User talk:RiskAficionado/Archive 10

---

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 08:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

You didnt want Mohammad quoted saying that stuff like "If you look at a snake, you'll get an abortion". Why do you then accept quotes from other people like here? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

nothing wrong with quoting secondary reliable sources. see WP:V. spamming primary sources is unencyclopedic, and belongs on Wikiquote instead. please also stop inserting material from Rubin, assuming you have consulted his work: you will know that he does not offer any criticism of Muhammad. see WP:OR: "The only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article ...". ITAQALLAH 19:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

So? We can verify what Muhammad said by clicking on the hadith links. Yes I've the article on Rubin. Whats the OR in the statement that I put in? A man was murdered on the orders of Muhammad. This is relevant in the Violence section, unless you think murdering someone is not a violent act. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

can you demonstrate where Rubin shows this incident is "directly related to the topic of the article" (in this case, Criticism of Muhammad, not "violence")? ITAQALLAH 19:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

What do you need to demonstrate? How about this then? How is this related to the topic? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

i have already requested what you need to demonstrate from Rubin. please read the comment again. ITAQALLAH 19:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

You're not responding to my query. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

which query? i'm not concerned about other content grievances you may have. i have specified what must be demonstrated, and that is: where does Rubin shows this incident is "directly related to the topic of the article" (in this case, Criticism of Muhammad, not "violence")? currently, you are representing Rubin in a novel context (i.e. Crticism of Muhammad). ITAQALLAH 20:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

by the way, any further discussion can be taken to Talk:Criticism of Muhammad. thanks. ITAQALLAH 21:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this edit, Lewis does not say to what the brigandage posed a danger; your argument for removal is specious. Please self revert. Arrow740 17:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC) You admitted that protecting trade was the primary motive, and your stretched "revenge" interpretation is already accommodated. Please do not push this any further. Arrow740 19:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

please don't a) misrepresent others; b) artificially inflate motives you desire to read in sources, while deflating those- more apparent- motives you personally don't agree with. you have done this numerous times now, and i think it's time to stop. please also don't restore unencyclopedic cruft under the premise that it was "sourced" [1][2]. ITAQALLAH 20:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I could respond by using the phrases "artificially inflate" and "unencyclopedic cruft" too, but I'll just say that you removed sourced material saying something you agreed to on this talk page, and I'm going to restore it. Arrow740 00:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good edit at Satanic Verses. I was just trying to correct Aminz' distortion of the intro; not everything needs to be sourced in an intro if it is repeated in the body. Arrow740 02:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Salam 'alaikum akhi, please check out the histories for the articles on Wahhabism and Salafism. The same anonymous user has been vandalizing both recently, and has refused discussion even after being warned. Since it's an anon user and ostensibly may not respond to messages, I am not sure where to go from here. Over and out. MezzoMezzo 19:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

the standard method of dealing with vandalism is to leave the respective templates on the anon's user page as long as the vandalism continues. if it doesn't stop by the time you've used {{uw-vandalism3}}, then a report at WP:AIV may be necessary. WP:DENY and WP:RBI are also useful. i'll check out the linked articles. ITAQALLAH 20:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Once again, jazak Allah khair for your input (this time on the Salafism article). I hope that my comments in the matter haven't been out of line as after dealing with similar behavior on the articles for Bin Baz and Albani among others I think i've grown a bit weary of it. InshaAllah i'll remember to remain polite in all edits and discussions in the future. MezzoMezzo 20:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

As salamualaykum, just wanted to drop by and say salams to you both Scythian1 04:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Walaikum salam Scyth, nice work on the recent edits by the way (yes, I am once again a Wikistalker). As for the Salafism article, you do make some very good points Itaqallah; I fear I may have escalated the dispute, inshaAllah I will have to be more cautious with this next time. Things seem calm for the time being, I am hoping the conflict can perhaps blow over. MezzoMezzo 04:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Check out Talk:Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz if you get the chance. Swampant/Chubeat is back and now i'm not sure who is who with all these sockpuppetry and sneaky vandalism. I'm not sure what I should report first; any ideas? MezzoMezzo 20:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Itaqallah,

Please add this to your watchlist. Anon is very persistent. --Aminz 22:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

re [3], Robinson says that after the battle of Badr:

Robinson says:"Umar wanted them[the prisoners] all slaughtered, but Muhammad decided that ransoms should be demanded first, after which they could kill any for whom no one was prepared to pay. He even went so far as to release two of them on the spot. On the other hand he gave free rein to his anger against two men who had attacked him on an intellectual level..."

This does seem to me to stand in odds with what Watt says:"after which they could kill any for whom no one was prepared to pay" unless it is meant that those who had the money but went unransomed could be killed.

--Aminz 23:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Watt says on p. 124 of his 1964 book: "The Muslims had a large amount of booty. To prevent the quest for loot interfering with the pursuit of the enemy, Muhammad announced that the booty, apart from the spoils of those killed and the ransoms for those taken prisoner, would be divided equally among those who took part in the battle. The ransoms must have amounted to a considerable sum, for many of the prisoners came from wealthy families. Those who were not sufficiently influential or wealthy to be ransomed, Muhammad usually set free without any ransom. Generosity in any form was always admired by the Arabs, but Muhammad may also have been beginning to realize that one day it would be important for him to win the Meccans to his side. For some weeks after the battle many Meccans visited Medina to arrange for ransoms." ITAQALLAH 00:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's Rodinson.Proabivouac 00:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The "usually" means that the sentence refers to the usual situation with Muhammad's prisoners. There is no disagreement between Watt and Rodinson. Arrow740 05:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

My addition about women shouting out the names of those who "must be avenged" really should satisfy you. The version states was Watt and Lewis do, that defending trade was the primary motive, and what predicated the need to restore prestige. The desire for revenge is also clearly demonstrated now. If you can find a concise quote from another source clearly indicating that revenge was a motive, perhaps we can synthesize that and the "respond to Medinese brigandage" quote and tidy up the section a bit. Arrow740 09:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

"If you can find a concise quote from another source clearly indicating that revenge was a motive..." - i did, from Chase Robinson, in his EoI Uhud article, from Watt, and (if i recall correctly) from the EoI Muhammad article. we even had a third party confirming that.[4] Watt and Lewis mention different reasons; "defending trade" to Watt means attacking Medina and destroying Muhammad to regain the prestige lost at Badr essential for Mecca's economy (see the discussion p. 124 onwards), which is virtually the same as wanting to avenge the defeat at Badr, as the latter made a Meccan response certain- while "defending trade" to Lewis was to stop the continued post-Badr attacks. the two seperated reasons shouldn't be generalised into "defending trade" when the precise motives presented differ. ITAQALLAH 16:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Restoring prestige in order to protect trade is not virtually the same as wanting to avenge the defeat, and we're already saying something about "avenging" or prestige three times. You just don't like the word "brigandage," which Lewis and Rodinson use, and which Rodinson says is completely accurate. Arrow740 19:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

actually, if restoring prestige means to "attack the Medinans in return for Badr", then it is very similar to wanting to "avenge their defeat". we've already discussed previously about "brigandage", and we don't have to use such language. ITAQALLAH 20:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Restoring their prestige means just that, restoring the opinion their neighbors have of them. Don't try to twist the language. It's quite clear, and it's clearly irresponsible of you to remove it from the article. Regarding "we don't need to use that word" when Lewis uses it and Rodinson says "we can hardly call it anything else," see WP:ILIKEIT. Arrow740 21:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

please try to read the passages from Watt (from p. 124 onwards) more thoroughly; the defeat at Badr resulted in a loss of prestige, which could only be recovered once Medina had been defeated. "Meanwhile the issue between Muhammad and the Meccans was the more urgent. Abu Jahl had clearly been right in his view of the seriousness of Muhammad's challenge to Mecca's position. After Badr they could no longer neglect that challenge. They could only restore their prestige if they met the challenge and crushed Muhammad. To this all their efforts must now be bent. Muhammad could therefore expect a vigorous riposte from the Meccans, and would have to make it his primary task in the ensuing months so to organize matters in Medina that he would be able to parry that riposte." p. 125. how is an essay on XfD relevant to this discussion? ITAQALLAH 23:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Watt starts by saying that the need to restore prestige came from the need to protect trade, not their egos. Cut it out. Arrow740 07:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

wanting to avenge a defeat may be done for honour or prestige (it's not always about personal ego), and that is clear from the above passages. ITAQALLAH 16:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am hoping to get access to the Islamic Shi'ite Encyclopedia soon and should be able to replace the cites from Ordoni. → AA ^(talk) — 08:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Do you know how war crimes (or other offenses committed during war) are dealt with in Islamic law? It would be a good addition to Islamic military jurisprudence.

I am familiar with the asbab al nuzul of verse 2:217: "They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offense)..."

I believe Muslims had attacked a Pagan caravan during the month in which there was to be peace. Could you shed some light on it, and its relation to Islamic jurisprudence.Bless sins 18:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

sure, i'll take a look. as far as i know, hudud are not to be implemented on the battlefield (only after fighting has subsided), but i will double-check that. ITAQALLAH 20:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

regarding your recent change to Islam, "Islam" is the masdar of the fourth S-L-M variant, aslama- also related to istislam and as-silm. see this for more information. ITAQALLAH 00:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

clarification:

1. islam = salam = peace(noun) = give peace(verb).
2. The Islam = asalam (sometimes written as Al-salam) = the peace
3. no exist of the word aslama in arabic but if u mean aslam its an another spelling of the word islam
4. i'am arabian & i know what i speak!

thank you. <<Smart_Viral 00:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)>>Reply

i'm no expert, but you said the verb aslama does not exist- please refer to the above link and the other reliable citations given which show otherwise. if you have any reliable sources verifying what you say, please do provide them. ITAQALLAH 00:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

its said "The manifesting of humility or submission and outward conforming with law of God" & here

1. as language:peace
2. as common:get muslim:submission and outward conforming with law of God <<Smart_Viral 00:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)>>Reply

the link shows that al-islam means submission to God, and is derived from aslama, which itself means to submit. ITAQALLAH 00:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

yes this is what i mean "submission to God" not by enemies of islam as somebody say. thanx<<Smart_Viral 00:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)>>Reply

"Aslama" is a past-tense grammatical form of the verb "surrender". It generally means "to surrender"...Arabic, has 3 form of verbs: Present, Past, and Command :D 216.99.60.106 20:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wrote the following on the Religion of peace talk page which seems to be going through the same argument as you are discussing above. (with the same people). Do you agree with the para below? I would like to replace the sentance about the words for Islam and peace being the same with some consensus. Is this OK? If not can you improve on it?

Islam means literally "submission" not "peace". "Submission" in this context means specifically "submission to the will of Allah". Muslims say Islam is a religion of peace because of the feeling of inner peace that follows from that submission. The words Islam (إسلام) and Peace (إسلام) are similar, but distinct, in Arabic, differing only by one letter and being derived from the same root.

Mike Young 00:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

I thank you for your edits to the Fatima article as it was a biased article before you cleared up the biased remarks in the article and made it quite neutral.

Before you brought your attention to it, it was very biased and one of the editors did not allow anyone to make changes to it.

Thanks --- Hasseniqbal192 18:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

i think User:AA is responsible for most of the much-needed cleanup. ITAQALLAH 13:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi please could you vote I'm nominating myself for admin: Link --Street Scholar 16:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

On 7 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Al-Hurr ibn Abd al-Rahman al-Thaqafi‎, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 08:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included three points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. The points are listed on the talk page of the article; please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 09:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Salam. Ramadan Mubarak.

Please look at Ali and Portal:Islam/Selected Muslim then tell me your idea about them. I would be grateful if you participated in editing Ali article or at least told me your suggestions. Jazak Allah Khar.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please compare Portal:Islam/Selected Muslim with the lead of the Ali.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

ok, i will try to take a look at the article in the near future. ITAQALLAH 09:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

What's your idea about Hadith Yawm Al-Dar. Please write your answer here --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

...have you ever read this? It's pretty good. MezzoMezzo 19:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

much of the work by Ibn al-Qayyim is par excellence. i might have a pdf of it lying around somewhere. irrespective of that, spubs would not be usable as a reliable source on Wikipedia. ITAQALLAH 09:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Could you lend your opinion on this discussion please. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 21:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Need your opinion again, bro. Thanks. Template talk:Sunni Islam#What is Sunnism? (rhetorical question). --Enzuru 05:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

What should i do with the image? What do i edit and which page do i edit? Do i re-upload?

The image is a screenshot from a freely distributed video, broadcast on youtube without any copyrights. I edited the image page a while ago to add this info, what else is there to do? It's a screenshot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xad (talk • contribs) 10:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Salam Alaykum. I hope you've had good time in Ramadan.

AA had nominated this article as a good one. I review it and found several problems. Therefor I put on hold tag on it and added my viewpoints in the talk page. Please help us with this article.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Reply

Eid Mubarak! Wishing you and your family a blessed Eid.

Your friendly neighborhood Muslim.

If you object to the above message, please remove it, accept my apologies and notify me on my talk page.

Greetings and may Allah guide us all!

wassalam ~atif ^{msg me} - 04:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is not analyze but it is exactly what the text say. The text say there was more than one version and that the third order to destroy all but one.

You better pass on the text. And before you erase speak talk about it.87.69.77.82 22:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is bad style. I believe I've told you this before. Arrow740 08:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I saw this edit but I'm not sure which is supposed to be the correct quote. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

The current version is correct. I've added a cite quran ref. → AA ^(talk) — 00:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you have time, you may want to contribute to the rewrite of this article following discussions on the talk page. → AA ^(talk) — 09:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

On 1 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Global Peace and Unity, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 16:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

You should not repost the same text that has already been edited. It is quite inappropriate to do so without discussion.

Moreover, your unconfirmed source alleging a Jewish invitation, contradicts the earlier story that "two men were killed during skirmish in which the Muslims were involved. As a result Muhammad went to the Nadir, asking them to make a contribution towards the blood money of two men killed."

Furthermore, how can you say that "Usayr had a change of mind and drew a sword against Abdullah"? You know that thirty members of the unarmed Jewish delegation invited by Muhammad were killed on their way to the meeting and only one of them escaped.

User: Authoritative —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.216.237.34 (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

i agree that changes should not be made without discussion or the forwarding of appropriate rationale, which is in fact what your edits lacked (edit summaries are helpful in that regard), and precisely the reason why i undid them. all the content is, to the best of my knowledge, sourced to the citations provided. they cannot be changed on the basis of what an editor's viewpoint or personal research is (i.e. changing "other sources" to "an unconfirmed source" - where it is only you who is saying the source is 'unconfirmed'). similarly, i do believe the point about Usayr attacking Abdullah is present in the sources, hence verified. ITAQALLAH 20:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The story on the requested contribution has wide acceptance rather than the unfounded Jewish invitation to discuss religion.

Similarly, Usayr had no sword since the thirty-member Jewish delegation invited by Muhammad was unarmed.

User: Authoritative —Preceding comment was added at 20:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

there are multiple accounts present in hadith literature, as well as academic biographies, as to the events surrounding the expulsion of Banu Nadir. i have verified the accuracy of your second point in Stillman's 1979 work. ITAQALLAH 21:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why not state which account is widely accepted and more feasible? Why did you erase my second point since you verified its accuracy?

User: Authoritative —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.216.237.34 (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Reply