User talk:Truthspreader/002

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Truthspreader. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Interesting Article

Muhammad, have a look at this [1]. It is written by another scholar of Islam who respects(and even loves) Muhammad so much (like Watt) but explains why these Islamic scholars don't convert to Islam. --Aminz 10:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Link

First of all, thanks for your reply. The reason I didn't get back to you was that I didn't quite understood the connection between your comment and the article :P

About Isra, I dunno. I have heard it was physical. Was it a dream??? --Aminz 09:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, What is the story of "GECKO"? Bukhari Book 026, Number 5560? Do you know about that? --Aminz 09:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/026.smt.html Sahih Muslim. Sorry--Aminz 09:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, will get back soon. I was reported again for 3rr violation. let me see what Opiner is saying. --Aminz 10:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad, thanks for the link. Quite useful. Regarding your comment on the link, do you think that Hayath Khan's concern was legitimate or not :P --Aminz 10:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you know Watt died on 24 october around 20 days ago? --Aminz 10:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with you.

Would it be cool to add a section on the simplicity of Muhammad's life-style? --Aminz 11:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I was reading comments about Isra that was physical or was a dream, well I think a physical journey violate the phyical world laws, which God made himself, why God needs to make rules and then break them. It does not make any sence and also in Hadith it was mentioned that when the Isra ended the Holy Prophet was on his bed as he was sleeping.. so I think it was a dream. phippi46 12:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

About the Miracals .. we have to define what is miracal for a human, the thing is there are some laws that God made them but as humans we may not be able to see them how they work. For example 1000 years ago if some one came back from a comma, it would be treated some kind of miracal according to religious belief that may be God gave him a new life .. he was dead.. or look like it but now we know that even some time heart stop working but people can be saved and his heart or breathing can start again with medical help. I was reading couple of days ago an artical where almost millions of american claimed to have a near death expierence .. mostly see a white light and other thing but they were not clinically dead and came back.. and well again... now if we are living under some kind of system which made by God, it is quite possible that we may not be aware of all of them, may God let us some day to find them all, when he desires, but God is logical and perfect, we humans are not perfect, so we can explain all the things .. and just to tell you there is another miracal of Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) when people of Arabia watched spiliting of Moon.. what you think about it phippi46 12:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Spiliting of Moon was presented as Miracal because as you mentioned people even in India watched that event, but at the same time the question remains was moon spilited in peaces or was something else ? it was presented for non believers to tell that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is from God and he is a true Prophet. Even this event can be explained from the same Physical Laws without any problem ! second the Miracal from Moses was also a mass illusion, now it does not mean that he was wrong nor was a magician but it appeared to other as they saw something which is not normal that time. Now the Pharo's magicians were doing something same, and God gave Moses this power to show these people that what you are doing is not something supernatural, any one can do that.. it was claimed to show Pharoh that he is not god or his magicians are not with some extra ordinary powers.. they simple humans who develope some skills in illusion. Any way I was trying to learn that event of Spiliting Moon, and it will be great if you know any suggestions or research which shows possible meaning of it phippi46 12:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean and I understand atleast that when Pharo's magician throw their ropes, it appeared to people that they are watching snakes, it can be explained by my mass illusion but when Hazrat Moses through his stick, it appeared as something different and big..I think you are refereing to Quran event refering to this incident. But my question is if we take it as out of Physical Law which made by God himself it does not make any sence. God said in Quran that my laws which I created are as same as it was in the beginning of this univers and will continue like that till the day of judgement. Now this is a very powerfull statement ! the only explaination we can have is that there may be some other hidden Physical Laws that we dont know but according to this statement if we take it as true in nature out of physical laws then there will be a conflict in statements and I have problem to accept that there are some conflict what God says.. phippi46 13:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

sure ..I will give the reference shortly .. phippi46 13:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

ok please consider this Quranic verse and corresponding verses to check the claim made by Allah in Quran about the nature and his creations ..Allah says.. "No incongruity can you see in the creation of the Gracious God. Then look again: Do you see any flaw? Aye, look again, and yet againl your sight will only return to you tired and fatigued." now this vers of Quran (67:4-5). Now Quran further stipulates that likewise there can be no contradiction within the scriptural universe which is the Word of God (4:83, 21:23). Both the Word of God which is revealed truth and the Work of God which is material universe, must be in perfect unison with each other. phippi46 13:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is very clear creation comes first and then we think of other things, if God is saying here that there is no flaw in my creation and the thing you see, then it is not possible for us as Humans to go beyond the laws of God, and all humans, including Prophets were never out of these physical laws. Many Muslim belief that Jesus was raised to heaven and decent again some time in future, directly contradicting these physical laws, where at the same time when Kuffars of arabs asked Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) that if he is a true messenger then he should show them and clim up to sky and come back, and you know the answer, very clear and direct that My lord is free of these nonsence and I am only a human Prophet. Now I dont think no one understand Quran better then Holy Prophet, so when he said and it must be true. phippi46 14:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

you took it wrong, I dont mean that too, I am trying to say following. God creation is perfect no contradiction second things that miracals can be explained with physical laws. We may not be able yet to see of all of them, or may not be see them ever who knows. But when it comes to breaking them, in my views it is not possible for humans, as God creat us and put us under these Physical laws phippi46 15:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

trees

i have skimmed through the discussion and i haven't seen and textual evidences, though i am aware that such an accusation is sometimes used in diatribe. it is important to #1) find the textual evidence; #2) study its sharh (commentary). in this case, it is authentically narrated that Muhammad (salallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) stated that when in war: do not kill the child, do not kill the old person, do not kill the woman, do not kill the priests or non-combatants, do not destroy the houses, and do not destroy the peoples' crops or trees. how the other textual evidence relates to this has probably been discussed within islamic scholarship: i await the fulfillment of #1 first. ITAQALLAH 18:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Muhammad, i don't have sources for the horse thing. There is also another story about Qaswa(Muhammad's camel) and how good it was in competitions. Do you have any sources for these? --Aminz 02:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Aminz 03:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It is an scholarly article. Nice. --Aminz 22:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Animals section on Muhammad

Hello Truthspreader, you should know that the whole reform section on the Muhammad article is being turned into a new article. Reforms under Islam (610-661), being that is the case the animal section is going to be worked into there. Just to cut down on the edit warring on the Muhammad article I would advise you to just carry that content over now. Cheers. (→Netscott) 03:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Your Double Standard on Hadith

Hmm Truthspreader what about this?[2], [3]. Look like you using hadith ALL THE TIME! Especially for your original research. Wondering why you go around saying one thing on Muhammad and his reforms then do another thing on other articles. Maybed there a innocent explanation. ???Opiner 07:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait for an admin

Truthspreader, Opiner is now making personal attacks. Let's not respond to him and wait for an admin to join in. --Aminz 09:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I asked User:Durova, but she seems to be offline. Do you have anybody else in mind. --Aminz 09:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah. --Aminz 09:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How is this:

May we (User: Aminz& User:Truthspreader) ask you to join us in the dispute in the Reforms under Islam (610-661) article. We need your help and can not stand it if you don't accept it :) There is a dispute over reliability of certain sources per WP:RS and using primary sources. Please, please help. --Aminz 09:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

done. --Aminz 09:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Truthspreader, these editors are playing with you. Don't reply to them. Let's wait for Gren. --Aminz 10:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose Islam as this week's WP:AID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Islam was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

Dev920(Mind voting here?) 15:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Your original research

Look like youre doing a whole bunch of original research in Women in Islam.

On the reform article go to the discussinig page instead of just reverting ALL the time. If you did that youd know what happened to the animals.Opiner 02:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Heres more of your original research Truthspreader.[4] Looks like thats mostly what you're doing here.Opiner 02:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Truthspreader,

I think you've been under pressure recently. Thanks man. Judith asked me not to edit the main article for a couple of days. We are unlikely to get to any agreement with the editors who are not reasonable. The way to go is to ask some Admins to get in. Cheers, --Aminz 07:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad, I've also seen that book in our library in the resource books, but please also check with publication and the writter. I agree that it is probably scholarly. --Aminz 01:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert. --Aminz 08:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad, please see this [5]

He is now accusing prophet muhammad as anti-semitic, the position which no scholar have ever taken. Anti-semitism was a western phenomenon. See what kind of editors I have to deal with :( --Aminz 10:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad, I think it would be good to wait for user:Durova to come. She was involved in the Spencer article way back and I believe her presense would be useful.--Aminz 10:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

He has now also passed 3rr on Criticism of Qur'an article. I think we should include it in his profile. --Aminz 11:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The diffs:

--Aminz 11:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please mention previous version in his WP:3RR violations. Currently that is not mentioned and hence report is not complete. --- ALM 13:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Two goats won't butt heads about me, is that it? Arrow740 00:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Islam

The issue is not that you added it, but the fact that you just did without putting it on the talkpage first. I'm sorry for being ratty with you, but I thought a bit much for ohm to have a go at me for deleting a section without discussing it first when it was added in the same manner. I apologise for my attitude towards you. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 13:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Basmala

Basmala does not mean "In the name of God"; it means "the overall phrase bismi-llāhi r-raħmāni r-raħīm taken as a whole". It is Bismillah which means "In the name of God". AnonMoos 21:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad, my world view has changed. Now, I don't get angry at big lies as much as I used to. I'll probably post something on my user page. I feel comforted now. --Aminz 04:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page. --Aminz 04:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks dude. --Aminz 05:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes :P --Aminz 05:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

UET 01

AOA,

I am from UET, Lahore 01 sesion. May I know who your are?

Saqib

It all right. I am used to ppl mixing the two of us :). 00 session i see. I know a few guys of 00. i am doing MS from KFUPM, Saudi Arabia.

Ok. Will make sure to sign all future posts. One question, when an article is marked as NPOV, who decides it should be edited or modified and who does the actual modification? I sany prioir approval is needed from some mod?Saqibsohail 07:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi Truthspreader,

What do you think of requesting a mediation on both Criticism of the Quran and Reforms under Islam (610-661)? --Aminz 08:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that an admin is watching over us. --Aminz 08:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, you know, the problems are basically of the same nature since the editors in dispute are the same :) --Aminz 08:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Good. I think I should ask Itaqallah about Criticism of the Quran first. --Aminz 08:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I know. I remember. Let's file a mediation request. --Aminz 08:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. :) --Aminz 08:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Good. I am requesting for mediation. --Aminz 08:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The reform one. --Aminz 08:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I've requested for a mediation, here Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Reforms under Islam (610-661). Please join it. Thanks --Aminz 08:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please sign it. --Aminz 08:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

qiyamah

I did read it all in the Dummy's Guide to Islam some time ago - what is POV about it? Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 10:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ziarah

Re poor mans haj - on the basis of your observation - I suggest that the comment either (a) removed with no comment (b) qualified with - that non-islamic anthropologists have commented (c) wait for someone else join in? I have no objection to removal - I simply have seen the comment in anthropology texts - and when I lived in Java, Indonesia I observed that none of my informants ever perceived their ziarah as such. It was a good point to make! SatuSuro 07:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate a response rather than a tag on the article, thanks SatuSuro 07:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response - I am sorry that I "'invade the subject area - when I lived as an outsider in Java Indonesia (ie as a non muslim/non indonesian) I saw many people on ziarah at my place of research - and when I returned to australia I found I was reading books that mention the point. But - also I can see your point - that perhaps for many persons conducting ziarah in other countries - the ziarah is of significance - that the thought might never arise of comparing it with the hajj at all. I would rather leave it to someone else to edit - I do not mind what you do with it. Thanks SatuSuro 08:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Ma'ad

Hi Muhammad,

Here is an article about Ma'ad. [10] Might be useful. BTW, You are doing a great job man!!! 100% scholarly work :) --Aminz 08:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I am also very hopeful. Cheers, --Aminz 08:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this article Arabs and antisemitism is also in need of attention. --Aminz 12:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad, please don't revert it back soon even when we are right. Since we don't want to see the article frozen in the OR status. Let's wait. We can ask for RfC, etc etc... --Aminz 02:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

Your edit summary here [11] is inaccurate, and inappropriate. The edit summary is there for you to briefly describe your edit, not to lecture others. No good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is vandalism. Do not call an edit vandalism simply because it removes sourced text. A few moments thought will show you that, even though George Washington was the first president of the United States (Morrison, 1927), this fact, sourced and cited though it is, belongs in only a few of our articles. If someone added it to, for example, Treaty of Apamea, removing it would not be vandalism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem was that user:moralis hadn't post anything on the talk page and was reverting back to an OR version. But as he/she explained later, it wasn't his/her intention to remove sourced material and understood the previous edit as vandalism. User:Truthspreader's edit summary was that "Removal of WP:RS and WP:V sourced text is Vandalism, text removed was WP:OR. kindly join talk page before reverting instead of asserting your Original research)". The first sentence doesn't mean "you are a vandal" The edit summary makes it clear that the text removed was OR which it was. But the last sentence "instead of asserting your Original research" was probably extra. The previous version wasn't added by User:Moralis. --Aminz 03:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Truthspreader, looking this morning I see that my words to you may have been too sharp. Many people have got the misconception that "Removal of WP:RS and WP:V sourced text is Vandalism." It is not, and people should stop saying so, but you are certainly not the only one to think so. I am sorry to have made you the single target of my annoyance, which would have been better directed to the community as a whole. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have taken your advice and thank you for having Good faith. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 10:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[12] made on November 20 2006 to Antisemitism

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 11:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've asked FayssalF to check your block if he is online. --Aminz 10:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I've checked! The block will finish within one hour. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 10:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I am blocked again for no reason!!!! TruthSpreader^Talk 03:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I asked Tom to look into your block. Who has blocked you? --Aminz 03:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I think it was done mistakenly by User:William M. Connolley. TruthSpreader^Talk 04:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The message says: Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Truthspreader". The reason given for Truthspreader's block is: "3rr on Antisemitism". TruthSpreader^Talk 05:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

141.132.11.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Truthspreader". The reason given for Truthspreader's block is: "3rr on Antisemitism".

Blocking administrator: William M. Connolley (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

I have cleared an autoblock. Can you edit now? --Srikeit 05:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I surely can! Thank you very much!!! TruthSpreader^Talk 05:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. Apologies for not looking into your unblock-auto request more carefully. -- Netsnipe ► 05:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi I am working currently on an Artical and need some assistance. If you kindly give some information if you can about the History of Adam and Eve and the triditional story about them. As I was wondering that what we have heared from Muslim tridition that Adam was sent to earth because he aet some fruits which God forbid him not to eat. and he was missguided by Satan. Now if Adam was in Heaven as we suppose he was how come Satan contacted him, as Satan has no access in Heaven! if you know some details please share. phippi46 12:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and information. couple of things is it a well accepted concepts among the Muslims that Garden mean some kind of place on very earth and not in Heaven? because normally People think of Adam as the first human on earth and he was sended because of his sins. And yes if you kindly give me Quranic reference, it will be very good for me to check it accordingly. Thanx phippi46 21:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Hi Muhammad,

Could you please have a look at this [13] --Aminz 20:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry for being late in getting back to you. Sorry!!

Muhammad, I will be away for a couple of days from now, but you can follow the case if you want. --Aminz 03:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I have only read a couple of books/articles on this. I am by no means knowledgable. I'll reply back to your questions in a minute.--Aminz 04:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad

The verse in question is:

008.005 YUSUFALI: Just as thy Lord ordered thee out of thy house in truth, even though a party among the Believers disliked it, PICKTHAL: Even as thy Lord caused thee (Muhammad) to go forth from thy home with the Truth, and lo! a party of the believers were averse (to it). SHAKIR: Even as your Lord caused you to go forth from your house with the truth, though a party of the believers were surely averse;

008.006 YUSUFALI: Disputing with thee concerning the truth after it was made manifest, as if they were being driven to death and they (actually) saw it. PICKTHAL: Disputing with thee of the Truth after it had been made manifest, as if they were being driven to death visible. SHAKIR: They disputed with you about the truth after it had become clear, (and they went forth) as if they were being driven to death while they saw (it).

My understanding of 8:5 is that some believers were hesitant to come for war. Which war do you think it was? --Aminz 04:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for being slow :) --Aminz 04:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me read the article again. sorry :) --Aminz 04:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken here is the way the Watt views it:

It was clear to Muhammad from the time of emigration that there would inevitably be war between them and Meccans. The pledge made between Muhammad and medinians had made them responsible for such attacks from Mecca. However in Aqaba, they asked Muhammad to come to Medina as an arbitrator to settle down violence in Medina, not as a prophet (majority converted later) or as a warrior. The Muslims who immigrated to Medina had left their belongings in Mecca were poorly living by the charity of their fellow brothers. Medinians were mostly farmers not traders, but Meccans were mostly traders. Muhammad viewed these people as those who were exiled from Mecca just because they rejected polytheism and believed in Muhammad. Thus, they were already in war with Meccans. Medinians however wasn't very willing to engage in war with Meccans since Meccans were much stronger. They were afraid of them. Muhammad however was provoking Meccans, by raiding their caravans. Caravan raiding was viewed by Arabs of the time as a sport (not necessarily always looting) and the raiders were careful not to kill anyone. And you know the rest of the story...

I am trying to read the articles you sent again. --Aminz 04:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

See [14] --Aminz 04:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you please add that article to your watch-list please. --Aminz 04:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad, what you are saying is a possibility and don't worry yourself about what historians say. History shows that their views always changes for the better not the worst. I don't think there is any modern historian who believes Muhammad was a lecher though in past there were many scholars who were thinking that way. So, don't worry yourself. :) --Aminz 04:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

See this 19th century scholar Lammens, a real Jesuit

Lammens' paper for the Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici reads:

Writes "Ali was the least intelligent" and intellectually "incapable".
Writes of how Ali was "ugly".
Writes about how Ali was "fat".
Mocks how Allah wished to keep his representative Muhammad in poverty.
Writes of Muhammad "kicking Fatima brutally" and telling her to "shut up".
Writes: "Fatima screamed: You are marrying me off to a beggar" (Ali).
claims Muhammad's wealth came from "plundering the Jews".
Doubts the existence of Al Muhsin.
Accuses Ali of having extramarital affairs and betraying his wife Fatima.

See how the views of historians has changed: Non-Muslim view of Ali

--Aminz 05:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Take care. BTW, I am probably going to be inactive for a couple of days. --Aminz 05:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Reforms under Islam (610-661).

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC).

Thanks

Thanks Truthspreader, for intervening in the Hagia Sophia thing. I must admit that my edit may have violated WP:POINT, though in the end it wasn't that disruptive and I think we two agree on this at least. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi I have seen that you removed the my editing from Islamic view of Jesus death .. with words even ayat is not implying anything, it is a very far-fetched conclusion.. well I think this Ayat is telling the same thing.. when in God's view no one is allow to have that long life..then its match other possiblities that the other editors put on this section to support the Idea of Jesus has died..phippi46 13:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No it does not disturb me at all, as a Human I think it is against the Laws of Nature any way.. the point I wanted to make was simple that this Ayat does give a simple conclusion that such things are not possible. Although on the other Ayats related to this artical were discussed in details for a long time and both parties either they belief them or not.. have their arguments and can be taken wrong.. or say according to your belief. But this Ayat was not discussed as the other ones..any way if you think there are things or secondary sources to put.. may I ask only here which sources or Ayats are you refereing phippi46 13:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes offcourse .. I heard them too.. that Jesus will be die when he arrived so on and so forth..but the thing is for me to understand meaning is simple if i see something in Quran.. I noticed that Quran supports its openion in the Quran, in many places.. so you always have a supporting evidence in Quran. phippi46 14:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC) As a reference we see on Ayat 5:117 has given us a clear sign of His death.. before this God ask him that did you said your followers to treat you as God.. and his reply is simple that when I was among them I was watching them, but after my death My Lord you were to Wactch them.. Now we know that Christian had made him for a long time the Son of God. if we accept that he is still alive then this can not add up, because we already see this. I think this is a very powerfull evidence about Jesus Death. phippi46 14:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

re article - move

Can you please move Javed Ahmed Ghamidi to Javed Ahmad Ghamidi as per talk page? Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 13:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Truthspreader. Done. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 13:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ali Sina

The closing admin decided that there weren't enough reliable sources to write an article with, that's all. His comment that if some can be found, the article should be written "by all means" indicates his acknowledgement that Ali Sina is notable. Arrow740 10:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the comment. If there are some scholarly resources, that make his notable, we can write the article again. But again, WP:RS and WP:V policies are there to decide, what is scholarly and what is not. TruthSpreader^Talk 10:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

When we're writing an article about polemics, we don't need to restrict ourselves to scholars. We need to include notable polemicists, like Ali Sina. Please put him back in the articles.Arrow740 10:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

you couldn't prove the notability there in AFD and then in its review. Why are you arguing with me? TruthSpreader^Talk 10:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Notable means prominent. I could and did prove notability, as did Matt57. Do you understand why the closing admin chose to delete the article? It is because of lack of sources, not lack of notability. Ask him yourself. Arrow740 10:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny that you couldn't provide sources for Sina's article to save his article, and you want to use his writings as sources in wikipedia. TruthSpreader

^Talk 10:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You're changing the subject. Admit that he is notable. Arrow740 10:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not changing the subject! you prove notability by scholarly sources and not by "I've heard of him". You seriously need to read WP:BIO. TruthSpreader^Talk 11:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to use someone who doesn't have any notability but have published in a scholarly journal. You need an independent third party source to prove someone's notability. Believe me! I had never heard of Sina before I came on wikipedia. Wikipedia was simply advertising him. TruthSpreader^Talk 11:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think, it was his article on wikipedia that was giving his website a higher ranking in search engines. And not the other way round. Herald_reply 11:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ali Sina / ACIM

Please stop the revert war, take it to talk. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 12:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ibn Warraq

I haven't studied his works but we can add him as well (also Daniel Pipes). Good job in tracking the sources Cheers, --Aminz 19:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Faith Freedom International

You made a comment in an edit summary of the above that suggested that I'd removed deletion tags wrongly. What I'd actually done, was tag it for deletion myself, then decided that I didn't want a part in this going back-and-forwards, and so put it back to the way I'd found it (so to speak). Sorry for any confusion caused. Davidprior 20:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've voted in the AFD saying I'd delete in its current form, but with enough of a rewrite it could maybe be a keep. Cheers, Davidprior 12:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So what do you think of ICSSA coverage at [15]? WP:WEB criterion 1? — coelacan talk — 22:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Your RFM

I have volunteered to mediate your case. I am not a member of the Mediation Committee, but have some experience conducting mediations. I'll only do so, of course, if all the parties consent. Please indicate on the mediation page whether you agree or not. Cheers, JCO312 00:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work

As wr wb, Brother U have done very good job to remove anti islam bias from some article and u always give good arguments. keep it up and as always speak the truth. As Truth will speak itself IA, One day everyone will know the truth. --Mak82hyd 22:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Will Smith?

There seems to be some controversy about the actuality of its conversion to Islam [16], [17]. Do you hav any decisive information on the subject? Mrbluesky 04:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply! I think i pretty much see your point, but the sourcs don't seem devoid of ambiguity. The key passage in the USA Today reads:

He's friends with vocal Scientologist Tom Cruise and attended Cruise's wedding in Italy. Although Smith has learned about the controversial religion, he has not converted to it. He says he's a connoisseur of all faiths.

"I want to go on the hajj to Mecca," Smith says. "I don't believe in religious separatism. I love people, and I don't believe that the twin towers getting knocked down means all Muslims are bad.

Well, it doesn't appear that he speaks as an insider, if you see what I mean. The mention of the hajj comes just after the phrase "connoisseur of all faiths", suggesting that the hajj is only a part of his religious exploration. Besides, I don't think he would say "I don't believe [...] all Muslims are bad" if he considered himself one. What is your position on it? Thanks in advance! Mrbluesky 05:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

hi truthspreader well i just wanted to tell you that will smith conversion is just a rumour that went in islamic countries and forums on the internet just after making his film Ali but it is not true even the reliable source you have published says :Although Smith has learned about the controversial religion, he has not converted to it. He says he's a connoisseur of all faiths. and about the hajj matter he says so as a part of religion tolerance that is all he means that not all muslims are bad and this is the truth also if Will Smith wanted to annoince his conversion to islam he would announced it on his official website which i found nothing on it about his conversion to islam... moreover i found sources saying that it is just a rumour here they are:http://www.geocities.com/habashyahbash/Talk/0000006e.htm and also http://answering-islam.org.uk/Hoaxes/will-smith.html so please donot add this to the wikipedia unless it is official not for any reason except that we expect to read true information on wikipedia not rumours ... thanks SMith is a very well known person do you think if he really converted you wonot find this news on CNN and BBC ?? also i found no reliable sources saying clearly that he is a convert to islam or nation of islam ...i didnot delete the Hijj part and i did left it because it has a source and it is mentioned in the interview but the conversion is denied in the same source that is why i delete it not more or less..

The foul play, again and again!(Very World)

Response from a brother: Muhammad's kindness and tenderness is now widely accepted in scholarly sources. See Professor Montgomary Watt's passage from his book: "Muhammad:Prophet and Statesman"[1] . The persecution which was conducted was of special nature. You've already read the article Itmam al-hujjah. This was purely a Divine judgement and now no one can repeat this and no one can say that he has been asked by God to separate good people from bad and finally punish them in this very world. You need to widen your view to see the world from a different angle. We need to create a better world where we all respect each other. Just like Qur'an says to direct addressees of Muhammad who were Christians and Jews, :Come to the point where we all agree that Abraham was neither Jew nor a Christian. Cheers! TruthSpreaderTalk 11:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Lies in article "Itmam-al-Hujjah"
The writer(Itmam_al-hujjah) gives a referance of a Quraanic verse:

"Indeed those who are opposing Allah and His Messenger are bound to be humiliated. The Almighty has ordained: I and My Messengers shall always prevail. Indeed Allah is Mighty and Powerful".—Quraan(058.020-21)

According to the writer: (this verse means that)The Qur’an asserts that when the truth is unveiled to a people in its ultimate form by a Messenger of God such that no one has any excuse to deny it, then the rejecters of this truth are punished in this VERY WORLD. The decision for this punishment is made by the God after various phases of the preaching mission. In this way, the court of justice that will be set up one day before the God is set up in this VERY WORLD and the reward of punishment which will take place on the Day of Judgement is rehearsed in this VERY WORLD.

Knowledge of Islam
The writes has no knowledge of Islam, not at all, not at all, not at all.
The writer may has never read the Quraan by OPEN EYES. He may have a search from any online version of Quraan with keywords:"punishment, day of judgement", etc and he was successfull to find a verse. He never read the Quraan with open eyes!

The Golden Movement
The Golden Movement has been played before the game is started and there is no court in this world for me to take the writer in. BUT I believe that this writer will not be away from me at the Day of Judgment. He had collected proofs against himself and published these on Wikipedia. May Allah revert him to the religion of PEACE, only Islam.

Teachings of Quraan
Dear brother, Alhamdulillah(thanks God), the Quraan is exactly the humanity with peace. You talked about the mission to make this world peaceful.
Dear brother, according to Quraan, LIE is a single sin, but produces nearly all the sins. Lie is the mother of all the sins, all the wars. Nearly behind every sin, there is a hidden lie.

Question(s):
My question to you is that:Can we make the world PEACEFUL if we allow the liers to speak whatever they want? Is telling lie the Humal Right? What your golden rules(not the Quraan, as you don't believe in it) tell? Here I must say that the Quraan states clearly that such people must be stopped.

Jihad, the Golden Rule of Humanity
Allah says that stop them by hands(i.e. power). If this is not possible or suitable, then by toung(i.e. speach and writings). If still not possible/suitable, then do not believe in them and this is the least accepted.
Alhamdulillah, this is the Golden Rule of Islam called Jihad. According to this defination, I am doing JIHAD. I am a mujahid. Now tell me that Jihad is against Humanity. No my brother, telling lies is against humanity, but you don't feel that! Stopping anythig against Humanity, at any SUITABLE level, is Jihad!

LIE, a single sin?
If you analyze the history, all the wars start from some lies, so my brother, I know your answer to the questions. However, it will be my pleasure to have your answer. I repeat the Question:"Can we make the world PEACEFUL if we allow the liers to speak whatever they want? Is telling lie the Human Right? What your golden rules(not the Quraan) tell?"

Where the lie is?
So my brother, you may think that I am just asking for the punishment of the writer without proving him wrong. Dear brother, I make you the Judge of today. Read the verses of the Quraan:(058.018-as long as you can read!)

translation:"One day will Allah raise them all up (for Judgment): then will they swear to Him as they swear to you: And they think that they have something (to stand upon). No, indeed! they are but liars! The Evil One has got the better of them: so he has made them lose the remembrance of Allah. They are the Party of the Evil One. Truly, it is the Party of the Evil One that will perish! Those who resist Allah and His Messenger will be among those most humiliated. Allah has decreed: "It is I and My messengers who must prevail": For Allah is One full of strength, able to enforce His Will." Quraan(058.018-as long as you can read!)

The actual Meaning: 'Very World', or the 'Day of Judgment'?
The actual meaning of these verses are:.....NO!, I'll tell you. I make you the Judge without knowing you.
What these verses mean(tell me whatever they mean according to you)? Where you can find this very world? Don't these verses telling about the Day of Judgment?
Are those writers telling you the truth? Have they read the Quraan? Have they any knowledge of Quraan? Does the Humanity allows them to continue spreading this message?

My dear brother, If they are wrong, stop them. If I am wrong, stop me. You can defeat the evil by not believing in it. This is what the Golden Rule of Islam tells. They are not fooling a muslim, you non-muslims are becoming fool. I'll stop them in favour of you. They are telling that every man with sword is your enemy, while they hide their swords.
No my dear brother, if a Muslim kills any innocent non-Muslim(or any man), this Islamic sword will be against that Muslim who kills the innocent. Actually, this sword of Islam is against everyone who kills any innocent, regardless of a Muslim or a non-Muslim.

The Final Decision
Dear brother, we muslims are not to announce the FINAL decision. There is no court in the world who can identify the truth. Why we have courts in every city? If Islam is wrong, they are also wrong. But if both are wrong and we ban the Judgment in this very world, I think that day will be the worst day for humanity. You must have some resistance, but against evil. In this world, there is no FINAL judgment. But we should stop the evil at any level.

Rules as well as forece to implement!
Can you prevent yourself from snakes by creating rules? Can you? Can anyone?
But you can prevent man from sins by making rules. These rules are not against man, but to protect man from the evil of man. It is a truth that these rules stop many sins, but not all. Sometimes when that man behaves like a snake, your rules cannot do anything. You must use force, otherwise, it'll be toooo late. Using force, you must not be evil, as there is the FINAL day of Judgment and you will know the actual truth!

By telling lies, those writers are actually hiding themselves behind you. They are creating a human shelter. They are telling you that this person is Mad. He will also kill you. So you also become against the Muslims. Those people never tell you about their sins. Someday, you will be finding them. They can be the Nazis, they can be the Israilis(not jews!) and similarly, they can be the Al-Qaida and Saddam. My dear friend, it will be interesting to you and a fact that the Talibaan, Al-Qaida and Saddam had very good relations with USA in the Past. This a half truth, the full is that USA produced them. Taliban were produced against Russia. Saddam against Arab. Now, America got enough power that it does not need them. So it'll try to destroy them.

USA can drop the Atom-bomb. This country can play the magic shows like 9/11. This can use Islam against Russia as well as Islam itself. We must stop this country. Stop does not means that you go and fighting. The best thing you can do is:"Tell the truth and deny which is untruth". I hope that my message is clear to you!

The Second Lie, and there is NO END!
The writer(Itmam_al-hujjah) says:"If the Messenger migrates with a considerable number of companions, he morally cleanses and trains his followers and prepares them for onslaught with adversaries".

Again, the Golden Movement has been played before the game starts
According to nearly all Islamic books, The prophet Muhammad migrated with ONE companion, Abubakkar Siddiq. The purpose of migration was to protect Islam. The people in Mecca had planned to KILL prophet Muhammad. Do the writer thinks that he may have killed like the Jesus be crusified? The prophet had many companions in the nearby city Madina, so he migrated to Madina. BUT the non-Muslims of mecca, upon knowing, stopped the Muslims to migrate to Madina. Many muslims had migrated, but later, the non-Muslims started torchuring the rest.

Were they prepared to fight?
If Muhammad wanted to fighted back, why he fought with non-Muslims when mislims were 313 and non-Muslims were 1000???????? This was the first war against them. The 313 muslims had nearly nothing to fight with 1000. They were poors at that time.
If someone migrates to come another day to slaughter, he will not come with one stone in hand, while they have swords.
Those wanted to kill each and every Muslim. They prepared the army, attacked amd the Muslims had to fight. Otherwise, you know it better!

My dear, those writers just tell you the lies. They have the Logical Guns that are more dangerous then the real Gun. Their Logical Gun is the mother of all the Sins. Who will stop them? According to your humanity, telling lies is a human right, then what can we do? We are really in great loss. Our Allah tells us that we must be patient. The day of Judgment is a reality. At that day, they will not be away from the final authority, the God almighty, the Allah.

Undesting a Text
I would again like to say that:You may know the great English writer William Shekspear(please correct me if the spelling is wrong). If you translate the books of William Shekspear to Hindi and give the translations to an Indian ans request those books to read himself, may be he would stop reading after reading some pages and get bored. By chance, if he reads them fully(this will be a difficult task), he will tell you that the author is mad(remember that hi is saying to william shekspear). If by chance, you give this book to a person who is against English or Mr. William, what he will say, you know it better my friend, there is no need for me to explain. Now, concider if you give this book to a person who is against English and William and you also REQUEST him to write against these books. In this case, if you give him on book, he will write 100 against William and his writings. That is why the William is only studied in English. The people who teach his books are from english background. Isn't this a possibility that every person gives you a different meaning. But if an English-knowing person will tell you it will become interesting for you to read it. Brother, I hope you understand that fact.

So brother, the ball is in your court. You can also play the foul game, or a fair play. Do not judge the game according to the laws I tell. Use the Humanity to judge. I hope that your final decision will be according to Humanity, as you said that your mission is PEACE!

My mission is Islam and your mission is PEACE. Are we fool? Why we fight?
Brother, actually, our mission is the same, PEACE. My dear brother, Peace cannot come from disbelief in God. You cannever make Peace in this world, unless people have Fear of the Day of Judgment. Islam is the only religion that makes this fear as a part of daily life. So, that fear will take the people away from the sins evenif there is no police. If you cannot catch me at this time, it doesn't means that it will never happen. If I believe that I'll be near you at the Day of Judgment, I'll never play the foul game. If I do not believe in God, you cannot stop sins when there is no police and no danger. You cannot have two security cams on each person. It is the fear of God that takes us away from the sins.
My dear brother, Islam is the best of all the religions. Islam has the MOST resistance against the religion of disbelief in God. You may have many Hindu,Christians,Jews and Muslim friends. They all come from many poor countries. If you say that there is no God, Hindu will ask a proof. So shell do all, but the Muslim will stand against you. He will stop you without demanding any proof. We muslims believe in one God, Allah and we do not ask any proof to deny as well as to accept the God's existence. We just believe and this our religion.
Dear brother, that is why all the other religions are weak against the Religion of Disbelief. So, the non-believers come to you as seculars. My friend never trust them. If they are seculars, why thay are against Islam? Actually they use secularism to defeat Islam. That is why every religion other then Islam produces seculars and these seculars are easily converted to non-believers. That is why Islam is the only option to stop the religion of disbelief. This religion of disbelief is actually the religion of Money, status, etc. In that religion, there is no fear of God. They just want workers. They just want Ants to work and to OBEY all the day, without any question. They just want to give you money to buy your happinesses. Can you buy happinesses with money?

I hope that my message is clear. I apologize if I hurt the feelings of any disbeliever. They are not bad, but The Religion of Disbelief is the Worst of all the religions.

AsSALAM-O-Alaikum(may PEACE ond mercy of Allah be on all of you)
Builder w 22:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[18] made on December 11 2006 to List of Muslim converts

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley 10:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)