User talk:LissanX

Welcome!

Hello, LissanX, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Quinton Feldberg (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to join WikiProject Kurdistan

Hi LissanX,

Welcome! You are receiving this message because we've noticed your great edits related to our project WikiProject Kurdistan!. We are a group of editors working on improving articles in the scope of this project, and we need your help to meet the project goals. Please come over to our project page to take a look!

You will see a list of articles that need most improvement .
You will find a group of editors who share similar interest with you.
Overall, this is a friendly place to discuss any issues related to Kurdistan, ask questions, and collaborate on improving articles on Kurdistan!

Feel free to put your name on the project member list. Hope you will have fun here, let us know if you need any help! Bobo.03 (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Misbaha, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Albanian and Turkish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alias (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dashti Yahudi

Hi. Although most of your edits seem ok1 (I need to xchexck1 the sourxces), you xcan't xchange the name without xchanging the titl2e of the artixcl2e, whixch requires a move request. See WP:RM. p

Pardon my wonk1y k1eyboard. Doug Weller talk 08:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Doug Weller:. Thanks, I actually wanted to change the name of the article but didn’t know how as I’m not really Wikipedia savvy. Thanks again. LissanX (talk) 08:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Read WP:COMMONNAME Doug Weller talk 08:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Banu Tamim (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hijra

Dashti Yahudi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pashtun

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Banu Tamim, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hijra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited MultiCam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic Front (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Death of Neda Agha-Soltan, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dr. K. 03:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Death of Neda Agha-Soltan, you may be blocked from editing. Dr. K. 03:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Made a ref for ♥you♥: ref>Who are the Saudi suspects in the Khashoggi case?. Al Jazeera English. 17 October 2018. Retrieved 17 October 2018 – via YouTube.</ref --87.170.207.190 (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Reza Shah, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Reza Shah. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are sourced, you just keep ignoring the citations. LissanX (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then go ahead and make an inline citation, but stop edit warring to push your POV.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not trying to edit war or to push my personal POV. I could care less whether or not Reza Shah's parents are Turkish or not. I’m just trying to put relevant information along with the links for further reading. Both the surnames Beyg and Ayromlou are Turkic which I am continually editing to include both citations as well as referrals to other Wiki articles for sources and further reading. LissanX (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just take a look at your job there. Also, you failed to provide an inline citation, as i asked you above ... BTW, names and surnames are irrelevant reasons to find a person's ethnicity, since many Iranian famous people have Arabic or Turkish names while they are Iranian.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That’s because Iranian is a nationality, not an ethnicity. The suffix -lou or -lu is strictly Turkish and only used by ethnic Turks in Iran, particularly Azeri and Qashqai people. Ethnic Persians don’t adopt this Turkish form of name, which is why Abbas-Ali Dadash-Beyg was called 'Abbas-Ali Khan' when addressed in Persian. Khan is also of Turkic origin but is used by ethnic Persians as well, unlike Beyg and Ayromlou. The feminine version of Beygom is sometimes used as a given name for females. Ayrums are also a Turkic tribe, the name of which is not adopted by ethnic Persians, let alone with the Turkic -lou suffix. Earlier in the same section, it also explicitly states that his mother Noush-Afarin Ayromlou was originally a Muslim from Georgia. The Muslim population of Georgia is only 10%, most of which are from the areas bordering Armenia and Azerbaijan. None of this is my point of view, nor is it my personal theory. These are facts that deserve to be legitimately represented. Regardless, my intention is not to get into some kind of editing conflict. I have added two citations at the end of the sentence. There was an error due to an extra ref tag. I am not very Wiki-savy, so can you please explain what you specifically mean by 'inline citation'? LissanX (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You got me wrong, by "Iranian", i meant the ethnolinguistical group, not the citizens of modern Iran. By inline citation i mean quote the part of the source which explicitly supports that Reza Shah was of Turkish descent. Any other extrapolation with his name or surname is nothing else than WP:OR. If you need any help with the quote and since you say that you're not very Wiki-savy, just provide the citation here on your talk and if the Turkish claim is really supported by the sources, then i'll cite your sources in the article with the relevant sentence.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His surname or his mother/father's name are quite weak reasons to conclude that he was of Turkish descent. I quote, from this source, page 3 : "Some writers believe that Reza Shah was of Turkish origin, but the authenticity of this claim is uncertain." Therefore, any Turkish claim should be balanced with sources supporting a non-Turkish origin, per WP:NPOV.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with balanced information, but also there is no doubt that his mother was a Qashqai Turk, so he is certainly maternally of Turkic descent. This is a well established fact among the Iranian community.

“رضا شاه فرزند عباسعلی خان از طایفه پهلوان های آلاشت از توابع سوادکوه مازندران و از مادری بیگانه به نام نوش آفرین که از مهاجرین قفقازی می باشد“

(Translation: Reza Shah Abbas-Ali Khan of the Pahlavi’s was of Alasht of Savadkih, Mazandaran. His mother was Noush-Afarin who was a Qafqaz [Caucasian, non-Aryan] immigrant.)

Some sources: 1) Source 1, Source 2, Source 3, Source 4.

The only possible ambiguity is in his father Abbas-Ali Dadash-Beyg. Not only his name, but also his and his fathers positions in Turkish dominated Qajar politics, as well as their story of settling in Alasht, Savad Kooh, Mazandaran have information suggesting Azeri origins. Of course that alone is not 100% confirmed, but I believe his mother’s established Turkic identity, along with his father’s somewhat substantiated Turkic identity via circumstancial evidence, is more than enough to state “suggesting that Reza Pahlavi may have been of Turkic descent” in the article. What do you think? LissanX (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should desist from misrepresenting what the sources say. If you can read the Persian quote you posted above and can see that it does not support any Turkish ethnicity, it just says that Reza Shah's mother was a "Caucasian muslim". Also, you kept adding the Turkish claim while the discussion was not over about it, this is edit warring.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 20

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Pahlavi dynasty (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Reza Pahlavi

Reza Shah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Qashqai

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

October 2018

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —C.Fred (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A cheeseburger for you!

Good work on Tiger Squad DBig Xrayᗙ 20:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

lol Thanks LissanX (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. Please open a discussion on its talk page and ping editors to join. edit summaries are not counted as discussion. regards. --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Goharshad Mosque rebellion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Persian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse Invitation

Hello! LissanX, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the invitation. I will check it out when I have chance. LissanX (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, LissanX. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blackwater

The flag you tried to add for Blackwater in the article Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is broken. Just pointing out since i dont know how to fix it! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out. I’m going to remove it for now until I can figure out how to fix it. LissanX (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ask for help

Hi dear friend in this page : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_name_Khuzestan

We have a great deal of problem with what appears to be Persian users Community that wants to push their view and block other information, There are phrases in this Article that ment to change clear historical records and don't even has a Refrence , any request for Refrence being removed by these users with no logic, we even explained the problem in Talk page but they refuse to responded and keep,reverting the ask for reference, they simply use our lack of understanding of wiki rules to push their ideas and block any opininon , please check the page and help us to deal with this issue

Ted hamiltun (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC) Ted Hamiltun[reply]

Hi Ted, thanks for your request to include me in the conversation. I will check it out. LissanX (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't thank you enough! 🌷

Ted hamiltun (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They removed ask for refrence again Users Wikaviani, Warioman and Historyofiran acting as a Disinformation Gang and this is frustrating

Ted hamiltun (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve seen Wikaviani and Warioman do that before. Apparently they censor information they don’t like others to hear. You can try reporting them for vandalism, but unfortunately Wikipedia is poorly managed and many articles related to Iran are completely handicapped. LissanX (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Specifically per MOS:SURNAME, people are mentioned subsequently by their surname, not their given name (and he had not changed his name to "Kareem" yet, either). —Bagumba (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arabic Afrikaans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ayn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Hello, I'm Toddst1. I noticed that you recently removed content from Jihadi John without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ali al-Sistani

Please remove the text that you added to the Ali al-Sistani article as it clearly misrepresents the source material, making it seem that the clerics that are engaged in misconduct are Sistani's followers rather than simply being Shia Muslims. This is a serious BLP violation as well as being a case of plagiarism, I will refer to the BLP noticeboard shall you fail to do so.--Catlemur (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not referring to “simply Shia Muslims”. The Hawzah in Iraq is headed and administered by Sistani, and to a far lesser extent Mohammad Yaqoobi. The practice is not administered in Iran or Lebanon, whose Hawzahs and religious laws are headed by other Marjas. Sistani was the primary feature in the article, with his own written works being cited, to which Sistani's office responded. There are no misrepresentations. Attempting to say it’s a “Shia Muslim” issue is the libelous misrepresentation, either because you are completely ignorant about the subject and know nothing about Shia Islam; or because you’re intentionally attempting to propagate a falsified narrative. I can provided evidence of all this whenever needed. — LissanX (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Dodi 8238 (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will fight to the death for my right to edit without leaving edit summaries! — LissanX (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hejazi turban, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IPA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Fatimah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to IPA

Suhayb the Roman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Roman

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Shahrbanu. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop provoking other users with insults and then leaving troll warning messages on their talk page. This conversation is over. — LissanX (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reported

See here.--Kansas Bear (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible BLP violations

Hi - I noticed some edits you made to the articles Massoud Rajavi and Somayeh Mohammadi, where you added some information not represented by the sources (also adding some sources that are not reliable). These may be considered a WP:BLP violation, so please be careful in the future. Thank you. Barca (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BarcrMac:, the information I added are from videos of high-ranking MEK members who were part of the MEK Leadership Committee. — LissanX (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the Somayeh Mohammadi page you wrote that she "voluntarily left Canada in 1998, at the age of 15, to join MEK seeking to overthrow the Iranian government", but the source does not say that. There are similar examples in the Massoud Rajavi page. Barca (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right, I meant to add additional sources but forgot all about it. I’ll re-edit the content with the relevant sources later when I get the chance. — LissanX (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iqâma: masdar or not

Hello LissanX

1. Sorry for my broken English : I'm a French speaker...

2. A few words about 'Iqâma, masdar or not: if we look to dictionnaries, we find 'aqâma as-salât -4th form of q-w-m- (أقام الصلاة), and from that al-'iqâma (الاقامة). Of course, the meaning of this word is multivalent, as mentionned in the article. But the very idea of a visa (as it is the case in the Egyptian arabic) derives probably itself from the action (masdar IV) of staying ('iqâma). It is an extension of one of the primary meanings of the word, that is to say "the action of staying and/or residing in a country" (Same thing for . The question is that - as Michel Neyreneuf and Ghalib Al-Hakkak say in Grammaire active de l'arabe littéral, Le livre de poche, 1996, p. 31: "Halfway between NAME and VERB, [the masdar] will sometimes be used as a SUBSTANTIVE and sometimes WITH A CLEAR VERBAL MEANING" (Capitals are mine) - and same comment in Régis Blachère's Elements of Classical Arabic : "The masdar is used either as a noun or with the value of a verb".

SO, IF iqâma is NOT a masdar, what kind of word is it? Moreover, the word refers clearly to an ACTION, since it is the action of calling for prayer - and then the action of making the prayer. This detail is not that important, in my view :-) - but it's a nice intellectual challenge - and I'm quite sure that, ON A GRAMMATICAL LEVEL, this word IS a masdar, BUT POSSIBLY USED AS A SUBSTANTIVE.

I will be happy to read your answer. Best regards Dawamne (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC) (You can find more about me if you search my name on fr.wikipedia.org)[reply]

Hi @Dawamne:, thanks for the interesting question. The word Iqamah (إِقَامَة) as you mentioned is a form 4 word. I don’t believe it’s a substantive, I think it’s a proper noun because reading through many Hadiths I see that whenever the Iqama is used in the sense of performing an action, a verb form of أَقَامَ/يُقِيمُ‎‎ is used, such as أَقَمْتَ, تُقِمْ, يُقِمْ, etc.

The meaning relating to visas I think is more closely related to the word qawm (قَوْم) meaning ‘people’, ‘nation’ or ‘tribe’. The term qawm itself is derived from the root meaning ‘to rise’ or ‘to establish’.

The form 4 pattern has two main implications:

1) He made himself do or perform an action.

2) A reflexive causative, i.e. he made himself do something transformative to a place or a state.

I believe that ‘Iqamah’ referring to the establishment of prayer is derived from the verbal noun of the first meaning, not that it is a substantive (i.e. a verb being used a noun). I believe that ‘Iqamah’referring to visas is from the second meaning. 21:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

In case it interests either of you, I can confirm that إِقَامَةٌ is the maṣdar (verbal noun or infinitive) of the type-IV verb أَقَامَ, from the root قوم.

First, it is explicitly mentioned as such in Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon under the entry for that verb.

Second, Howell’s Grammar of the Classical Arabic Language, Book 4, pp. 1571-2, explains the reason it takes this form. Howell says that the maṣdar of the type-IV verb unsound in the ع has the original form إِفْعَالٌ (so, إِقْوَامٌ in this case), but that the unsound ع is converted to ا and its fatḥah is transferred to the ف; this leaves two adjacent ’alifs, one of which is then elided, with a ـَة suffixed to the word as a compensation for this elision.

Third, Howell notes that the maṣdar إِقَامٌ also exists, but that it is only used as the first element of a prothetic compound (إِضَافَةٌ), as in Koran 24:37, and never otherwise; and the reason given for this is that the second element of the prothetic compound serves as a compensation for the elision of one of the ’alifs, making the ـَة redundant.

Fourth, as for the two meanings under discussion, the meanings relating to prayer include the “performance” or “observance” of prayer and the reading by a مُبَلِّغٌ of the words of the أَذَانٌ but with the phrase قَدْ قَامَتِ ٱلصَّلَاةُ twice after حَيَّ عَلَى ٱلْفَلَاحِ; and the meaning relating to residence comes from the meaning “remain,” “reside,” “dwell” or “abode” of the verb أَقَامَ.

I hope you find this helpful. –Ciringacenjunga (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LissanX: and @Ciringacenjunga: Thank you for those interesting answers, and sorry for answering so late! I didn't get any notification on fr.wikipedia :-(( (although I've followed LissanX's page of discussion), and I thought nobody bothers about the question. I was wrong!! Well, I must say that I'm close to Ciringacenjunga's point of view: this is definitly a masdar (مصدر), and not a noun (اسم), although in Arabic the boundary between the two is not always clear - far from it. I therefore plead for a modification of this point on the page Iqama, but as I am not English-speaking, I will not be able to do so. All the best Dawamne (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dawamne:, thank you for the reply. I can look into revising the page soon.

Just to clarify, the مصدر is also called اسم فعل. It is an اسم, a special category of اسم that shares certain characteristics of the فعل, such as governing an object in the accusative. As for the boundary between the مصدر and other substantives being unclear, this is true insofar as the lexicographers often differed as to whether a given substantive was actually a مصدر (typically of a type-I verb) or a normal substantive.

–Ciringacenjunga (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LissanX: and @Ciringacenjunga: Yes, of course, Ciringacenjunga, I totally agree about ism fa'l. And I agree also about your analysis; in my previous answer, I just wanted to say that there are several types of ism (which often derive from masdars, by the way) but in the case of iqâma, it wasn't a purely "nominal" word -but you just said it much better than I did.

Dawamne (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to Ja'far_al-Sadiq, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ja%27far_al-Sadiq&diff=932451011 — Hammad (Talk!) 06:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bukhari, how did I treat it as if I were the owner of the page? You arbitrarily removed content, including vowel diacritics and the word 'Shia' from the religion of a Shia Imam. Doing so did not improve the page, though I only reverted your removal of vowels. Other users have since re-added the word 'Shia', however. — LissanX (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Name of Al-Husayn bin ‘Ali

I noticed that you reverted the changes I made to the Arabic name of Al-Husayn bin ‘Ali, calling what I wrote “false Arabic” without elaborating. Allow me to elaborate on the reasons for my changes and the problems with the Arabic text on the page as it currently stands.

The page currently has the name as *ٱلْحُسَيْن ٱبْن عَلِيّ ٱبْن أَبِي طَالِب‎.

First, let me clarify that in what follows I am talking about Classical Arabic.

Second, it is incorrect to use ٱ at the start of an Arabic text. Instead, the ’alif should bear a short vowel without a hamzah. See Wright’s Grammar of the Arabic Language, pp. 16-20. To quote Wright (p. 20), “it is naturally an absurd error.” Based on that, we should write اَلْحُسَيْنُ rather than *ٱلْحُسَيْن.

Third, it is not typical to write the ’alif in ابن when it is not at the beginning of a name and precedes the father’s name. So, while we write اِبْنُ عِبَّاسٍ, for instance, we usually write مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ ٱللهِ rather than مُحَمَّدُ ٱبْنُ عَبْدِ ٱللهِ. To be clear, both variations are correct, but that without the ’alif is far more common, as you will immediately notice upon looking through a book of Traditions like Saheeh al-Bukhaari. Wright addresses this point in some detail on p. 23.

Fourth, the name as currently written is missing most indications of case. This is a strange omission. The nominative is used unless some operative requires another case (see some examples on Wright, p. 23). As الحسين is not governed by an operative, it should be in the nominative, as اَلْحُسَيْنُ. As the first بن is in apposition with الحسين, it should also be in the nominative, as بْنُ. Next, علي is the second element of a prothetic compound (إِضَافَةٌ) and must consequently be in the genitive, as عَلِيِّ. To be clear, if this were the end of the name, it would be عَلِيٍّ, with nunation, but as there is another بن, it is not nunated. The second بن is in apposition with عَلِيِّ, which is in the genitive, so it too should be in the genitive, as بْنِ. Next, أَبِي is the second element of a prothetic compound and must consequently be in the genitive, as أَبِي, which you did not dispute. Finally, طالب is the second element of a prothetic compound and must consequently be in the genitive, as طَالِبٍ; if you doubt that the name طَالِبٌ is a triptote, I refer you again to Saheeh al-Bukhaari, where you will find many examples demonstrating that it should be طَالِبٍ rather than *طَالِبَ here.

Please consider the above and if you are still convinced that the changes I made are “false Arabic,” give your reasons and cite your sources. If you would like me to provide additional clarifications or more citations to back up what I am saying, I would be happy to do so.

Finally, I note that I also made some changes to the romanization, but your stated objection was to the Arabic. There is a lot more subjectivity involved in romanization, so I am not as concerned about changing the romanization, but I am prepared to explain those changes as well if they are an issue. One specific point I shall note though is that the current romanization gives ʾibn for the two instances of بن. I find the indication of a glottal stop here to be problematic because a normal hamzah would never appear in this word and the glottal stop would only be articulated at the beginning of an utterance. I think it is better the remove the glottal stop from the romanization in cases where there is no ’alif sejunctionis (أَلِفُ ٱلْقَطْعِ). –Ciringacenjunga (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ciringacenjunga:

Let me start of with "ibn". In Classical Arabic, the word "بن" is always required to have an Alif al-Wasl, as is the case with all words that start with a sukun and require a liaison vowel. Only later was the Alif al-Wasl dropped and epenthesis added, creating the word "bin". All of the early Quran manuscripts also exclusively use "ابن" and never "بن".

For example:

Surah al-Ma'idah (5), Ayah 114 (in original Uthmani script):

Arabic: قَالَ عِيسَىٰ ٱبْنُ مَرْيَمَ ٱللَّٰهُمَّ رَبَّنَآ أَنزِلْ عَلَيْنَا مَآئِدَةًۭ مِّنَ ٱلسَّمَآءِ تَكُونُ لَنَا عِيدًۭا لِّأَوَّلِنَا وَآخِرِنَا وَآيَةًۭ مِّنْكَ ۖ وَٱرْزُقْنَا وَأَنتَ خَيْرُ ٱلرَّٰزِقِينَ

The same is true for the feminine use of "ابنت" and never "بنت".

For example:

Surah at-Tahreem (66), Ayah 12:

Arabic: وَمَرْيَمَ ٱبْنَتَ عِمْرَٰنَ ٱلَّتِيٓ أَحْصَنَتْ فَرْجَهَا فَنَفَخْنَا فِيهِ مِن رُّوحِنَا وَصَدَّقَتْ بِكَلِمَٰتِ رَبِّهَا وَكُتُبِهِۦ وَكَانَتْ مِنَ ٱلْقَٰنِتِينَ

Non-Quranic sources are also the same. For example, see PERF 558, dated 22 AH / 643 CE, which writes:

بسم الله الرحمٰن الرحيم هٰذا ما اخذ عبد الٰه
ابن جٰبر واصحٰبه من الجزر من اهنٰس
من خليفة تدراق ابن ابو قير الاصغر ومن خليفة اصطفر ابن ابو قير الاكبر خمسين شاة
من الجزر وخمس عشرة شاة اخرى اجزرها اصحٰب سفنه وكتٰئبه وثقلاءه في
شهر جمٰدى الاولى من سنة اثنين وعشرين وكتبه ابن حديدو

As you can see, not only is an Alif present when the first word of a name (e.g. ٱبْن جَابِر, ٱبْن حَدِيدُو), but also in the standard form (e.g. تِدْرَاق ٱبْن أَبُو قِير ٱلْأَصْغَر, إِصْطُفُر ٱبْن أَبُو قِير ٱلْأَكْبَر).

Note that early writings that include harakah also never write any harakah on the Alif, such as اِبن.

This brings me to my next point of harakah on an Alif.

In Classical Arabic, it is illegal according to the language's rules to add any harakah on an Alif, other than an Alif Hamzah (i.e. أ). The only time a plain Alif is used is to indicate the long vowel ā (e.g. ٱلْإِسْلَام). This does not include a maddah (ٓ) which indicates elongation (e.g. ٱلْإِسْلَآم), but does include a maddah indicating an Alif Hamzah-Alif sequence (e.g. أ+ا+د+م to آدم) as the maddah is actually added to the Alif Hamzah. As such, the spelling of اَلـ is itself an absurd abomination. It is also incompatible with the basic functions of Alif al-Wasl. For example, ٱلْـ + the prefix بِ = بِٱلْـ. However, اَلْـ + the prefix بِ = بِاَلْـ or بِالْـ, the former of which is incorrect and the latter of which has incomplete diacritics.

Note that in some cases, an Alif can have a sukun to indicate that it's silent and not pronounced at all, such as the suffix ـوا۟ ū, or the word مِا۟ئَة. This is usually because words like مِا۟ئَة had a silent letter that was added due to early Arabic not having any diacritics, including letter dots, and the word was written ماىه so that it wouldn't be confused with other words that could result from مىه, such as منه. It is the same as the silent wāw for the word عَمْروْ, so that عَمْر wouldn’t be confused with عُمَر.

As you known, it also breaks the changes vocalization of a sentence. For example, مِنْ ٱلْإِسْلَام becomes مِنَ ٱلْإِسْلَام. With a regular Alif, it would be مِنْ اَلْإِسْلَام becoming مِنَ اَلْإِسْلَام or مِنَ الْإِسْلَام, the former of which is blatantly incorrect and the latter of which has incomplete diacritics.

Unfortunately, William Wright’s A Grammar of The Arabic Language was written after the Nahda, in which Arabic was severely mutilated as a language. While his book is often cited, it unfortunately contains many errors contradicted by earlier sources, especially from during the Islamic Golden Age.

Regarding the romanization, the one you changed it to was Al-Ḥusayn ibn ‘Aliyy ibn ’Abī Ṭālib. This is for the most part correct, the primary reason I reverted it was because I thought that the infobox of the article would be better with a more readable version without special characters. However, there are some mistakes with it. Firstly, you used the word "ibn" when you changed the Arabic to بْنُ. Second, you used an apostrophe to transcribe the letter Ayn, as opposed to [ʿ] Error: {{Transliteration}}: transliteration text not Latin script (pos 1) (help). Finally and most importantly, you romanized عَلِيّ as "‘Aliyy", which is incorrect. The word عَلِيِّ spelled out is عَ لِ ي يِ and pronounced correctly as ʿalīyⁱ as the first yāʾ is madd (elongated), though more commonly pronounced colloquially as ʿalī. The word عَلِيّ as you may know is an adjective formed in the فَعِيل pattern. Other similar words include رَحِيم raḥīm, صَحِيح ṣaḥīḥ, حَبِيب ḥabīb, etc. The only reason the word عَلِيّ is sometimes misunderstood is because it's based on the root ع-ل-ي, and because it ends in a weak letter that happens to be a yāʾ, the letter gets assimilated to the second yāʾ and is written as a single yāʾ with a shaddah.

If you prefer to include the romanization with special characters in the infobox, I don't object, but I think ‘Alīy or ’Alī should be used.

I also don't object to including the I'rab cases for the word. The only reason I prefer to keep them out is because the Arabic text included isn't a جُمْلَة, and I'rab isn't really necessary, but if you want to include it I would be agreeable to that. — LissanX (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the interesting and thought-provoking response. Let me first take note of some points on which I agree with you.

First, otiose ’alif, wāw and yā’ are indeed indicated with sukūn, as in the examples you cited. Agreed.

Second, the epenthetic insertion of a kasrah upon the bā’ in بن is, to the best of my knowledge, a post-classical development and I reject it as far as the classical language is concerned. The bā’ is definitely supposed to be quiescent (سَاكِنَةٌ). That said, this does not mean that it is wrong to write بْنُ without the ’alif, as I shall expand on below. I do sometimes use bin as a romanized representation of اِبْنُ or بْنُ only because it is familiar in English and it looks awkward to just put bn, but that is a separate matter. Also, despite the above, بِنتٌ is a valid classical word as noted in both Howell’s Grammar of the Classical Arabic Language and Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon, as is ثِنتَانِ.

Third, you are completely right that the like of *بِاَلْـ and *إِنَّ اَلْحَمْدَ لِلهِ is an absurd abomination, and that in both cases an ’alif conjunctionis is definitely required, so that they should be بِٱلْـ and إِنَّ ٱلْحَمْدَ لِلهِ.

But with that said, this does not apply at the beginning of a text because there is no preceding vowel with which for liaison to take place, so it does not make sense to write an ’alif conjunctionis because there is no وصل. Consequently, one would write إِنَّ ٱلْحَمْدَ لِلهِ but اَلْحَمْدُ لِلهِ. This is the point made explicitly by Wright, and this convention is followed by plenty of other reputable Arabic scholars, including Howell, Lane, Caspari, Socin and surely many others.

As for the reliability of Wright, his Grammar is largely a translation of a German work by Caspari from the first half of the Nineteenth Century AD, whereas Wikipedia says the Nahḍah began in the late Nineteenth Century. Regardless, the corruption of the Arabic language began no later than the lifetimes of the Companions in the First Century AH. The Arabic language had dramatically changed from the chaste classical language many centuries before the Nahḍah, so I do not see how it has anything to do with the reliability of Wright’s work. If you have other criticisms of Wright’s Grammar and the works of Howell, Lane and the other Western authorities or if you would like to elaborate on any errors in Wright contradicted by earlier sources, I would certainly be interested to hear details.

As for the conventions used in some of the earliest sources, I think they should be referenced but their conventions should not be wholly adopted, as spelling during the classical period was not rigorously standardized. To be pedantic, the ḥarakāt we know today did not exist in the classical period and from what I understand were not even invented until after the death of al-Ḥusayn b. ‘Ali. Of course, there is some anachronism in the way we write Classical Arabic today (as with the way we write other classical languages, such as Latin and Chinese), and I think that is as it should be. Similarly, I would not necessarily mimic Koranic notation in the context of a Wikipedia page, such as writing ءَامَنَّا for آمَنَّا, إِبْرَٰهِـۧمُ for إِبْرَاهِيمُ or رَحْمَتُ رَبِّكَ for رَحْمَةُ رَبِّكَ or joining the vocative marker to the following word and eliding its ’alif. In any case, the ‘Uthmāni rasm is internally inconsistent in many places. As for PERF 558, it has ابو where one would expect ابي, and I suspect you would not argue in favour of following that convention.

You said that in Classical Arabic all words that start with a quiescent consonant and require a liaison vowel were always required to have an ’alif conjunctionis (أَلِفُ ٱلْوَصْلِ). However, your first example from PERF 558 (not to mention the Koran itself) starts with بسم, which is an example to the contrary. The ’alif conjunctionis is elided in this case and we write بِسْمِ instead of بِٱسْمِ. While the ‘Uthmāni rasm uses ’alif conjunctionis in almost all occurrences of ابن and ابنة/ابنت, there is an exception in Koran 20:94, which has يَبْنَؤُمَّ (which is a particularly unusual spelling).

With that said, neither of the two examples I have given of the omission of an ’alif in the ‘Uthmāni rasm is really relevant except insofar as it demonstrates that there are exceptions to the rule you described. The many examples of عِيسَى ٱبنُ مَرْيَمَ in the Koran actually conform to the rules given by Wright (he even includes it as an illustrative example), which state that if the name following ابن is that of the mother (or indeed in any case where it is not the real name of the blood father) then the ’alif is retained. Lane lays out the same rules in his Lexicon entry for اِبْنٌ (which he spells thus). As far as I am aware, the only example in the Koran where a name is given containing a true patronymic of the type we are discussing is in 66:12 (وَمَرْيَمَ ٱبْنَتَ عِمْرَٰنَ). This case indeed contradicts Wright’s rules. But again, the ‘Uthmāni rasm is internally inconsistent in many places. I would certainly be interested to dig deeper to find an Arabic source for the rules described by Wright and Lane and apparently followed also by Howell, but unless you can find a reliable authority who argues to the contrary, I see no reason to question their judgement in the matter.

Finally, with regards to romanization, I usually use opening and closing single quotes to represent ‘ayn and hamzah, respectively. It does not make much difference to me whether one uses single quotes or the symbols ʾ and ʿ, or even c for ‘ayn. Any of these options is fine with me, but I think it is important to indicate them rather than to leave them out. As for ‘Aliyy, I am aware that it is a substantive of the measure فَعِيلٌ and that it is unsound in the ل (the root is علو rather than على). However, in terms of the actual pronunciation the sound here is a short kasrah vowel followed by a geminate semivowel, and it as indicated as such with the shaddah. (Among some speakers in the classical period, this geminate yā’ could even become a geminate jīm, although this is a highly disapproved pronunciation, as in a line of poetry cited by Lane in his Lexicon entry for ج, which goes خَالِي عُوَيْفٌ وَأَبُو عَلِجِّ * اَلْمُطْعِمَانِ ٱللَّحْمَ بِٱلْعَشِجِّ.) As for the romanization *‘Alī, I recognize that it is very widely used, and yet I consider it incorrect because it is not an accurate reflection of the classical pronunciation; in words like عَلِيٌّ or any word ending in the nisbah suffix, the stress falls on the final syllable of the pause form, whereas if it were a long vowel (as in اَلْمُفْتِي) rather than a short vowel followed by a geminate consonant then the stress would fall on an earlier syllable. The reduction of such endings to a long vowel is a typical feature of post-classical Arabic dialects.

So, to call the conventions I am following “false Arabic” is to reject the common usage of some of the most authoritative Western scholars of Classical Arabic. If you have evidence from earlier sources contradicting them on these or other points, I would greatly appreciate if you could share it. I would surely find it interesting.

I appreciate your taking the time to discuss this. –Ciringacenjunga (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ciringacenjunga:

Firstly, sorry for the late response. I have been pre-occupied with work stuff and though I intended to reply to you I haven’t and the time to sit down and write a response. I also want to thank you for the thought-provoking discussion. Not to sound immodest, but it's refreshing discussing with someone who actually knows what they're talking about, as opposed to the usual semi-literate casuals that are usually involved in editing topics related Arabic on here. I expect that I'll have the free time to sit down and write a reply either this weekend or next. — LissanX (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LissanX: Not a problem, please take your time. I look forward to hearing your thoughts at length, especially as regards issues with the classic Western works on Arabic and what earlier sources have to say.

In the meantime, allow me to tack two brief additional thoughts on to my earlier message.

First, to illustrate my point concerning the pronunciation of the sequence -iyy, I’ll again turn to Koran 20:94, plus the ’āyah that follows it. Listen to a recitation of Koran 20:94-95 and note the difference between the ending of قَوْلِى and that of يَـٰسَـٰمِرِىُّ. See also Koran 20:85 and 20:87. I think it will be apparent that there is in the ending of the latter word a short kasrah (with a somewhat more back quality, in phonetic terms, than the ī sound) followed by a geminate semivowel. Then compare both of these (ī and iyy) to ٱلَّذِى يَنْعِقُ in Koran 2:171, which contains the sound īy across the word boundary (and note the lack of the shaddah).

Second, I would like to correct myself; when I said above that وَمَرْيَمَ ٱبْنَتَ عِمْرَٰنَ in Koran 66:12 contradicted Wright’s rules, I failed to consider that Wright only explicitly mentioned the masculine ابن and not, unless I have overlooked it, its feminine counterpart. So, as far as I am aware, there is actually no patronymic in the Koran similar to the one we have been discussing.

I look forward to hearing back. I think we will both enjoy and find benefit in further discussion. –Ciringacenjunga (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m very sorry my response has taken so long. Assuming you’re still interested:

Firstly, I’d like to address your statement of

As for the conventions used in some of the earliest sources, I think they should be referenced but their conventions should not be wholly adopted, as spelling during the classical period was not rigorously standardized. To be pedantic, the ḥarakāt we know today did not exist in the classical period and from what I understand were not even invented until after the death of al-Ḥusayn b. ‘Ali.

While the exact forms of most harakah used today were not developed until the 8th century by al-Farahidi, standardized harakah were actually established in the 7th century by Abu al-Aswad al-Du'ali, who was actually a student of Ali b. Abi Talib, the father of al-Husayn b. Ali, prior to the latter’s passing away. The primary difference between the two systems was that al-Du'ali’s system wrote harakah as dots and i'jam as strokes, while al-Farahidi‘a system was reversed and harakah were written as stroke and i'jam as dots. There were also differences in where Dhammah was written, and how harakah were written on letters like ʾAlif.

Regarding:

As for PERF 558, it has ابو where one would expect ابي, and I suspect you would not argue in favour of following that convention.

While completely accurate, the example provided was for the orthography, not the grammar. I posted it to demonstrate the use of ʾAlif before 'bn' during the Classical Period.

In any case, the ‘Uthmāni rasm is internally inconsistent in many places.
...
While the ‘Uthmāni rasm uses ’alif conjunctionis in almost all occurrences of ابن and ابنة/ابنت, there is an exception in Koran 20:94, which has يَبْنَؤُمَّ (which is a particularly unusual spelling).

You are correct in that Uthmani rasm is at times inconsistent, however it is consistent regarding the spelling of ٱبْن, which suites our purposes here. Your example of Quran 20:94, which has يَبْنَؤُمَّ is actually incorrect. While it’s true that the modern standardized Quran writes it as such, this spelling was standardized relatively recently in Egypt. The Tashkent Quran of Uthman wrote it as يَٰٱبْنَؤُمَّ. As you may know, in Uthmani rasm, the vocative يَا is written as a prefix with hazf of the ʾAlif, i.e. يَٰـ. In modern spelling, it would be written as يَا ٱبْنَؤُمَّ. Some may also confuse يَٰٱبْنَؤُمَّ with يَا بْنَؤُمَّ as a result. While ٱبْنَؤُمَّ is an unusual spelling, it is consistent with the rule of the Waslah before 'bn'. You can see Uthman’s original manuscript of the Quran here.

You said that in Classical Arabic all words that start with a quiescent consonant and require a liaison vowel were always required to have an ’alif conjunctionis (أَلِفُ ٱلْوَصْلِ). However, your first example from PERF 558 (not to mention the Koran itself) starts with بسم, which is an example to the contrary. The ’alif conjunctionis is elided in this case and we write بِسْمِ instead of بِٱسْمِ.

Actually, both بِسْمِ and بِٱسْمِ are used in Uthmani rasm. While not entirely certain, some have speculated that this is because of issues related to Hisab al-Jummal. Certain tafseers have indicated the significance alphanumeric value of بِسْمِ ٱللَّٰهِ ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ according to Hisab al-Jummal, and that an additional ʾAlif would distort this value by 1. Simillar is the case of الله, which of course in it’s 'original' form would be الإله. Additionally, tafseers have elaborated that the phrase is also a divine acronym, which is why the ʾAlif is omitted. If you’d like, you can read more about that here.

With regards to the pronunciation of ـِيّ, perhaps we’ll have to agree to disagree. My understanding of the pronunciation of -īy is based on the characteristics provided by Sibawayh in his untitled book. In it, he describes the letter Yāʾ as a layyin letter, which provides contexts into why ـِيّ/-īy may sound skewed towards -iyy. Similar is the case of Wāw, which is also a layyin letter, for example in the word عَدُوّ being pronounced ʿaduww (or ʿadoew) instead of ʿadūw, which is very common.

Finally, with regards to:

Third, you are completely right that the like of *بِاَلْـ and *إِنَّ اَلْحَمْدَ لِلهِ is an absurd abomination, and that in both cases an ’alif conjunctionis is definitely required, so that they should be بِٱلْـ and إِنَّ ٱلْحَمْدَ لِلهِ. But with that said, this does not apply at the beginning of a text because there is no preceding vowel with which for liaison to take place, so it does not make sense to write an ’alif conjunctionis because there is no وصل. Consequently, one would write إِنَّ ٱلْحَمْدَ لِلهِ but اَلْحَمْدُ لِلهِ.

Respectfully, I believe you are inaccurate in your understanding of the Waslah diacritic. A Waslah does not just indicate silence, it is an abstract diacritic which is pronounced differently based on the context of of the word it’s on. As you know, a Waslah is added when the word begins with a Sukun (e.g. لْـ, سْم, لْعَنْ, etc) to act as a liaison carrying a vowel to begin the word (i.e. ٱلْـ, ٱسْم, ٱلْعَنْ, etc). When at the beginning of a verb that starts with a Sukun, the Waslah is usually read as a Kasrah if the next vowel is a Fathah or a Kasrah (e.g. نْفِجَار [nfijār] → ٱنْفِجَار [infijār]); if the next vowel is a Dhammah then the Waslah is usually also pronounced with a Dhammah (e.g. خْرُجْ [khruj] → ٱخْرُجْ [ukhruj]). That’s how pronunciation is known – you actually have to know the rules of Arabic. The only time a Waslah is silent is when it is preceded by a vowel from a preceding word, which replaces the vowel of the Waslah. It is the common behavior of Arabic for sentences to be written with the original diacritics, even if those diacritics change based on the reading rules. For instance, in your example of إِنَّ ٱلْحَمْدَ لِلهِ, the final Hāʾ on the word لله is not pronounced as hi (i.e. ʾinna -l-hamda li-llāhi), it is instead pronounced as h (i.e. ʾinna -l-hamda li-llāh) because the Kasrah changes into a Sukūn in pausa. However, we don’t change the spelling of the diacritics to إِنَّ ٱلْحَمْدَ لِلهْ. In the same manner, ٱلْحَمْدُ is not changed to اَلْحَمْدُ (or, of course, اَلْحَمْدْ). In educational settings, for the benefit of those who don’t know how a Waslah behaves (i.e. non-Arabic speakers), sometimes informally a regular Alif (i.e. ا) is added with the harakah it would create instead of the Waslah (i.e. ٱخْرُجْ to اُخْرُجْ; and ٱنْفِجَار to اِنْفِجَار). This is not the same thing that Wright has indicated, but is used for the reason noted above. — LissanX (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC). Updated 00:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shiite

Hi, I see you undid my edit to Shia Islam. The reasons for the edit, rewriting ‘...sometimes spelled Shi'ite is also used in archaic English’, were as follows:

1. It was clearly ungrammatical

2. ‘Shiite’ is not an archaic term, but very common in current English, and found as a current term in major dictionaries. I suspect the original editor of this add-on might have some idea that anything but a direct transliteration of the Arabic source is ‘wrong’ (I wonder if they feel the same way about eg ‘al-injliziya’, the Arabic for ‘English’) but they don’t get to determine what is archaic: the English language community does as a whole. It isn’t.

Maybe my rewriting wasn’t ideal, though an improvement. But this does need to change. Harsimaja (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Harsimaja:

While I agree that the term is sometimes used in current English, it was mostly used in earlier years when Islam was being widely discussed in the media, and has mostly been replaced with the more modern spelling of 'Shia'. The term 'Shi'ite' or 'Shiite', as well 'Sunnite', 'Kharijite', etc. all use use an obsolete English pattern which is rarely, if ever employed anymore in common English. How about a compromise of writing it as "sometimes written as Shi'ite", which I think still implies that it's used, but not as frequently as the former ('Shia')? — LissanX (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New message from DBigXray

Hello, LissanX. You have new messages at Talk:2020_Iranian_attack_on_U.S._forces_in_Iraq#Reports..
Message added 08:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DBig Xrayᗙ 08:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Do you even know Arabic? انا بعرف العربيه العاميه وكمان أَعْرِفُ ٱلُّغَةَ ٱلْعَرَبِيَّةَ ٱلْفُصْحَى. א. א. אינסטלציה (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

وَعَلَيْكُمُ ٱلسَّلَامُ وَرَحْمَةُ ٱللَّٰهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ

«كَمْ مِنَ ٱلنَّاسِ صَرَفُوا۟ ٱلْعُمْرَ فِي إِتْقَانِ فَنِّ ٱلْكِتَابَةِ فَقَطْ لِيُذِيعُوا۟ جَهْلَهُمْ»

— LissanX (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

وقح א. א. אינסטלציה (talk) 17:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

وَلٰكِنَّ هٰذِهِ ٱلْجُمْلَةَ نَضِيرَةࣱ حࣤقࣰّا א. א. אינסטלציה (talk) 17:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final ya with tashdid

Hi. Before I start an edit war, you should know that this Wikipedia's transliteration of Arabic tends to be based on ALA-LC romanisation, which transliterates a final ◌ِيّ as ī, not īy. E.g. ʿAlī instead of ʿAlīy. See WP:MOSAR for further details. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HyperGaruda, thanks for the heads up. That’s fine. — LissanX (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dhikr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IPA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muezzin

I have no idea why you ignored the decision at Talk:Muezzin#Requested move 19 March 2018 but it was a very bad idea to do that without a new move request. To make things worse, you are misusing edit summaries (when you do you them, which is not often enough) - saying that an editor has made "shockingly bad edits" without explanation of what was wrong with them or indeed why you were making your edits is just unacceptable, especially for someone with your history of editwarring (which I've just discovered). If when you return to editing today or tomorrow you try to move it back, I'll block you for editwarring (note that you don't have to exceed 3RR to be blocked for editwarring). I've read Arminden's comments on the talk about about the word itself and to me they more than amply justify using the title agreed upon in 2018. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I didn’t notice a discussion that was made two years ago.

Second, making edits like formatting errors that break headers and a poorly written lede have nothing to do with that discussion.

If you want to change the primary word used, go ahead, but don’t break the page or make bad edits in the process. If you actually cared about the state of the article, then you would have fixed these errors before my revisions.

What I did also has nothing to do with edit warring, so please refrain from making irrelevant personal attacks. — LissanX (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal attack, it's saying that if you editwar I'll block you. You didn't explain your "shockingly bad" comment to the editor or at the talk page although you could have used the edit summary to explain in some detail what you thought the problems were. Your lack of good faith and incivility come as a surprise to me, by the way, I always assumed you were an ok editor. Doug Weller talk 11:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t realize I had to explain breaking headers and changing the poorly written lede which started the article with “x is based in the word...” required such a meticulous explanation. If you want to arbitrarily block me because I fixed a header by adding “==” and changed the wording of a lede, while reverting a word’s ‘e’ to an ‘a’ while unaware of a short two-year-old conversation, then you can do so right now, no need to wait. I didn’t realize it was a privilege to volunteer my time for free while being trivially harassed for no real reason. — LissanX (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop attributing lies to Sunni scholars

	The Shia propagandist of the year, Wikipedia edition
	Please stop spreading lies about al-Dhahabi and Sunni scholarship. Wikipedia is supposed to be a serious platform, not a place for sectarian hatred. AmirsamanZare (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one hates Sunni scholars, and I didn’t write that content. I undid your arbitrary wiping of sourced content, which you have now revealed is because of some kind of personal crusade. If you have any legitimate reasons to remove the content, not that you just don’t like it, then bring it up on the talk page. Don’t make heretical personal attacks. — LissanX (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Fatiha

Salaam,

I have opened a discussion at Talk:Al-Fatiha#Postscript: صَدَقَ ٱللَّٰهُ ٱلْعَلِيُّ ٱلْعَظِيمُ that concerns one of your edits to that page, and figured I'd let you know.

Cheers, 104.246.223.26 (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, you may be blocked from editing. — Hammad (Talk!) 06:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World renowned historical sources, academics and even official government reports are “poor sources”? No, you just want to push your POV so you’re fishing for excuses. — LissanX (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding poorly researched and misleading information. Provide a citation for your claim. and what about this POV. — Hammad (Talk!) 10:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Stop adding tendentious edits to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and removing well-sourced content from it, or you will be blocked. Bishonen | tålk 01:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Death of Kendrick Johnson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CNS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Garza birth name

Can you tell me how you know that Schwartz was the surname at birth for Alicia Garza? Because I couldn't find it in the sources. She was raised using that name, and she has a Jewish stepfather. What is the stepfather's name? Binksternet (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources

Please do not restore unreliable and blacklisted sources, as you did here. One of the sources you restored is very clearly listed at WP:RSPSOURCES. We're not required to maintain unreliable sources while waiting for "better sources," despite your preference. 2601:243:2200:60E:E9AB:5CC8:EF28:786 (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jawn bin Huwai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nubian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:HistoryofIran. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was just heading over here to say the same thing. Read WP:Assume good faith until your eyes bleed. It is a foundational site policy and if you can't follow it, that's a problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to assume good faith when one takes a look at your comments on that talk page ... I would suggest you to desist from attacking fellow Wikipedians. Thanks in advance.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Noticed these retaliatory edits?[1] - LouisAragon (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow admins, see [2]. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use edit summaries that are misleading, intentionally or not, as you did at Cuties, you may be blocked from editing.

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Khabbab ibn al-Aratt

The article Khabbab ibn al-Aratt has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

It's been several months since the no reference template has been in place, and still not a single source given

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Shanbeh

The article Shanbeh has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved almost 15 years. We are not a glossary.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]