User talk:RiskAficionado/Archive 1

---

Thank you for those links! I will take a look. Publicola 00:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have a non-authoratative source suggesting Saifur Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri is an Indian Islamic scholar working as a research fellow at the Islamic University of Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah, where he is the official biographer of Muhammad. If true, that would make him an excellent authority on the matter. Can you find a source which confirms this? Publicola 02:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fantastic! Thanks for that info, it makes Al-Mubarakpuri superior to any of the other Islamic scholars cited on Banu Nadir/mpov yet. I'm still looking through the Raheeq Al Makhtoom, but feel free to add the parts you mentioned if you haven't already. We need to have as many authoratative, unimpeachable sources as possible in there. By the way, you might get a laugh out of this excerpt from Wikiproject Judaism. If only everyone on Wikipedia would adhere to that, then the source of the centuries-old ill will would be apparent. Trying to continue the fight on Wikipedia is pointless, stupid, a waste of time, and counterproductive. My opinion is that the more Jews understand the viewpoints of Muslims, and the more Muslims understand the viewpoints of Jews, the more possibilities exist for harmony. The history of Medina is a perfect example of this because of the constitution, which held for a few years. If more people knew about why the constitution fell apart, instead of censoring it with invective-loaded, unknowable mental-state descriptions of the major players, then maybe there wouldn't be so much hostility. Publicola 03:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

wa alaikum salaam. Hi. My comments to abid ullah jan? You mean, when he wrote that article about Wikipedia? I should have responded to him again... he was nice enough to address my problems with his article although he still had a few things wrong about Wikipedia process. I think he edited a little bit before writing his article... although, I forget. But, if he's here I don't see why he'd need to be anonymous :O I'm curious about made you bring this up? gren グレン 14:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

user:publicola is doing very well on Banu Nadir and it seems that others don't really want to cooperate. They have all sorts of way outs for arguments. I believe that the main problem with the article is that there is no respect for the most important personality in the human history, like I may disagree with christians, but I shouldn't slander Paul of Tarsus. The emphasize should be on having good faith. Second issue is, finding the sources for our claims i.e. what Muslim scholars give reason for every Prophet Muhammad's actions. This is the only way, we can make this article more balanced. Otherwise, as one commented on the talk page, Are we reading about a prophet or Genghis Khan? Anyways, thanks for working on this article. Jazakallah! SaadSaleem 11:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Assalam-o-Alaikum, I was thinking that if an article can be created which would discuss all the reasons why Prophet Muhammad prosecuted these people. What I have understood so far, I wrote on Banu Nadir/mpov. It is very important because the battles and People killed by Prophet Muhammad is a very important part of Islamic history. And then a link to this article can be given on every page which would discuss such killings. This proposal should also be posted on Muslim Guild project. The work has to be top class because the way he is being portrayed, that doesn't make a good sketch of prophet Muhammad's personality in one's mind. SaadSaleem 07:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Prosecutions under early Islamic governments SaadSaleem 00:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've come across a Muslim who supports a boycott of Wikipedia. I think it does considerable harm for Muslims to participate in what will inevitably become articles representing anti-Islamic polemicism. In Islam, 'idle talk' is haraam. This is worse than idle talk, in that you're sitting here hoping that Christians and Jews will be considerate enough to give you space to make a fair representation from the Islamic POV. It won't happen. There's an absolutely zero chance of that happening. I've contributed enough time on trying to bring NPOV to these articles, and my conclusion is that we don't owe an apology for what misguided Muslims may have done over the years. A misguided Muslim caliph made Jews wear yellow slippers? Tough! That's not Islam. The articles are overrun by people who hate Islam; people who want to devote their lives to expressing their hate. We would be foolish to waste our lives coming up with defenses to their rhetoric. They outnumber you, and on any article you participate, they'll simply revert your contribution or flood the article with negative and vilifying polemics. This is waste of time that we should be directing elsewhere. His Excellency... 07:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I landed here from the page of AE. I do not find any reason for any boycott. Wikipedia is not a political publication or something similar. It is an encyclopedia, and so it shall tell the truth. Please understand the difference. --Bhadani 16:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Banu Qaynuqa is also unprotected. What do you suggest for that, as reverting will not help and the problem is same as in Banu Nadir. SaadSaleem 15:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking that if there is an article about Muhammad as a General, why can't we write more articles on Prophet Muhammad such as Muhammad as a teacher, Muhammad as a father and husband, and Muhammad as social reformer. The main problem with Islam is that we have so much information (especially hadith), which can be right, wrong, or incomplete, that people don't miss even a single chance to defame Islam. So I think, to balance it out, we need to put other stuff also which would show the other side of the picture as well. Would like to have your comments. --SaadSaleem 06:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I would certainly agree with you, we need to first make sure that we have enought citable material available that we don't run into problem afterwards. But thanks for your input. SaadSaleem 14:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

regarding the mediation process on banu nadir (which subsequently has an effect on banu qaynuqa and the like), it seems at this point that some of the editors necessary for this to go through do not want to participate in working together to resolve the dispute. if the mediation case is subsequently closed due to this (which may be a plausible possibility), what is the best course of action afterwards in order to resolve the problem (as i'm still pretty much a newbie to certain aspects of WP like advanced dispute resolution)? is it me or am i justifiably disappointed that the current mediator assigned has not really been doing as much as had ben hoped? ITAQALLAH 21:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

The most important thing is to leave the decision on whether mediation has failed up to the mediator. It might be a long wait, but don't do anything to end it early. Then, if mediation fails, there have been plenty of personal attacks with which to open an arbitration case. Mediators will often drag their feet when one side is being unresponsive (usually this means that side knows they are in a bad position as far as the content disputes go), because, as the saying goes, "Time heals all wounds." (If only that were true....) Please be patient. Publicola 08:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:MuhammadSeal.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 09:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Have you read this book? I haven't. It is written by Syed Ameer Ali. David Samuel Margoliouth writes about this book: "The charming and eloquent treatise of Syed Ameer Ali, The Spirit of Islam, is probably the best achievement in the way of an apology for Mohammed that is ever likely to be composed in a European language" Thought it might be interesting. --Aminz 00:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the information. Did you know that you can have free online access to some pages of many books (including Watt's books) at "www.books.google.com"? You can search within the book and read some pages. It is nice. Try it. Also, recently amazon.com has provided a new feature that enables people to read books online without buying them. That's nice. BTW, are you working on Battle of Mut'ah? I do have access to articles from Encyclopedia of Islam. I can email any article you wish if you are interested. --Aminz 01:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why don't you add a section titled "Criticism of Syed Ameer Ali" to his article. That would be a great addition I think. Itaqallah, I am a shia, BUT I don't like Shia's attitude towards umm al-mu'mineen aa'ishah and some other Sahaba. It is sad. That's all I can say. Anyways, I'll try to find articles on subjects you pointed out ASAP. Please feel free to drop a list of articles you may need on my talk page. Salam. --Aminz 01:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Re :EoI. It is secular. I usually find the articles useful. --Aminz 02:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are more than welcome. I have found so far three articles written by Watt on EoI. On Hudaybiya, Aws and Khadraj. I'll send them for you. --Aminz 02:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'll send an email for you. I needed your email address to attach the files for you. --Aminz 02:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I have replied to it. I also CC'ed it for myself. But am not getting it back. I may re-send it. --Aminz 02:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please let me know if you recieved it. Sometimes it takes a few minutes. --Aminz 02:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I sent them through another email. You should have recieved them by now. --Aminz 02:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hope it helps. Salam --Aminz 03:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Walaikum Asalam, I've been at work and I was busy writing an article in response to a [video] and although I've finished it I have to fix it up a bit where I've posted it and I'm also working on another article in response to a certain article. So that combined with my job has left me with a hectic work load, but I plan on coming back soon inshaAllah. xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 08:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Salaam, I created an article on ,Mizan, for quick reference. Maybe it'll help someday. TruthSpreader^Talk 03:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Salaam, Thanks for your comments. I just edited Islamic view of Polygamy, as there were no references. But if you think that I have made it too much biased, do change it. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 10:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Salaam, I edited Domestic behaviour in Islam. I think this article still needs some attention. If you can improve it alittle bit, that'll be great. Secondly, I don't know, what is the problem with the references, why they are appearing twice. TruthSpreader^Talk 11:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can you please have a look at User:Truthspreader/Women in Islam. I am trying to rewrite the whole article, because I think the first one was really a mess. TruthSpreader^Talk 11:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

On 4 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Muhammad as a diplomat, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Salaam, Itaqallah. This is a superb article; brilliantly written and cited. I'd wager it's ready for an FAC. Sorry I had to cut down the tagline for space. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 18:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Itaqallah, it's very close to FAC. I would submit it for a Peer Review as the next step. -- Samir धर्म 03:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I didn't really mean to fuel up the heated debate over the symbol, but it's just because the one in the English page looked plain, while the ones in the French and Hebrew sections, for e.g., looked fancy -- at least the colors. I was thinking maybe just the background colors should be changed -- from white and green, to green and orange. To see what I mean:

• http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod%C3%A8le:S%C3%A9rie_Islam

I mean just to give the template a more appealing look. No information or hyperlink should be changed, that I have no business with since it wouldn't be fair to the readers or regulators here. And instead of the mosque, which I said is just a mere Muslim temple:

What about "Allah" in Arabic? The Japanese template uses it, and it's more generalizing to Islam:

• Moreover, what did you mean of consensus? Quote: "please do not make significant changes to the template without first obtaining consensus." I hardly know the word or what you meant. - Qasamaan 11:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the description of consensus. Guess I'm still learning much in the Islamic life. :) I kinda like the green and orange color though -- just for the Ramadan make-over; nothing bigger than that. However, we may have problems adjusting the background color with the mosque or with the "Allah" calligraphy. I made a minor test with Microsoft Paint (R) :S - Qasamaan 19:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much for reverting Mike's distortion of my edit. --Aminz 06:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again, brother. --Aminz 06:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

This comment: [1] is not very collegial, even when you consider that you may have to deal with contentious users, it is best to remain calm. Terms like "lucrative field of bashing" are not going to help move the discourse forward. Please consider that going forward. ++Lar: t/c 11:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Itaqallah. I don't know. Why don't you put {{help}} on the top of your talk page? I am sorry that I can not help. Cheers, --Aminz 08:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Salam, that would be fine with me. BhaiSaab ^talk 00:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Out of curiosity, what does the text in Arabic from your userpage mean? —Khoikhoi 01:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Interesting, thanks. Yusufali, Pickthal, and Shakir are different translators, right? —Khoikhoi 04:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Interesting again! See you around. —Khoikhoi 05:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Salaam, I think Islam and Slavery should be changed to Slavery in Islam. I have put some material on Women in Islam, which I originally took from Mizan. You can access this article from [2]. Islam inherently does not like slavery, as God used the word "free the necks" for slaves and as the article says that slavery was eradicated gradually. This doesn't mean that Arabs or Muslims stopped using it, but Islam provided a way to stop it ultimately, as if Qur'an would say that slavery is finished, all the handicapped, old men and women, children would come on streets with no homes, hence a gradual way was the only possible way to eradicate it effectively. If this theme can be incorporated in the article, that'll be great. Secondly, sex with female-slaves was considered norm of society and it was never considered rape as the slave would know before hand of the consequences. This fact is alluded in Qur'an and hadith at different places, which people don't understand properly. If you agree with it, either you or I can start changing the article. TruthSpreader^Talk 09:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

What do you think about Ma malakat aymanukum? I think this article should be merged with Slavery in Islam and I think it lacks secondary sources. Cheers --TruthSpreader^Talk 11:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Salam

I see your comment in Ali's talk page and also Talk:Hadith of the pond of Khumm. I know the difference between Shi'a and Sunni in this issue is in the enterpretation of wali. But if you disagree with me you can read "كتاب الولاية في طرق حديث الغدير" which is written by "أبوجعفر محمد بن جرير الطبري " who was Sunni.--Sa.vakilian 14:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please pay attention to this source.[3], [4] As you see it doesn't want to say all of the Muslims say what Shiites say. It writes each part has been narrated with wich source and some source hasn't narrated each part. --Sa.vakilian 07:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I want to say that Shiite narration hasn't narrated only with Shiites but also with Sunnis too. So we can called it Shiite narrations. There are some books like "Alghadir" which Sunni narrations have been gathered in them. At least do you accept that Rasoolallah has said:"من کنت ولیه فعلی ولیه" or something like this "من کنت مولاه فهذا علی مولاه"--Sa.vakilian 08:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Tabari's book: This book is a abandonded at present. But the scholars use it in the past. For example As Jafarian has said Shamseddin Zahabi uses this book as reference to write [http://www.aqaed.com/shialib/books/all/torogh/index.html رسالة طرق حديث

من كنت مولاه فهذا علي مولاه] and refered to it at some pages. --Sa.vakilian 10:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

اتق الله و انظر الی [5]--Sa.vakilian 17:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

First of all, thank you too so much for your hard work on this article. As to your question, Well, I think "slavery in islamic jurisprudence" is supposed to be a series of formal laws. We can say that Islam encourages good Treatment of the slaves, but I don't think we can get into details there. Or maybe we can? What do you think? I wanted to further add Lewis's quotes on the treatment of slaves before and after the prophet. --Aminz 08:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Itaqallah, it actually doesn't matter much. Feel free to re-order it. I'll probably add some more quotes and tenatively put them in the new section. Cheers, --Aminz 08:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Salam

Do you know Pop spoke against Jihad? Now so many people go to see Jihad. I saw this part Jihad#Jihad_as_warfare is weak and POV. Can you work on it? I can wait until you edit that article. I can help you about Shi'a viewpoint about Jihad too. --Sa.vakilian 18:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Salaam, would you like to give us your input after my recent changes to the article, Jihad, as article is now lengthy. I think its length is justified by its importance and number of details involved. If you have some other idea, do share with us. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 14:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Don't you think that Jihad#Supremecy_of_Islam_in_Arabian_peninsula has some extra details that can be incorporated in Banu Nadir and other articles related to Jews of Muhammad's times. I took this article from Mizan, "The Islamic Law of Jihad". What do you think? TruthSpreader^Talk 03:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Salaam, I just put some extra information on Jihad#Jihad_as_warfare. I think that the whole argument pivots on the interpretation of these verses. I am definitely with the "proponents", as I don't feel that the whole "Muslim Nation" is a bunch of "chosen people". I wonder how others think this way. TruthSpreader^Talk 09:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the reply. I think Mu'tazili are completely different people, as they were more into philosophy. The only difference these scholars have from traditional ones is that they believe that Shariah is fixed but fiqh can be re-written at any time, hence there is always room for correction in fiqh issues. But classical four schools of thought does not work this way and there is a lot of mis-understanding that whether issue is related to Sharia or fiqh. To my understanding, a person is Sunni or Shia or whatever, it depends on the sources which he thinks are reliable. For example, they still use all Sunni hadith books and fiqh books extensively and have refered in their books. But it is very logical that if any of these hadith does not fulfill the conditions as according to the rules set by hadith experts, that has to be questioned, as all these people were humans, who categorized them in the first place. But if you think that articles are swaying in different directions, do make changes accordingly. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 09:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Salam.

In spite of Verifiability policy I believe in our responsibility toward Allah and other people. Thus I don't want to put any wrong information specially in religious articles. But I think your strategy in talk:Ali is wrong. I put too many sources for my claim but you said you'd doubted it without any sources. As I told before, I think you, as a wikipedian, aren't in the position to judge about scholar references without any reference.At least you can put the list of Zahabi's books when you claim it is fabricated. «الدلیل علی المدعی»

Also I read WP:Reliable sources#Partisan, religious and extremist websites, but there isn't written we shouldn't use such sources. The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief are in themselves reasons not to use a source. I advised you to read Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:NOR. --Sa.vakilian 08:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

SALAM. I wait for your suggestion.--Sa.vakilian 12:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually, to be honest, I never saw the religion and slavery article when I put that merger tag, I had only read its talk page, which is rather long, so I assumed the article is long too. hehe, take care.

--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 05:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

It is an interesting discussion that why these scholars differ in different opinions and what is the difference in their strategy? The reason is that when Pakistan was about to be formed in 1947, there was a question raised that we are going to have a Muslim country, and we would like to have Sharia in our country, but which Sharia? As there are so many schools and small sects that it is difficult to follow all of them and we had a lot of diversity as well in our population. Islahi and Mawdudi starting working on it but then Mawdudi was more influenced by "Muslim brotherhood" and changed his goals while Islahi kept on working that we need to find the skeleton or "Basic Sharia" which is the core of the religion and which hasn't changed. The aim was to clear all the fiqh that was clinged to shariah. This is why if you read Tadabbur-i-Qur'an, you will find that it talks more on language, as Qur'an itself has so many clues that can help us find the real thing (which I personally do agree that if Qur'an is not changed then extensive linguistic research can help uncover many secrets). Ghamidi followed Islahi's path and then wrote Mizan, which is one of its kind, as it claims to summarize the whole Sharia. These scholars couldn't get much fame as they were more busy in study work than making their political careers like Mawdudi. But it is an interesting dicussion. TruthSpreader^Talk 10:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't have a secondary source to claim that but I'll let you know when I will have one. But rest assured that they are atleast not Mu'tazilites, as in one of Ghamidi's lectures, he was talking that how Imam Hanbal tackled baseless arguments of Mu'tazilites. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 10:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am very much aware of the fact that they do believe in physical after life and adhaab al-qabr. Ghamidi's stand on sources of Islam can be understood from Mizan#Volume_1 (Sources of Islam). TruthSpreader^Talk 10:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I actually had a look at Mu'tazili and if you correlate Ghamidi's thoughts to Mu'tazilites, I think they might agree in a very few results but over all, they would completely disagree in methodology and beliefs. But strickly speaking, as you said, "in the realm of four Imams" are Sunnis then Salafis are not conventional Sunnis. And with the same definition, Ghamidi et. al. won't be conventional Sunnis either. He has put all his methodology and beliefs in Mizan, you can look under "Sources of Islam" and "Wisdom". I doubt that if these chapters would disagree with conventional Sunni concepts. The difference is that Ghamidi takes things to "grass root" level to understand them, instead of borrowing understanding from conventional schools of thought or doctorines. TruthSpreader^Talk 14:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

uhmm... Ghamidi also believes that it is the job of scholars to interpret primary sources, which I think is the proper way as every Muslim can not be asked to be a scholar. People take Madhabs too seriously, I would do too, but in essence, they are simply opinions of different scholars and not word of God. Ghamidi has raised questions which people haven't dared to raise, for example weightage of woman's testimony (the Qur'an only talks about No. of witnesses but not value of testimony), is completely understood wrong in every logical way. These days we also accept finger prints as vital evidence and sometimes may accept them as the sole deciding evidence, then why give less value to testimony of women. Now Qur'an doesnot say anything, it is our traditional Madhabs that assert this conclusion. So if Madhabs have logical fault, it should be pointed out. This is the duty of our scholars in general. But I don't find any thing in this school of thought, that is rebellious in belief and methodology, as it can be read in Mizan. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 15:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

According to Prof. W. Hallaq, "if one does not accept the infallible authority of the Sunni ijma' in interpretation or application, one cannot be deemed a Sunni". Prof. Qasim Zaman uses for such cases is "New Intellectuals" ("new" referring to the fact that they are not bound by ijma' of earlier scholarly opinion; "intellectuals" referring to the fact that they do not have madrasa degrees). TruthSpreader^Talk 16:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for asking, as this exercise cleared some of my concepts. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 05:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

The link which you gave me:[allaahuakbar.net/jamaat-e-islaami/islahi_school_of_thought.htm] is so accurate in discription. This very school of thought do believe that Qur'an is not liable to follow hadith rather hadith is liable to follow Qur'an. (According to my personal observation) sometimes it happens that hadith does not fit into Qur'an and people push the hadith to a limit that they change the overall emphasis in Qur'an. Now this art of judging hadith is not something new, all hadith experts have done it. The thing is that when we read Bukhari, we accept his abilities but not to a limit that would make him infallible. Hence, our Sunni community thinks that this process of scrutining or "Sunni ijma" is complete but these very scholar challenge already developed understanding in different areas (but not the whole religion). TruthSpreader^Talk 06:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Interestingly, on the same site, which has criticism on Islahi, it calls Ghamidi as a meritorious religious scholar:[allaahuakbar.net/jihaad/murder_manslaughter_terrorism.htm] --TruthSpreader^Talk 10:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Would you like to have a look at the article Javed_Ahmed_Ghamidi#Resignation_from_Council_of_Islamic_Ideology. The discussion we were having is being done at much larger scale. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 15:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Man. You are right. Cheers, --Aminz 08:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Salaam, if I have a hadith number from Arabic version of Bukhari, lets say 5530, how will I convert into hadith number in Muhsin Khan's English translation. TruthSpreader^Talk 11:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I nominated this image for deletion.Opiner 03:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you brother. You are doing great job in Muhammad article. Please keep contributing there. --- ابراهيم 11:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is there any way to check that whether Ibn Hisham says or not that punishment was given according to Torah. As it has been reverted. TruthSpreader^Talk 03:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

TruthSpreader says Jews deserved their beheading? Yuk!!! Well its not your fault who edits your page. Why not discuss introduction on Talk:Muhammad? I didnt make it incoherent, BrandonYusufToropov did. my contributions were wholly coherent, and avoided this stupid founding dispute. PLEASE look at what I've written on discussion page and join in.Opiner 11:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)Reply