User talk:RiskAficionado/Archive 12

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Haykal

You have said a number of times that Spencer is not a reliable source because his stuff is not peer reviewed and he doesnt have any special education in Islam. What is your opinion of Muhammad Husayn Haykal? This is a source which Bless Sins is using and has claimed that he's a reliable source. At first I was about to agree with him but now I'm thinking how Haykul is any more reliable that Spencer. You have said something here but I thought I would ask you in this way: Do you think Haykul is anymore reliable than Spencer and if so, why? I have seen Bless Sin's justification but I want to know what you think also. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You're still having doubts? What's the reason for this Matt57?Bless sins (talk) 06:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to know what Itaq says. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I need to look at the issue of Haykal in closer detail. According to Andrew Rippin (Muslims: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, Routledge, 2005, p. 204), Haykal is "the most significant and the most studied of all contemporary biographers" of Muhammad. If you look through scholarly works, you'll see that Haykal's work is frequently discussed in scholarly literature (Rippin says, p. 206,: "Haykal's work, The Life of Muhammad, published as a book in 1935, has been extensively read, translated and studied, both in a popular way as well as in scholarly analysis."). Of course, it is known that there's an apologetic leaning in areas where he discusses Western attacks on Muhammad, as Rippin notes. At the same time, presenting an opinion by itself does not disqualify the reliability of a source. Spencer's opinion itself isn't the reason he's deemed unreliable. It is the fact that he is decried by experts on Islamic studies for lacking the competence, and that he doesn't subsequently appear to meet WP:RS.

So, I'm currently undecided. I am satisfied, however, that many of Haykal's most significant arguments have been relayed and attributed to him in other appropriate sources. ITAQALLAH 17:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see the uncertainty, I feel the same way. Inspite of him being recommended by this professor and other bullet points which Bless Sins pointed here, I dont think he satisfies this important part of WP:RS:

- This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.

But the bullet points Bless Sins brought up (Britannica recommended him) could maybe satisfy this part:

-Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are preferred.

So if we go by strict requirements (peer reviewed, academic journals) which we frequently do for other sources, you know, then he doesnt satisfy it.

I might start a little section on WP project Islam on sources by the way, which would list unacceptable websites and say, sources that are not accepted here to make it easy to do cleanup when the time comes. There are some websites which are bieng linked e.g. and there are lots of other bad links as well. Listing these and others in a clean up list would help. People can add other links too if they want. This will eventually keep the quality up. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, peer review is important. I suppose the question is whether peer review was a standard academic practice back then (I've just been looking at this). If it wasn't, then it might be too much to expect it from these books from pre-1950s. Nowadays, of course, peer review is a standard facet of academic discipline. ITAQALLAH 18:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

islamic peace

please help me to improve the article as somebody question about reliable sources . in the name of God. wassalam Zikrullah (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC) sir, i need your kind attention to the new article on concept of peace in islam which is as important as the basic belief in islam like tauhid risalah etc. but a person User:Matt57 is trying to prove that there is nothing like peace or islamic peace in the context of islam. please tell him that the article's subject is very basic and the purpose of the islamic movement some 140 years ago was based on it. blessZikrullah (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)ings wassalam.

Responded on your talk page. ITAQALLAH 20:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

assalamu alaikum good guidance! i can suggest the title to be abode of peace or global peace in islam and what you say about islamic peace does not exist in islam is a fault not even by common muslims like us but those who want to interpret islam without the context of quran. i ask a question what is the idea of kingdom on earth in christianity . is it a political . can you dare to criticise it in the article of Kingdom of God.the very basic movement started by a person some 1400 years ago was to establish that kingdom of God as JESUS CHRIST told. but the poor understanding of islam created the laden al qaida and taliban in islam which was a threat to humanity. regards on good knowledge of islam

Zikrullah (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting Husayn ibn Ali

Salam alaykum This article was too weak and violated copyright as well as WP rules. Therefor I rewrote it. I hope you can help me with it.--Seyyed(t-c) 17:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look in a while to see if I can add anything. Regards, ITAQALLAH 18:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

new article - qur'an miracles list

Hi, would you be interested to participate in the discussion going here ? (Imad marie (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC))

Sources

Acceptable sources for Islam articles is a big issue. Why dont we decide on a few principles so we dont keep edit warring over who is reliable and who is not, who should be kept in and who not. Martin Luther is being mentioned calling Muhammad a pedophile. Is he a reliable source, tell me? No, so why is he being mentioned here? Likewise for Zwerner which you removed. These are notable people. Samuel Marinus Zwemer has written a lot of stuff on Islam. Like you said in the case of Haykul, we can write his stuff as long as its being attributed to him. Your comments? Right now, these are not the problems in Islam articles. The problems are unknown XYZ people. These are the people we need to get rid of first. So again, please compare this to Haykul. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability has nothing to do with reliability.

Matt, I have always maintained that the source must be reliable for it to be used on any page of Wikipedia. At the same time, it's quite clear that if information about what particular people said is transmitted through a reliable source, then that source may be used to report so-and-so's views. This is the case with Luther - he isn't a reliable source, but a reliable source has seen it fit to relay specific attacks of his - these we can relay as a reliable source has relayed it. This is also the case with Spencer and anyone else - whatever critiques they make that are actually relayed by reliable sources may merit inclusion. What I and others object to is consulting polemical sources directly, such as directly using Spencer's books or blogs. That isn't acceptable.

About Haykal, you need to read my comments again, or perhaps I didn't express myself clearly. I said that the very least we can do is mention what other reliable sources have said about Haykal's view on this or that. The question surrounds whether Haykal himself is reliable. But this is what I'm sure I said in my above comment (edit: please refer to my 9 Jan 17:54 UTC comment on this page, last sentence). ITAQALLAH 18:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus

I am happy with "According to Islamic texts". --Be happy!! (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad at Medina

Do you have that book? Arrow740 (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. ITAQALLAH 20:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks! I really appreciate the barnstar you gave me. I never thought I'd get two barnstars just for one article. Peace be upon you, bro! Jagged 85 (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Day of Ashura

Salam Alaykum

The day after tomorrow is Ashura and the article is on the main page of wikipedia[1]. Unfortunately the article doesn't represent Sunni view precisely. I wanted to improve it, but I prefer to leave it for you. --Seyyed(t-c) 18:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Many parts of the article need sourcing and copyediting. I think it's a little unbalanced towards Shi'i views and practices too, but that's just my opinion. ITAQALLAH 19:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Because most of the participants are Shia. Of course I coworked with a Sunni to improve it as you can see in the talk page.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Please explain about this edit in the talk page of the article. As I know many Sunnis participated in commemoration especially in Iran as well as Indian sub-continent. During 14 and 15th centuries it was usual in Iran to mourn for Imam Hussayn and Uthman.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Muslim psychology DYK

On 19 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Muslim psychology, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Origin and Development of Quran

Hi, Itaqallah. I would greatly appreciate your response on my proposal on Quran Talk Page, which i left long time ago after you've removed many para from that section suddenly. Thanks. --Tarikash 09:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

Responded. ITAQALLAH 23:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(Raaid (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)) Thankyou for welcoming me! I'm certainly enjoying my time at Wikipedia and it has helped me in various ways. From Pakistan-India wars to Valentich's disappearance, Wikipedia has kept me informed throughout!

Thank you once again! Raaid

No problem. :) ITAQALLAH 23:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Islamonline.net

Salam Alaykum

It's written in Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Links Cleanup that this site is not acceptable. But it's under supervision of Yusuf Al-Qaradawi. I think it's acceptable source. What's your idea. --Seyyed(t-c) 16:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably best not to use it as a source. Whether it should be used as an external link might be up for further discussion (it might vary depending on which page is linked to). ITAQALLAH 20:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean even the articles of Al-Qaradawi can't be considered as a reliable source.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sa.vakilian (talk • contribs) 05:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about that. There is still debate as to how we recognise and appreciate non-Western (i.e. Eastern, Islamic) forms of scholarship, such as trained Muslim scholars who may have a different system of qualification and so on. ITAQALLAH 11:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

keep neutral

I know it is hard for you as a Muslim but do it. All religious people tend to be bias I don't blame anyone. But you can not just remove link because you don't like what they say.

All the links in the article about the Quran miracle are Islamic and as such not reliable. No article about such thing without showing the other side of those who claim to refute. Infidel is well known atheist web site and as such it will stay.

I will complain to administrator if you remove any link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.151.98 (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Moreover the link you added was dangerous. use WOT extension to firefox https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3456 before you add link or any other program that good for that matter.Oren.tal (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC) And just for the recorded the Jews have their own "miracle" http://www.torahscience.org/natsci/photo1.html Surely I wont allow anyone to use such thing as reliable.I will do the same with Hindu miracle and they also have.Oren.tal (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oren.tal, I removed all of the external links, as all of them were partisan and of little value, and reinserted one which was the website of a professor of Geology who was, I believe, mentioned in the article. You simply inserted a polemical partisan link, which you called "very reliable" and removed another which you declared "dangerous" - so I see duplicity in your patronising comments about neutrality. WOT is based upon user ratings, and has nothing to do how we decide which links are appropriate, which is determined by WP:EL. ITAQALLAH 12:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's also stunning how you impute bias onto me for removing partisan links of both flavours, yet you think it's "neutral" to restore only the anti-Islam links from what I removed instead of all of it.[2] ITAQALLAH 12:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Bucailleism

Do you have any reply to my question posted on talk The relation between Islam and science?

Wikipedia isn't the place to popularise neologisms. Discussing any claim of scientific miracle under the umbrella of Bucailleism is also original research, and it poisons the well. There's many title alternatives we may consider, but the issue is whether or not we should have an article discussing this neologism specifically as its topic. ITAQALLAH 16:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So what should we have? just an article on International Conference on Scientific Miracles in the Holy Qur’an? There are oodles of websites on Scientific Miracles in the Holy Qur’an (or Bucailleism), not just a conference. Do you see any problem with the status quo ante Bucailleism article - a huge issue in the Muslim world with no article on it wikipedia because to make one involves original research and using a neologism? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC) --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TafsirBaghawi.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TafsirBaghawi.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Najjar a reliable reference?

You are invited to participate here (Imad marie (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

Sectioning of EL

I think it makes sense e.g. here. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It does make sense there, as there are a multitude of different views to be categorised. It may not be the best option in other places. ITAQALLAH 14:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jesus in Islam

The article Jesus in Islam you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Jesus in Islam for things needed to be addressed. jackturner3 (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have left some comments for you on Talk:Jesus in Islam. jackturner3 (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I think that would be sufficent to promote. -- jackturner3 (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, I was waiting for you to verify that you had made the requested changes. -- jackturner3 (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jesus in Islam

The article Jesus in Islam you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Jesus in Islam for eventual comments about the article. Well done! jackturner3 (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Beware of using a excuses like "not reliable source" to eviscerate articles

Hi Itaqallah, I have been looking through some of your recent work on a few articles such as the Bucaille/Islam/science related ones and a pattern I see in your deletions is an eagerness to delete sourced material on less than solid grounds. On what ground do you claim Campbell is not a reliable source? or any less reliable than Bucaille at any rate? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

On the grounds that he (a medical doctor, like a certain Zakir Naik) does not in any way meet WP:RS. Who says Bucaille is a reliable source? ITAQALLAH 20:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Much of what Campbell talks about regards human anatomy. I would think a physician would have some expertise in that. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Where exactly in this paragraph you restored does Campbell say anything at all about human anatomy?? A physician is qualified to comment on human anatomy, not anything related to the Qur'an, the Bible, history, nor science in general. Hence, Campbell is not a reliable source. Do you think Zakir Naik is a reliable source? ITAQALLAH 21:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, in that paragraph he doesn't talk about anatomy. Go ahead and delete it. I'll find something from his book about his comments on anatomy. Who is Zakir Naik? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you agree that Campbell isn't a reliable source for what he's being used for, I am sure you will be courteous enough to remove what you restored. I doubt Campbell's book has been pubished by any academic or respected publisher, in any case. ITAQALLAH 22:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 04:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion.....

Hi there, I noticed your request for a third opinion on Commission on Scientific Signs in the Quran and Sunnah. I attempted to provide an unbiased opinion regarding this dispute. Hopefully it can be of some help to you. The opinion is here. Thank you for posting it and again, I hope it is at least a teensy bit valuable :) Lazulilasher (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I was attempting to remark on the specific quote you mentioned. However, perhaps my reasoning was a bit convoluted. I have clarified. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I suggested that the quote be removed and an external link be added to it. Does this sound reasonable? Lazulilasher (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Qur'an and Science

About this , I think we have enough sources to create a new article, I will create a new article called Qur'an and Science; The_relation_between_Islam_and_science#Belief_that_scientific_facts_are_supported_by_the_Qur.27an and Qur'an_and_miracles#Scientific_miracles will link to it as a main article; and Maurice_Bucaille#Bucailleism as see also. (Imad marie (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC))

How about something a bit more specific like Scientific interpretations of the Qur'an? My own personal preference is that we don't really need another article but do go ahead and start it if you think it will reduce the burden on Qur'an and miracles and The relation between Islam and science. ITAQALLAH 16:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad#NOTICE_about_image_discussion

I've created this initiative (and notice new banner at top of talk page) so that we will remove any sections below the one I just linked and add them to Talk:Muhammad/images to begin to clear up that page and maybe stop some of this madness. I did this boldly since nothing else was really being done and I hope you will support it. Feel free to keep up your work on /images but I think it is a problem that Talk:Muhammad was becoming more of a political discussion forum than an article talk page. Thank you. gren グレン 22:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Zakir Naik - Comments!

Salam, Dude can you please explain why you continually remove my edit regarding Zakir Naik and the extact nature of his comments. I am not saying anything which is not factual! You mention the contraversy but refuse to allow the details to be shown.

Sufficient detail has been provided. The source is there for anyone to read up further. I have explained in greater detail on your talk page. ITAQALLAH 17:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Trying to improve Muhammad

I've actually been pondering whether it'd be worthwhile to set up so less obvious location to discuss actually working on the article while it's under attack for people seriously interested in working on it to build a neutral, encyclopaedic article. Facts are that the image issue isn't the only this - the article is poorly written, needs a lot of work, and anyone near it is just trying to hold back the tidal wave of problems. I mean, more power to you if you can get anything worked out there, but I have doubts ... WilyD 19:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue is complicated by the media attention, the escalating tensions, and the subsequent traffic increase. I really don't know how to go about handling this whole dispute and resolving it before it really does get out of hand. Do we wait it out? Invent a temporary solution? Have a good faith community discussion on an alternative page? You're right that the article in general needs improvement too. I have no doubts the article will one day become a good article (at the very least), just hopefully sooner rather than later. ITAQALLAH 19:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, I suspect either "wait it out" or "start Talk:Muhammad/Soopersekretpagewhererealdiscussiontakesplace" are the viable answers. I'd try the former for ~1 week then move on to the later. I certainly don't think the current image arrangements are necessarily sacrosanct, but I'm unsure of how one might hope to conduct intelligent discussion on the issue on that page right now. Based on the last day of semi-protection, long periods of full protection may be the order of the day soon. We'll have to wait and see. WilyD 20:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Reporting

Hello Itaqallah, I'm thinking of reporting Oren.tal, please see his edit history here in the past couple of days, and there is also the (Off-wiki canvassing) that you have pointed out. He just does not use common sense and it's difficult comminicating with him, What do you think? (Imad marie (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

If Oren.tal's disruption continues in the same manner that it has been of late, then I am sure preventative measures will be taken. ITAQALLAH 20:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Continued Muhammad Ferver

By-the-by, I mentioned your name as someone who's moderate, knowledgeable about Islam/Muhammad, knowledgeable about Wikipedia and familiar with the image issues on Muhammad on enwiki-l, where there's also extensive discussion of the latest brew-ha-ha. So it's possible you'll be contacted by editors drawn in from that. For what it's worth, I think that's a good place to find potentially productive contributers, who're neither here to promote or denigrade Islam, but merely to write an encyclopaedia. Just a head's up, anyhow. Cheers, WilyD 14:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw Jimbo's post (should I just post there?). I took your advice and decided to step back a little bit and return to it when things died down somewhat, but I'm happy to discuss with anyone on this issue, especially if it will lead to a long-standing solution that is policy based, and is generally acceptable to the majority on both sides. ITAQALLAH 18:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to post to the mailing list - if you're not already subscribed, you may be on moderation however ... I think there's an email address just for mods to get unmod'd, but you'll usually be noticed quicklly. I think the mailing list discussion could benefit from your perspective, yes, and may be a more productive atmosphere than Talk:Muhammad, as the mailing list is full primarily of people here to write an encyclopaedia, with no particular axe to grind on this issue. Whether any solution can be worked out that'll really satisfy all majorities I don't know, especially with the editor population so loosely defined at the current time, but please feel free to try. Cheers, WilyD 19:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. You might want to inform Grenavitar about this as well, he shares a similar position to myself and has a thorough understanding of the issues at hand (IMHO, at least). ITAQALLAH 23:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I posted yesterday... but the message hasn't shown up yet on the ML archives (although it shows as sent on gmail). How long should it take for messages to get through (or to be taken off moderation)? ITAQALLAH 21:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Must mean you've not been unmoderated - posts usually show up on minute timescales. Demod'ding nonspam new posters is usually day timescales, I think. WilyD 21:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I really appreciate getting the outside attention. There's a definite concerted effort to promote Shahi and his group on Wikipedia, and I just don't know enough about the field in general to confidently reign it in. — Scientizzle 00:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Zakir Naik Contoversy

Salaam Alaykum I recently added the reply of Ammar Nakshawani to Dr Naik regarding the Yazid issue. However, it was removed. Did you remove it? Muhammad(talk) 11:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I have explained why on the talk page and here also. ITAQALLAH 21:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What I added was in no way defamatory. It just gave the response of one speaker to another. I will be adding it back soon. If you have objections, please raise them on the article talk page. Muhammad(talk) 12:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it was defamatory, I said it was undue weight. I had raised my objections on the talk page previously, and have done so again. ITAQALLAH 13:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Links to Critical Articles about Zakir Naik

Dear Itaqallah, Assalam u alaikum. I added some external links to Websites criticizing Zakir Naik in the article Zakir Naik as well as two links to sites which contain the rebuttals of many of his claims. Could you please be so kind enough to inform me as to in what way am i defaming him? I have merely added the links to other websites revealing the critical opinions of other researchers including the well known internet debator Ali Sina's opinions about him. If they write articles about thier own analysis of Zakir Naik, debunk many of his claims and i add external links to these sites under the heading "Critical Articles", then how am i defaming him? You have added links to his official website and other websites which praise him and his work, then why cant i also present the other side of the picture?

In what way is this against wikipedia's standards? In many other articles including an article about Wafa Sultan, a Muslim Reformer, there are external links to websites including Islamic Sites containing articles from well known scholars and criticizing her under the heading "Critical Opinion".

Do you consider that defamatory? Dont you think that it is not neutral? They just present their own opinions which might be part true/ part false. So why cant i add external links to websites criticizing Zakir Naik?

Regards, Joyson Noel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyson Noel (talk • contribs) 14:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. ITAQALLAH 15:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad

Do you happen to have a link to where on the talk page removal of this image was discussed? I looked but couldn't find it. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 13:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. After viewing the discussion I'm not sure whether or not the image should stay. It seems similar to the painting of Jesus' resurrection on Jesus. However if the image is removed I will not put it back again. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Islam and anti-Christian sentiment

I see that you have recently begun making some edits to this heavily unorganized and poorly written page. I was wondering whether or not you'd have the time to work on that page more often. The current version says that the Pact of Umar (written around the 7th/8th century) prohibited the usage of guns (invented in after the 10th century). IMO, it will need several more editors to even be salvageable.-Rosywounds (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Bahira

Hello Itaqallah. As a serious Muslim Wikipedian, it would be great if you could help out some more in editing the Bahira article. I've added some new sources in Bahira#Bibliography from which we can expand the article. It would be great if you could provide some more scholarly Islamic sources to the article. Thanks! — EliasAlucard / Discussion 16:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find. I think Beit Or did a sound job in covering most of it though, there's not much information available about Bahira beyond the context of his contact with Muhammad. ITAQALLAH 17:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, this source has a lot of information.[3] — EliasAlucard / Discussion 17:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look through, but most of the article isn't quite about Bahira - it pertains mainly to Syriac polemical tracts intended for a Christian audience (and focuses on one in particular). When Bahira is mentioned it appears to be in the context of how Christian polemicists interpreted his contact with Muhammad, which the Bahira article mostly covers I think. ITAQALLAH 18:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see. Well, I haven't even begun reading that article (quite a long one). I'll try to make something out of that reference later, once I've read it. But if you find something in the other sources I've listed under bibliography (I don't have access to them), let me know. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 18:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yo Itaq! Could you please help out in cooling down User:Avenger786 on the talk page of Bahira? He's censoring Christian sources in the article in the name of "getting offended". — EliasAlucard / Discussion 13:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A bit of civility and an explanation of the core content policies should be sufficient. I haven't looked at the article myself so I can't judge the quality of the contributions, but I may do so soon. ITAQALLAH 23:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Falconkhe has copied your user page

For your information, User:Falconkhe has copied your user page. Kingturtle (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The current layout looks alright, but it's be nice if he gave us a genuine introduction to himself :). ITAQALLAH 15:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)