User talk:Striver

User talk:Striver/Archive1 07:17, 28 Jan 2005 to 01:36, 12 December 2005.

Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib

I have moved your page back to this and reverted to Zora's version. If you make any more moves like this without discussion I will ban you for 24 hours. If you want the material from your version (People reported to be born in the Kaaba) to say something else then recreate it but do not just make such changes unilaterally. Please feel free to make People reported to be born in the Kaaba not a redirect again and into a page until substantive discussion on the issue has taken place, however, your moves are completely uncalled for. Thank you. gren グレン 01:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

That's fine and thanks for saying so... but, you do have a propensity to do that kind of thing a lot. Discuss it with Zora and maybe you can work things out on this issue. gren グレン 02:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hijra

They are different but they are integrally related. They all relate back to the event of the Hijra. It wasn't as if it was an event done to create a new calendar. My first big problem when looking at this is that you mangled Hijra (Islam) when you could have been working on this in a sandbox until you got it how you wanted it. Also, instead of wasting hours you could have shown other users in your sandbox area what you had done and they could have discussed it with you. This is not only an experiment at trying to create a releasable encyclopedia... it is read real-time and things like this are shown to other users. I admire your attempts to organize but not your methodology. Talk first... it's something you must do. As far as I see it Hijra (Islam) should be about the event. I don't understand why you don't like to use the Arabic words when in English they are more commonly used. So, please make Hijra (Islam) be about the event again and have Migration to Medina redirect to it. It can talk about the year some but in context. If we have a lot more information about the Hijra year then you can include it in Hijra year I suppose (I have to look at content) but it might just fit perfectly into Islamic calendar. Please do wait for discussion... because whether you like it or not it takes a fair amount of effort to look at all of this stuff... create your own sandbox where you can work on things like this. But please, merge it back to Hijra (Islam)... at least the majority. I would talk about the event of the Hijra and towards the end have something relating it to the Islamic calendar. Thanks and really, please do discuss these things first. You can start working on them by using a sandbox. gren グレン 07:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

np

hehe, yeah, sorry about that, it's a force of habit at this stage!--Irishpunktom\^talk 15:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Grand so, glad to be of service :-) --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Islamic fasting -> Sawm

I moved this back. If you want to discuss it feel free but the Arabic word is used in the discourse not an English translation. Google "Sawm" vs. "Islamic fasting". Although it's a good English descrtiption it is not a title. You did this a while ago so it's no problem as long as you don't keep doing this. You've said you will discuss this sort of thing from now on. Thanks. gren グレン 01:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Spacing

Another thing you could do to make your editing more neat is not to leave all of the double spaces... and please stop with the sub-article business. If you want to discuss it at the village pump policy... but until it becomes an accepted norm you should not add it. Thanks. gren グレン 09:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It was discussed at the Village Pump. I raised the issue there. Striver was the only person in favor of it. Everyone else asked him to stop. Zora 09:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora, could you post the link to it if you can find it. Striver just mentioned on my talk page that no one seemed to disagree. In any case, I don't think no approval means it should be added but, still, a negative might be more convincing.

Look at [1]

Four other people commented, saying, "Don't do this".

Please don't do this without acquiring consensus first. I think it's a bad idea, and also feel that it's being too bold. --Improv 01:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Striver then followed up with two long, double-spaced misspelled rants, which were completely ignored. No responses. Striver assumes that if he is ignored, people agree with him. That is not the case. Zora 09:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I belive that when Zora missrepresents me, resulting in people belive its a bad idea, me correcting Zoras missrepresentation, and then no comments means that people do not oppose the idea. --Striver 09:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Striver, when there are two lines in the editor it leaves a large gap between paragraphs, which isn't how formatting should be. When you look at most pages it only uses the one empty line in between which creates a small paragraph space. So, do:

---

This is how

spacing should be between paragraphs.

---

This is what you should avoid

when doing spacing.

---

There, that's what I mean. gren グレン 09:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, ill do that, but only if it is WP policy, for myself, i belive double is better sometimes, but ill end that if you show me it is WP policy.

Zora, they disagreed after you totaly missrepresented my case. After i told what i meant, nobody objected. --Striver 09:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Striver, do I really have to find a policy on that? I don't know if they have it but look at any featured article. How does the spacing for that look? It is a wikipedia standard. Sometimes you disagree with standards (placing the stub below the categories... I don't really like that so much) but you do it anyways. gren グレン 09:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You're supposed to list stubs below the categories so stub categories show up below normal categories. I prefer the opposite because it's more motivating to get rid of stubs that way in my opinion. That's what I was referencing. Might I ask (generally) where you live? Eastern / Western U.S., Sweden, etc.. Your babel says you speak Swedish! gren グレン 09:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, Sweden. No.. haha, we're going in circles :) What I mean is I prefer stubs above categories but consensus on project stub sorting is keep stubs below categories. So I follow consensus. My point was on spacing.. you may think that doubling the spacing makes it better... but consensus throughout all of the articles is to not do that. So, just follow that. I'm going to bed... and... although it's probably 10 a.m. for you (?) goodnight. gren グレン 09:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Incivility on a AfD page

I am dismayed at the lack of civility that was displayed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People reported to be born in the Kaaba. Regardless of the validity of your objection to the position of another editor (or vice version), personal attacks have no place in Wikipedia -- period. This includes calling him/her a liar, a "dense dick," and/or a bigot. Such attacks actually reflect more on you than on your target -- and it can persuade people to take up positions against you. I'm sure you don't want that.

It seems to me that you and Zora are continuing a centuries-old battle between two denominations. Instead of battling it out (and if I were an admin, I would have deleted both the articles in question as vandalism targets), why not attempt to show both Sunni and Shi'a positions on the objects of controversy (it would not be unlike a comparison between Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism in some aspect) and document the stuffing out of your positions? That would make far more sense than the insanity that's going on between you two right now... and you both get something constructive out of this. B.Wind 21:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That crazy letter

You may want to inform the editors about that crazy letter in which they were mentioned. They may not be reading the postings on the Muslim Guild talk page. --JuanMuslim ^1m 21:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ill do that

Thx. --Striver 21:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ya, that would be good 'cause I haven't been too consistent with reading the messages on the talk page lately. Without your post, I wouldn't have known anything about it.--JuanMuslim ^1m 21:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I know

...but Jimbo is smart enough to know what to do. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks striver for that and your help. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

I saw the note from OceanSplash to Jimbo. In fact I got him to move it from Talk:Jimmy Walkes to User talk:Jimbo Wales. I just feel kind of popular I guess. The big man on campus knowing my name?! gren グレン 21:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild

how do i become a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild? Yahussain 22:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

AFD Alert!

The list of researchers is now being AFDed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 conspiracy theories/September 11 researchers. I'm counter-proposing that it be kept and moved to its own page. Blackcats 23:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

s11

Oh yeah, s11 was an anti-globalisation group that were one of the major suspects for the twin towers bombing. That was why they disbanded. Their web site was http://www.s11.org/. Not only is that web site permanently de-listed, but you cannot look at archives. All you can do to find out who they were is to look up greenie/communist sites. They were an Australian-based group (hence more well known in Australia than the rest of the world). Slashdot wrote an article on them on September 12, 2001, and as far as I know, they were all either arrested or killed by people who thought that they were involved, and all evidence that they had ever existed was destroyed by early 2002. They used to be called M1 apparently. The reason why they were called s11 was because their major protest was always held on September 11th. On September 11, 2000, they protested at the World Trade Center in New York, and were labelled by the US government as terrorists. Their effort for September 11, 2001, however, was in China. Pretty massive connections though, and people who know about them think that they are a very valid suspect for the Twin Towers bombing. Biggest problem though is why on earth would they want to attack the Pentagon? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories. For the record, I don't think that s11 had anything to do with the WTC bombings. However, I think that they should have been a more public suspect, instead of just pretending that Osama bin Laden was the one and only suspect. Saddam Hussein did the WTC bombings, which is as obvious as anything. That Slashdot article as good as says that Saddam Hussein is responsible. And that was written on 12 September 2001. So much for it being a theory only pushed to justify invasion. It was about at the time. Not a big conspiracy or anything. The most logical, obvious thing. I am not a big fan of big dramatic conspiracies. I think that what is true is usually what is very close to what we see. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh man I got fried for that lol. Oh well. Lots of links in the article now, so all is good. I was actually wrong with a few minor things. Basically right, but there were a few challenges, and I was able to prove that I was right - thanks to a hugely long Google search. Go and have a look at the article now s11. I thought it was funny though that they were insisting that the site wasn't shut down by the CIA - when I ended up with proof that it was. LOL. "Nah, its a silly conspiracy". Its actually not. They were regarded as a terrorist organisation. People involved even had a senate inquiry in to their involvement. Of course, there's undoubtedly a lot of other inquiries that didn't get in to the mainstream press. Only reason that one was was because it was a public figure. I am tired after all of that though. I don't like fighting :(. But I guess that I can understand why activists don't like to be called terrorists. But, of course, terrorists usually call themselves activists too. I've tried explaining this to people but they don't seem to understand. People don't seem to understand that terrorists aren't criminals - there's a whopping great difference between terrorists and organised crime syndicates. Terrorists believe that what they are doing is right - organised crime is just in it for the power and money. Terrorists are, in essence, violent protestors. But hey, public perception is all skewed on that kind of thing. s11 was perhaps the most controversial protest ever - the one in 2000 I mean. Police and media said that there was lots of violence, as did the government. But the protestors insist it was all one-sided, all police attacking them. Hrm.

On a related note, I thought I'd tell you about something that recently happened here.

A group calling themselves Christians Against Terrorism travelled to Alice Springs with the stated aim to go to the US-owned secret military base Pine Gap, which they stated was the "headquarters of terrorism", as they believed that USA is responsible for terrorism, and all of the so-called terrorists (like Al Qaeda) are innocent.

Anyway, this group managed to make it to the shot-on-sight military base, and took pictures of the base, and of themselves there, and let down a banner saying that they were terrorists.

The 7 who were involved are facing life imprisonment for their involvement, and may be charged with treason, or even terrorism.

So, just to summarise this. Just see if you follow this logic here.

• Pine Gap is primarily involved in combatting terrorism (nowadays at least).
• This group claimed that Pine Gap was the source of terrorism, and a terrorist organisation.
• The group claimed that they were trying to stop terrorism.
• Pine Gap claims that they are terrorists.

Similar kind of situation as with s11. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild

Salaam, i added my name to the list. does that mean i'm a member?Yahussain 04:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, how do you ban people? Yahussain 04:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanx

Salaam Thanx! Yahussain 04:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Overcategorizing

There is no need to list six different parent categories for Category:Sunni Muslim Islamic scholars. Generally, if every member of a category belongs in its parent category, an article does not include the parent as well. Caerwine Caerwhine 18:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

How do you mean? I only see two parent categories? --Striver 19:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You also included some parents of those parents and so forth, Muslims, Sunni Muslims, Muslim scholars, Sunni Muslim scholars, Islamic scholars, and Muslim Islamic scholars, all of which are really quite redundant when the article has the category Sunni Muslim Islamic scholars. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

WARNING

For your comments that read:

# 9/11 - part 2, bigger and better

# Assasination of George Bush to create a martyr

It is my civic duty to report these comments and yourself to the Federal Bureau of Investigation as well as the United States Secret Service.

Haizum 08:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Haha, Striver... you might want to clarify that... I can see why that might be a little startling to see, even though I warned about no legal threats allowed. I'd like you to explain too... (and I do agree that if he was assassinated he'd be a martyr of sorts) gren グレン 08:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

WARNING

Under the heading of "Coming Soon," you list a number of events including a recreation of the 9/11 attacks that you describe as "bigger and better." Those are your words, not mine.

Haizum 09:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:

I don't care what your explaination is, you describe 9/11 attacks that are "bigger and better." There is no getting around that fact.

No context is required.

People have been investigated for saying less, therefore you should expect the same treatment. What I did was not a legal threat, and anyone that is not abusing their administrative powers can see that.

REPORTING WHAT IS OR MAY BE A CRIME DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE WIKIPEDIA "LEGAL THREAT" POLICY.

Haizum 09:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Zora, looks like you found a friend. You think im a nut-case, this guy thinks im a die-hard criminal worth reporting to FBI and CIA and SS. Haizum, meat Zora. Zora, meat Haizum. Im sure you two can figure out ways to make my life even more misserable. --Striver 10:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, form what I understand, Zora is what people like Haizum call "American hating liberals".--Zereshk 10:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

lol... --Striver 10:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:

False; I did not say what I thought about you.

You need to read up on the civility article (because you just pulled a straw-man personal attack). And if Wikipedia administrators were actually fair, you would be temporarily banned for launching a personal attack against me.

Haizum 10:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, whadever, i suck, i should be in prison, whadever...--Striver 10:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Dude, if you think Zora or this guy were unruly and biased, wait until you see User:AladdinSE. He's probably the most vicious Shia hater Ive encountered on WP.--Zereshk 01:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If it were left up to you, you would turn the Islam-related articles on Wikipedia into a carbon copy of a website like Al Ansar. A religious crusade of relentless Shi'a Polemics of a style and tone as far removed from a respectable encyclopedia as you can get. Unlike yourselves, I am not here boasting of my Ayotolah relatives and openly flying a partisan standard. Striver, your edits are repeatedly emotional, POV, not to mention grammatically atrocious. What's more, Zereshk, "most vicious Shia hater" is a Personal Attack and ought to be beneath you.--AladdinSE 09:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Zora

As a general principle, if you want to bounce an idea off someone, I'm always here for you. But let me be honest. You are not giving Zora, and as far as I can see have never given Zora, the respect she deserves as an editor and a scholar. And you are several leagues away from extending to her the courtesy she deserves as a woman.

So no, at this stage, I'm not going to try to "talk her into" anything.

I think a good place for you to start might be to apologize to her for messages and personal attacks like the one you just left on my talk page, which imply that she is deficient in objectivity, and you're not. If I were you, I would apologize for that and directly acknowledge to her that she has made immense contributions to WP. (If you don't think she has, then you are living in another dimension.) Her contributions are something that you have, in my view, brother, seriously undervalued. Then, I would try finding an article that she is working on and seeing if there's some way you can add a substantive citation to it that supports something in that article that you both can agree on. That, to me, would be the best way to proceed. Salaam, BYT 12:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Cursing Sahaba is Kufr (Sunni doctrine)

Hello, Striver. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Cursing Sahaba is Kufr (Sunni doctrine), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. For more information about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, take a look at our Five Pillars. Happy editing! – ClockworkSoul 15:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of the Verse of Rajm

Please put some text in this. An article which contains nothing but qotes, and extensive ones at that, is not an encylopedia article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi again

Someone removed the "conspiracy theories" part from s11 (the main part that makes them notable enough to have their own article) so I reverted them, then I ended up on your page, and I had a look this time. So are you an Arab?

Conspiracy theories, well, see, I don't believe in conspiracy theories. I believe that the government often spreads disinformation, so as to hint towards a totally unbelievable scenario, which then becomes a "conspiracy theory", which is like a trail of bread crumbs. Then when everyone thinks "Oh yes! This totally makes sense!" and believe it, then they come forward and prove that its a lie - thus meaning that we have no choice but to accept the official story. I have seen this happen many times. So I do not believe the conspiracy theory or the official story. I look for what is most likely to happen, and I go over things myself.

I think that Saddam Hussein is responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks. I think that he had both motive and opportunity to do it. I think that he is one of only very few people who had a motive to attack both the Twin Towers (and not caring who died) as well as the Pentagon. Many people wanted to attack the Pentagon (100s of candidates, including Egypt, Palestine, Colombia, Cuba, Russia, China, you name it), but only a handful wanted to attack the twin towers (Saddam Hussein, s11, and that's pretty much it). And the thing is that whilst s11 had motive to attack the twin towers, they had zero motive to attack the pentagon. That's the problem. That's why we have to go with Saddam Hussein.

I say not OBL because its ridiculous. It goes against their mission statement, which is to get rid of Americans from other countries. They have no desire to kill Americans on their own soil.

And you have to think about that for a moment. Al Qaeda is strong because the people who are members of it believe that what they are doing is right. Now, they say that Americans are invading other countries (and there's evidence of it too, discussed many times basically since WW2), and that the Americans should be stopped and forced just to live in America. If OBL attacked America, his group would disband. They basically wouldn't exist. Nobody would support him.

Now, Saddam Hussein on the other hand, wants to kill America IN AMERICA. He is not remotely interested in killing them in other countries. He wants revenge for what they did to him and to his country in the first war. He wants to take their oil, to destroy their economy, and all of that - like they did to him.

This is why Saddam Hussein should have been the only suspect of serious note.

But what happened of course is that these little breadcrumbs were pushed towards the Taliban, who couldn't have done it. This was the little breadcrumbs for the totally ridiculous conspiracy theory. And then when it is debunked, we have no choice but to believe the official story, that OBL was responsible. We'd already believed all of the little breadcrumbs, so there was no choice.

And of course, USA had a reason to want to attack the Taliban. They were horrific human rights abusers. They had Americans held hostage there that they were going to kill any day. USA had planned to invade Afghanistan for 3 years prior. They just didn't have quite enough justification. So this was the reason to invade. At the time, Afghanistan was America's number 1 target to invade. As at September 10, 2001 I mean. That was the next target. Even if the Twin Towers hadn't fallen, they would have eventually gone to Afghanistan. Might have taken until 2002 though.

Now, because this is a big tragedy, they thought that they could use it to also get rid of their public enemy number 1 - OBL. OBL is not their enemy because he kills Americans - he's their enemy because he convinces a lot of people that America is evil. Of America's enemies, he is the most loved, most respected one. So of course they want to make him sound awful. That's the whole reason for it. They had been trying to make him sound awful for the previous 10 years with limited success. They'd even gone so far as to label him a terrorist and put it on their CIA web site that he was a terrorist, and put up a $10 million reward for his capture (dead or alive). So he was the perfect person to blame. That's why they blamed him. Not because he did it.

So why didn't they just blame Saddam Hussein? See, the thing is that a lot of Americans were sympathetic to what we had done to Iraq in the first war, thinking that we'd been a bit over the top. Had America gone to Iraq in 2001 in response to 9/11, it wouldn't have been a popular move. But going to Afghanistan? Oh absolutely everyone (bar Pakistan) agreed to that.

Was OBL in Pakistan? Uh no. I really seriously don't think so. Was Al Qaeda? Nup. Taliban was though. And some Taliban folks have been called Al Qaeda just so that we can pretend that Al Qaeda was there. Oh, being a muslim country there were probably a few Al Qaeda there, but its not like it was their headquarters or anything. Headquarters are more likely to be somewhere like Iran.

So of course, you can say I am ignoring all of the evidence with this theory. But how reliable is the evidence? The video was a fake, OBL never confessed, and Al Qaeda has always denied involvement, and even written to Americans saying that they feel sorry for their plight.

And of course, the individuals. People who were there supporting Al Qaeda? Or people who were there supporting Saddam Hussein and Iraq? Hard to tell the difference really.

Did we know about it? Uh yes. Because Iraqis had tried before, right through the 1990s. We knew it was going to happen. We just didn't take it seriously.

Anyway, that's my theory on it. Not sure why people suggest that the whole Iraq being responsible thing is a new idea. It was spoken about at the time - right up until the whole "Taliban did it" theory was pushed so hard, leading to a widespread belief in the official theory. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Mutawatir and Rajm

I saw you added Mutawatir and Rajm to the List of Islamic terms in Arabic. If you are going to add them to the list then please add definitions. All of the other terms have definitions even if they are dead links. freestylefrappe 17:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

DRV

Your comment on WP:DRV regarding Battle_of_Uhud has me confused. Could you revist and clarify? Note that the other you request the undeletion of has never existed. -Splash^talk 20:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment Requesting Your Attention

I posted to the Merge Completed section of the Ramadan talk page; your reply is requested. joturner 02:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I replied yet again to your comment on Ramadan; it may be more to your liking. joturner 02:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean to tell you every single second I reply to one of your posts, but for this one I must. I basically said your proposal for splitting the Ramadan into two sounds good, although I'm doubting that we'll have enough information about the chaining of the devils to warrant another article. I added/moved the split template at the top of the Ramadan page; it would be great to some more input on the matter before making this major change. joturner 03:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Frustration

Have I ever told you that you frustrate me? You do not create List of Hadith and put it up for VfD when an identical article is on VfD. You wait to see what happens to the first VfD. You've been here for a long time Striver so please please follow the rules. If the first VfD goes through then we see if we move the article there.... you don't create another article with the same content!!!! I have redirected it to List of notable Muslim reports and if that VfD votes to move to List of Hadith then it will be moved. And seriously... what does this list do? What is your criterion for notability. I like you Striver, but your editing makes my life more difficult. So, it's a good thing you're a nice and friendly guy at least :) gren グレン 12:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The Kaaba issue is your writing vs. Zora's. This is the same content and you don't have separate VfDs. It's fine if you tell people the name is bad... that's why there's the vote to "move" which is keep content but change name. Creating two different VfDs makes no sense because a WP:CSD states that you can delete an article with the same content as a deleted article. So, say one is voted keep and the other delete... that'd be a contradiction. So, that's why you keep an article as what the VfD was started as... but you make it clear that you want the name change. That's why I put the bold text at the top because I don't want it deleted because of the bad name... I want it deleted because of bias in content. Okay? So, in the future don't make another article with the same content / subject and put it up for VfD. Let the VfD system go through. gren グレン 12:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I say it's biased because there is no systematic way of judging what hadith deserve pages. Basically, as it is now it's whatever hadith you and Zereshk think are important... and you may have some legitimacy... but in the end that's not an unbiased list. I don't even know how you named them... who uses those names... what sources have you cited. We need a systematic method for judging what hadith are important. I suppose Hadith Qudsi are important (is that only for Sunnis?). I also don't like you organizing them into discrete sections. Many hadith may seem to be about one thing but are used for many purposes. I'd be happy if you started citing some real, scholarly sources for what belongs and in each hadith article instead of pasting text. You also need to start a more organized citation system. Do you think your material reads like something Britannica would accept? Wikipedia suffers from a crippling optimism that any article adding information is good... when many times the skew the representation of the discourse. I really would like to see some hadith scholars opinions on these pages. gren グレン 14:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Saduj al-Dahij

Good point, I'll replace the entire page... TerraGreen 10:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I ended up preserving original content, with a prominent and careful explanation. Hope this is reasonable. TerraGreen 15:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

s11 work being destroyed :(

The article was at a *REALLY* good quality, well referenced, as good as you are going to get, and then someone (its hard not to use expletives here) came along and destroyed everything, and says its all speculation with no real value. Can you get some people to help to make sure that it stays in a good form? They were trying to remove all references to 9/11 conspiracy theories, put simply. I was pretty upset about the whole thing. Whilst earlier efforts were vaguely constructive, this last one is verging on vandalism and is very disruptive. I reverted his edits, but there's a big agenda there somewhere, and they are lying and distorting the truth. I'd rather see it deleted outright than be abused like this. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Karen Armstrong sentence verified

See talk page of Identity of first male Muslim. I have found 5 or 6 other pro-Ali references in addition which I will post soon when I get the time.--Zereshk 07:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

RFC

I apologize, but I see no other course of action in dealing with this user. Please add your username to the editors certifying the dispute. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Haizum. freestylefrappe 05:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

spelling

I applaud your hard work in adding valuable content to some lacking articles and also adding articles that did not exist. However, I urge you to proofread your spelling and grammar prior to your final save. Spelling really detracts from the article. For example, you have "Sunnis belive" and "Shi'as belive" etc. This really detracts from the article because someone reading has to stop momentarily to think about what the other intended to mean. There must be spell checkers available on the net that you can submit your work and then submit it into WP. {left unsigned} Pepsidrinka 01:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Help with the Imam subject

Salam striver,

A while back you had begun a topic about Imams and what we believe in them regarding our "Usoole Din", and regarding Imams being higher than Prophets, I have some books im scanning into text format by Shiite scholars for you if youre still interested, if you have an email, IM or want me to paste it here for you, let me know.--Paradoxic 17:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal alert!

I have officially proposed to split the "9/11 conspiracy theories" article, with the two most in depth areas being moved to separate articles at Allegations of Jewish or Israeli complicity in 9/11 and Allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11. Please check out the discussion at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Proposal_to_split_this_article . Thank you. Blackcats 21:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Islamic scholars

I've put up Islamic scholars for deletion. I just dont see whats here that isnt already covered in Ulema. freestylefrappe 21:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I've also listed Battle of Mut'ah. freestylefrappe 22:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

WISHES

Salaam

Wishing you a glorious and prosperous 2006. May Almighty's protection be with you.

Wasalam (May peace be upon Muhammad and the descendants of Muhammad) --Khalid! 16:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy New Year man. Inshallah Hadhrat-i Haqq will answer all your prayers in the new year.--Zereshk 22:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Have a great and prosperous New Year.--Ya Ali 12:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak

Eid Saeed ! All the best for the holidays! --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak Striver! --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

EID MUBARRAK--Khalid! 10:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The Muslim Guild

Let me know your thoughts on whether or not this should happen... Link, link --JuanMuslim ^1m 03:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Highlighted events involving Sahaba

I hope you understand why I deleted it and I hope you'll never do that again. You can't just change the name and little things on a template that was deleted and then recreate it. You've been here for long enough, Striver. Could you please remove links to the new template. Thank you. gren グレン 06:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

We removed them all (I had some pages to add to my watchlist anyways). But, Striver, you are warned. Never do that again. gren グレン 06:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you do a lot in good faith which is why I just tell you not to do it. However, on a TfD delete is delete, and rename is rename. If they had wanted it renamed they would have voted that way. Okay? gren グレン 18:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review reviews deletions under certain criteria, it gives you all of the instructions for what you should do. This doesn't mean you will get the template back, there are some issues that all of us have brought up at times that don't go through. So, check out deletion review and see how that goes. gren グレン 21:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Article Help

Would love help making the Robert Spencer article more balanced if you have time/interest.--Yalto 22:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Amusing template

You should add the template:

This userbox may pose a risk to international security and should be reviewed by a Wikipedia administrator.

to your userpage. Hazium would approve :). freestylefrappe 02:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak

Best wishes to you and yours, brother. BYT 16:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Incivil comment

Haizum wrote a nasty little comment towards you on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Haizum:

That's because your phone has been tapped. Haizum 23:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

freestylefrappe 20:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Muslim views of circumcision

I wonder if you would mind looking at the article titled Circumcision and its talk page. It's a very controversial article and has recently undergone a rather drastic rewrite by someone who is arguablly opposed to the practice; people of the same POV are likely to be weighing in soon, too. I'm Jewish, and have taken the stance that in general Jews are less concerned about routine infant circumcision (RIC) than with continued freedom for Jews to circumcise our own children. Since circumcision is widely practiced in Islam, I wanted to make sure that the article reflects Muslim concerns as well. Thanks, Benami 22:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Salaams

pls check out the discussion at Talk:Islamofascism (term); proposal is to redirect to Neofascism and religion. BYT 20:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)