User talk:AhmadF.Cheema

Hello, AhmadF.Cheema, and welcome back to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you enjoy your editing and decide to stay longer. Here are a few links to pages you might find a helpful reminder after some time away from editing here:

You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. You can also ask a question here on your Talk page, and add {{Help me}} to your message, and someone will be along to respond.

Please remember to use proper

The above "warning" was added by the IP user who themselves were involved in the edit warring. My edits were actually the ones that were repeatedly reverted without any beforehand discussion on the talk page. Explanations of my edits begin from

#Opinions of "tiny minorities"

.

I argue that a certain veteran user, first with their named account and then, some time later, with their IP account sought to aggressively present a specific POV for the

#Forcing a POV

.

— AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I got a ping from you regarding Dhul Qarnayn. It seems most of the "storm" is over. How can I help you? Mikka85 (talk) 05:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikka85:

👍

Your phrasing for the metaphorical "storm" was quite accurate, and indeed, it's over. By-the-way, I didn't ping you, or were you referring to the general page-change ping?

In any case, your kindness to offer help makes me feel somewhat embarrassed.😊 All I can say is that in case you decide to again edit the

article

, I would try to support you against any blatant unjust revisions.

— AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just go with the explanation of an overprotective and slighty stalking-prone fiancée who does what she wants. By the way, unfortunately this hole Dhul Qarnayn Alexander thing will get undid or "revised" from one of the bigger players here on Wiki. It has been like that in the past: selective referencing with a fixed point of view. Anything outside this view is wrong, doesn't matter if western AND muslim scholars prove the opposite. Needless to say there are frequent dips from missionaries who increase toxicity in the communication. Its like choosing between two different sorts of poison. Edit: With that said, I admire your efforts. I quit Wiki bc it got too toxic back then. Don't allow things to get to you, its better for your health sometimes to let the toxic people do their thing, respectively poison each other and watch from outside while eating popcorn. Mikka85 (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikka85:

I doubt the edits will be reverted this time since if you'll go through the information detailed at #Forcing a POV you'll see the reversions were primarily carried out by one specific veteran user with "over 40 thousand" edits (as they liked to mention). Now, since that user appears to be no longer active, it is unlikely the reversions of that nature will continue.

With-respect-to the toxicity, thanks for the advice. 😀 I really appreciate your comments. As you would see from my user page, I'm primarily active on the MediaWiki Support desk so temporarily ignoring things here wouldn't me much of an issue for me.

Regarding the POVs, yes, unfortunately most people motivated enough to edit such less-popular articles are usually going to have some sort of bias. I would argue that the bias itself isn't such a problem but it becomes posionous when it allows people to deliberately ignore and, worse, suppress counter-arguments and counter-evidence to their preferred narrative.

We can only hope that we ourselves don't get caught in that blissful invisible trap.🤔

— AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, couldn't say it better. By the way, if you need some sources regarding the view of western scholars who had different opinions as to who Dhul Qarnayn was, heres one: Authors: Karl H. Ohlig, Volker Popp // Book: "Der frühe Islam. Eine historisch-kritische Rekonstruktion anhand zeitgenössischer Quellen" // page 36 and following // According to them, it was (no joke) Heraclius, the christian King who lived during prophet Mohammeds life. Is it weird? Yep. Anyways, I saw your list on #Forcing a PoV, its insane how you managed to create this list, just wow. Showing who the real destructive one is. 👍Mikka85 (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey :@AhmadF.Cheema:! Sorry in advance for any inconveniences, but I'd like hear your opinion regarding the very recent edits by a user with the name Koreangauteng. The user seems to quick-edit entire Surah pages: deleting & copy-pasting entire sections following his own POV without providing secondary sources. I checked some of the sources provided by him/her, noticing ex-muslim pages, 2 sources leading to amazon.com & half a dozen sources talking about ISIS & Saudi Arabia in US-news articles with no relation to the respective articles whatsoever. I usually do not engage in these kind of things as my time is limited due to my work but this really seems off. I'm eager to hear your thoughts on this. Could you ideally check some of my recent edits, there you should stumble across the named user. By clicking on his name you should see his/her edits. Again: I'm unsure if there is POV involved, but the lack of secondary sources is definitely worrysome.

Thank in advance for any help!

Kind regards. AshleighHanley82 (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Working on them. Just edited Fi sabilillah, looking at the others now. -- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thx @AhmadF.Cheema: for the 3 interpretations reg. the wording 'Cause of Allah'. I couldn't find much, since I'm (unfortunately) very busy at the university right now. I talked to a Auto-Patroller reg. the user Koreangauteng and his/her recent edits. It was suggested to have a talk with him/her. So I created a talk-section on his talk-page, maybe you'd like to say a word or two(?). Additionally the user insists to post his edits on Surah al-Fatiha, so he/she started a talk sub section in the talk-page of Surah al Fatiha. I'm shocked though how much damage was caused in this short time, and the complete mess of sub-sections. I have never seen amazon.com as a secondary source before. I tried my best to re-edit some secondary sources into the articles, as my device somehow fails to revert to previous edits. This means I really had to write these thing per hand, again. Anyways, I'm very sorry to have caused you trouble and work on this friday. If you want me to do something just ping me. AshleighHanley82

Fi sabilillah

• Special:Diff/929514402 - Agree, but minor nitpick as I don't believe the Benevolent Blood Money: Terrorist Exploitation of Zakat and Its Complications in the War on Terror source was apologetic, though, I'm not sure whether it supported the statement or not (was too long to read).

Al Imran

• Special:Diff/929506312 - Agree. Arguing that Islam calls for forceful conversions is almost always refutable (with the pretty significant exception of Muslim apostasy of course).

Al-Baqarah

• Special:Diff/929505404 - Agree.

Al-Anfāl

• Special:Diff/929505713 - Agree. While hstoday.us appeared reliable, it didn't support the statement; and Gatestone article appears to be heavily biased. As a side-note, using Qur'an 8:12 to support war on all disbelievers is entirely misleading, since afaik it is universally accepted among Muslims that the verse is quite clearly referring specifically to a battlefield of two armies formally facing each other.

At-Tawba

• Special:Diff/929517328 - Agree with the addition, though the removal might be incorrect. That portion could have been left with qualifying wording to represent the other side's claims.
• Special:Diff/929518473 - Does seem to have lengthy quotations. A paragraph summarising all the quoted text should be enough. I'll see what I can do on this later.

Koreangauteng's edits: Special:Diff/929409582, Special:Diff/929495515 - One News and FSSPX sources are POV, maybe unreliable, content should include some balancing information.

Al-Mumtahanah

Koreangauteng's edit: Special:Diff/929502769 - Preferred the previous structure. Shouldn't be a need to create sub-sections for such limited content.

Al-Bayyina

• Special:Diff/929508325 - Your reasons for removal appear to be technically correct, but it would be better if balanced information is included. If I have the time and motivation, I'll see what I can do on this later. Update: On second thought, the claim isn't very special or notable. Dozens of similar verses can be used for the same purpose, I don't believe a special section needs to be dedicated at each of all of these instances.

Koreangauteng's edit: Special:Diff/928562438 - Unbalanced POV.

Since

Al-Ma'ida, Al-Baqara 256 and Al-Fatiha

appear to be having an ongoing edit dispute, will include comments regarding them on their respective talk pages.

Regards, AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC) with update adding previously missed comments at 06:11.[reply]

Thx again for the input @AhmadF.Cheema: The user has again deleted 22 secondary sources in the lede section of Baqara 256. Since my device can't really revert edits (keeps crashing), this will be fun to re-edit. AshleighHanley82

Don't go through the trouble yet, I'll look into it and give my comments on it. -- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel obliged to thank you again. Your help is much appreciated. Maybe I should adapt some of your strategies then I could leave the uni much earlier. I tried to fix https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/929647375, shortened the block-quote (took 2 early commentators & put the rest in a citation). Regarding the lede-section of Baqara 256 I'm still undecided. Some crucial intel like the fact that it is a madani surah should be in the lede section. A short summary of its content and the respective tafsīr (including fiqh) should also be there. Maybe in a much shortened (non-chaotic) way? AshleighHanley82 —Preceding undated comment added 10:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really no need to thank me.👍

At-Tawba is better now, I'll see if it can be further shortened later. Regarding Al-Baqara 256, yes some minor tidbits like Madni surah should belong in the lede but overall imho most of the rest doesn't appear to be too significant. -- AhmadF.Cheema (talk

)

This all looks great! The only thing missing is Al-Fatiha concerning verse 6 & 7. Koreangauteng insists on implementing a section that primarily deals with the group that is adressed in these verses. Genuinely speaking I do not reject this section categorically (allthough the necessity seems questionable), since when there is a need in verse explanation then it should be provided. Previously the formatting and citation was suboptimal, (needless to say) confusing but more importantly one-sided. Since some exegetes do offer alternative interpretations reg. the adressed group, I'm unsure if we should (re-)open this section. Maybe a brief summary on the general tenor of the classical quran exegetes and some alternative interpretations or keep it as it is? AshleighHanley82 —Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm presently looking at it, done with the article edits, looking at the talk page now. Will probably take me a few hours to properly phrase everything I need to mention. --AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hours of hours of work, I caused so much work. I really feel ashamed and embarassed. These may only be words, but right now, I really feel guilty. Yes, one article on surah Maida took me 3 hours yesterday but this was due to my inexperience in mobile editing (oh, how I hate this). If there is in future any election for 'President of Wikipedia' you have my vote. I don't know what else to say. Keep up. The precision you are working with is admirable. AshleighHanley82 —Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At this point over here we would say "Ich habe fertig". If I have to explain to someone why islamophobic Youtube channels don't count as reliable secondary sources, then I really feel like babysitting. Hopefully you do a better job then me in explaining this to the said user. AshleighHanley82 (talk) 10:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AshleighHanley82:

Sincere apologies for the extremely late replies and edits.😓 Had been kind of busy.

Really appreciate your going so out of your way to help out on these Islam related articles.👍 I definitely wouldn't have bothered to go to the library for such matters, and editing on mobile would've been pretty much impossible (partly because my present mobile device is too inadequate for this, but also due to the serious inefficiency involved).

Regarding your requests for my involvement in this matter, it was most assuredly not inconvenient or any trouble for me; you've got absolutely nothing to feel embarrassed or guilty about here. Those words actually made me feel embarrassed.😊

— Regards, AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might find this article of interest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Some_issues_with_the_current_Wikipedia_Quran_articles

Koreangauteng (talk) 06:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User SharabSalam kindly told me that Wikipedias mobile edits on talk-pages are not properly working: I wanted to reply to him, everytime my text re-appeared elsewhere, to a comical extend. Since creating new discussions still somewhat seem to work, I reply here. May I ask, how I can help you? Do you want to restructure said article? 🙂 AshleighHanley82 (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I wanted to replace the last two paragraphs of the article Islamic view of the Trinity with the content in that text box. Wanted to know if you'd be fine with it? — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems okay, though I'm unsure with pages like islamic-awareness.com. Is it regarded as secondary literature? AshleighHanley82 (talk) 03:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Nevermind. The islamic-awareness page is actually representing the muslim side and cites Bart Ehrman et al., a renowned scholar. The wording is excellent. I couldn't have done it this eloquently. If my opinion counts, it is perfect! Well done. AshleighHanley82 (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated.👍

Yes, I quoted Islamic Awareness (and Discover The Truth too), at places where Muslim-side argument is noted and where their collection of the quotations of Western scholars is used. — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @AhmadF.Cheema: , it would be much appreciated if you could join the discussion on the Maidah Talk page, only if you want/have time of course. AshleighHanley82 (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AshleighHanley82: I appreciate the above ping. Apologies for the late reply again; I had originally planned to join the recent discussion on Talk:Al-Ma'idah, but didn't see much I could contribute with, so stayed out of it. With this, unfortunately I ended up not replying to you either for which I apologise.😳

— Regards, AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_slavery_in_Islam A lot of the stuff mentioned here were not in the sources given and the wiki article gives a lot of half truths only mentioning certain rulings off certain madhabs and only showing one side of the story I would like for you to help and improve the wiki page. Arsi786 (talk) 15:23, May 2020

I apologise for the late reply.😳 This is a very difficult subject; at the very least, it will probably take me quite a bit of time to focus on this article, and even then, no guarantees. A couple of points I can make is that according to the Islamist Maulana Maududi's interpretation, only those individuals who specifically come into the battlefield to fight the Muslims can be made slaves - the Maulana's books are in Urdu, so it will be difficult to find the citation for this. Furthermore, according to the likes of Ghamidi, by the end all slavery was actually prohibited. — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that helps. Your attention on the article will be greatly appreciated also.VR _talk 00:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asalaamu Alykum,

I am trying to set up a new wiki site. Saw you work on mediawiki and your helpfullness and though I would contact you for assistance. Is there a way to contact you off Wikipedia?

Thnks KSA W — Preceding unsigned comment added by KSAWikipedian (talk • contribs) 18:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

W/slam,

If this new Wiki is to be something related to Islam, you can take a look at islamWiki.org. If the Wiki's subject is going to be something else, you can send me an email (this works if you've added your email).

Regards, — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AhmadF.Cheema: Are you a contributor at islamwiki.org?VR _talk 22:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am, however, as you can see that Wiki is pretty inactive. Apologies for being unable to respond to your previous messages.😳 — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AhmadF.Cheema. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.KSAWikipedian (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The location of your talk page comment has been moved [1], not sure if this something you'd like to be done to your edits. HaEr48 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HaEr48: It's fine. Thank you for going through the trouble.🙂 — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and greetings,

This is just for your kind info. Since previously you have participated in an inconclusive RfC discussion at this RfC in year going by, and since some related aspects are under discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Titles, honorifics and appeal to popularity may be you want to join in to share your inputs or opinions.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]