User talk:RiskAficionado/Archive 9

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.

---

Please re-consider your vote

I tried to deal with your stated reason for deletion for Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_23#People_by_former_religion. Please re-consider your vote based on my edits diff diff. I have made many similar edits and more are to follow. In addition please review my arguments voiced there, among others that we should not remove the category former Catholics etc. because it is not a defining characteristic of some people, though it is for e.g. [[Karen Armstrong]. Following the same reasoning we should not delete the category:painters only because it is not a defining characteristic for some people, like Adolf Hitler. Andries 10:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Safiyya

Arrow740 is once again vandalizing Safiyya. I've put up with this vandalism for several months (and you have too for a shorter period of time). Since Arrow740 refuses to discuss this issue on talk, I don't think an RfC or even mediation would help. THus what are your thoguhts on this?Bless sins 20:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

i will take a good look at it. i do recall that some statements sourced to Stillman simply weren't there, but i think they may have got restored in all the revert warring. ITAQALLAH 20:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is called meatpuppetry. Arrow740 21:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is called Wp:stalking.Bless sins 21:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is called a watchlist. Arrow740 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Arrow, all i see is a good faith request to assess the situation on an article i have previously edited. he was asking for my thoughts, please don't make baseless accusations. ITAQALLAH 21:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"Meatpuppetry" takes two, anyhow: if someone shows up and doesn't act like a meatpuppet, they're not a meatpuppet, even if their participation was solicited. Were this the kind of involvement Bless sins were seeking, I doubt he'd have come to Itaqallah.

Similarly, Bless sins, I seriously doubt Arrow740 meant to "vandalize" anything. Such terminology is uncalled for and really unhelpful.Proabivouac 21:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Islamic military jurisprudence

Assalamualaikum,

Can I ask you for help in polishing this article just before the peer review? JazakAllah Khair.Bless sins 21:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Re this edit summary

You might want to read before you revert. Arrow740 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

please do explain what you mean. ITAQALLAH 21:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the material you reinserted is not connected (in the article at least) to antisemitism. Arrow740 21:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

i see a substantial passage based on the premise of "Scholars on Islam (Lewis and Jerome Chanes) suggest that Muslims were not antisemitic for the most part due to the Quran and it's perception of God...", i see other publications quoted such as that of Stillman where it is clear the topic of their work is antisemitism, likely the context in which they are discussing what the Qur'an etc. says about Jews. why are you removing this material? ITAQALLAH 21:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A request from a new member

hi, how are you. I began recently to contribute in wikipedia. I did my best to clean up and to enrich the article Zionism and racism allegations, but I am still a new wikipedian and my English language is not as good as what it should be. I think I still need some help. I hope you will participate in developing that page.

Please be sure to see my edits in the article since I fear that they will be reverted quicly. --Aaronshavit 21:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Latest edit

Why did you switch the content here? Arrow740 00:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

could you explain what you mean? the usual narrative is as i have written; please refer to the Encyclopedia of Islam articles cited. ITAQALLAH 00:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Who says it's the "usual" narrative? What does "usual" mean? Arrow740 01:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Lewis is more renowned and learned than usual. I have retained the EoI info, which looks useful; thanks for adding it.Proabivouac 01:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

i'm not convinced that anyone bar Lewis holds the view that Muhammad intended to actually attack Mecca (dressed in ihram, poorly armed, with just over a 1,000 pilgrims? it is, actually, on this basis that Tor Andrae concludes that "it is hardly believable that Mohammed at first thought of attacking Mecca". similarly, Watt says: "He can hardly have hoped to conquer Mecca, for he must have known that the morale of the Meccans was still good, and his force was too small to overcome them in battle."), it contradicts what is found in the relevant EoI articles, in Watt, Peters, Andrae, and elsewhere. as such, i don't believe it belongs in a summary section such as this. ITAQALLAH 22:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. It's a pretty significant point, though, in the scheme of the biography, more significant than a lot of what's in the article now; perhaps we can find some space (say, two sentences) for this scholarly disagreement?Proabivouac 22:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

that sounds acceptable. ITAQALLAH 22:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did you switch the content here? What does "balance" mean? How is presenting the facts unbalanced? Why do you prefer to discuss the Meccans' emotions, instead of their need to respond to people who were raiding their caravans? Arrow740 02:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC) "Attacks on the Meccan caravans continued, and the Quraysh were anxious to avenge their defeat at Badr." You have very transparently removed the connection between cause and effect that Lewis clearly states. Arrow740 02:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

i don't know what you mean by "switch content." refer to the EoI articles, as well as Watt's work, who say that both were contributing factors. i'd go as far as saying their desire to respond to their shock defeat at Badr was the prime reason. ITAQALLAH 02:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm more interested in Lewis' statement than in yours, frankly. You removed Lewis' statement that they were responding to the growing threat of Meccan brigandage, and replaced it with a desire for revenge (while conceding here that the motives were at least equally important).Arrow740 03:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

as said before, see the Uhud and Muhammad EoI articles, as well as Watt's works. ITAQALLAH 03:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Watt says "To maintain their far-spread commercial operations the Meccans must make it clear to all their neighbors that this was only a temporary lapse" on page 132 of the later biography. Arrow740 04:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

yes, he is saying that Mecca needed to maintain its prestige after its loss, for its status amongst the other tribes was vital for its economic prosperity. the loss at Badr made a response inevitable: "Consolidation of his position in Medina, however, was only one of Muḥammad's tasks. Another and even more urgent one was to get ready for the Meccan riposte that was now inevitable. The prosperity of Mecca depended on its prestige." also see p. 140: "This aim they completely failed to achieve. They had indeed killed about seventy-five Muslims for the loss of twenty-seven of their own men, and thus more or less avenged the blood shed at Badr (though according to some versions there would still be an excess of Meccan dead). But they had boasted that they would make the Muslims pay several times over for Badr, and now they had at most taken a life for a life." ITAQALLAH 16:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why you started this post with a "yes." Your vague reference to "Watt's works" was an irresponsible (and, it turns out when I actually checked the source, wrong) justifaction for the removal of sourced material. Arrow740 21:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

please don't make spurious accusations, especially as you have failed to check the sources i had referred you to thoroughly - including the EoI articles which i assume you haven't yet reviewed. as i have explained, my attribution to Watt - though not incorporated by me in the article- was quite accurate. if you want to discuss "irresponsible" editing, then i'd recommend you also resolve the issues surrounding your own tendentious quote-mining and pointed behaviour. thank you. ITAQALLAH 00:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The main motive Watt ascribes to the Meccan counterattack is the desire to protect their commerce. Perhaps you should provide the full quotes from the EoI articles, since you were so wrong about Watt. For the record, were Medina and Mecca in a state of war before Muhammad arrived? Please answer this question. Arrow740 00:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

i don't believe that was the main motive according to Watt. they wanted to maintain their prestige; which had been lost after Badr- that's why the post-Badr riposte was "inevitable". both Mecca and Medina performed raids upon eachother. please do demonstrate from my comments how i was "so wrong" about Watt. Robinson, in the Uhud article of EoI writes:

Under the leadership of Abū Sufyān b. Ḥarb, and incited not only by tribesmen and tribeswomen who had lost relations at Badr (e.g. his wife Hind b. ʿUtba), but also by those whose goods had been plundered, the Meccans resolved to avenge their defeat. A large force (often numbered at 3,000 horsemen) was assembled... [narrative continues into the events of the battle]

and in the Muhammad article:

In the year 3/624-5 Muhammad continued his attacks on the Meccan caravans so that the Kuraysh finally saw the necessity of taking more vigorous measures and revenging themselves for Badr.

-- as we can see, both reasons are mentioned, with the Uhud article giving prominence to the revenge motive. don't give undue weight to one over the other. ITAQALLAH 00:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Watt says that the needs to restore prestige was predicated upon the fact that they could not trade without having that prestige. The need to protect their commerce was the primary motive. I already including "anxious to avenge." The first does not say why they resolved to avenge their defeat, it only gives the fact that they had done so. In the second, it says they saw the necessity, without saying why they viewed it to be necessary. It is fortunate that you provided these extracts, as you were wrong again. Arrow740 01:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"The first does not say why they resolved to avenge their defeat" - non sequitur. try reading the passage again: "Under the leadership of Abū Sufyān b. Ḥarb... ...the Meccans resolved to avenge their defeat." they resolved to avenge their defeat - defeat referring to Badr - hence the reason for the Battle of Uhud - not merely because of the continued "brigandage". the second source says they felt it necessary to "reveng[e] themselves for Badr". i'm not inclined to pay attention to the spin you add to sources (they are quite clear without), nor your baiting. ITAQALLAH 01:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"The need to protect their commerce was the primary motive" - yes, and their commerce depended on their prestige. their prestige had been stripped at Badr, hence the need to regain it, and hence the "inevitable" riposte after Badr. ITAQALLAH 01:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

<reset>Watt and Lewis make it clear that their prime motive was to protect their trade. The two sources you are cherry-picking do not state their motives explicity. I quoted from Watt (which you originally claimed supported your ideas) and Lewis. I even incorporated your "anxious to avenge." Arrow740 04:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

fighting to protect their trade, according to Watt, was the inevitable consequence to having lost their prestige at Badr. and, according to Watt, revenge for Badr was a motive. there's no need to conflate Watt with Lewis. as for the EoI material, i think you're clutching at straws. they both clearly said the battle was due to their wanting revenge for Badr; and that's what's been related in the article. if you're still interested in disputing what the sources quite plainly say, take it to Talk:Muhammad for others to comment. ITAQALLAH 19:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Both these motivations seem to me plausible and referenced. The Meccans wished to protect their commerce and avenge their loss at Badr…is there some contradiction I'm not appreciating? I'm really surprised to see this dispute grow so heated.

Can we move this discussion (as in cut and paste the whole thing) to Talk:Muhammad?Proabivouac 19:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

i really don't even know what we're supposed to be arguing about. the sources mention both motives, so i have represented both succinctly without giving weight to one over the other. apparently that isn't enough. ITAQALLAH 19:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the only motive explicitly stated is the motive to defend their trade. Arrow740 20:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"Attacks on the Meccan caravans continued, and the Quraysh were anxious to avenge their defeat at Badr."

Though I don't imagine it intentional, this could read as, the continued raids on the caravans provided the Quraysh the occasion to avenge their defeat at Badr. I'll try to come up with something is acceptable to the both of you.Proabivouac 19:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

please do Proabivouac, the current version skews heavily towards one particular reason. ITAQALLAH 01:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

After a copyedit to get rid of a semicolon, we have:

"The Quraysh were anxious to avenge their defeat there. To maintain their commercial operations and restore their prestige, the Meccans had to make it clear to their neighbors that they were capable of removing this threat to their trade."

What do you think we should do?Proabivouac 03:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. Watt clearly states that they need to restore their prestige in order to maintain their commercial operations. Arrow740 04:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Karen Armstrong

Itaqallah, why is she unreliable, I do not understand? I have never heard any controversy associated with her? Because of her views, which happen to be pro-islamic, there is concerted effort in Wikipedia to disqualify her. I have read many of her books, and they are amazing. Personally, I am not a big fan of her, but wrong accusations are wrong. I don't mind accepting her as unreliable, provided someone provides me the source (not Daniel Pipes like Merbow did). Otherwise why should then she be accused??? ~atif - 05:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Compromise on Islam and antisemitism

Assalamualaikum,

Compromise is many times a good thing.[1] But I'd like to tell you that I've already made several compromises on the article. For example, I'm no longer pushing for scholarly content in the sections "Modern Muslim antisemitism", nor in "Antisemitism in pre-modern Islam", for the sake of keeping the dispute manageable.Bless sins 20:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support 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, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 03:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit by edit

• [2]: Perhaps this is an honest mistake, but Lewis doesn't say that a pilgrimage was invisioned as an attack. Also you truncated Lewis' opinion while adding a long version of an opposing one. I'll try to restore NPOV.
  • whatever his precise position, Lewis' opinion is in the minority. Andrae and Watt discount it, and i'm not aware of any other sources claiming it. ITAQALLAH 03:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • "According to Lewis, the pilgrimage was initially intended as a direct attack…" presupposes the question.Proabivouac 08:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• [3]: There are two ideas here; raiding for livelihood, and aggressive political violence. "beginning" implies that the two are somehow connected. "Thus initiating" is much better writing.
  • i do believe they are connected. please refer to Peters' discussion on p. 211: "They may have been merely an attempt to provoke the Quraysh,[2] but more likely they represented Muhammad's attempt at finding a means of supporting his own people, unconnected newcomers to the Medina oasis who were not agriculturalists by training or inclination and had no capital with which to become traders. Raiding was a quick remedy for poverty, though not perhaps an easy one, as the lack of success of these expeditions testifies. No great damage appears to have been done, in any event, but Muhammad, with power now in his own hands, set his community onto the path of aggressive political violence..." ITAQALLAH 04:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Of course they are connected. What I find so ironic here is the way the two of you have switched hats vis-a-vis the "brigandage" debate (brigands being motivated by money.)Proabivouac 08:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• [4]: Your usual style is to say "See also" and list them, when you are adding references you like. When removing ones I found, you apparently have a different philosophy. I'll make a list.
  • more than a few is not necessary really. ref-spam is poor style. ITAQALLAH 03:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• [5]: While your additions are generally alright, "the Muslims met with success... they had also succeeded... the Muslim victory was complete" is excessive emphasis of the fact that, yes, the Muslims won. Now your removal is quite problematic. Do not remove sourced content of this kind. Rodinson describes what happened at this battle specifically: you removed this and replaced it with a general comment that does not make specific reference to this battle. Arrow740 03:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • meeting success in-battle or succeeding in killing particular targets doesn't always equate to actual victory, which the text didn't appear to make explicit. the ransoming occured after the battle, and the material i inserted is discussed by Watt in the context of Badr. ITAQALLAH 03:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I fixed the excessive emphasis problem. Your quote was basically verbatim, and you have no excuse for your removal of specific information. I have incorporated all the material. Arrow740 04:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
      • "Your quote was basically verbatim" - what are you talking about? ITAQALLAH 04:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
        • "those who were of little influence or value were usually freed without ransom" is quite close. That's not a criticism. My point is that the "usually" is an indicator that he's talking about the usual situation, i.e. more than this specific situation. Fortunately Rodinson gives us more details about this specific situation. I'm talking about the material you removed without comment (that's starting to be a bad habit of yours, see previous sections of this page). Arrow740 04:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
          • it does appear to be written in general terms, but at the same time it does seem specifically relevant to Badr: "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." i'll have a closer look at what Rodinson says, and at what other available sources have to say on this issue. vexatious (and for the most part, demonstrably spurious) allegations of "bad habits" are quite unnecessary - if constructive dialogue is what you're seeking. ITAQALLAH 04:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
            • I already put what Rodinson says in. Then you removed it. Only now you're going to look at it? The "demonstrably spurious" allegation refers to the folling two edits [6] "Lewis' opinion doesn't seem to be widely held" is apparently code for "I'm removing Lewis and replacing it with something I prefer," and "balance" made no mention of the fact that you were completely cutting out "reacting against the growing danger of Medinese brigandage," cited to Lewis. Arrow740 04:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
              • that these claims are demonstrably spurious isn't an allegation, it's fact. as for the the two diffs, in both instances i have had to clean up after your selective "cherry-picking" of slanted opinions. unfortunately, you appear determined on projecting this tendentious and pointed approach onto others who are more interested in neutrality. just give it a rest please. ITAQALLAH 15:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was 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 08:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Fatimah

Could you review and copyedit the new version of this article please when you get a chance. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 15:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

i am impressed by the amount of work you have done there. i will be glad to help out. ITAQALLAH 15:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I found the existing article was more of a battleground rather than a BIO article and didn't really give me much insight into her life. I'd like to get this article to GA class soon and use it as a basis of collaboration on some of the other BIO articles. → AA ^(talk) — 16:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

the new bio is better than the current one in quite a few ways. one improvement could be to explore a larger variety of academic sources on the topic, which is something i'll look into. ITAQALLAH 16:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I do not know where to start looking for academic sources :) There is also certainly more scope of expansion. → AA ^(talk) — 18:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

one other area for improvement would be to keep the Sunni vs. Shia accounts to a minimum (except where it's completely unavoidable), as it allows for smoother reading. ITAQALLAH 16:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have tried to keep it at a minimum but if you find any that are superflous, please do replace them. → AA ^(talk) — 18:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen this? I assume you are supportive :) → AA ^(talk) — 09:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 03:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

RE.

Again, Itaqallah, I'm merely stating that the article is simply pointing out an individual's claim, whether or not it is true. If this could be emphasized, that would be favorable. Experts and commentators make statements about many things, and obviously these quotes and claims find their way into thousands of articles. Ultimately, however, these are all just claims, assertions, opinions. If Sperry is really making such a claim, then noting that he has claimed as such is an independent concept from whether or not his claim is actually true. Sperry may have a clear position concerning Islam, considering at the very least the title of his book, but ultimately he is an investigative journalist, and there are countless citations which rely on claims by these individuals (additionally, every human being has a bias, regardless of profession). Keep in mind All the President's Men- this journalist may be onto something, or he may just be grasping thin air in an attempt to cause a stir. Either way, I'm fairly certain we can reasonably present such claims, as long as it is made clear that it's really him claiming it, and not certainly the Pentagon.

Concerning the comment on motives, I'm sorry if I've done misreading. Honestly, since most discussions I've been involved with have died down, I've become a revert-warrior; all I ever see is information inexplicably removed (though concerning religious articles, one can take guesses), and therefore I've become rather accustomed to seeing material disappear for half-hearted reasons or personal views.--C.Logan 18:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You might certainly be right about the lack of expertise- I know it's generally not a good idea to trust non-experts when claims are made; then again, if the individual is an investigative reporter, his job is to, well, investigate. Considering that, it may be the case that he is one of the only attributable sources for a statement.

I may be wrong about the inclusion of the text, as I'm not sure what WP policy says about it. Either way, I'd seen no problem with including it as a claim- it's not well attributed enough to be presented as a "verifiable" occurrence, but it is certain that this individual is making such a claim. As I'm sure you've seen, I removed the text in question, since there seems to be a debate going on, and I'd rather not be on one or the other side of this debate.--C.Logan 02:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Divisions of Islam

Please refer the above article & its talkpage: Talk:Divisions_of_Islam#Sect_of_Islam_-_Sufi.3F. A user with the ip address: 210.4.69.4 is engaging in an edit war without providing sources & including "Sufism" as a "sect" of Islam. I have a great respect for your work on wikipedia & hence would like you to check the article & deal with the situation. Thanks :) --Doc sameer 21:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-notable people

If according to you, that XyZ Muzamil fellow can be regarded as a reliable source, is there anything wrong in including the other XyZ's from Leaving Islam, apostates speak out? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

the difference being, Muzzamil is verifiably a reliable source on topics related to sociology and criminology, from what i can ascertain. that can't be said about anyone from the aforementioned book, unfortunately. see the relevant section on WP:N ITAQALLAH 22:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

A reliable source because? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[7][8][9] appear to indicate that he is a qualified academic and sociologist, and is accredited for his work on Islamophobia. ITAQALLAH 23:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sakina

Hi Itaqallah, Thanks for your comment about Sakina. I am somewhat concerned about the direction of your response and want to raise this with you because it may apply to other articles you are involved with editing. When I came to make a comment in reply, several points became apparent, which raise a measure of concern that you may have a conflict of interest in considering deleting any sections of the Sakina wiki. The grounds you cite are general criteria about referencing and wiki editorship. However I have gone to a degree of care to provide the most authoritative sources for this wiki and to establish as full an understanding as possible of the interlocking threads giving it consistency and validity. You have a specific interest primarily in Islamic issues and are a professed deletionist. There is a recent entry in this talk page expressing concern about your attitude to Karen Armstrong in claiming she is 'unreliable'. This raises the question that you could be using your role to repress critiques of conventional Islamic interpretations, even those citing highly reputable historians, on grounds that you dispute the sources, or claim the tenor of the article is original research, or that a person editing it has a conflict of interest in doing so. I see a major danger in this and question your strategic role in the process. Deletionism is a key instrument of all totalitarian movements which impose social order, whether it is done as outright censorship, or by attempting to raise a consensus to expunge the dissonant sensitive facts on procedural grounds. On the basis of your own argument, one might conclude you could have a conflict of interest in editing pages too closely related to your own professed area of strategic interest in Islam Dhushara 04:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC).

thanks for your response. "deletionism" is just a wiki-philosophy, i cannot see how you are connecting that with "repress[ion]" or "totalitarian movements". the issue of Karen Armstrong is an unrelated topic here, and we can discuss this in a different thread. the community consensus is that she is unreliable. i believe you are gravely misinformed when you claim that Armstrong is being opposed on the basis of any particular views she holds. as you do not agree that there may be conflicting interests on Sakina due to promotion of your website(s) and theories on it, i have raised the issue at WP:COIN. ITAQALLAH 13:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Muslims and controversies

Does this look familiar? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

it looks like Ultrabias/DY71. ^_^ ITAQALLAH 12:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The Amman Message

This could probably do with a better category than the one I stuck on. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Another quote

Hi Itaqallah,

I've left a comment(dated 00:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)) on Muhmmad's talk page following up our discussion. Cheers, --Aminz 00:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

okay, i'll take a look in a moment. ITAQALLAH 02:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

An-Nisa, 34

I was looking for an opinion. I want to change the title of An-Nisa, 34 to Exegesis of An-Nisa, 34. I posted a comment on talk page, but no one replied :-(. Can you tell what you think of that?

BTW, are you Muslim?Vice regent 23:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Exegesis of An-Nisa, 34 would be better, but i personally think any discussion of tafsir etc. should remain within the articles discussing the related issues (i.e. "Islam and domestic violence" - the title of that article may also need reviewing). in that respect, i find articles devoted to specific verses a little needless, and could act as a precedent for future articles on random verses. regarding your second question, yes الحمد لله. ITAQALLAH 00:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)