User talk:Arrow740

/Archive 1

I'm not knowledgeable about Sikhism, and I'm wondering what exactly it is that intrigues you about this faith. What elements of Sikhism seems attractive over Buddhism (apparently, your current faith)? I've never taken interest in any of the Dharmic faiths, although my own father raised me on Buddhist-Taoist concepts (which, oddly, eventually led me to Christianity). I'm interested to hear your reasons. --C.Logan 11:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Sounds like very similar to the reasons I chose Eastern Christianity over Western, sans reincarnation (theosis, single point of consciousness, etc.). I'd always been curious about the Sikhs, as they have a temple (or whatever they may call it) within walking distance from my house. Sadly, the faith was largely passed over in my Theology classes... Anyway, I'm glad to help in any way I can. I hate to generalize, but it seems that the vast majority of Muslim contributors are new users with a shallow grasp of English and a mission to eliminate or soften any criticism of Islam. Not that there aren't many helpful Muslim contributors (although they can be bullies at times, from what I've seen). Hopefully everyone will one day be able to work together peacefully in the halls of Wiki.--C.Logan 23:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't feel like creating a new heading... anyway, thanks for the guiding light. I don't know if it's so necessary now- I'll wait to see if Khorshid flares up again.--C.Logan 08:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sikhism and Buddhism have their roots in something called Sanatan Dharma, literally transliterates from Sanskrit to "Ideal & sincere practice of faith"

Both Buddhism and Sikhism have followed different trajectories or tangents, today Sikhism is more a ethnocentric or Punjabi based religion with emphasis on Punjabi culture, politics and over emphasis on identity in comparison to other faiths especially Hinduism followed by Islam.

While Buddhism has a greater appeal in the West than Sikhism, Sikhism tends to draw a more fanatical crowd, witness Behzti

Much of this recent socio religious research has been done by Professor Harjot Oberoi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.59.135 (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I enabled my email now, look forward to talking to you. --Matt57 13:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Houri, you will be blocked from editing.

Stop changing primary source. Primary sources erasing is vandalism.

No it isn't, if you're misusing/personally drawing conclusions from this source and expressing them in the article. I'm not fully aware of the circumstances, but I do know that you should refrain from using primary sources whenever possible. Secondary sources are almost always preferable to Primary sources when adding material to Wikipedia. --C.Logan 02:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Houri when you deleted citations without discussion, you will be blocked from editing. Thank you.(Studentoftruth 23:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Please address my points in this section. [1] --Aminz 04:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your involvement in the neglected article. I've been trying to bring it up to GA class and did not have to deal with any POV pushers but I think that is about to change. Tigeroo's intentions seem to want to favor a particular religion.

You'll see that he blanked material from

.

I would appreciate it if you watchlisted the article for any blanking of material or such activity. Regards, Phillip Rosenthal 21:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I am trying to understand their position, so bear with me. Suppose I am a reader and am interested in learning about the Islamic Jurisprudence. If all the material that is critical of Islamic Jurisprudence is shunted off to another article "Criticism of Islamic Jurisprudence", then I would hardly get a balanced view of Islamic Jurisprudence. Or think about an article about Hitler. Should all the material critical about Hitler be shunted off to another article "Criticism of Hitler" and only positive assessments of Hitler remain in the article? Or is there a special standard for articles on Islam? Thanks, NN 05:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arrow,

Regarding the quote you provided before: "Islamic law provided a powerful and highly articulated paradigm for slavery, manumission, and clientage. This paradigm, however, is fraught with tensions and ambiguities. The slave is both person and property. The natural condition of human beings is freedom but enslavement is sanctioned by God as punishment for unbelief"

Can you please quote a few more sentences. it is not clear to me what "is sanctioned by God as punishment for unbelief" means. Thanks --Aminz 04:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Aminz 05:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words, and for your interest. It encourages me for more editing and expansion in the History of Buddhism in India article.
Phillip Rosenthal 16:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arrow. Back on 17 March you added to the Bat Ye'or article a view on the writer's work that you attributed to a book by Joel Beinin. An editor has reverted it on the grounds that the book does not contain any such opinion. (And in fact it would not be expected that Beinin would offer blanket praise of Bat Ye'or's work, since they take very different views about the interpretation of the history of the Jews in Egypt). I wondered whether you would like to explain your edit? Thanks. Itsmejudith 10:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page. Arrow740 16:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arrow. You probably got this, but just in case you missed it; that fact tag actually came from the previous editor.[2]. I suspect it was an attempt to sneak that pic in without mentioning it - ie, he added the tag and mentioned it in the edit sum, but did not mention adding the pic. kind regards --Merbabu 01:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your question why take this out? "The denial of spirituality to contingent things, in particular, is a denial of any real essence to these things in themselves, and, thus forms the basis of the more sweeping 'sunyavada' doctrine which in the

]

Then you need to define what you mean with 'essence' - I'm not sure how familiar you are with Buddhism of the philosophical ins and outs of shunyata, but 'just rewording' is usually quite a bit more complex then people think... There arose dozens of schools over history with many smart people trying to define what exactly is meant with emptiness. :-) rudy 20:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the word itaq exactly? Is it a command? Thanks, Arrow740 07:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means "to fear". It is a verb. It can be a grammatical mood or any other linguistic modality. It also means "to listen". -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a disagreement going on at the List of converts to Christianity page. A user removed Bob Dylan from the list, under the reasoning that the source was either biased or did not support the article's content. So, I continued to find other sources which supported the fact the Bob Dylan had at least embraced Christianity for a short time, many years ago. User: Bus stop has repeatedly removed Dylan's listing for the same reason previously stated. Currently, it has reached the point where 9 sources are still insufficient in this user's eyes (even one hosted on Bobdylan.com, if that lends any more weight to it's content). I've found a 10th source from a Jewish site (as bias cannot be claimed), and it essentially confirms the other sources. I go into great deal regarding the content of these sources on the talk page. I'd welcome your opinion of the sources. This should be noted... he's left direct comments on the page as if he's never heard of a talk page. I don't get it. The sources are hardly ambiguous, especially with direct quotes from Dylan in some. I suppose the user will not be satisfied unless a source has Dylan saying, "Yes, I converted to Christianity, and I really believed in it." --C.Logan 02:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I forgot to sign earlier, this website helps exploring the Quran, it will certainly help clear your certain doubts about the Quran please take a look at it. I am not going post the link again as you already know it. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 04:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Arrow740 04:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or just hear

apologist and try to present thing the way they are. --- ALM 14:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

User 210.4.77.150

You might want to watch this user, and maybe report him/her. On his talk page, he has deleted all his previous vandalism warnings, hoping nobody would notice.--Sefringle 07:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

]

As I mentioned previously, let's discuss the issues in the Talk page and once a consensus is reached, changing it over is a simple task. → Aktar ^{(talk • contribs)} — 09:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in response to your edit summary here, i think you are quite aware that the translation, its meaning and context has been

]

Itaqallah, "disputed"? That was a dispute from a user who misled people by replacing the word Kiss with the innocent "play". How can you trust her translation when she purposely mistranslated atleast once? Arrow, we do need a good translation though. I suggest getting help from the Persian helpdesk or something. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if you think she mistranslated, why don't you consult her and request clarification, instead of showing a lack of good faith?

ITAQALLAH 19:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Its not necessrily bad faith. Either it was done on purpose, or she doesnt know what she's doing. Either way, ofcoruse she cannot be trusted with the translation and she has proved it. You are knowingly supporting her. I will take this to task myself. We'll consult the persian helpdesk. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

whatever false dichomoties you establish aren't really of interest. you're just lashing out at someone without bothering to bring their attention to your concern.

ITAQALLAH 22:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

You need a reliable source for translation since it is disputed. --Aminz 22:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, it is giving undue weight to one scholar who itself is in a minority(shiasm). --Aminz 22:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is not going to work. Arrow740 22:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you hace an opinion on this?--Sefringle 01:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be deleted. It has not developed much since it creation and have only one section written well. I suggest we keep one section in new article named Embryology In Quran and delete rest of the article. What you suggest? --- A. L. M. 17:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove source material. The article says that according to critics:"Islamic extremist terrorism is true islam" and that's a response to it. --Aminz 21:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Actually, I'm disinclined to get too embroiled in the "Buddha as Avatar" article -- I spent a lot of time on it once but it's too much hard work trying to arrive at a consensus. You might like to look back at the earlier part of the relevent talk pages. Also, I hope you are not too miffed by my comments regarding your edits to the Buddhism article. It is unfortunate, but unless one reads some of the original canonical languages, one is at the mercy of other translators and scholars of Mahayana and their view is often quite skewed to fit their apparent preconceptions of what Mahayana ought to be. There are a vast number of Mahayana sutras etc that have never been translated, let alone even read. I am trying to remedy this in the real world outside Wiki with a number of forth-coming translations of key TG Mahayana texts which reveal something very different to the popular strawman set up by some.--Stephen Hodge 22:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow740, please see the meaning of the word in context, and the general reaction of

]

Just wanted to remind you to relax re: your edit summary here. Take it easy fellow =).--0rrAvenger 03:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You had reverted my edits on the Islam and Children article, as per policy just saying (rv) on your edit summary is not enough, when you revert again consider giving a proper explanation for your revert. If you continue to revert without an explanation, I am sorry to say that I'll have to report you to

.

The section that I removed, I gave a good explanation, please see

]

Sorry, but being gay doesn't disqualify a translator published by a reputable publishing house from being a reliable source. These issues are long-standing, don't waste my time. Arrow740 19:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the issue is indeed long-standing. homa.org is not a reliable source, and neither is Darabi.

ITAQALLAH 06:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

This diff is blatant hiding of the truth and it says a lot. The translation you are referring to was confirmed by Muslim wikipedians, including one we all respect in Faysal. The removal of the thighing quote doesn't even have a pretext. Arrow740 07:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the translation wasn't 'confirmed', as the translations offered on the talk page differed with the one defended in the article to varying degrees. the thighing quote may deserve to stay for now, as ProtectWomen apparently confirms that she a) possesses the publication and/or b) obtained the quote upon consulting that publication, instead of, say, finding it on the internet. i will, however, try to find out more about this obscure book.

ITAQALLAH 18:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Arrow- I posted an unprotect request for Islam and children [6]. Just thought you should know because I mentioned your name. Also, Netmonger is watching this page (and my talk page), so he will see this notice as well. --ProtectWomen 06:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the barnstar. - Merzbow 07:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:SiddhartaBirth.JPG

Thanks for all your hard work on the Buddhism articles. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in this summary you assert that Malik is 'much more than a neurobiologist'. i think you know quite well that he doesn't need a qualification in "Islamophobia" to be considered a reliable source here, so we can do away with that straw man. what should be required, if he is to be cited in the lead on par with real academic authorities, would be some sort of verifiable expertise in contemporary sociology or a related subject. his wiki article doesn't postulate anything of real substance in that regard. as you can agree that Mr. Hasan and other non-authorities should be excised, we should apply WP:RS uniformly and remove those who are discussing out of their league.

]

Replied on my talk page. Calliopejen1 09:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I discovered that and self reverted even before reading your message. Sorry about that. 20:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the barnstar, which I did little to deserve. I regret that I have not been of more help. I wish we could do more to build teamwork on some of these complex articles. Buddhipriya 06:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

response on my talk. also, please discuss the issue of Sina at

]

Islamophobia

What do you mean by "this is excessive"? Kenan Malik's view is thoroughly fleshed out in the article. The responses to him should be equally elaborate, no more and no less. See WP:NPOV. Inayet Bunglawala's main point was that Malik wrongly uses violence as a measure of islamophobia, ignoring other forms of prejudice. Whomever made reference to his view left all of that out. Xiao t 15:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware of the

]

Removing BLP violations do not count toward the 3RR rule. Ibn Shah 03:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Ibn Shah was blocked as a sock puppet of His Excellency. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is their a Wikipedia policy against stalking?--Kitrus 07:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See WP:STALK. --BozMo talk 09:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks for your concern about the article on notable converts to Islam. I disagree with your recent edit - if you check the article on the person in question, you'll see that the issue of his association with terror and support of it is not only unproven but also disputed. Ideally, an encyclopedia should not take either side - we must provide information to the public, but to make said unproven accusation the basis of his summary on the notable converts page is a bit innapropriate. Also, please refrain from accusations of censorship based simply on differences in opinion - it's hurtful and not conducive to a good working relationship with other editors. I look forward to hearing from you in the future MezzoMezzo 02:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a bit on the discussion page for the article. I hope you've seen it. I'm still interested in hearing your thoughts. MezzoMezzo 14:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I invite you to join the talk page on Battle of Khaybar. I would like to hear what you have to say about the sources I've presented.Bless sins 02:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again Arrow740, could you please join the talk page. It seems that you're the only one reverting. Regarding Proabivouac's comments, I have responded to him, though he/she doesn't seem to have respondedback. There are alse newer commetns on the talk. Thus, please respond back on the talk page.Bless sins 12:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see your comment.Bless sins 12:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment, and all you said is that Nomani is a "bad source". Can you explain yourself? What about all the reliable soures that call him "a historian" and confirm that he was a professor?Bless sins 12:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bless sins, this has been addressed at length on talk. Additionally, you continue to restore material cited to a work which begins as follows:

Beyond a shadow of doubt, the biography of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) manifestedly represents an exhaustive embodiment of the sublime Divine Message that he communicated in order to deliver the human race from the swamp of darkness and polytheism to the paradise of light and monotheism."[7]

There is the sober and reasoned tone of your reliable source.Proabivouac 16:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A

]

Please see:

ITAQALLAH 14:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I understand the impetus of your edit to Yoga. But it is problematic to delete a quote from a Buddhist book, which describes the quest for the Divine, and to explain your delete by saying: "There is no Divine in Buddhism". Clearly there is, at least in some forms, and some of the forms are rather popular. It's as much as to delete a passage about the Christian belief in creationism, and to say "Christians don't believe in Creationism." Many don't, it's true, but many more do.

This delete, I believe, deserves more explanation on the talk page. I am restoring, and invite you discuss it there.--Nemonoman 02:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only two contributions so far though. Could just be a "forgot to log in"? --BozMo talk 08:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Let me know it if recurs (with a list of the IPs or articles if possible) --BozMo talk 09:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your last edit comment was "one more". If there is one more let me know. I won't be away for more than an hour or two. --BozMo talk 09:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just got there. Looks fixed already? --BozMo talk 20:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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/Islamophobia . For the Mediation Committee, ^ [omg plz] This message delivered by contact the Mediation Committee directly .

Hi Arrow,

I was hoping you wouldn't mind if I shared some thoughts with you regarding your recent edit to the Buddhist meditation article. In essence, you made two changes:

1. You changed a sentence to read: "Buddhists pursue meditation as part of the path toward Enlightenment and Nirvana" (changing the prior words "to achieve" to "as part of the path toward").
2. You added the sentence: "Meditative prowess is not sufficient, however; it is a purely Buddhist idea that ethics also leads to and is also necessary for the attainment of insight" (along with a citation).

Let me start by saying that, over all, I don't disagree with the content of you changes. I suspect you and I share a great deal on this point at which others might bristle. I sense (and perhaps I am projecting my own past experiences on to this) that you might be trying to respond to some contemporary popularizations of Buddhism that suggest that meditation is everything and one doesn't have to worry about ethics or even Right Effort, Right Understanding and Right Intent. If so, I agree that it is beneficial, for the sake of the Buddha Dhamma if nothing else, to help others see the relationship of virtue to mind development and wisdom.

As an aside, the only suggestion I really have about the first above-identified change is to perhaps wiki-pipe the word path to Noble Eightfold Path.

Regarding the second change, I have a couple of caveats:

1. With the exception of the sentence which states, "The closest words for meditation in the classical languages of Buddhism are bhāvanā and jhāna (Pāli; Skt.: dhyāna)," every other sentence in the introduction attempts to summarize a point elaborated upon in the article's actual text. (Okay, maybe the phrase "and have proliferated and diversified through the millennia of teacher-student transmissions" is another exception although the point of this phrase is to explain why there are thousands of extant meditation practices.) The issue your second change mentions (about ethics, etc.) is critical but it is at best only alluded in the existing article in the section "From the Pali literature" where specific Path factors are mentioned.
2. Are you sure that it is "a purely Buddhist idea that ethics also leads to ... insight"?
3. The start of the paragraph you changed is not simply about "insight" (e.g., vipassana) but about Enlightenment and Nirvana.

I guess my reason for concern (for spending time on this) about the secnod change is twofold:

1. In terms of pure editorial aesthetics, the point does not summarize points elaborated upon in the core article or provide typical introductory material (as the translated words do) or overall context (as does the point about millennia-old transmission).
2. I believe that most non-Buddhist WP readers would find the additional statement to be overly complex, relatively tangential and somewhat argumentative and it thus might put them off from going further in the article.
3. I suspect that some Buddhist practitioners might find the added statements contentious and this could lead to a string of difficult revisions that would make the introduction unwieldy, etc.

Given all this, I'd like to suggest a couple of alternatives:

1. Simply take the second above-identified change and move the whole sentence to an end note (since it is already alluded to by the first change about "part of the path").
2. Or, move the sentence to an appropriate part of the main text.
3. Or, remove the current sentence but create a "side-box" (or whatever it's called) that talks about meditation within the overall Buddhist path (like the side-box in the Skandha article entitled, "Example of Aggregate-Clinging").

Frankly, I kind of like the third option best -- it would kind of highlight the issue but at the same time contain it so that those who are disclined to read it more fully can more readily gloss it.

If you have the time, what are your thoughts about this? Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<font=3>Meditation on the Buddhist Path Most sīla); meditation (citta); and, wisdom (paññā ). Thus, meditative prowess alone is not sufficient; it is but one part of the path. In other words, in Buddhism, ethical development and wise understanding are also necessary for the attainment of the highest goal.

Okay. Thanks for the open and thoughtful response! Whoever gets to the additional modifications first then is fine. (For me, I think I have to let it simmer a couple of days :-) ). With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 05:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, things are beginning to simmer some.... How about something like the side box to the right here? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arrow - thanks again for the quick and helpful response. After tweaking the sidebox some (e.g., change "mediation" to "meditation" {gasp} and remove wikilink to

citta which is an article about the Buddhist disciple), I'll move it presently next to the section on "From the Pali Canon." My reason for placing it there is primarily so that it won't collide with the fully-expanded Template:Buddhism

on extra-wide (e.g. newer Dell laptop) displays. If for any reason you'd like to move the box elsewhere, please feel free to do so.

FWIW, I'm a wee concerned that some might (rightly) wag a finger at my use of the phrase "Most Buddhist traditions" - where "most" is a wiggle word. I'm trying to actually be inclusive of contemporary self-labelled Buddhists (who I find, in general, to be extremely earnest and pleasant but uneducated about what appears to me to be the obvious merits of the traditional teachings, etc.) who think mindfulness is the whole path; also, I simply don't know about all Buddhist traditions; so, I wiggled. Also, my translating citta as "meditation" is a potentially problemmatic (though not without precedent) distortion to attempt to make the Threefold Training's intent clear to the article's reader.

Good doing a joint edit with you! With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to you too, of course, for instigating the change and providing its core text. :-) Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you OR tagged the

08:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC0

Rules & Citations

Arrow740, may I please know what specifically is uncivil in what I have said? I shall greatly appreciate your response. Thanks.Kanchanamala 11:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arrow,

Can you please join Talk: Safiyya bint Huyayy? You have been revert warring for months yet have ignored all comments on talk since February.Bless sins 04:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my edit summaries, which are about as long as your talk page posts. Arrow740 04:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arrow, with all due respect, Ethics and Religion have gone hand-in-hand as far back as we can trace. I don't see the point in quoting someone who claims that Buddha thought of it first. Surely Buddhism doesn't have to prove it's the oldest religion in the world in order to be relevant? If the practice works it works, simple as that. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 09:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On your talk. Arrow740 09:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: It says that it was a Buddhist innovation that ethical behavior leads to a deeper understanding of spirituality

That means the same thing. Have ethics & spirituality/religion not always been linked? In which religion of the world have they not? To say that Buddha was the first to do this seems nonsensical. There were no ethics in the Vedic religion which Buddha rejected, or early Judaism? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 10:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were linked previously but not in that way. I don't really know about the Vedic religion's ethics. Arrow740 19:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arrow, as a practitioner of Islam for 25 years and having read lot of books both for and against Islam and its teachings, I feel I am qualified enough to write about Islam. Reading the Jihad section in Islam was very amusing to me because I have never read such "facts" in any of the books. I felt those statements were potentially hurtful to the Muslim community and a result of Islamophobia hence I requested a citation reference.

However, I don't want to get involved into this nor am I interested in any arguments. I never believed that Wikipedia would be objective when it comes religion. So, I will go back to contributing only to technical articles and other non-controversial pages.

You guys continue to have fun. Regards, --Irfan 09:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple Muslim editors looking at the sources those sentences you took issue with are from, and they concur that those sentences are accurate distillations. I'm glad you were able to learn something from wikipedia. Arrow740 06:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow740, as a Hindu I feel the same way as Irfan5 does. You removed my observation from the talk page instead of facing it. As my fellow user has already said, you guys continue to have fun. Thanks.Kanchanamala 06:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to this. Your post was trolling, and insulted (Hindu) users who are doing their best to advance the project by quoting scholarly sources on the discussion page as part of their effort to advance the work on the article in a very congenial manner. Arrow740 06:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, what is the use of any effort, congenial or otherwise, if it does not produce a reasonably good article? I hold that the rules are there to help us, not hinder. If some of us unduly get carried away by the rules, I can't help noticing it when it comes in the way of producing a good article. Thanks.Kanchanamala 08:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You recently deleted material from

].

Apparently you disagreed because you delted the material again. However, you did not stop there. You also deleted my explanation of why I readded the material. See [[10]]. I would like to point out that I am not a banned user and deleted my edits to a talk page is against Wikipedia policy. Not only did you delete both my passage and the banned user's passage, but you only explanation was "I am

exempt." I believe that you are mistaken about this. My edits were made in good faith and while you may disagree with them, they cannot be considered vandalism. Reverting them is not exempt from the 3RR rule.

In the future, you should provide clearer explanations for your edits. If I have missed something in Wikipedia's policies I am open to correction. However, I would appreciate it if you provide specific citations of Wikipedia policy so I can confirm then. Thank you. Umer Al-Amerikee 13:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:3RR#Exceptions. I didn't mean to remove your post, sorry about that. Arrow740 19:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Islam

we all did compromise, yes, and i appreciate that. i had

]

Your note

Who is the banned editor? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you've made that allegation, but there's no evidence, and the account isn't banned. Do you have any indication that it's him (similar writing or anything else)? Also, regardless of who is behind that account, that doesn't change the fact that the article was a BLP violation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask a couple of CUs to look at the checkuser report. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Arrow740 11:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

]

Very nice addition about the Guru, by the way. Should it get that much detail though? ΞΞΞ 01:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your invitation to discuss. I intend to do that. However, I think you'll find many editors who have not previously discussed their edits to edit that article today. It happens to all the articles that appear on the main page. Have a nice day. :) ΞΞΞ 01:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the future when giving people 3RR warnings, please use the {{

]

Why you are misrepresenting the source that says 1.4?

Please explain! Agoras 05:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of editors, no matter what it will be, does not have any permissions to misrepresent the sources [11]. The source here says 1.4. Agoras 05:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not split hairs. There's 05:44, July 1, 05:15, July 1, and 00:59, July 1, but also 04:48, June 30 and 03:57, June 30, which together make five reverts within a span of twenty-six hours. The proliferation of an edit war, especially while an article is Today's Featured Article, is completely uncalled-for. -- tariqabjotu 05:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't violate the rule. I have been heavily involved in this article, you should be lenient on me instead of people who show up to remove massive amounts of sourced content. I won't edit again on that page for a day if you unblock me, how's that? You might also want to keep in mind that I am restoring the consensus version, and I incorporated Agoras' 1.4 number. Also when Itaqallah removed my addition about Sikhism, I did not restore it when I had the opportunity. Arrow740 05:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tariqabjotu, while I appreciate your point about hair-splitting, Arrow740 has three reverts within 24hrs, and more crucially two are of a user who 1) did not join talk 2) is conceivably a sock 3) very clearly and consciously violated 3RR himself despite being warned. I feel especially bad as Arrow740's last revert I intended to do myself; as you see from the edit-times he very narrowly beat me to it.Proabivouac 06:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other user has been blocked for 24 hours as well. In my opinion, this was not just preventing disruption to Today's Featured Article, but a clear continuation of an edit war. But for the article being ToFA, this article would have been fully protected. Unfortunately, that is not an option. The next best thing is to block those responsible for the edit war, which includes you (Arrow). If another admin decides to come by and unblock you, fine. But at this rate, the article will be up at FAR by the end of the month due to stability. Regarding the sockpuppetry claims... unfortunately, they're just conjecture at this point. -- tariqabjotu 06:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said I wouldn't edit it for a day, and there is no vio. Amin has 3 reverts and a disruptive tag and is provoking conflict here, I don't see you blocking him. This is unfortunate. This when you denied my 3RR report a few days ago when there was a violation, and were later overruled. Do you have something against me? Arrow740 06:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt Tariqabjotu has anything against you, Arrow740; more likely he aimed to be evenhanded between you and User:Agoras. Nevertheless, you should be unblocked, as User:TheFearow seems to agree.[12] There is no doubt in my mind that Arrow740 will not edit Islam for the remainder of the block period.Proabivouac 06:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe what I see. A good-faith editor is blocked for reverting a disruptive sockpuppet. Arrow should be commended. not blocked. Beit Or 17:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is extensive edit-warring going on. All I did was restore the consensus version when people who aren't involved in the article removed massive amounts of sourced, agreed-upon information. And I didn't violate the rule, unlike User:Savidan, who did, but just instituted changes different from mine. He was not blocked. Also Muslim User:Dashes just had technically his fifth revert. By the way, I join the longtime Muslim editors to Islam in supporting the recent full protection at the consensus version. Arrow740 17:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should say that I am "surprised" that Tariqabjotu uses his admin status to block an editor (Arrow740) that haven't violated the rule, without banning any of the several other editors on that article that actually has in fact violated it (Aminz is one of them). On the other hand I should properly also mention that I was one of the editors that strongly opposed that he received admin status in the first place, arguing that he would properly not be able to use his admin powers in a neutral way. -- Karl Meier 19:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mlechha, Nastik, Dasu, Hinduism has it's own set references for non-believers. The article is pretty much a stub as is atm. If you want to improve it through sources go ahead and we can work on it, but it is quite an easily verifiable term so doesn't merit removal and worked on to improve if necessary. Even Gandhi has mentioned in his writings. As for how common they are or what is the preferred term, I can't say, just noting these as they ones I have come across so they aren't quite out of usage either.--Tigeroo 08:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my limited exposure to this term, I would say that a better translation of Mleccha would be "barbarian." It was used to refer to the invading Muslims, for example. Faith isn't a big deal in Hinduism at all (it's viewed as a constraint in Buddhism). Nastik in common speech means "atheist," in Sanskrit Nastika is someone who rejects the authority of the Vedas. That might be the best term to put on the infidel page, actually. Arrow740 08:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sanskrit term mlechha (म्लेच्छः) is defined as "a disparaging name for non-arya peoples" in the index to John Keay's India: A History, (p. 569) where it is mentioned frequently. The term comes up often in various usages. The root from which the word is derived is म्लेच्छ् (mlecch) which Apte says means "To speak confusedly, indistinctly or barbarously" which points to the original sense of referring to people who did not speak the same language. Here are the various definitions given by Apte (A Practical Sanskrit Dictionary, p. 776) showing several senses when used as a masculine noun: "1) A barbarian, a non-Aryan (one not speaking the Sanskrit language, or not conforming to Hindu or Aryan institutions), a foreigner in general; 2) An outcast, a very low man; 3) A sinner, wicked person. 4) Foreign or barbarous speech." When used as a neuter noun (म्लेच्छं) it means the metal Copper. Note that various compounds have special senses, however. For example, the compound मलेच्छभाषा (mlecchabhāṣā) means "foreign language".

You could probably make a case for mlechha as infidel, but I think that the semantics are a bit different, as it is not based on matters of faith, but on racial difference or simply "foreign-ness" in its basic meanings. In Hindu philosophy, the technical term for those those persons who do not accept the authority of the Vedas is नास्तिक (nāstika; "heterodox"), with citations to be found at

Nastika

. I don't have the energy to comment on that article now, but the sourcing I have given here you can cut and paste if you wish. Hope this helps, and if you do wish more citations please let me know.

I would add as a personal comment, without having a citation to prove it, that in my experience the term mlechha has connotations of being an insult, which is not as much the case for nāstika. For example, one could refer to a Buddhist friend as a nāstika and simply be making a statement of fact, but calling him a mlechha could be construed as "fighting words". I stress that this observation is a personal comment, not sourced. Buddhipriya 08:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Buddhipriya. I appreciate the commentary. I believe the main item to identify here is the concept of "other" or non-Hindu in religious terms. Fighting words, Insults are not really necessary but usually all societies have regarded the "other" disparagingly so they will come up in this case by default. If there is another term better suited instead please do offer it. In my experience in coming across the term it has usually come up in references to non-Hindu faith based races i.e the Huns, Greeks, Persians, Muslims, Christians etc and even occasionally Jains/ Buddhists. The question is how has "foreignness" or "other" been defined. Usually it is based on differences with social practices and beliefs which are invariable tied back to religious beliefs and conceptions with the different one somehow always being seen as barbaric or backward & unrefined. The term doesn't seem to have be applied to distant foreign Hindu lands and receded from identification of Jains and Buddhists as the religious tenets grew more entwined. The fact that the term also got entwined with affecting ritual purity seems to imply a religious connotations as well. Anyway this exposition is more to see how we can make the section more accurate and relevant, and not be construed a defense of it as it stands. Any input/ further discussion would be well received.--Tigeroo 09:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike my knowlege of Abrahmic faiths, my understanding of Dharmic faiths is very low. Thus, I'll probably accept any fair decision you guys can come up with.Bless sins 15:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough

original research. Find reliable sources that say "mlechha" has something to do with "infidel", or leave it out. And please discuss this on the article talk page. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I looked up the word "infidel" in Apte's reverse dictionary and find that the first term listed as a translation is नास्तिकः (nāstika). The word mlechha does not appear as one of the alternate terms. Citation: p.227 of Apte, Vaman Shivram. The Student's English-Sanskrit Dictionary. Motilal Banarsidass, Third Revised and Enlarged Edition. Pune, 1920; Reprint, Delhi, 2002,

ISBN 81-208-0299-3. I will post a summary of the citation to the talk page for the article. Buddhipriya 08:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Interesting pattern

(prior discussion truncated)

They are all violations. There's nothing to explain. The real issue is why tariqabjotu declined to block two of these editors; instead, he choose to block me when I hadn't violated 3RR. Perhaps when other admins don't want to involve themselves in this highly acrimonious area of wikipedia, B1nguyen does the right thing. Arrow740 07:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I decided against bringing up tariqabjotu's behavior after he blocked me for 3RR when I hadn't violated it. Now that he has brought it up, I have to say that it is hypocritical for the person who actually has been choosing to use or not to use his tools for reasons outside of policy to accuse someone who actually follows the policy of wrong-doing. Arrow740 07:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly did not even read what I wrote to Blnguyen (and perhaps not even his response). Blocking for fewer than four reverts in twenty-four hours is entirely within the bounds of policy (as noted in the intro for

WP:COIN, where I will gladly sink your argument. Otherwise – and I believe this is the better route – you should drop this issue and quit taunting me with your allegations. -- tariqabjotu 17:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not saying you should be desysoped for blocking me. But perhaps you should rethink your blocking strategy. The fact is that you declined to block two Muslims who had violated 3RR and chose to block someone like me who hadn't (using two of my three reverts on a likely sock who was doing nothing but removing sourced content on main page day), then didn't block another Muslim, Aminz, who was also at 3R and being disuptive on top of that. As I said, I planned to let sleeping dogs lie until your posts yesterday. Arrow740 19:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I respond to 3RR reports, I don't categorize people based on their religion. Additionally, realize that I am under no obligation to respond to every 3RR request; it's not like that's my job. So, I'm not sure where you're getting two Muslims from (one is obviously Itaqallah, although his religion had no bearing on my response to the report) and I'm not sure why you're holding the Aminz report against me. I never suggested that you wanted me desyopped; I only said you're taunting me with allegations based on questionable evidence (and you're still doing that). If you will drop this and rescind the accusations, terrific. If you're not willing to do that, there

forums through which we could put this matter to rest; just don't keep libeling me on my talk page. -- tariqabjotu 19:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The second is Dashes. About Aminz, since he was clearly being much worse than me and also had 3 reverts, you were unfair in blocking me and not him. Also libel is a false accusation, and I'm not accusing you of anything, just pointing out the facts. Arrow740 19:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you are seeing an attack on Blnguyen (by the way: note it's a letter L not a number 1) in my comment. -- tariqabjotu 22:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"but we are going to have serious problems if we're going to have others who are willing to overrule because there were not four reverts in twenty-four hours, per se." Hopefully for the last time I will say that there were four reverts per se, and the argument to count two as one should be rightfully placed aside given Aminz' disruptive recent history. Arrow740 22:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we drop this? It's completely unproductive.Proabivouac 22:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to put all this behind me and move on. I hope he would do so as well. Happy Independence Day everyone. Arrow740 22:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing for me to put behind me; I have nothing against you and have always maintained that. What you see as bias is just a mere coincidence of events (in the same way that Blnguyen's recent actions have been mere coincidence and are not motivated by bias against Muslims). If by putting all this behind you, you mean you will rescind the accusations of bias, then that would be great. However, if you're not going to do that, I have little choice but to defend myself against them when necessary. But happy Independence Day to you too anyway. -- tariqabjotu 23:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Blnguyen's actions are different because he is actually acting according to policies - if you want to keep bringing this up I will continue as well. I haven't accused you of bias outright. I've just objected to your recent behavior, but I'm willing to put it aside and see how things proceed in the future. Arrow740 23:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... both I and Blnguyen are acting according to policies. See my post (on my talk page) from 17:23, July 4 (UTC) again. Appearances of impropriety and bias on both fronts are merely coincidental. -- tariqabjotu 01:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For him there is no appearance of impropriety as he blocked users with 4 reverts. Your situation is the opposite. Arrow740 02:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I direct the interested reader to User_talk:Arrow740#Why_you_are_misrepresenting_the_source_that_says_1.4.3F,

]

Thought this might interest you.Proabivouac 21:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring the image, I was doing right at the same time. --Strothra 11:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow740, be sincere and honest, do not make edits to fool others. You made edit here summarising that it is for Surah 9 section of the article, but quietly you reverted the

]

I explained the Christians and Jews edit earlier. The burden is on you to show that the propagandist Harun Yahya is a reliable source for exegesis of Islamic texts. Arrow740 00:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the prohibition from Allah? You cite nothing to justify the change. You threatened me with blocking, and I demand mediation!

Sorry that I posted this in the wrong place, Arrow. I am still figuring out how to move around and what all thes pages mean.

With all due respect, I am making a challenge to all who hold that there is no validity to the claim that the Quran and Sunnah did not prohibit Muslim women from marriage with ahl al kitab men, and that fiqh rulings on the subject are not cultural. Post the prohibition from the Sunnah, the tradition of the Prophet and the Quran to support that view. I am not denying that there has been held to be a prohibition, and Wikipedia is not the place to post partisan pov. It is intended to provide an HONEST look at positions that have been presented as Islamic which are little more than cultural adaptations not binding on all Muslims.

I was instructed to be bold, and that I am being.

I am an expert on Sikhs and Buddhism. I will visit Wiki sites re these subjects and make edits where I feel the need. I'm sure you will appreciate my edits as much as I appreciate yours, and find my knowledge of the subject to be as deep and unbiased as yours is re Islam. :) Cya around, friend!

Salaam FOA 07:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't used about.com as a reference; you have no evidence of that. We apparently have an edit war that will need the admin's attention. I will notify them of it. FOA 09:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Your "interfaith" is at about.com. Please stop harassing me. Arrow740 21:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please can you explain your restoration of

]

re:barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar.--Sefringle^Talk 01:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You recently compiled and listed a case at

]

He has all the signs of banned user His excellency. I filed a checkuser request but no action has been taken. Are you familiar with that case at all? Arrow740 23:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! If the block expires and he continues with the edit wars before we have an answer on the sockpuppetry, please let me know. Owen× ☎ 23:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I indefinitely blocked User:Pilotjokes, but it isn't showing up in the block log. Let me (or someone) know if he continues to follow and revert you. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the question left for you on the talk page [15]. --Aminz 04:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add links to diffs of myself out of context? They do not make any positive contribution to the encyclopedia. Please remove the existing ones. --Aminz 08:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The context you added changed the meaning of that one, so I removed it. With the others, that is not the case. Arrow740 09:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep the comments you enjoy reading somewhere else. Yes, they do omit the context against which they were made and some of which are meaningless ([16]). --Aminz 00:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The funny part of that is Pro's edit summary. If you think that any particular diff of yours there needs more context to be explained, I'll take it off. Arrow740 01:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

السلام عليكم يا أروى حبيت اقولك بس إنك لازم تكتوبين إنو الرسول صلى عليه وسلم اختار لكي يكون المركز الاول للشخصية الاكثر تأثيرً في العالم لكل الوقت وفي المركز الثاني سيدنا عيسى عليه السلام وشكراً

If the google translating thing is right this isn't insulting, so I'll leave it. Arrow740 00:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: "May peace be upon you. My dear, I wanted to tell you that Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) was chosen as the most influential personality in history, and Isa (Pbuh) in 2nd place" -- END OF QUOTE -- TRANSLATION PROVIDED BY M@M

I wouldn't dispute that they're both in the top five. Arrow740 08:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the anonymous claim rather debatable, to say the least.--C.Logan 17:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:[17]. i think you know full well the material is already elsewhere. please don't make inflammatory allegations of censorship anytime material is removed. furthermore, the version you inserted is not the compromise you agreed to on the Zaynab article. do represent what Watt says about the incident.

]

I'm afraid that that is the only explanation. You can reinstate the slightly altered version if you wish. The goal is not to represent Watt's POV on the issue, but to represent history as best we can. Arrow740 01:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

surely you can accept that it is reasonable to summarise the marriage in two or three lines, in consistency with the other entries.

ITAQALLAH 01:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

This marriage is more notable than many of the others and there is a lot more to say about it. Arrow740 02:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arrow740 -- there's a request for mediation involving you, me, Aminz, and Proabivouac concerning Muhammad -- please reply:

[18]

Peace, BYT 13:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arrow 740. You've been engaged in a revert war on that article for months now. Please join the discussion on the talk page (i've started a fresh section: Talk:Safiyya_bint_Huyayy#Enough_is_enough). Thanks.Bless sins 04:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow740, though the chance of this edit standing in toto in this relatively (and unfortunately) unscholarly environment approaches zero, this is fantastically informative and enlightening material. Thank you for producing it. I'll be interested to see what feedback this generates, with an eye towards distilling its most fundamental points. You have just raised the bar.Proabivouac 09:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been telling Aminz for days that it makes no sense to include arguments about history from revisionist (they contradict earlier scholars) Muslim scholars but not the counterbalancing arguments from the earlier scholars and modern western historians. He didn't listen, even though he said he would. Arrow740 09:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The earliest biographies, sira-maghazi literature and tafsir corpuses of the first two centuries of Islam…" is briefer, less argumentative, and I think captures the key points.Proabivouac 09:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Aminz insists on using the article as a platform to argue that the event didn't happened by only representing the arguments of those he agrees with, we will have no choice but to include the other arguments to achieve NPOV. Arrow740 09:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only meant that to condense/replace the first sentences of your edits (until the first ref,) not the rest.Proabivouac 09:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

these passages, forming most of the edit:

... the sira-maghazi literature [dating] from the first two centuries of Islam...

... the respective tafsir corpuses transmitted from almost every Qur'anic commentator of note in the first two centuries of the hijra

Those scholars who acknowledged the historicity of the incident apparently had a different method for the assessment of reports than that which has become standard Islamic methodology. For example, Ibn Taymiyya took the position that since tafsir and sira-maghazi reports were commonly transmitted by incomplete isnads, these reports should not be assessed according to the completeness of the chains but rather on the basis of recurrent transmission of common meaning between reports.

Other scholars accepted the idea that the fact of widespread transmission meant that the reports about the satanic verses incident could not be rejected outright, but also took the position that the equal fact of the infallibility of Muhammad meant that the incident could not have taken place in the specific manner narrated.

have been selectively picked and copy-pasted, word for word, from Shahab Ahmed's "Satanic Verses" Encyclopedia of the Qur'an article. in any respected institution, doing that without clear cut quoting and attribution of these words to Shahab wouldn't be called scholarship, it would be called plagiarism. not that it bothers me enough to accuse you of it, Arrow, but please at least try to take the time to represent sources fairly and in your own words.

ITAQALLAH 17:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

What, so I'm not supposed to be selective? I should pick sentences at random? What a relief, you've been kind enough to spare me an accusation of plagiarism from you. Thank you for being so generous. Arrow740 21:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're copying word-for-word, he does have a point. If something is an exact quote, it needs to be presented as such with attribution. Why not present the relevant passages on talk so we can discuss and determine what we'd like to include, and how.Proabivouac 21:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are already there. Arrow740 21:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yeah I think its fair to describe Time (magazine) as low-brow. It has a mass market popularity and loves the weasle words we would be shot down in seconds for repeating - take this beauty from this weeks edition "Some Saudis, only half jokingly, refer to the mutaween's behaviour as "state sponsered terrorism,". If it does strike you as POV please correct it as necessary. kind regards, Mike33 - t@lk 08:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries:This page is considered an editing guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this page's talk page.

Please join in the discussion on the Women and Islam rather than summarily attempting to dictate according to your own biases. The revision you insist upon is not neutral, nor reflective of the dynamics of the issue in the Muslim ummah. I don't know your history or belief set, but Islam is my faith and what I study and live by. There is a diversity of thought in its tradition, and you are trying to shut that down by eliminating any suggestion of an alternative view of the restrictions on marriage, even when presented by Islamic scholars. I'm not so hot on Friedmann being presented as an authority on Islam, but I can live with that. You don't have to agree with dissenting scholars, but to shut them out completely exhibits a bias that has not been substantively explained. Edit summaries don't do the job. Salaam FOA 15:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes they do, Khaleel Muhammad is an extreme minority view. You'd be better off trying to argue that his positions have ijma than with posts like this one.. Arrow740 22:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with Friedmann being held out as a greater authority on Islam than a Muslim scholar. There is nothing wrong about presenting a minority view in a balanced manner against other views, as my revison does. Yours is by no means a balanced view. A NEUTRAL pov would not hold solely to the so called "majority" opinion, but also include the dissent, which is allowed when examining fiqh rulings. What constitutes ijima is not even agreed upon, so invoking it as a principle is not a strong defense for your position. Your revision does nothing to present neutrality and everything to exclude a balanced view of a fiqh ruling that is based on the needs of a particular time and place, not on sharia. What are your credentials for and interest in this issue? I hope you will tell me. I do detect a discernable and strong bias against neutrality or diversity of thought on your part, and I would like to know if I am mistaken. I am more than willing and able to hold to my revisons if we are unable to dialogue and reach a stance that is satisfactory. Thank you. FOA 03:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You might agree with Khaleel Muhammad, but since he contradicts all the classical Islamic scholarship which is still held to be authoritative across the Muslim world, very few others do. Arrow740 04:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is a subject where you know a lot and I know nothing: there was a piece on BBC Radio 4 two days ago about the slaughter of Muslims trying to escape into Pakistan immediately post partition by India Hindus. There were quite a few interviews including with some Hindu Profs who witnessed it. This isn't an account I have previously heard of: I think the point of it was to blame us Brits for creating racial tension on both sides with how the partition was handled. I was curious whether this is well documented or not and whether it was a bit of a party piece (which is possible on the BBC). --BozMo talk 07:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is well documented. The ethnicities were the same. There were atrocities on both (well, all three) sides with Hindus and Sikhs killing Muslims and vice versa. The British were partly to blame due to their divide and rule strategy, but Gandhi was also partly responsible in that he was so publicly Hindu (as opposed to someone like Nehru) that he became a polarizing figure. Jinnah of course also played a role by agitating strongly for a partition, and Mountbatten mismanaged the transition to some degree. That's all I can really say about it off the top of my head. Arrow740 07:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough. Thanks. --BozMo talk 07:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka 04:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Muhammad . For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 08:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your recent deletions. Thanks for doing that. I was preparing an argument for why the Charles Tart sentence didn't belong, and was pleased to see that you saved me the trouble. : ) TimidGuy 16:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow, I really hope that you'll somehow be able to come back soon. You are one of the best editors around here, and your efforts has been extremely important. -- Karl Meier 17:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he has retired.Proabivouac 04:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say that? --Sefringle^Talk 05:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at his userpage.Proabivouac 09:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I will just remove my last comment.--Sefringle^Talk 03:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back (even if temporary). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of the

]

Actually, I spoke too soon. I misread the history. As of now, I doubt you're in any danger of violating this rule. Jauerback 15:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I share that doubt. Arrow740 16:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the section on the talk page entitled "Unresolved Picture Issue & call for an RfC" for my reasons for changing the dog image and caption.--Sefringle^Talk 00:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well can you undo that particular change of yours, since it wasn't your intent? I'd rather not get too close to a 3rr violation over trivial stuff.--Sefringle^Talk 00:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:[19],

]

There are hardly more reliable sources for criticism of Islam. Arrow740 04:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are not, pls don't criticize Islam. It seems choosing a reliable and non-reliable source is very disputed topic - same goes for

^{msg me} - 15:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Critics are reliable sources for criticism, academics for scholarship. Arrow740 17:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the standards for unfortunate POV-forks like "Criticism of Islam" are the same as with other articles. articles on criticism should use material from academic sources which document the kind of criticisms used (hence demonstrating they are noteworthy). i suspect the nature of the title facilitates the notion, albeit ill-conceived, that "criticism" may be amassed from any source that is "critical" - because any "critical" source is "reliable" for the "criticism" it espouses (nb. not "reliable" according to

ITAQALLAH 18:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the sandwich

--

]

Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie

Bro, we got to just let the facts speak for themselves! All this "made statements widely interpreted as endorsing ... " and "what was seen as ... " will do no no harm when readers can read what he (the soft pop wahhabi) actually said.

Besides, Tvoz will just wage edit war and/or tag the article.

Peace --

]

Eurabia

As you can see it is either Kirbytime or His excellency rapidly switching their modems on and off. I think they are co-ordinating this constant attack. It's cool though, I've got plenty of patience and a Comcast ultra fast connection. (Not to mention two computers..hahaha). Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 01:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can file a report or ask Jayjg or Tom harrison and they'll take care of it. Arrow740 02:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like an apology. I think if you took the time to look for a basis for your claim, it would be obvious that I am no such thing. Guanxi 18:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the scary thing is,that dude thought he was doing the right thing. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 06:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Arrow740 06:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you have a habit of accusing others of sockpuppetry.[20] I like the fact that you want to bring this before the community.

Arrow740, why don't you to go ahead with that and report me?Bless sins 23:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow740 and his sockpuppet theories..*sigh* he/she/it should get something better to do 216.99.60.106 20:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is this "216:99..." sock HE or Kirby? I plan to collect evidence of this and try to get a range block enforced. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 02:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look at the above. An editor is before the ArbCOm right now for an edit pattern that attempts to revert without joining discussion. I would suggest that you consider altering your approach. Hornplease 00:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been told about blind reverts. You have several notices to that effect on your talkpage. If you wish to edit in controversial areas, be advised: the discussion to edit ratio in those articles should be at least 70-30 in favour of discussion if you are interested in something other than edit warring.

Also, leaving 3RR templates on the page of someone editing for years is considered incivil. Best be careful about that. Hornplease 08:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You in particular stand to be reminded of that rule. I did not find a warning on your talk page. My reverts are not "blind." You are in many cases removing material I have inserted. Arrow740 08:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I dont believe I make a practice of ever reverting more than twice on an article. But then, most people like to use discussion pages. And I have examined your edits carefully, and 'blind reverts' is an accurate description of your behaviour. In fact, its charitable. Hornplease 08:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop "trolling" on this talk page. Continue to examine my edits by all means. Arrow740 08:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow, dispute tags aren't removed just because you consider others' objections invalid or because you feel you have sufficiently responded to objections; they are indicative of an ongoing content dispute that has not been resolved. that you continue to revert on that article is itself evidence of an ongoing content dispute. if you have a problem with my copyedits, which i believe improve the prose and remove some of the POV in these passages, then please let's discuss this on the talk page.

]

No one has responded to my responses from days ago. There is no dispute that I'm representing the secondary sources accurately. Your copyedits are your attempt to filter out certain data from those sources. My representations are basically verbatim, as you can verify. Arrow740 03:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is a dispute over the neutrality over a number of your edits. your representations are presented in rather a skewed manner; while they may be verifiable, they are stitched together to implicitly present a POV- your representation of the persecution chapter, for example, is evidence of that. that goes for giving undue weight towards Lewis, biased writing (doesn't matter if you copy-pasted from Rodinson or not, it still needs to be neutral), irrelevant analyses from Watt in one instance, and a clear misunderstanding of his points in another. and in amongst these issues and all the reverting, you seem to be unaware of a neutrality dispute? please consider reviewing the tags again, they don't say the sections are biased, they say that there's a dispute over whether they are biased. please stop removing dispute tags.

ITAQALLAH 15:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

"your representations are presented in rather a skewed manner; while they may be verifiable, they are stitched together to implicitly present a POV" what might that be? Your edits are changing the words you have admitted are accurate representation to stitch together your own POV, as anyone can see. You followed this with "your representation of the persecution chapter, for example, is evidence of that." No, it's what the sources say. This vague "stitching" idea is a naive attempt to dismiss historians' statements you disagree with. You've bandied this word "stitching" about before and I hope not to see it again. I have told you what Watt says. Unfortunately for you, in the section mentioning the motives for the attack, he clearly says that they needed to restore prestige to protect trade. You were fortunate to find someone saying they wanted revenge, so I incorporated that as well. It doesn't matter that you dispute the section. The dispute is not substantive. If anyone could put any dispute tags anywhere they wanted then we wouldn't really have an encyclopedia. Arrow740 01:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stitching sources together in a non neutral manner is unfortunately what i think you are doing. you arrange them so as to push a viewpoint and then interchange between them as convenient. the persecution passages are a prime example of that. same with pushing Lewis's unique and unshared views such as the Meccans retaliating to stop continued attacks (or previously the claim of Hudaybiyya having initially been intended as an expedition). same with using POV language or opinionated analyses just because you managed to locate it somewhere in a source. my representation of Watt is entirely accurate: "To maintain their economic prosperity after the battle of Badr, the Meccans needed to restore their prestige, which had been lost at Badr." - you haven't responded to what Watt writes on the preceding pages, as noted on my talk page; and obsessing over trade in as many clauses as possible (most notably Lewis' minority viewpoint, tendentiously worded and positioned into a key sentence) serves to shoehorn any theme of avenging the defeat of Badr. you then claim that you're representing the sources 'more accurately' than myself as a pretext for your mass reversions- why don't you cease removing dispute tags and discuss on talk then?

ITAQALLAH 15:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I have already done so. You have a bad habit of labeling sourced facts as "minority views" and removing them, please stop. And keep your theories about stitching, knitting, or other such pursuits to yourself. Arrow740 05:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! There's some discussion on whether using "asana", "yogasana" or "yoga asana" as the article title. If you are acquainted with the subject, you are invited to drop your opinion at

]

Consider this a clear invitation

Arrow740,

Please join the conversation on Talk:Islam in the United States that has been ongoing since before the edit warring over the extra information about the ISNA began. You know, as well as I do, that particular POVs concerning organizations and/or individuals do not get this type of coverage in entries other than their own main entry. In fact, even the smallest descriptors like ("An Islamist group," "A Zionist group," etc.) get removed constantly under this very premise, so why should there be this kind of detail, and why should we put up with words like "Islamofacist?" Please come to the talk page and explain your edits instead of just revert warring. Thank you.PelleSmith 11:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pelle, why dont you explain your edit in which you simply deleted the information. Dont do that again now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're already having that discussion on my talk page, or did you forget that? I'm not asking Arrow to explain anything here either but to do so in the appropriate space where, despite your (Matt) recent post someone has yet to explain why we can't just make a concise sourced statement of that material and leave the details for the appropriate main entry page: Islamic Society of North America.PelleSmith 14:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some sources for that?--nids(♂) 07:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point, I've either removed or modified most of the contributions by the latest anon. There are a few questionable things- I was debating whether the comment on relating morality to caste in the 'technical language' section should go- but overall I think it might be good to leave the rest of it as-is for the time being. Some of the elements introduced do need to be discussed, and it might go a ways towards diffusing the situation a bit. I've gone ahead and clipped out the comment I mentioned in the Language section- at this point I would be fine with the article standing as-is. --Clay Collier 06:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey- I undid your revert here. There were several additions that I made after the posts by the anon user that got wiped out when you reverted. I also think that some of the moderation of the language regarding the dating of the BG needs to stay- looking at the sources themselves, they're giving a range of dates for the creation of its final form, and the second reference in that section actually portrays the consensus as being that Buddhism did not influence BG-era Hinduism. I'll try and bring some of this up on talk tomorrow, but it's past my bedtime at the moment. --Clay Collier 10:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ,

I was doing some reading this morning after reading Spasemunki's comment on the Buddhism talkpage yesterday, maybe you could use the following quotes in the Buddhism-Hinduism article? I myself will not get involved in the actual discussion and editing though, but am happy to give you these quotes, which show something of the current hindu views on Buddha and Buddhism, and the origina of the efforts to incorporate Buddhism into Brahmanism/Hinduism.^[1][2] All the best Greetings, Sacca 06:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the title says, please stop revert warring and discuss the issue on the talk page, I have blocked

]

Religion of Peace

I am working on a rewrite of the

]

your question

Did you receive my response? Tvoz |talk 03:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No rush - I just wanted to make sure it didn't get absorbed into the ether before reaching you! Tvoz |talk 03:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -

I noticed you removed my addition of the One Nation website to the Islam in America page - I was just wondering why? One Nation is a non-profit group, and works to bring the diverse voices of American Mulsims into the U.S. media. You can find out more information about the group at www.onenationforall.org, but please let me know if you have any questions etc.

Erica

• The Group One Nation (Organization - Islam) is a is a not-for-profit, philanthropic collaborative that aims to bridge cultural divisions in the United States by integrating the voices and viewpoints of the American Muslim community into the national conversation. ^[1]

Wikirica 13:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find coverage indicating notability. Arrow740 07:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would endorse a 3RR violation at Bat Ye'or, I thought I counted a violation, with 3 the same and 1 slightly different yet within the realms of a revert. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 06:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So glad you got that edit sorted out! can you please comment on why you deleted this: Kshatriya [[Sid dhartha Gautama]] studied dhyāna during his early years away from his kingdom? many thanks & kind regards Peter morrell 06:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is his caste mentioned? Why is this in the Hinduism section? Arrow740 07:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I have no idea why his caste was mentioned; what I wanted to know is if it is true then why did you delete the whole sentence? is all of it true, part of it true or none of it true? thanks Peter morrell 07:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Buddha left and tried all the various techniques for self-improvement available at the time, including dhyana. So, yes. This doesn't belong in the Hinduism section. As a side note, modern Hinduism is different from the Vedic religious practices going on in India at that time. Arrow740 07:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. In which case, don't you think it should be moved to the right section of the article rather than deleted? thanks Peter morrell 07:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your statements appear to be inaccurate, which hinders progress. You said "Please don't be dense. You have added irrelevant details from partisan sources and removed relevant details from reliable ones. This has been discussed at length."[21]

Nothing that I added is "irrelevant". Everything that I added is about one (or more) of Muhammad's wives. Secondly, I don't think I removed any "relevant details from reliable [sources]". If you disagree please show me which content I removed. Finally, this issues has not been "discussed at length". I made my last edit (before your reversion) at 20:38 15 September. Yet no comments on the talk page have been posted since 13 September! How can you discuss an issue at all (let alone "at length") before it even arises?

Your only comments on this issue have been two meaningless ones saying that I'm using "partisan" sources. But you have provided no evidence for that, nor have you quoting any wiki policy relating to my edits.Bless sins 17:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Battle of Khaybar. Arrow740 21:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That contains discussion regarding the content of that article. We are talking about discussions regarding Muhammad's wives. The only relevancy Talk:Battle of Khaybar has to this is that on that Talk I showed Nomani was a reliable source. Other than that, I don't see any connection whatsoever.Bless sins 11:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arrow740
Thank you for your encouraging words  : )

Cheers
Intothefire 16:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to my posts on the 3RR noticeboard. When you didn't respond to my post noting his fifth revert and near-miss at Bat Ye'or, I filed another report with the full record. Arrow740 06:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this opportunity to explain not blocking an established editor with 5 reverts when you previously blocked me with 3. Thanks. Arrow740 22:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you; I will not. I knew you were going to rehash that episode and that's why I did not respond to you the first time. I addressed the report on

WP:AN3 the first time you brought up this report and another admin addressed it when you brought it up the second time. The circumstances surrounding your case and this case are entirely different, far from comparable, and not worth discussing again. -- tariqabjotu 22:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

If you were trying to bait me into filing an RfC over your use of admin tools, you have succeeded. Arrow740 01:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation. -- Avi 01:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. Arrow740 01:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem -- Avi 01:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my remarks from "the relation between islam and science", if you want an objective debate please try to prove that I am wrong. Those are such biased remarks in that article, I was being polite in not deleting them in my edit but just replying to them in brackets. Why cant you live with that?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omer83 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Buddhist polemics, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist polemics. Thank you. linca^linca 15:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the ongoing discussion on Talk:Islam in the United States before simply jumping in and reverting with your buddies. Those references do not "attribute," as you put it, the information to any real entity, and that is clear if you read them. They claim the information comes from a mysterious pentagon briefing, while at the same time acknowledge that no branch of the U.S. government (including the Pentagon) has made any such information public. Also, the more egregious issue here is that the information is irrelevant to the entry. Please show some respect and join the discussion if you plan on reverting. Justify your actions, or else it simply looks like you are are tag team edit warring. Thanks.PelleSmith 03:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should have looked at the edit summary and diff. I restored the text, but did not state it as fact, instead carefully attributing it to the author making the claims. Arrow740 03:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should have looked at the diff, but your edit summary is actually misleading since it said revert, which means simply restoring. I get what you meant now--that you reverted then attributed precisely to the author of the piece but it could as easily be read as ... revert because it is already attributed. That aside you haven't explained anything about the problems of this text either here or on the talk page. When there is a heated discussion going on you shouldn't simply revert, even if you are making a minor change, and especially if after such a change none of the problems that are being discussed are in fact solved. The quote is still hearsay you've just attributed the hearsay ... good job. The bigger problem still remains ... it isn't relevant. Why should we all of a sudden think its relevant because you have attributed the hearsay?PelleSmith 03:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to the responses given to your assertions/allegations. All you are doing right now is inciting a revert war while repeating the same thing over an over w/o any further support of your side or rebuttal of any of the more recent opposing responses and it is not going anywhere like this. Also stop alleging that SoT agreed with you, I find no indication in his last post to him doing that. And I HAVE considered what you posted, thats why I posted a rebuttal after your post, I suggest you read it and stop this nonsense. Jedi Master MIK 06:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop coming to my page and accusing me of being someone I'm not. Thank you. Jedi Master MIK 13:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is why it is important to read things more closely: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

They say nothing about the person providing the source having to prove the source's reliability, they're saying the person adding information has to provide sources to verify that information. I knew there was a very inherent Catch-22 and contradiction to modern prosecution in general to what you were purporting about wiki-policy.

So once again I ask you, please provide evidence to support your allegations against Muhammad Asad. Jedi Master MIK 05:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow,

I just posted this to Yahel but this also applies to you. I put a lot of time and effort into cleaning up a lot of different sections of Islam in the United States and I did so with many separate edits. On top of this I opened up discussion on the talk page. When you do this, you make me feel like either you are too lazy to look through the edits and the talk page or simple don't respect my work. Very little information has been "removed," and in fact virtually no sourced content has been removed at all. If any sources were removed it was a mistake (note that sources were removed from the lead but the same sources remain in the entry content). What I did was to rearrange content and to condense content by removing unnecessary and or redundant specifics. For instance, we don't need to know all the gory little details of the each claim made about the population estimates. All we need to know is the gist of the various claims and that controversy exists. I also moved some content to the talk page for discussion. If you take the time and look at the edits with good faith you may not agree with all of them, but at least when you revert individual edits or bring up specific issues I'll know you took the time to consider them instead of just reverting. Thanks.PelleSmith 03:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I supposed to take some kind of hint here? Do you not intend on responding to me or on the relevant entry talk page? Can you explain something for me--why is it you make reverts during revert wars on Islam in the United States but never explain yourself on either the its talk page or on your own when you are directly asked to discuss your reverts? I've been asked by a third party to engage in civil discussion with those who have reverted my many edits instead of revert warring. This is my sincere attempt to do so. Will you join the discussion?PelleSmith 22:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arrow740, thanks for your reverts of vandalism by IAF in

]

Islam in the United States

Arrow,

Can I ask you again to please engage the talk page to discuss entry content, the edits you make and those others have made that you may not agree with? Since appealing to you days ago (see above) I've noticed you managed to return to the talk page, but only to issue a reprimand/threat to another editor. It would be more helpful if you engaged others in dialog about entry content, especially when those others find your edits/reverts to be contentious, particularly because they remain unexplained. Thanks.PelleSmith 16:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't edited that article in days. If you want me to get involved in it again, I can. Arrow740 19:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting way to put it. Do I want you to come back and revert without explanation again? No. Have I asked you ever since you reverted me to explain your position? Yes.PelleSmith 21:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow, you warned here that I was guilty of a WP:CIVIL violation. I am concerned about this. Would you revisit the section and respond to me on my talk page? I would be grateful. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 00:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

]

Red Pine

Please explain why you regard Red Pine as 'an amateur source' in Buddhism. thank you Peter morrell 07:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply; however, can you explain what you mean by 'not qualified?' What constitutes what you call a 'qualified buddhist?' For example, some would say an aged scholar, others would say a practitioner of long-standing. which would you say? many thanks Peter morrell 07:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for clarifying that, best wishes Peter morrell 12:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "Mr Ellison said he accepted that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11" don't you understand? His comparison was absurd and stupid, but he never said in the speech that Bush was responsible for 9/11, and to claim that he "hinted" it is at best speculative.

]

I was restoring sourced content that you had removed without an edit summary. I will check the source. Arrow740 06:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the person removing this "sourced content" does so commenting specifically that the source is being misrepresented it is our obligation to check the source prior to reverting him, especially if we are going to revert on the basis that the content is "sourced." Otherwise all we have is pointless revert warring. Cheers.PelleSmith 12:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the times of the diffs. He didn't justify it until I objected, and his justification was wrong. Thanks. Arrow740 20:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling that this was the case, but it would seem that time code settings play a part. For instance, my diff-comment comparison showed that all the edits "took place" 4-5 hours before the first comment here.--C.Logan 20:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true when Arrow first reverted FCYTravis but not the second time. Please review the edit history again. Travis clearly points out that the contentious statement does not reflect the source accurately and that the reverting editor should take the time to read it. Here is FCYTravis reverting Arrow and Arrow reverting Travis mysteriously saying "please read again." In fact Arrow's second revert with this "please read again" comment came not only after Travis put in the edit summary--"Um, no, read the story, Ellison says he accepts that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks. Read, it's a nice thing to do"--but also after the first two comments were made above. Isn't the digital age a wonderful thing? Cheers.PelleSmith 02:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I'm being a stickler about this is because we need less senseless revert warring on that entry and more engagement with the actual content. Cheers.PelleSmith 03:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ellison contradicted himself in a confusing fashion. That is the problem. I have decided not to push for the inclusion of his insinuation (as reported by that article). Since I already indicated this clearly on the talk page, I'm not sure why the above confrontational post was warranted. Arrow740 03:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree here... I had to read it twice, because the article seems to present it that Ellison merely avoided spouting the "Bush 9/11" business so that he wouldn't sound loony in front of the crowd- i.e., the article shows that he believes Osama was responsible, but the same article claims that he hinted at a belief of Bush's involvement. In any case, I can forgive Arrow's confusion here.--C.Logan 05:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to include both, since the article included both his statements. Arrow740 06:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take up the issue on the relevant talk page but as a general aside before blindly getting into a revert war please do take a look to see if there is a relevant case for the validity of the issue because otherwise its hards to discuss the particulars when there is no real clue what the specific objections may be.--Tigeroo 16:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I know what you were removing. I reverted because you had no good reason to do so, and hadn't even tried to give one. Arrow740 20:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. Since two other editors have made changes to this sentence since I posted the following here, I'm moving it to the article talk page. Let's talk there. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 19:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Arrow. I thought it might be easier to discuss this on your talk page rather than the I.i.t.U.S. talk page.

You reverted to the sentence, "There are many Islamic political and charity organizations supporting this community. Some of these organizations have come under criticism for supporting Islamist agendas."

I had revised the last sentence to "Some of these organizations have been accused of supporting Islamist agendas."

My concern is that the version you favor asserts as fact that some U.S. Islamic organizations support Islamist agendas. I don't know whether they do or not, but my understanding is that it is a disputed point. Strong arguments exist on both sides. So in the absence of agreed facts, we may not take sides.

I also removed the links to citations from FrontPageMag and WorldNet Daily. You restored them on the grounds that they are "valid for criticism." I agree, but my concern is that, first, there is no need for a footnote to that broad statement, and second, if we do footnote it, it should be to a more general, neutral survey of criticism, not to three examples of partisan criticism. Finally, placing links to biased opinion sources in the second paragraph of the article may tend to give them undue prominence. Unsophisticated readers may take them for reliable news sources as a result.

Eager to hear your thoughts. Let's try for consensus. Would a term other than "accused of" be better? -- Rob C. alias Alarob 15:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on talk. Arrow740 05:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw these on Prester John's page, and since you already have a hefty collection going, I think you'd enjoy them.

[22], [23], [24], [25], [26].--C.Logan 05:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did think three of them were very funny. Thanks, Arrow740 05:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "vandalise" anything. I undid a blatantly biased edit by another user who not only removed the criticism, but inserted comments by other people like Daniel Pipes, who themselves aren't scholars rather authors, and used them to classify Ibn as a scholar as well, when in fact he is simply an author.

Please do not accuse me of vandalism when i simply undid a bad edit which in itself removed previous statements which quoted scholars. -xad

He removed the ENTIRE criticism section and replaced it with positive comments by people who are not Islamic scholars. That's vandalism. You might want to do a little more research on Daniel Pipes and see how he's received in scholarly circles for his works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xad (talk • contribs) 07:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check it again: [27]. Arrow740 07:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you add an unrefrenced section tag? By blindly reverting you added in circular redirects and inconsistent spellings. By the way that material, and a large amount of copyright material, have been at Mother of the Believers for quite some time (some of it from July 2006) but you didn't bother to try and fix it then. Why was it OK in that article but not here? It was linked from Muhammad's wives because that's how I found it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't looked at that article. Arrow740 05:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the following link. Here is another source saying the same thing: [28]. --Aminz 05:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern treatises are different in this respect: ... claiming the right to ijtihad, the new interpretation of the sources, they profess that the jihad is essentially defensive warfare --Aminz 05:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... striving to protect the Islam and the Moslems and to guarantee the propagation of the Islamic mission." This doesn't say that the jurisprudence has changed, and who is Mahmud Shaltut? The bad English reduces faith that this source is reliable. Arrow740 06:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book is published by Brill Academic Press. It clearly says that "they profess that the jihad is essentially defensive warfare". And yes, propagation can be jihad; it doesn't have to involve warfare. --Aminz 06:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Rudolf Peters [29] :) --Aminz 06:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't provide anything new. Some modern Muslims think jihad should only be defensive. Good. That doesn't change the Qur'an, hadith, or jurisprudence. Arrow740 06:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both you and the editor you disagree with have been blocked for 12 hours for

]

No vio, the other person had 4 reverts, etc. Arrow740 08:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated below, near as I can tell, the other person received a block as well. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 09:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Block has expired Request handled by: SQL(Query Me!) 08:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comment:

WP:3RR states: "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any disruptive edit warring, even if they do not exceed three reverts on a page in 24 hours. Similarly, editors who may have technically violated the 3RR may not be blocked, depending on circumstances.". Now, while I am not commenting on the content or nature of your reverts in particular, but, I thought I would point out to you, that 3RR is not a hard and fast rule. I'd also like to point out to you, that the other editor involved in this dispute received a block as well. (SEE: their block log) SQL^{(Query Me!)} 05:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

We should set objective standards for when people should be blocked so everyone knows where he or she stands. Arrow740 08:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with you somewhat, I feel that it's also very important that judgments be made on a case-by-case basis. Two editors may perform the same exact action which violates the rules, but in a one of these cases, circumstances surrounding the reasoning of the edits/behavior may change the situation entirely. Again, this doesn't mean that administrators shouldn't take precautions to mete out judgments fairly and conservatively; it simply means that the administrator should have enough power to restrict the individual who deserve restrictions, whether or not he breaks a rule such as 3RR.--C.Logan 08:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This idea gives admins too much power with almost no oversight, and certainly no punishment for abuse of that power. There is no mechanism to force admins to learn the issues involved as well as the participants have, etc, and in my experience this never happens. Admins should be given the power to restrict access only when users have violated rules set out beforehand. The current system has had an experienced user (User:Jagged 85) not blocked for six reverts when edit-warring with three other users, and another experienced user (me) blocked for three reverts when I was clearly in the right (not that Sandstein indicated any awareness of the issues involved). Clearly, this is a bad system. Arrow740 09:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see

WP:ANI... Any of which can be used to initiate discussion of misuse of administrative privileges. If you need assistance with any of the above, please, don't hesitate to ask! SQL^{(Query Me!)} 09:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

As I said in my unblock request, that was a different dispute. In extreme cases those places might help. But those places don't correct or prevent run of the mill sloppiness or arbitrariness such I have referred to. Arrow740 19:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Arrow740, in that admins should establish and adhere to clear rules regarding blocking. What are the rules that make one involvement in one dispute worthy of block, while involvement in another dispute entitles a user to violate 3rr.Bless sins 20:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are deleting PRIMARY SOURCES(such as Qur'an, Authentic Hadiths on matters of Islam), therefore you are vandalizing the topic. You are a very irrational person, to say the least.

]

It's called quotespam. It is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to list a bunch of quotes User:Studentoftruth has selected. Arrow740 16:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, he's presenting primary sources in a manner which appears to be original research.--C.Logan 16:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Sources are from PUBLISHED Qur'an and Authentic Hadith among other scholarly books. You are very presumptuous in your ignorance. Go read them, the reference is there, and stop hallucinating. Stop deleting portions of the page content.

Be aware that you can be penalized for abusing the warning system. No one is vandalizing the page. You cannot use primary sources to present a particular point of view. I don't understand how many times this needs to be explained to you. You can not cite the Hadith or the Qur'an as sources; you can only cite what other scholars claim about them.--C.Logan 02:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arrow - thanks once again for initiating the whole discussion at

]

Torah judgement reloaded

You were once involved in the discussion about whether the Banu Qurayza were massacred based/in line with/etc. provisions of the Torah. Some editor has reopened that can and I think you may want to comment ar Talk:Banu_Qurayza#Torah_issue_reloaded. Cheers, Str1977 ^(talk) 19:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the talk page of Muhammad article in your watchlist. I may post some change-suggestions and hope to see you there. --Aminz (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original source said the widow marriages were because of providing a livelihood to widows as it was hard for widows to remarry in a culture that emphasized virgin marriages. No WP:OR. I'd rather to discuss this further on the talk page. The connection is made by the sources you call apologetic. What I added further was the same material from another source.--Aminz (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banu Qaynuqa

I've opened up a section in the talk page on this. --Aminz (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Arrow, Aminz and Jedi Master MIK have removed a quote I believe you added to the Satanic Verses article (the one from Uri Rubin saying Muhammad Husayn Haykal's Life of Muhammad was marked by apologetic motives). I argued for keeping it, because I feel it gives context to the Haykal quote's credibility, but you know how it goes. Anyway, I don't have Rubin's book and I'm afraid I know his work only by reputation (and I'm very tired of going back and forth with them), so I really can't do anything more here. If you have anything more to add to the discussion, please do.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow, please provide the full quote from Rubin. What does this have to do with Haykal's arguments about Satanic verses as this is not an article on Haykal's book. --Aminz (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I returned the book. You should have asked about this months ago. Bad faith attempt to censor. A real scholar is pointing out that Haykal is an apologist. The book in which Haykal makes the claim is marked by apologetic motives. That's what Rubin says, not me. If you want to use bad material we have to include the disclaimer. Arrow740 (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow, unless it is on topic, we can not include it.--Aminz (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aminz, the topic of that section is Haykal's views. Rubin's statement about the motives behind the book in consideration is certainly on-topic. Arrow740 (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rubin says that the Muslim Haykal had motives which were apologetic when he wrote his book, if I understand it correctly. Haykal in his book says Muhammad was born in Mecca. Is Rubin referring to this too? Is Rubin's Ad hominem on Haykal's Satanic verses arguments or in general includes everything Haykal has written? --Aminz (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haykal is not a reliable source. He is an apologist. Arrow740 (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologist or not, he sources and proper arguments in his work giving support to his position as well as an orientalist like Rubin does. Aside from that, its further irrelevant what he is b/c the section is not to prove one side or another, it is to show what prominent Muslim views are on this subject and last I checked, Haykal's a prominent Muslim. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow, we are quoting EoQ about Muslim views on this. Please check out the EoQ article again. --Aminz (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

umm..are you planning on becoming an Indian monk by any chance in the future? please answer with yes/no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.63.11 (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to get a volunteer mediator interested in the Cat Stevens article, (here), specifically my hope to add what stevens said about Rushdie ("He must be killed. The Qur'an makes it clear - if someone defames the prophet, then he must die." [1] ) to the article.

My version would read:

Newspapers quickly interpreted his response -- "He must be killed. The Qur'an makes it clear - if someone defames the prophet, then he must die." [1] -- as support for the fatwa.

Tvoz went around the mediation page to the mediator's talk page (rather sneakily I thought) to tell him it's no big deal and nobody but me cares about the issue.

IOW, I need your help.

Sincerely,

)

i happen to agree with Aminz here. i don't think it's appropriate for you to mass revert to your preferred versions of multiple articles. it's also not a sign of good faith to be organising RfC's on subpages to then later slap on "evidences" any time you engage in heated dispute with him, nor does it instill much faith in Aminz that you are sincerely trying to achieve dispute resolution on these matters. i think a more productive course of action, especially for the dispute on

]

An RfC on Aminz has been warranted for months as you well know. By writing one publicly I'm giving him a chance to change. Arrow740 (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i don't believe one is warranted. i actually think Aminz deserves commendation for the good quality of articles he has been producing of late. like the previously unsuccessful and ambitious RfC that was levied against him, there is insufficient evidence that his opponents are sincerely trying to iron out whatever behavioural issues they think exist. anyway, i do think your efforts would be better placed engaging in proper discussion with him.

ITAQALLAH 19:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Unfortunately, he is already aware of these issues and has refused to change. I hope I don't have to clean up any of these articles you mention. Arrow740 (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arrow, I have read your page about Koenraad Elst. There is currently a discussion going on at the Koenraad Elst article, and it would be good if you could add a comment or two. Merry Christmas to you. Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious as to why you changed

]

I didn't notice that change between the current version and the version I was editing. Arrow740 (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

about [this]. what r wikipedia guidelines that u think should be followed? u should have written them when undoing my version instead of threatening to report. (Imad marie (talk) 06:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

In my last edit summary I told you to read

WP:RS which details some standards for sources. Arrow740 (talk) 06:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The relation between Islam and science

If you thought the list of "Bucaillist nonsense" was bad check out

]

Oh my.... It never seems to end.--C.Logan (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not in our lifetimes. Arrow740 (talk) 09:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pertaining to this article, I removed the claim that Bucaille was a convert to Islam- he wasn't. As I've noted on the page, this does great harm to the supposed sincerity of his study.--C.Logan (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt he was paid quite well for that nonsense. It's odd that a surgeon is the best they could do. It would seem that they could find some white scientist willing to sell his reputation. Arrow740 (talk) 09:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you have undone changes that were agreed on in my talk page, the discussion which you chose not to participate in. (Imad marie (talk) 08:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I have replied to you in my talk page, in case you don't have it on your watchlist. It seems that you feel that you have ownership over the disputed article, please don't have this feeling; I'm only making changes that are justified in the edit summery. (Imad marie (talk) 07:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Blocked

Both you and Imad marie are blocked for 24 hours for

]

Re: Ghamidi

I honestly don't see why Ghamidi would need to be a Hanafi spokesman to comment on the view of Hanafi jurists. Jagged 85 (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't currently have access to the Encyclopedia of Islam. Can you quote the part of the Murtadd article that you believe contradicts Ghamidi's statement? Jagged 85 (talk) 11:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow740, a number of your edits have been highly partisan and highly disruptive. You have been promulgating Rodinson to further an agenda,[30] in some cases actually misrepresenting what he actually says[31][32] (

]

Let's start with Safiyya. Rodinson says:"...On the other hand the booty was considerable. The better part of all that the Jews possessed was sequestered. The men and women taken in the first forts were kept as prisoners, among them a beautiful girl of seventeen named Safiyya, whom Muhammad took for himself after killing her husband for concealing his goods. He persuaded her to embrace Islam and, being violently attracted to her, took her into his bed that very night. By so doing he was violating his own previous commands, according to which his supporters had to wait until the beginning of the next menstrual cycle before having intercourse with their captives. But she was so very beautiful! When she mounted her camel for the return journey, the Prophet of Allah went down on one knee so that she might use the other as a step." Now drop it. Arrow740 (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already provided the relevant extract for you

ITAQALLAH 21:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

No, the context makes it clear that it was the same day. The men and women taken in the first forts were kept as prisoners, among them a beautiful girl of seventeen named Safiyya, whom Muhammad took for himself after killing her husband for concealing his goods. He persuaded her to embrace Islam and, being violently attracted to her, took her into his bed that very night. We can make the statement a little more ambiguous if we need to. Arrow740 (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No indication of chronology is given by Rodinson apart from the fact that consummation occured on the night of conversion. Other readings of the passage have no basis.

ITAQALLAH 22:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

You know very well why I removed that bit from Islam and antisemitism. A partisan religious source is being used to forward a particular POV which unbalances the entire section. Similarly in Muhammad's wives, BS has used partisan religious sources (Nomani, Mubarakpuri) to give an apologist spin on history as fact as he always does. Regarding Zakir Naik, Ali Sina is quite notable as a source of criticism. Regarding the battle of Khaybar, this issue was never resolved. BS is flooding the article with partisan sources. Before you post lectures on my talk page, familiarize yourself with the issues involved. Regarding the "baiting comments," they are appropriate in context. You know Tigeroo is beyond all bounds of restraint when it comes to writing about jihad. I even accepted your version of that section. Arrow740 (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source in Islam and antisemitism (Abbas, Tahir (2007). "Antisemitism among Muslims", in Tahir Abbas: Islamic political radicalism : a European perspective. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 178–179) isn't "partisan religious" as you ambitiously claim, please look again. Indiscriminate reverts to versions from months back just aren't acceptable. Nomani was discussed on RS/N ages back. You can attempt to explain away each individual incident, but as a whole it amounts to very disruptive editing.

ITAQALLAH 21:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I didn't say Abbas was a partisan religious source. As I said in the edit summary, that POV unbalances the section. Nomani was discussed quite conclusively here and though you didn't feel the need to comment, you seem to have no problem reverting with a bad excuse: [41].Arrow740 (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You know very well why I removed that bit from Islam and antisemitism. A partisan religious source is being used to forward a particular POV which unbalances the entire section." - You clearly refer to Abbas as a partisan religious source here, that's the only content you even removed. I have already commented on Nomani on the appropriate forums. My main contention is that the revert is indiscriminate- you undo many other productive changes just to get the article back to your version, dated July 3 2007.

ITAQALLAH 22:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

So you have not yourself checked to see which version is better. It is your revert which is indiscriminate and your mass reverts on an assumption of bad faith are becoming increasingly troubling. Arrow740 (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish slave trade, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish slave trade. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

CIC and Levant

The fact that he is a critic doesn't in and of itself make him notable. Given that we are dealing with an opinion it should only be included if the person who made it is notable. The question is, how is Levant notable enough for his comments to be included in this article? Should we go around wikipedia and insert his published opinions on any topic he's written about? I don't see how being the publisher of a small, failed, regional magazine makes his opinions worthy of inclusion. Reggie Perrin (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His involvement in Canadian politics and publishing seem notable to me. Arrow740 (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's an unsuccessful political candidate and a failed publisher. Again, why are his views notable? The fact that the views are quite strongly worded and possibly defamatory makes it more important that he actually be a notable figure. If he were a Member of Parliament or something I could see it but as it is... Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BlessSins

I'm seriously thinking of collecting evidence against him and filing an RfC. All he does is remove valid content which he doesnt like and I think its time to complain. Do you think there's enough evidence against him? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islam

did a rvt although I have spent 0 time on that article and don't know it well. --

talk) 00:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, their edits looked pretty bad, I'd just like to know more before I do involve myself. --

talk) 00:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Women and Islam

So you added information about inequality, but you removed information about property rights.[42] Why the censorship?Bless sins (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, why did you add a comparison to Christendom? Lewis' book is concerned with those things, the article isn't. Explain yourself. Arrow740 (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

I suggest you self-revert on [43]. It is nothing more than re-phrasing your previous revert. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a different statement from a different place. I have made two reverts in the last 24 hours, both completely justified in edit summaries and on the talk. You on the other hand are being blatantly disruptive with almost no talk page presence; three reverts in an hour is

edit warring. Arrow740 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The article is protected now so I will not file any 3RR report. As I said in my edit summary, if you would like to write something about India, summarize the whole story (when the war started; the peaceful/non-peaceful periods) in a way that it does not give undue weight to India. For this, you need to use a source that provides the summary without giving undue weight to anything. To choose and quote something as a summary is original research. In this case, your summary is clearly biased. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't claim the sentence in dispute is a summary. Again, file away. Arrow740 (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't claim it summarizes the matter, then please do not add it.--Be happy!! (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're just being disruptive here, Aminz. It's not the case that every sentence in that article needs to summarize an entire topic. Arrow740 (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are being disruptive. Your source talks about a peaceful period when the temples were protected, then the conquest of that guy and other incidents that happened later. But you have decided to choose and pick a sentence there as a summary of all that. This is a good example of original research through choosing what to say and what to hide. --Be happy!! (talk) 10:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I have already

article, but depth is probably not necessary for the article on Islam as a faith; it actually borders on tangency and it certainly violates POV to include one out-of-context sentence on how "brutal" the invasion was. This sentence should not be causing as much of a fuss as it is; I try to assume good faith, but you are really pushing it here, Arrow. -Rosywounds (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Moved stuff

How about this. I felt the comments were more about Banu Q so I moved them there. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim conquest of India article

Could you please discuss it before you reinsert it? At the most, it should probably be mentioned as a quotation (i.e. This author argues that the invasion was "characterized by...."). I already responded in the talk page as well. -Rosywounds (talk) 08:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAR of Islam

featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Alexfusco⁵ 21:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Muhammad's wives

I don't believe there needs to be any more than is already said. I tried to reduce that section to the basics of the story, with some commentary by historians. The rest belongs at the article dedicated to Safiyya.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove anything by Rodinson. That must have been Bless Sins et al. All I did was try to summarize the stories themselves, while keeping the interpretations by scholars intact (the interpretations cited to reliable secondary sources, that is. I did remove some apologetical material, for instance Maududi, who attributed the story to rumors spread by Muhammad's critics.)--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking

Arrow, don't stalk me [44]. I undid a vandalism by an anon but your reverted me with bad faith accusations. Please stop it. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you'd used an edit summary I would have understood that. Arrow740 (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that "PLEASE DO NOT STALK ME." You had no edits whatsoever to that article before and I am sure it was not in your watchlist. Not having an edit summary for undoing a vandalism is not an excuse for stalking.--Be happy!! (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with checking contributions and looking at one diff. I saw you calling polytheistic beliefs "naive" with no edit summary and got a little suspicious. Arrow740 (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The relation between Islam and science

proposed fork

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_relation_between_Islam_and_science#What_to_do.3F_WP:UNDUE_and_proposed_fork_article You may have an objection to this I think it could be a solution. --

talk) 18:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

In use

Hi,

While the in use tag is up, please don't edit the article. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are in bad faith and against consensus, so I'm not going to do you any courtesies at this time. Arrow740 (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HI, I've been improving the article. I've created references and standardized them. Let me finish my job, and then you can start your editing.Bless sins (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mubarakpuri

I have removed it per your recommendation. It was not listed in the references section, and seemed like pretty contentious but minor information anyway.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M. Zuhdi Jasser

THanks. I'll try to read the whole thing --

talk) 00:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Banu Qurayza

Why don't you discuss your reverts on talk? I have discussed my edits in a lot of detail there.Bless sins (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't responded. Can you do so?Bless sins (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are violating

WP:POINT by ignoring Str's points there. Arrow740 (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not ignoring anyone's points, and I have responded to them. You, on the other hand are ignoring my comments, and simply reverting me.Bless sins (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic economics in the world

Thanks for restoring my lead in

talk) 16:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, material in the lead must be discussed in the body. Contemporary economics haven't been discussed in the body, so how can they be discussed in the lead?Bless sins (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption

Please refrain from making such disruptions.[45]Bless sins (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop this, please

You removed Muhammad from the list, though he was sourced to a professor and an academic journal. The Archimedes entry, however, is completely unsourced, yet you didn't bother removing it.

Can you please stop this biased editing?Bless sins (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't belong on the polymath list. The definition of that word is given at the beginning of the article. Even if Syed Hossein Nasr were shown to be reliable, he is not quoted as using the word "polymath." The other entries have such a quote. Arrow740 (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question is why you remove entries sourced to professors, but leave entries that are completely unsourced. It appears you are biased against Muhammad.Bless sins (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bless Sins, as you always say, the topic is Muhammad, not other people. We need a reliable source to call Muhammad a "polymath", otherwise its OR. No offense but Muhammad has been called a lot of other different labels such as demon possessed pedophile, pervert and tyrant and such. I'm sure the definition of a polymath doesn't include these labels. So according to your own strict standards, we need a reliable source calling Muhammad a polymath or it is as you would say, OR. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you Matt57, my standards for OR a bit strict, as the recent discussion on the policy's talk page shows. Secondly, do you not find it interesting that Arrow only removes Muhammad (who is sourced), but does not remove Archimedes who is unsourced?Bless sins (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? Arrow740 (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bless Sins, Shen Kuo is listed as a polymath in the list too, and he is called a polymath by atleast 3 sources. Now there are other Muslims who are called polymaths and sources can be found for them. Muhammad will have to be removed if a source cannot be found for him. We need a source for calling Muhammad a polymath. Do you understand what I'm trying to say here? We can have sources calling him 10 other names, but to conclude that he's a polymath without citing any sources, is OR. Like we have a statement for Aristotle ("Aristotle was an extraordinary polymath") that is referenced to a source, we obviously need a statement for Muhammad being a polymath. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banu Qurayza

Arrow can you please discuss your reverts on the article's talk page? It appears that you are making drive by reverts, without discussing the changes.Bless sins (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you are ignoring Str's valid points on the talk page, and as such as violating

WP:POINT. I'll post this there. Arrow740 (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

No I'm not. What I do see is that you have not responded to me on the talk.Bless sins (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not responded to me on talk. (Saying that you disagree with me, doesn't count, as that is obvious. I need to know why you disagree with me?).Bless sins (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to go line by line and write "I agree" after Str's responses to you. Arrow740 (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about Str1977's arguments, but your arguments. Why are you reverting me?Bless sins (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watt

There'll be consequences for you if it is found that you made false statements about what Watt has said.Bless sins (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? Arrow740 (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not saying that I'm making false claims?Bless sins (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually asking you to provide the quotes you have cited. I know you've make false claims in the recent past regarding the "rumor" statement you attributed to Watt. Arrow740 (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced content

Why are you adding unsourced content here?[46]

All content added needs sources. Please read

WP:V. I advise you not add any more unsourced content to any article.Bless sins (talk) 06:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I restored material you deleted and added a fact tag so that it could be sourced. It should be easy to do so. Arrow740 (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You restored unsourced content. Do you not know that all content on wikipedia must be sourced? If the sources are easy to find, then I expect you'll source it ASAP.Bless sins (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What errors?

Hi,

What errors am I making, as you claim here.[47]

Bless sins (talk) 06:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking questions to which you know the answers is a

WP:POINT violation. Read the talk page and my edit summaries again. Arrow740 (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

So you will not even tell me which errors I am making? Please don't accuse me of making errors if you can't substantiate your claims with evidence.Bless sins (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in this edit summary which you ignored as per your habit, you are removing Rodinson's statement that the verses were "too much to his liking." The Watt errors are on the talk page. Arrow740 (talk) 07:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And instead of that I added "the verses...favored Muhammad too much". Our job is not to quote Rodinson but to paraphrase him.Bless sins (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

In the last 20 minutes you have reverted me on many articles:

• Jizya
• Islamic military jurisprudence
• Muhammad's wives

At none of these articles have you joined the discussion on talk. On one talk page (

Talk:Muhammad's wives) you have refused to respond back to me. You have blindly reverted my edits. Please stop these actions and join talk.Bless sins (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Don't characterize my edits as blind. Instead, read and respond to the edit summaries I write. Your responses on the Muhammad's wives aren't helpful, and I encourage anyone reading this page to go see them. Arrow740 (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, you have reverted me many times yourself Bless sins, and many times, your reverts seem very blind, and often border on wikistalking. Not to mention, you often revert even when you have nothing to bring up as a discussion topic. Yahel Guhan 06:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Arrow. Str1977 ^(talk) 01:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad in Medina

No I don't have the book. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This

You may be interested in this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:STALK.Bless sins (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Request for assistance"

An editor by the name of ITAQALLAH is doing his damnest to get rid of any criticism of "Quranic miracles of science", aka Bucailleism. He's been going around to articles on Commission on Scientific Signs in the Quran and Sunnah and Maurice Bucaille and gutting sourced material on the grounds it is "original research" and "completely irrelevant", for example censoring the Criticism section of this article to make it this article

If you have some time could you check out

talk) 16:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Sockpuppet?

Check out the contribs of this dude against that of our old buddy. They quickly tag teamed me here and I am thinking of taking this to checkuser. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 08:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Quote

"OK so we know that wikipedia can be a battleground. Here's something easy (and fun) you can do to help... ...Help the good guys and hurt the bad guys by simply reverting to the last version by a good guy. Check back every few minutes, you can use three reverts per 24 hour period, after that you will get a temporary block.

Here are the lists: Good guys (in alphabetical order): User:Arrow740 User:Beit Or User:Hypnosadist User:Karl Meier User:Merzbow User:Proabivouac User:Sefringle User:Str1977 Bad: User:ALM scientist User:Aminz User:Bless sins User:Itaqallah User:Kirbytime User:Nielswik User:Striver User:Strothra User:Truthspreader" - Annon

I wonder who said it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.57.117 (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deuteronomy issue rereloadedJews chosing their own hangman

Hello, maybe you are interested in this issue. Your input is welcome. Cheers, Str1977 ^(talk) 20:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aisha again

I know you've been out for several months now, but if you have a chance can you check out the discussion at Talk:Aisha? It's the same old song, with someone inserting material from Islamic scholars to imply there's some dispute about Aisha's age.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on 'Islamic' inventions

Hello, I saw you were engaged at one time about the sense or nonsense of the article series which has been created in recent times. Now the issue is up again. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Inventions_in_the_modern_Islamic_world] Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to WikiConference India 2011

Hi Arrow740, The First WikiConference India is being organized in Mumbai and will take place on 18-20 November 2011. You can see our Official website, the Facebook event and our Scholarship form. But the activities start now with the 100 day long WikiOutreach. As you are part of WikiProject India community we invite you to be there for conference and share your experience. Thank you for your contributions . We look forward to see you at Mumbai on 18-20 November 2011

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

1. ^ Official Website - One Nation (Organization - Islam) (One Nation).