in question will want to have with you, the editor may let listasbot and defaultbot continue their tasks and you could finish the task after finals are over.)

Thank you again for you rapid response.

JimCubb (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Another question for you...

Do you, as a Muslim, believe that a non-Believer like me will got to hell? Do you firmly believe this? Cheers --Adam אָדָם (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

So people from places such as say un-contacted tribes in brazil won’t go to hell you believe. That’s reasonable I guess.--Adam آدم (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Second question for you today.

Hi Helai (I hope you don’t mind me using your first name… I prefer a more polite personal touch) I couldn’t help but ask you another question…One relevant to you being a Female Muslim. I was wondering what your stance on the Hijab and the full face veil is. (The use of the full face veil is a big issue here in the UK) I really appreciate your responses and am thankful for you helping me understand Islam more. Thanks, --Adam آدم (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The new article of Umar (r.a)

Asalamualikum, i had pasted the new article of Umar (r.a) on 31st may. It may need copy edits and check for tone in some places, as i haven't revised it yet.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ismailiyya

Dear Ismailyia. Could you please get this Iranian nationalist "Kurdo" off his high horse. Anything that negates the Iranian taking the heritage of other people, they immediately delete and challenge. Look what he writes when I correct the article on Geber. It is so sad that I have to take up your time to prevent his nationalistic tampering with truth. This is what I wrote him just minutes ago:

Ok Kurdo, now I understand your issue: an Iranian nationalist wanting to grab the heritage of others for his own people. You adding of "an" to the word "scholar" gives you away. It is not Escholar but Scholar. Only Iranians make such a grammatical mistake!! Wow. It is so funny how one's own true stripes come through when ***pretending*** to have the good of the public at heart, while just really promoting one's own agenda. Geber/ Jabir ibn Hayyan WAS from Tartus, Syria, not Tus, Iran. "Most of the cited academic works" you mention must be Iranian in their composition and, obviously, to your own liking. How about checking, say, Encyclopaedia Iranica or Britannica, or Americana, or Islamica? See if any of those list Geber/Jabir as a Persian from Tus? And you are presumably one of those "editor scholars" you brazenly note? It is unbelievable how folks like you end up being the "impartial" arbiters and editors of Wiki? Let me see if other other editors agree with your brazen nationalist views. IzadyIzady (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits on Safiyya bint Huyayy

Recently few sections of article have been removed. These sections were based on Martin Lings' work, reason cited was that Lings is not a historian and was just a writer.

But same article quotes Wafa Sultan who is a psychatriat.

The difference seems to be is that Lings quotation were in support of Muslim view while Wafa's are against.

I think a discussion is needed over this issue.

It seems r in name changing spree... ;)

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:

I totally understand your frustration. I have now asked two admins for help. I have tagged the article till the dispute is over. The claim that "Afghans are descendants of Egyptian Pharaohs" is just ... ridiculous! *sigh* This is my version, by the way ... Tajik (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. But I am really tired of getting into edit wars with him. He is very unconstructive, although I understand that many of his edits are good faith edits. Tajik (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ajam

Ajam is usually translated as Persian or Iranian in English. The cited secondary source in English, has translated the word as "Persian" too, so we are not allowed to change the translation, doing so is a violation of WP:OR. --Kurdo777 (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thnaks, I appreciate the support. :) --Kurdo777 (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

FreeDOS userbox

Hello, Afghana~enwiki. You have new messages at User talk:Afghana/FreeDOS.
Message added rCX (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re

Damet garm! I thank you for your work here and there. This time every move counts. Thanks again.--Xashaiar (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your words. If only the dictator knew as much as you know we would have a better life.--Xashaiar (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Help using your contacts

Hi Pashtun,

I have no idea how to do this, but I came across a hideous page I know is not directly wikipedia. It is called wikiIslam, self-proclaiming to be "critical" of Islam without limitation of NPOV. However why is it tied with wikipedia "mediawiki" company and is starting to place highly on google search?

Can you speak with administartors as to how exactly is this related to wikipedia foundtion? the website is nothing but a deviant anti-Islam portal, which usually wouldn't matter, except it is stealing wikipedia's standing and design to loan credibility to itself, and uses the "Mediawiki" program to do so.

Can action be taken please?

http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Main_Page

--Sampharo (talk) 10:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Demographics of Kabul province

The population of Kabul province in 2006 was roughly 2,425,067. Here is a quote from Kabul' Provincial Profile - MRRD

"Around 19% of the population of Kabul lives in rural districts while 81% lives in urban areas. Around 51% of the population is male and 49% is female. Pashtu is spoken by around sixty percent of the population and Dari is spoken by around forty percent. A small number of people located in 5 villages speaks Pashaie."

[2]

Lets use the official numbers and percentages in wikipedia (Ketabtoon (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC))

User:76.232.254.170

Could you take a look at the edits of 76.232.254.170 (talk · contribs)? He claims to be reverting vandalism. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Is there some way we can stop the edit wars? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's several articles. Do you think this should be discussed at WP:3RR? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Persian language

Thank you for your thoughtful comments, and thanks for the fact-checking! It's editors like you who keep Wikipedia a pleasant and worthwhile endeavor. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 06:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Amir Kror Suri

Hi, I hope you are fine. Could you please take a look at Talk:Amir Kror Suri. Thank you. :) Tajik (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

One word to describe Islam.

Confused. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Why wont you move Mr. Bubbles! Damn, wish I had a PC that could play BioShock...It looks a heck of allot better than on my PS3 (Or the black box of death as I call it)--Frank Fontaine (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The image in the Islamic template

Wouldn't it be better to use an image other than the Taj Mahal or any other mausoleum. Islamic culture, for sure has images other than a Mausoleum. True it is representative, but isn't an Islamic graveyard also so. Islamic culture has particularly evolved as a response to certain guidelines laid down by Islam. Islam and its culture are inseparable. So having an Islamic symbol should be paramount. Nothing represents Islam better than the Ka'aba. Eager to hear feedback/criticisms/opinions etc. --Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 09:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you fasting right now?

Because I believe it is currently Ramadan. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that on the anniversary of 9/11 there are “Muslim witch hunts” up and down the US and talking about Islam is not a great idea. But you must excuse the fact I live in the UK. I hope you don’t mind me asking you another question, but I was wondering if you pray daily and if so, how many times. Thanks. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You especially don’t want to live in the UK when you see this crap happening-[3] And yeah, getting games months after they have been released in the US and Japan Sucks. It’s also the same with DVDs of TV series‘, but fortunately I have satellite P2V… (You know, pork is a delicious meat! You should try it…Hehehe…)--Frank Fontaine (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is your page always semi-protected? --Frank Fontaine (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Islam-Pashtun hating trolls are drawn to your user page just like republican trolls are drawn to the article on Barack Obama...--Frank Fontaine (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The Hadiths.

To be honest, I have a big problem with these so-called authentic accounts of the life of Muhammad. What I don’t get is how so many Muslims find the idea that they could be all lies insulting. I mean, come on, isn’t the Qur’an meant to be the only book they follow? And aren’t there several verses in the Qur’an that warn against such texts? Anything other than the word of god …ect. Another thing I cant get my head around is why anyone would follow text which portrays your prophet is a vicious, murdering, paedophilic tyrant who had adulterers stoned to death even after they had begged for forgiveness. To be Honest, I’m inclined to believe that these Hadiths were man made by later Islamic rulers who wanted to warp Islam to suit there own evil beliefs. Look forward to your reply. Edit: Think I left this message when you are most likely asleep! Have a good night sweet Helai... --Frank Fontaine (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I still have a problem as to how a 6/9 year old could make such adult decisions like marriage. To be honest, Helai, the life of Muhammad is extremely chequered and I have some trouble believing he was this godly man who never put a foot wrong. I have a feeling he fabricated the Qur’an to gain control of the people, and also due to the fact he had a strong resentment of polytheists. But then that’s an entirely non-Muslim point of view, that I believe Muhammad was a liar and was just a typical man of his day. Maybe you could convince me otherwise.--Frank Fontaine (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand... --Frank Fontaine (talk) 08:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

And could rejecting Islam really give you all those things? Or were you just giving those as examples? --Frank Fontaine (talk) 09:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my questions, it is greatly appreciated to help me seek greater knowledge in just about everything. As for myself, I prize myself as being exceedingly un-judgemental, un-selfish, forgiving, passionate, caring, and of coarse, un-materialistic. So I suppose I have all the qualities that could constitute, in your eyes, someone who is a good person but is still not complete because of my lack of faith. I don’t see why believing or not believing in god (or in your eyes, not being a Muslim) should have any difference in my life at all.--Frank Fontaine (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Could this be a sign from god (Allah?)

I just went to eat a Bacon sandwich (Or a buttie as we English call em) and I knocked my plate on the floor, sending the processed pork flesh flying. Hm. What do you think? --Frank Fontaine (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. That hurt. My motor skills are actually impaired by a condition I had when I was younger that almost killed me. I got a question…Do you only eat halal meat?--Frank Fontaine (talk) 11:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have another amazing question for you to answer!!! Do you attend a Mosque (Masjid)????????? (Sorry for all the ??? And ! I’m completely stoned lawl) --Frank Fontaine (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I was joking…Going to answer my question? I know you find me irritating as hell I’m sorry… --Frank Fontaine (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about images of Muhammad (Such as [4])...--Frank Fontaine (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of offence, have you ever been racially abused/abused for being a Muslim (Even if it isn’t that obvious because you don’t wear a Hijab?) Were I live is almost 100% white Christian (East Hendred if you want to know) but a lot of them are highly educated persons and are hence more tolerant (Most of them). I have never lived in a multi-cultural area. Going to places like Oxford and Reading is always a but strange because you get a lot more of your types. Tell, me what is the neighbourhood like were you live? (I’m not asking you to name exactly were you live!!!) --Frank Fontaine (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I had a feeling you lived in LA, my uncle lives nearby in Palmdale (He's married to a lowed mouthed Texan woman and he works at Edwards Air Force base) I was thinking of going to stay with them, maybe I could pay your district a visit to see for myself? *Real* inter racial corporation barley exists in the UK, (When you have groups like the BNP and the English defence league it’s not surprising) come here and you will be most likely labelled a "Paki" and other such...names. Ok I got another question for you, in regards to Hajj (And as far as I know your sect of Islam does Perform it) have you ever been or planning to go? --Frank Fontaine (talk) 10:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks.

Oohhh you see if I were a Muslim I could never do Hajj because of my claustrophobia and severe intolerance of heat, technically I would be exempt because of this according to the Qur'an. Coming from LA you must be used to it… (oh and I could never live in LA after hearing the fabled words “On the streets of Los Angeles, an AK-47 is cheaper to buy than a playstation)--Frank Fontaine (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of games, I don’t suppose you have ever played (only an idiot would ask “Heard of” in this case) World of Warcraft?..--Frank Fontaine (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I love Diablo, except playing any other class apart from barbarian or Sorceress, everything else is too frustrating to play... (Classic games really are my thing, I have the original Doom series and Civilization II, and I still play them!). I didn’t think you were the MMOROPG type, Warcraft’s hardcore player base is truly horrible and I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy. Played Fallout 3?? Technically a brilliant game, but not without its annoying points. (Cannot fast travel while over-burdened…WHAT? What moron thought of THAT???) --Frank Fontaine (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever wondered that if you do make it to heaven/paradise, will you be allowed to play computer games there? (: --Frank Fontaine (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If you think playing the newer FF games are bad, you should try and play the old Game boy versions-There a freaking nightmare. How my younger brother can play and enjoy them is beyond me. But on a more serious note, from an Islamic perspective, what do you envision Heaven to be like? --Frank Fontaine (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I also really, really, really hate the way some people use past events such as the Muslim conquest of Persia to try and attack Muslims today. Past event are in the past, no Muslims today are responsible for past events….Such a backwards way of thinking. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see, probably because your focus is on getting there in the first place rather than dreaming about what it’s like. But then it’s highly likely that you wont go there as life after death most likely resembles compost, if you know what I mean… --Frank Fontaine (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you like....

Wikipe-tan!? She is so Kawaii ^__^ --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)