User talk:Mustafaa

• User talk:Mustafaa/Archive 1
• User talk:Mustafaa/Archive 2
• User talk:Mustafaa/Archive 3

If you want to delete it, go ahead. I was trying to balance the claims of Muslim triumphalists and the "Islam is headed for the garbage can" folks. We've seen a tug of war in the article going on for many months between these folks and I thought that bringing it out into the open would help. But if you don't think it will suppress flames ... Zora 00:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

      I just wanna say your a racist, Thanks, go support the Republicans. Yu5uF 8:45, 14th April 2006 (DST) 

User urchid and his possible sockpuppet 4.158.211.175 are doing nothing but committing vandalism of the encylopedia by inserting their hatred towards Islam (in Islam article and the discussion section). Perhaps you want to check this out and maybe push for protection of the Islam article. Anonymous editor 19:18, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary at this stage. Let's see what happens. - Mustafaa 19:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from hijacking and vandalizing articles to spread islamist propaganda - anon.

I've listed comprehensive reasons for my edits in talk before I removed anything. Please see talk. I wouldn't mind discussing this either. Zionist terrorism doesn't redirect, it is actually a duplicated article of Israeli terrorism. It also needs to be cleaned up. Regards,

Guy Montag 01:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We are waiting for your opinion in the discussion page on whether to move Israeli terrorism to State terrorism. Hope to hear from you soon.

Guy Montag 09:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He is well known nationally. They print memorial coverages in newspapers every year about him. I think it should be translated.--Zereshk 04:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mustafaa,

I recently ordered a old and expensive book on the geography of the Abbasid caliphate, in order to solve the nagging question about the derivation of Ahwaz or Suq al-Ahwaz. Southern Comfort and Zereshk were insisting that Ahwaz was a form of Khuz or Huz. That didn't seem plausible on the face of it, and they couldn't give any reason for it other than a quote from an Arab geographer writing five centuries later. Well, in 1905 a British professor, Le Strange, writes that "Ahwaz" is the Arabic plural form of Khuz. Since he was translating from Arab chroniclers, one assumes that he knew Arabic -- but I still find that assertion a little hard to believe. There seems to be only one sound in common between the two words, the z. I understand that Arabic forms plurals by changing the vowels inside a tri-consonantal root, or sometimes by adding an -in suffix, right? Is Le Strange's assertion reasonable?

If Ahwaz is indeed an Arabic plural form for Khuz, we may have been having this problem because none of the people involved know any Arabic.

BTW, I continue to have problems with the various Khuzestani and Elamite articles. That's all I'll say about it. I tried to involve you earlier, but you are busy, and I hate to call on you too often. I just wish somebody had responded to the two RFCs I posted. Zora 08:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. Iranians go thru 7 years of Arabic in school, and one or two semesters in College. They know Arabic well enough. In fact modern Arabs know little about Sarf wa Nahw, whereas Iranians are mandatorily trained in that area (i.e. "Classical Arabic").
2. I find it unfortunate that after providing literally a mountain of evidence, Zora still insists on the "Arabic root of Ahvaz". If that is not ignorance and bigotry, then what is?--Zereshk 08:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Responded to your comment on Talk:Ethnic politics of Khuzestan. I suggest presenting both POV's (as regards the foundation of the emirate). Obviously there were differences between the rule of Jabir and Khaz'al, and I do not wish to argue over definitions of what constitutes an 'emirate' and whether Jabir was an emir so forth, as both POV's are well documented. What do you think? By the way, it would be appreciated if you could add any additional info to Msha'sha'iya. Kasravi also wrote a wonderful book about them, however it will take me some time to get ahold of it. SouthernComfort 21:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into it. I don't know much about the issue, but fortunately alwaraq.com has a very good library... - Mustafaa 21:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would appreciate whatever help you could provide, as my Arabic isn't all that great, thus limiting me to primarily Persian language sources. Though I have a number of Khuzestani Arab friends in Iran who have expertise in this subject and will be helping me gather and translate as many sources as we can find. Zora has continually attacked me as a racist (!) and anti-Arab bigot, and considering my Khuzestani background (and I have many Iranian Arab relatives and friends) and my attempt to provide an accurate portrait of Khuzestani Arab history and current reality, it's becoming very frustrating and offensive. You seem to be very NPOV and whatever assistance you could provide would be great. SouthernComfort 22:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I fixed the balanced-example problem people claimed to be concerned about, but POV editors are massing the troops. Could I ask you to take a look and add your thoughts to the discussion? BrandonYusufToropov 01:46, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is Muhammereh the correct Arabic transliteration, or is it Muhammerah? In Khuzestan I've always heard it referred in the former sense. The most common form on the Internet is Mohammerah, which I think is the Persian form. I'm also curious about the meaning. Thanks. SouthernComfort 05:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Mustafaa. I inadvertantly noticed that someone has placed an historical overview narrative in the lead paragraph. I restored the original lead, moved it to the history preview section and integrated with what was there, wikified, etc. Perhaps you could take a glance at it and make sure everything is (historically and chronologically) in order. I edited it somewhat in haste. All the best, El_C 23:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No problem. - Mustafaa 00:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Mustafaa. El_C 08:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for contributions to Khuzestani articles and also for your recent edit in Qur'an, on literary Arabic. Says it perfectly and should prevent future problems with educated Arabic-speakers not understanding section re language of Qur'an. Zora 02:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A user using anonymous IPs (most likely enviroknot) has been making personal attacks against me with the IP address in both the Saudi Arabia and Jihad articles. See edit history.

He also seems to have a problem with my conversion to Islam as he posted this on my user page: As a former Muslim, I understand you feel the need to defend Islam.However, it is completely indefensible. Please be advised that I will oppose you at EVERY turn because my eyes have been opened and the mysoginistic goals of the false prophet Mohammed (piss be upon him) must be opposed at every turn, for the good of the world and for the good of all women who would be free of the slavery that is Islam.

I request that you take the appropriate measures to stop this user's and also his persistent vandalism of article and talk pages. He has used the exact same wording and tactics as enviroknot so he is probably just another sockpuppet of enviroknot.Thank you for your help.--Anonymous editor 02:55, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

          Those words are really hurting me, These people are racists ignore them. Just delete their stupid stuff and move on.  --Yu5uF 19:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Hi Mustafaa, I just want to say that I welcome your contributions to the Afrocentrism page. Deecee is, I find, very difficult to argue with because of her highly entrenched views. But I hope you will persist in helping us to sort out the most appropriate and useful terminology for North African peoples. The problem is, I feel, that discussion of race is so riddled with confusing and contradictory terminology that it's very difficult to find terms that can command a consensus. I feel that Deecee, like other some other Amercians I've discussed this with tends to assume that the very idiosycratic ideas about race prevelant in America are universally held worldwide, or that if they aren't that's because everyone else hasn't caught up yet! Paul B 13:24 14 June, 2005 (UTC)

I was blocked earlier today by User:Inter, apparently for reverting the talk page for this IP, which, as I explained to everyone else at the time, was done because this IP is shared by thousands of people as an university proxy.

As you can see from the history, User:DJ Clayworth is in clear violation of the 3RR rule, also here where User:Sjakkalle joins in the edit war.

I understand that I may also have been in violation, but the policy states that "In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally.", which Inter clearly did not.

It may be claimed that their reverts did not count, because they were reverting vandalism, but in fact, this only applies to Wikipedia:Simple vandalism and my edits did not fall into that category, though I was accused of vandalism by DC Clayworth and others, which goes against Wikipedia:No personal attacks. In the case of Sjakkalle, my request that a comment be referenced was repeatedly ignored, he kept on reverting, claiming "vandalism" and then gave up. --137.205.192.27 18:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• This anonymous user has been putting in "alleged" all over holocaust related articles, implying that the facts in the article are pure speculation. Inserting misinformation in an article does constitute vandalism. I doubt also that the anon in question is a newbie, because he has been sending 3RR warnings to the users he has warred with. I would like to assume good faith, but here I think that the user in question is deliberately trying to coax other users into running afoul of the 3RR. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In fact, I put alleged in ONE place, relating to Hitler. Your above statement is implies that I was denying the holocaust, when in fact I did not dispute the holocaust, but rather pointed out the ambiguity in the main cause of it. This is not misinformation, it was an attempt at NPOV, admittedly perhaps not a very good one. Either way, it does not constitute simple vandalism, revertion of which is exempt from the 3RR rule. Also, your main revert warring was when I removed an unverifiable, irrelevant and unreferenced claim from a holocaust article. Despite my requests for a citation and explanations of why I had done the edit, you continuously reverted, either with no explanation, or claiming "vandalism" and "bias", which are personal attacks. I also did not send "3RR warnings", I pointed out ONCE to DJ Clayworth that he was close to infringing the 3RR rule, and I did not "war" with anyone, i was trying to NPOV an article- it seems you were the one with war in mind. Besides that, even if I were trying to "coax" users into 3RR violation, admins of all people should be able to avoid getting drawn in and take appropriate action. --137.205.192.27

For a highly sensitive topic such as the Holocaust, I strongly urge you to attempt to discuss any edits in detail on the talk page first. You're clearly not new to Wikipedia, so you may have come across this principle before; if not, it will save you and others many headaches. - Mustafaa 19:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for a clear headed response, finally. In future I shall do as you say. I still think the others behaved badly.. but nevermind. --137.205.192.27 20:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As soon as I started editing it Mr. Humus Sapiens started removing the in the news section because he thinks it's too "anti-Israel". This is amazing, even a portal is not free of POV-pushing.Yuber^(talk) 05:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There isn't one. I blocked him for 2 hours for him to calm down. Blanking a page, especially when its a talk page full of evidence of past vandalism, isn't a good thing. That was my reason for the short block. If he wishes to complain about it, I'd suggest he take it up with me directly, but as he was a vandal, complaining to somebody else about it sounds like a viable option for him. Thanks for your inquiry. Inter\^Echo 07:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The reason I complained to "someone else" was so that a 3rd party who was not involved in the dispute could mediate. Also I think your previous behaviour was unjust, so why would you respond justly to my complaint. You have also called me a vandal again, which is yet another violation of WP:NPA, please stop. Also the talk page has no evidence of vandalism, merely accusations, which I strongly dispute. And why did you only block me, the policy is ""In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally." --137.205.192.27 10:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thought you might want to vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. Blackcats 09:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We seem to be disputed over the definition of the link. Is it a Propoganda (If I missppell this word I'll be happy to learn the correct spelling) site or not. As the site gives a very Narrow and one sided version of the citie's history, and claims that it is under occupation, it is a propoganda site. I am willing to accept the term occupation regarding the "Territories" occupied in 1967. Jaffa, however is a part of the state of Israel as recognized by the UN in 1947. If this link is to remain in the article at least we can warn about the nature of the site it links to. Can we come to a civilized agreement? All I want is a NPOV good article. I have contributed the picture I took in Jaffa of the Jaffa port and I really care for this article. Almog 21:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for replying in my talk page. Please see my comment in the Jaffa talk page. Almog 05:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's Noitall again, now he's claiming that Christianity doesn't view Abraham as the ancestor of the Arabs.Yuber^(talk) 23:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I was about to leave a comment on Zereshk's talk when I noticed your comments and I would like to say something. I completely understand where you are coming from, but Zora is the one who is attempting to create controversy here. Originally there were only two quotes in the article, at the top of the page. Two quotes, both of which are relevant to the article in question. Neither quote says anything about the ethnic character of the Elamites. She originally deleted them (as well as the sentence contributed by Emilyzilch) based upon her false accusation that I (and Zereshk) had claimed the Elamites were Persian. Now, there is nothing wrong with including relevant quotes in an article, and it's one thing to move those quotes to somewhere more appropriate in the article, but to delete them outright and then to attempt to politicize the article by bringing in this idea of "histiography and nationalism" and calling historians (all non-Iranian at that) "nationalist" - this is totally against the spirit of WP and considering your opinion on the matter, I do not believe you would condone such acts.

But it's important to make clear that Zora is the one attempting to transform the article into a political battleground and she made similar claims about there being "controversy" over the name Ahvaz (in reality, there being no controversy). IMHO, if she wants to counter what is already in the article (i.e. providing POV's from opposing scholars) and no one else has any opposition to this, then that's something. But to delete relevant and legitimate information and to declare her intention to "completely" rewrite the article is not only disruptive and against the spirit of WP, but provokes edit war. It's not right and again, I do not believe that you condone this sort of disruptive behavior. But her behavior (and her history of antagonizing both Zereshk and myself) should be recognized for what it is. SouthernComfort 12:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

...which I think will go a long way toward resolving unproductive disputes pages he and I both edit. Anyone who is interested in voting one way or the other is invited to the discussion here. BrandonYusufToropov 17:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Same problems again after article has been unprotected. Anon IPs/enviroknot persist certain disputed sections should be added. See edit history. Call to re-protect. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 00:04, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I thought using the word "variety" was more NPOV as you had said before in another article, so that's why I changed dialect to variety.Yuber^(talk) 00:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In general I agree, but when there's a relatively high-profile debate as here, I think it's better to mention both sides. - Mustafaa 00:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. - Mustafaa 02:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All in the line of duty. Kelly Martin 02:24, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Look at Category talk:Indigenous peoples for some background. I had the same primary reaction but I thought CJJLWright's arguments were pretty convincing. I'd be curious to know your thoughts. — mark ✎ 07:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mustafaa, I have also responded at Talk:Tuareg with a rather too long dissertation, and included the external references I used in associating Tuareg with the indigenous category. Let me know what you think, thanks. --cjllw | TALK 09:06, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Mustafaa, I'm at a loss as to how to deal with User:Yuber; his preferred method of editing seems to be inserting his own POV into articles, or deleting information he doesn't like, and then revert warring. His latest edits at State of Palestine appear to me to be POV and inaccurate, and remove simple facts. I suspect he might respect any comments or edits you might make; would you be willing to take a look? Regards, 20:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I saw that you voted yes and I was curious about what you thought. I have found that he is sometimes oriented towards a strong Sunni view. Do you see this or... I'm just curious. It seemed to me that such a demeanor (which could have gotten better) and not that many edits (nor that many of great size) and the circumstances of an rfa from an argument seemed a little odd... I typically trust your opinion, so I more or less want to know why you voted the way you did. gren 01:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, he was correct in not making Qur'an alone seem unwarrantedly popular but I didn't think he cited his very anti-the-group statements well. It's not that he's a bad user, but I find him to be somewhat biased and not experienced enough, and I'm not sure that what he has done puts him over the threshold into good admin land. As for User:Edip Yuksel... I hope he can write a decent article about it but... I am skeptical... Oh, and about Edip Yuksel, is he less notable than Rashad Khalifa? gren 02:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Amazon says he has Mor mektuplar out and is the editor of The Qur'an : A Reformist Translation which is about to come out. I think it's more than vanity... and, since I'm semi-inclusionist oriented I'd say that's enough. But, it's very borderline. gren 03:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Awesome - thanks for your effort, hopefully we'll be filling it up... ! Ramallite ^(talk) 20:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this isn't the forum to do this, but as there's no Private-Message type feature I can find... Just wanted to say hi and thanks for the welcome, much appreicated. Nice to know that someone's reading :) Also, thanks to Mark for removing the double-post, didn't even notice. Lance

Hi, Mustafaa. I just wanted to say thank you for starting those two Wikiportals (Algeria and Palestine). Great work! Danny 00:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mustafaa, I went to take a look at the article. It seems thorough -- so thorough, in fact, that about half-way through my eyes glazed over and I had to skim through the rest. I think it could use some copyediting to make it more accessible. Perhaps some items spun off into subsidiary pages. But I can't do that now. It seems like good, solid work, and a decent explanation for something that has always seemed like a bit of "noise" in the news to me. Funny, innit, how some minor conflicts get lots of media time, and major ones are all but invisible. Zora 00:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Musy, I started a new article—List of traditional Arabic place names. Would you like to get involved? ^^ I got tired of other editors mangling the detailed Arabic linguistics I put up (deleting diacritics such as emphatic dots, etc.). - Gilgamesh 28 June 2005 04:17 (UTC)

Same pro-Indian, highly anti-Islamic opinionated paragraphs are being pushed on the Islam and other religions. Please check this out. Thanks.--Anonymous editor June 28, 2005 21:36 (UTC)

maybe you can help on my question on Talk:Regions of Mauritania or you know someone who can help.

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 29 June 2005 11:07 (UTC) 

Hiya

I sent you a message by wikimail. Please could you answer it quickly or inform me if you did not get anything ? Thanks. Anthere

Striver has been very busy lately and I am feeling overwhelmed! He is making unilateral moves (such as Aisha to Aisha binte Abu Bakr and working very hard to include Shi'a invective in the articles of every early Islamic historical figure on the Shi'a hit list. His sources are Shi'a hadith, which he regards as being pure history, not to be doubted. This results in articles starting with material like "He was a bastard and the son of a bastard." It's not only that he is incredibly POV -- he can't WRITE. His contributions are ungrammatical, misspelled, and garbled to the point of incomprehensibility. All the Muslim editors seem to have settled down to enjoy the skirmishing at jihad, Islam, and the other high-visibility articles, and I feel as if I were the only one monitoring the early Islamic history articles.

What is the answer? Perhaps an Islamic history editors list? A place to post POV alerts? Zora 30 June 2005 01:00 (UTC)

Hi! What do you think of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages)#Proposed addition? Cheers, — mark ✎ 30 June 2005 12:15 (UTC)

Salam Mustapha, It looks like you found a new occupation, your are doing a great job, I appreciate it, good luck - Firas --Firas@user 30 June 2005 15:09 (UTC)

Hope you can take a quick look at it and perhaps help to defend this (hopefully, closer to NPOV) version against revert efforts that may materialize. BrandonYusufToropov 3 July 2005 09:45 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at the ongoing dispute at Sahaba? Many thanks. BrandonYusufToropov 4 July 2005 19:05 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be interested to hear your views on Yeshua. Kuratowski's Ghost 4 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)

I have reported Miskin for violating WP:3RR at Extinct language. At the moment he's only reverted List of extinct languages 3 times, but let's keep an eye on him. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 4 July 2005 21:43 (UTC)

Don't know if you've already seen it: I posted some links to more detailed watershed maps of Algeria at the reference desk. Lupo July 6, 2005 06:48 (UTC)

I'd like to give you a belated thanks for your welcoming me to this site. But I have a slight problem. There seems to be a User named Jayjg who keeps following me around on any article and rolling back my edits even when the articles are totally unrelated. For example, it is well-known that the Ottoman's caliphate was disputed by many Arabs yet he even rolled that back.Heraclius 6 July 2005 22:19 (UTC)

Actually, the articles you edit are all on my watchlist. In fact, I've edited most of them long before you created this particular userid. And Mustafaa, your thoughts on User:Heraclius's edits would be most welcome. Jayjg ^(talk) 6 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)

No offense, but I'm pretty sure that you're lying. I checked the history of the "History of Islam" article (and even clicked on the 500 button) and I saw that you hadn't even made ONE single edit before I started editing it. There's no way in my opinion that you have that article on your Watchlist. Heraclius 7 July 2005 15:45 (UTC)

Hey. I've never edited it (nor claimed to), and it's on my watchlist! Tomer ^TALK July 7, 2005 19:04 (UTC)

Neverthless I do take offense at your accusation that I am lying. I don't have to edit an article to add it to my watchlist; there's a tab for it right at the top. I've edited many articles related to Islam, and have many more that I haven't edited on my watchlist. Jayjg ^(talk) 7 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)

Can you check out what's going on at Extinct language, and look at the NPOV argument on its talkpage, and perhaps also weigh in on the proposal to move the page (on Talk:Extinct language) to Dead language instead? Thanks. Tomer ^TALK July 6, 2005 23:46 (UTC)

Hey there, I was wondering if you could help me out with this. There was no mention of the road map for peace in this article and I tried to include it but somehow people think it is "biased" and "pov" to mention the road map. I find it very alarming that any mention of working for peace in the region is somehow "biased".Heraclius 7 July 2005 17:19 (UTC)

I find it very alarming that you can't honestly characterize what the actual disagreement is about. Jayjg ^(talk) 7 July 2005 19:02 (UTC)

Hi Mustafaa. Thanks for the idea. I had a look at Algeria's and found it pretty developed. Great job. I am just being a bit busy lately and feel not being able to concentrate some efforts in order to collaborate to such project for the time being. I hope to be ready by August. Cheers -- Svest July 7, 2005 20:30 (UTC)

Hi again Mussy. Here I am again ready for WikiWorld. I'll start the Moroccan portal straight away. I'll be consulting you when needed. Cheers and respect. Svest 23:57, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Can you verify the legitimacy of the translation of "Shakur" given in the opening of Tupac Shakur? Thanks. -Tomer ^TALK July 8, 2005 18:20 (UTC)

Thanks again.  :-) -Tomer ^TALK July 8, 2005 18:29 (UTC)

Hi Mustafaa, You just edited my contribution to the article on Palestinians. Which is fine, since it means (I hope) a chance to learn from you.

You pointed out that there are Maronites in Palestine. I had known that, in fact, but I reckoned their numbers too small to warrant mention. That's not to slight anyone: It's necessary to set some threshold, else you'd face the impossible task to make the list exhaustive. Well, perhaps I could have qualified my shortlist by refering to significant minorities. OTOH it could also be that the Maronites are important, and that I am mistaken. So tell me, what portion of the Palestinians are Maronite?

Another point which surprised me even more was to learn was that not all Palestinians are Arab speaking. Just who are these non-Arabic speakers and, if they are important, then why don't you also correct the introductory sentences, which describe the Palestinians as an Arab people? For if Arabs aren't defined by language, then what does define them? Certainly not religion or historical experience..

Thanks for your time. I hope I hear from you! --Philopedia 8 July 2005 21:42 (UTC)

Striver has become more and more active in the Islam-related articles, and extremely insistent on having his own way, reverting multiple times. He has been adding and re-adding the "info" that there were 100,000 companions in Sahaba and now he's got a bee in his bonnet that Ali ibn Abu Talib was born in the Kaaba. He has reverted at least three times in the Ali article, despite multiple people telling him to STOP. As an admin, could you invoke the 3RR rule against him? If he would just editing for a while, we could clean up some of the damage -- like his version of Muawiya I, which contains gems like:

Muawiyah was born (c. 602), his mother being the prostitute Hinda who was famous for eating Hamza's liver after the battle of Badr.

If you feel that you are too involved in the Islamic articles to be neutral in this matter, whom do you recommend I approach? Zora 8 July 2005 23:00 (UTC)

i Know... :(

Its my whay to tell her that her pov is not relevant...

I have already given her AMPEL evidence of that, look att the talk page of Ali ibn Abu Talib

For your conviniace, i will copy the most important parts:

Fatimah bint Asad was circumbulating the Ka'ba when she was carrying Ali (a.s.). The wall of Ka'ba cracked to create an opening and she entered it to give birth to Ali (a.s.). Al-Mustadrak 3:483.

apparently the wahabis try to fill the crack up but it no matter what they do the crack still shows up! if abu bakr or umar were born there they would have put a sign post there!!

Well I am a Sunni and u said that our Imam Ali and our HAzrat Ali born in holy Kaba... It is right and it shows the dignity of Ali (shia site)

Hazrat Ali razialahutalaanho He is the personality who given the name sherekhudafrom ALLAH.And he is the personality who won the battel of khaiber,and took the roots off that door called darekhaibar.And he has one more speciality that is he accept islaam in his childhood. He was born in the KABA> (sunni site)

History has recorded that he is the only person who was born inside the Kabah itself.: HAKIM IBN HAZM (sunni site)

As you see, i have proven with direc links that "Both Shia and Sunni agree on that someone was was born inside the Kaba. All Shia and some Sunni say it was Ali, some Sunni say it was Hakim ibn Hazm."

Dont you agree that she is wrong for not alowing this information to be in the articel?

--Striver 8 July 2005 23:30 (UTC)

Dear brother, we both know that everything is not in Bukhari and Nahj al Balagha. It suffices to show that people bother to write it on their webpages to confirm that they belive it.

For example, take a look att this: http://www.yazehra.com/fatimabint.htm

Does that not prove that shias [1] and sunnis [2] BELIVE that somebody was born in it?

Does not "He was born in the Sacred House (i.e. the Kaba) in Mecca" [3] from one of the most prominent shia sites on the webb constitute proof of belife ?

The site [4] claiming that hakim-ibn-hazm was born ther is not a simple site, it sure proofs that Sunnis BELIVE it?

--Striver 8 July 2005 23:41 (UTC)

Here, more proof :

"40. Do you mean to say that the Sacred Mosque owes its exalted position to Ali because he was born inside of it?

'Yes! That certainly is our logical belief! History records that, one day, Ali's pregnant mother, Fatima Binte Asad was caught in an emergency child-birth situation just when she was by Kaba's Sacred Mosque. Her labour pains started and she didn't know what to do. Just then, she heard a voice inviting her to take shelter inside the Sacred Mosque. But, how could she go in? The door was locked! Just then, a wall miraculously split open to afford her entry. Once she was inside, the wall closed, and soon Ali was born. Not only was Ali born in the Sacred Mosque, but he also died a martyr decades later when struck with a poisoned sword while praying in a mosque.

As an Ismaili Muslim I am shocked every time I.... [5]

See, even Ismaili Muslim belive it!

--Striver 8 July 2005 23:46 (UTC)

No, unfortunaly i dont :(

Im searchig for some more referenes for you :)

Ma salam!--Striver 8 July 2005 23:55 (UTC)

Salam again, dear brother!

In the famous shia book Peswar night we find:

Hakim in his Mustadrak and Nuru'd-din Bin Sabbagh Maliki in his Fusulu'l- Muhimma, Fasl I, p.14, say: "No one before Ali was born in the Ka'ba. This was a distinction given to Ali in order to enhance his honor, rank, and dignity." [6]

Proof enough? There you have three sources in one, One famous shia book, and two sunni scholars.

Remeber, im not saying its is factual, mi saying both shia and sunni BELIVE that SOMEONE was born in the kaba.

--Striver 9 July 2005 00:10 (UTC)

Peswar nights:

On the 20th of Ramadhan, when Ali was on his death bed following the attack by Abdu'r-Rahman Ibn Muljim Muradi, he asked Imam Hasan to call in the Shia who had gathered at the door of his house. When they entered, they surrounded his bed and wept silently. Ali said: You may ask any question you like before I leave you, but your questions should be brief." One of those present was Sa'sa'a Bin Suwhan. Your own great ulema, like Ibn Abdu'l-Birr and Ibn Sa'ad, have written about his life and character, have relied on him, confirming that he was a man of great learning.

Sa'sa'a asked: "Who is superior, you or Jesus?" Ali said: "I am superior, for when Mary became pregnant by the Grace of Allah, and the time of her delivery approached, a revelation was granted to her: 'Leave this holy House for this is a House for prayers, not a place for the delivery of children.' Accordingly, she left the holy House and went to the wilderness where she gave birth to Jesus. But when my mother, Fatima Bint-e-Asad, felt labor pains within the precincts of the holy Ka'ba, she clung to the wall and prayed to Allah in the name of that House and the builder of that House, to lessen her pain. Soon a fissure appeared in the wall, and my mother heard a mysterious voice telling her, "O Fatima! Enter the House of the Ka'ba.' She went in, and I was born inside of the holy Ka'ba."

[7]

Google give 4 520 hits [8]

--Striver 9 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)

even WP sais it :P

Mowla Ali was born on the thirteenth of Rajab twenty-two years before Hijra (A.D. 600) inside the sacred house of Ka'ba. No one else has been born in the House of Allah ever since its foundation by Prophet Ibra'hi'm (Abraham).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismaili

Brother, i not telling you its a fact, im telling you people belive it!

Here:

"Ali was born under unusual circumstances. On the thirteenth of the holy month of "Rajab", Fatima, the mother of Ali, visited the Kaaba for performing the pilgrimage. During the course of the pilgrimage while circumambulating the Kaaba, Fatima felt the pangs of childbirth. She retired to a secluded place in the precincts of the Holy Kaaba, and there Ali was born."

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/companion/01_ali_bin_talib.htm#Date%20of%20birth

List of sunni sites that claim it:

• witness-pioneer.org says Ali
• witness-pioneer.org ,again, says Ali
• madeena.s5.com says Ali
• anwary-islam.com says Hakim

Shia sites:

• Bay Area Shiite-Muslims Association (www.basma.us)
• Brethren of Purity Foundation (www.brethrenofpurity.org)
• yazehra.com says Ali
• imamalinet.net says Ali
• islamroots says Ali
• ezsoftech.com says Ali
• aljaafaria.com Says Ali *amaana.org Says Ali
• asp?Type=Articles&prt=none playandlearn.org Says Ali *victorynewsmagazine.com Says Ali
• islamicresearch.org says Ali

Ismili sites:

• slamicate.com says Ali
• Wikipedia Says Ali
• ismaili.net says Ali

Shia sources:

• Peswar nights says Ali
• Bay Area Shiite-Muslims Association (www.basma.us)
• Brethren of Purity Foundation (www.brethrenofpurity.org)
• restatement of history says Ali

Sunni Source

• Hakim in his Mustadrak says Ali
• Nuru'd-din Bin Sabbagh Maliki in his Fusulu'l- Muhimma says Ali

Shia Individuals

• Ali Abbas says Ali
• a whole bunch says ali
• [www.iran-daily.com/1383/2132/html/national.htm someone] says Ali

Sunni individuals:

• pak says Ali
• Deedat does not dispiute it
• Anwaar Qureshi says Ali

Muslim individual:

• Shaneabbas User:Shaneabbas says Ali

I could go on the whole night, Google gives 8 850 hits.

Dear brother, i dont have the actual source of it, exept for the sunni one i gave you. But dont all of this constitute proof of BELIF`?

NOT A SINGLE SOURCE/PERSON I HAVE MEET REFUTES IT, EXEPT ZORA!

Oh, one person wanted evidence:

• armughal

Woho, her is one saying to bewar of it, but its just a private pov, its not sourced:

• OMG says "It is not logical"

But this guy tells him otherwise:

• Texan_Dude says "...lame excuses people come up ..."

Your brother in Islam, --Striver 9 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)

OK, thanks brother. Ill see if i can find a more prominent Sunni site saying it.

Btw, witness-pioneer being sunni is easly proved by this list and by their refusal to touch Ghadire Khumm.

--Striver 9 July 2005 01:15 (UTC)

---

Good day and Salam Aleikom my brother in Islam!

Thank you for representing the shia pov regarding Ali being born int Kaba!

Now, how do you propose whe should handle that some very profesional Sunni sites make similar claims?

Anwary Islam claims only Hakim was born ther, and Wittnes-pionner says it was Ali.

Surly it is relevant and should be included, otherwise it would imply that all sunnis refuse that idea. How is that best represented in Wikipedia?

Ma Salam! --Striver 9 July 2005 11:32 (UTC)

Salam Brother!

Ok, whe dont need to include that all Sunnis belive that.

"Some sunnis agree to that, some say it was Hakim that was the only one to be born in it and a third group dissmis the whole notion of somebody having been born in it. With current sources, it can not be established wich is the biggest of the three groups."

Is that a accurate report of how it is?

Ma salam!

--Striver 9 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

I agree with you for 100% that something that we do not know is better to not claim, absolutly correct!

At the same time, whe need to report what whe DO know, right?

So, what do whe know?

1. All Shia belive he was born in the Kaba.
2. Some sunnis belive he was born in the Kaba.
3. Some sunnis belive Hakim was born in the Kaba.
4. Some dissmis it.

Those four points are 100% confirmed, their is no doubt about it what so ever!

Mashalla, we did a great research yeasterday and found that out beyound a doubt.

Now, the problem is that whe dont know the proportion of the 3 last parts. Does that mean that whe should not report whar we know for 100%?

No, of course not, it just means that we need to enlight people of the uncertanty!

Now, abut Hakim.

The reason he is relevant is simple: Those who belive Hakim was born in it, belive so in exclusion of Ali, and that makes it relevant. In other words, they say that since hakim was born ther, Ali could not be born ther. That is relant to the Ali article.

The Npov states:

Articles should be written without bias, representing all views fairly. This is the neutral point of view policy.

The policy is easily misunderstood: It doesn't assume that writing an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view is possible. Instead it says to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct.

Neutrality does not compel us to introduce inaccuracy when something can be directly verified.

The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?

In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.

Thats why i proposed that we write:

"Shias belive Ali was born in the Ka'ba. Some sunnis agree to that, but some say it was Hakim that was the only one to be born in it, therfor exluding Ali. And a third group dissmis the whole notion of somebody having been born in it. With current sources, it can not be established wich is the biggest of the three groups."

Dont you agree that it is the policy of Wikipedia to report information as accurate as posible, but not att the cost of witholding it?

You brother in Islam, --Striver 9 July 2005 18:08 (UTC)

Found this as whel:

If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Npov

--Striver 9 July 2005 18:17 (UTC)

You wrote:

To "describe a dispute fairly", one must first find out:

1. whether there even is a dispute (as opposed to, say, a simple mistake in witness-pioneer); 2. what authoritative sources the dispute is based on; 3. if possible, what position is more widely held.

If you can answer at least the first two questions, then I'd be happy to put it in. So far, I'm not even convinced there is a real dispute among Sunnis about this. - Mustafaa 9 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)

Brother, i did not claim that there is a dispute betwen Sunnis about it. I Just said that difrent Sunnis have difrent belifs regarding the issue. And that is evident from the researh we did yesterday. Dont forget that sunnis have diffrenses in some areas without claiming the opposing belif to be incorect.

For example, som say that one can have the hands crossed while praying and other do diffrent. And none claim the other is doing wrong.

Im not claiming that there is a dispute, just that diffrent sunnis have diffrent belif regarding this issue.

Regarding i been a misstake from witness-pioneer, that is far fetcht. No enough that they have writen it twice in diffrent chapters, ther are other individuals and an unprofessional website making the same claim, dissming the idea that it is only misstake from witness-pioneer

What really gives the deathblow to the "misstake" theory is anwar-islam making the claim that it was Hakim. It is TOTALY impossible that they got that from a shia source, since a shia would never dream of giving that honor to anybody besides Ali (sa)! . It proves that they got that from a sunni Source!

Nuber two is totaly irrelevant, since whe are not reporting about WHY they belive in it, rather THAT they belive in it. Att least enogh to put it on their profesional sites, both the Hakim and Ali version. Truth is: Its the "nobody was born in the mecca" that is the least representativ, since it is not claimed on a single site, only on one (!) chat site!

lack of that knowledge does not justify to not report the BELIFE

Is desirable to know wich position is widely held, but the lack of it does not justify to not report the BELIFE!

Furthermore, it is established that no website article claims that Ali was born some other place, nor is there any website article claiming that nobody was born in it. Basing on that it is logical to detuct that Nobody being born in the Kabaa is NOT the widely held belif, and that sould be reported as well, however im not going to forward that.

So for the points:

• 1 I do not claim any disputes, only diffrent belifs. It being a misstake is impossible.

• 2 What sources they use is irrelevant.

• 3 Its is already covered in my proposed version, that we do not know.

--Striver 19:49, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slam!

Bro, have you forgoten this subject?

--Striver 20:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

but...

Book 010, Number 3662:

A hadith like this has been transmitted on the authority of Hakim b. Hizam (Imam Muslim) said: Hakim b. Hizam was born inside the Ka'ba and lived for one hundred and twenty years.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/010.smt.html

Thank you. I hope it will be represented in the article now? So, what do whe do with wittnes-pioneer and all the other sunni's that go with "Ali was born in the Kabba"? Are they still not worth representing?

--Striver 11:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you are sayng that Sunnis belive that Ali could have been born in the Kabaa, and that Hakim being born there does not exclude Ali from beeing born there. In that case, that must be represetend.

--Striver 11:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, and i would guees that those two being the only two confirmed to have been born in the Kabaa does not make it anything woth mentioning?

What if i start Peoble born in the Kabba and link both of them there, would you agree to that?

--Striver 11:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salam again brother in Islam.

Im turning to you since you have been so strict about demanding to have oppinions sourced before letting it be claimed as Sunni view. Im talking about :

• not letting me write that sunni Belive Hakim was born in the Kabaa before i found it in Sahi Muslim
• Did not allaow, and still not letting me to claim that Ali was born in the Kabaa is a belife som Sunni have since i could not find it in Sahi Muslim, Sahi Bukhari or its like, even tough i found it in a less important Sunni book, that is "Hakim in his Mustadrak" and "Nuru'd-din Bin Sabbagh Maliki in his Fusulu'l- Muhimma"
• Not letting me either to write that Hakim was born in exlusion to Ali, since Sahi Muslim did not say so explicitly.

Ok. As we both know, Sahi Muslim says clarly and explicitly that wives are not a part of the Ahl al-Bayt.

Now, User:BrandonYusufToropov have made a contrary claim whitout sources, and further threatening me with arbitration. As you can see, he is sayin that his motivation for the threat is that i

• moved Ahl ul-Bayt to Ahl al-Bayt, however, as is evident, instead of reverting my redirect, he
• edited Ahl al-Bayt and did not touch Ahl ul-Bayt,
• instead of reverting Ahl ul-Bayt and redirecting Ahl al-Bayt, a less time consuming choice, implying that he is more concerned with what i wrote than my redirect, specialy since he is in a hurry.

Now, as as i have observed you to be a man of principles, i would like to bring this to your attention and ask you to remove the unsourced material, in the same way you dealt with the "born in Kabaa" issue.

Best regards, you brother in Islam --Striver 15:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Im eagerly waiting for your respons.

--Striver 01:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salam.

Could you show me where ibn Kathir says wifes are members of Ahl al-Bayt?

Regarding Muslim, non of the versions say they are in the included in the term Ahl al-Bayt. If you look closely:

---

Question 1:

• Who are the members of his household?
• Aren't his wives the members of his family?

Thereupon he said:

• His wives are the members of his family (but here) the members of his family are those for whom acceptance of Zakat is forbidden.

Queation 2:

• And he said: Who are they? Thereupon he said: 'Ali and the offspring of 'Ali, 'Aqil and the offspring of 'Aqil and the offspring of Ja'far and the offspring of 'Abbas. Husain said: These are those for whom the acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. Zaid said: Yes.

---

Basicly, he is answearing two diffrent quersions, first: The wives are in or out. He say out

Then, for whom the acceptance: He answears.

If you complement that with the hadith 3 steps down:

Aren't the wives (of the Holy Prophet) included amongst the members of his house hold? Thereupon he said: No, by Allah, a woman lives with a man (as his wife) for a certain period; he then divorces her and she goes back to her parents and to her people; the members of his household include his ownself and his kith and kin (who are related to him by blood) and for him the acceptance of Zakat is prohibited.

Could you show me where Ibn Kathir is say wives are a part of the Ahl al-Bayt?

--Striver 02:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested, I'd be eager to hear your comments here. BrandonYusufToropov 9 July 2005 10:51 (UTC)

Hi there, I wonder if you'd mind taking a look at this article Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Although I have seen the full footage myself, several of the other cources in the article are almost impossible to verify, and it is linked from almost no other articles on the Wikipedia. I don't know whether to re-work it - it might be interesting to have an article on why the US media chose to emphasise such a small bit of footage without any political context - or to put it up for deletion. I'm worried that putting it on VfD might just create another magnet for edit wars. I think re-working it might be the answer, but I'm not about to insert links to tthis article in any others, so it seems a little pointless. ThanksillWill 23:23, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked the template a bit. Hope you don't disapprove. It looks a lot better in Algerian Civil War now.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is great, thanks! - Mustafaa 18:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if you can have a gander over at two revert wars Jayjg and I are involved in. Al Andalus (Muslim Spain) and The Sword of the Prophet. You can check the talk pages to see his rationale for the constant reverting, because I don't understand why he's doing it, but, help is appreciated! regards - --Irishpunktom\^talk 19:36, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

... take a look at my work here, and perhaps add it to your watchlist? Many thanks, BrandonYusufToropov 13:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update. User:Carbonite instantly reverted. BrandonYusufToropov 13:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might like a short break from all of the messages on your talkpage involving POV disputes, reversion, blockings, etc, etc... I found this at "le portail des langues de france": "un extrait de la déclaration universelle des droits de l'homme en arabe maghrébin"...

1 - el-fasel el-ouwwel Koul en-nas yetzadou h’ourrin ou metqaddin f-el-hemma w-el-h’ouqouq. Âend-houm el-âqel w-ed-damir ou wajeb âli-houm yetâamlou mâa baâd-houm baâd b-rouh’-el-khawa 3 - el-fasel et-talet Koul insan âend-ou el-h’aqq l-el-h’ayat w-el-h’ourriya w-es-salama l-nefs-ou. 4 - el-fasel er-rabeâ

H’etta wah’ed ykoun âebd wella memlouk. Temlik f-en-nas ou biâ l-âbid w-el-khdem memnouâ fach ma kan. 5 - el-fasel el-khames

H’etta wah’ed ykoun tayeâ l-et-teâdab, wala l-el-âouqoubat wella l-mâamlat el-weh’chiya wella ghir insaniya wella l-el-h’ogra.

... it's limited to the first 5 articles, but nevertheless I thought it might interest you, and I wondered if you've ever seen it before?

Obviously they use a somewhat french-based orthography (I would write "kul" rather than "koul", and "hurriya" rather than "hourriya"), but then it is a French site.

Best Node

Is there a central place to discuss this? Like a Wikipedia:Bollywood Notice Board?

And, please, the script is not Arabic, but Urdu--Farsi, if you want.

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 18:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Mustafaa, the problem is that several scripts are in use in India, and they are associated with various ethnic/religious groups, and using them points up ethnic/religious divisions. Putting up Urdu script ONLY for actors with Urdu-derived names strikes me as problematic. It's like putting stars on Jews. I'm not against foreign scripts, but I fear to wade into troubled waters. Zora 20:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Ibn Taymiya **seeeeeems** to be nothing but wahabbist/Salafi'ist propaganda.. and I don't like these groups (and they don't like me!). I have no idea how to start fixing it thogh, and was looking for help! --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:23, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Mustaafa. I'm not involved in this page as an editor, but as an admin. I came to it in response to a request for protection. I don't know whether to classify what's going on as vandalism, or as naive editing, but a number of editors, two of them new and one anon IP, are adding nonsense to it e.g. Rachel Corrie was shot and her death counts as an act of terrorism. Almost all the editors at first glance seem to have violated 3RR, though I haven't checked the diffs carefully. One has been reported for it. So I've very temporarily protected the page until I can see who has added what; I've asked them to post their contentious edits on the talk page; and I intend to go through them and point out why they're problematic. I'm doing this for the benefit of the new editors, who may not realize they're causing a problem. So far, only one has responded. Any help you can offer would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:44, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, Mustaafa. I was reverting nonsense — take a look at it for yourself — and doing so in the hope of not having to protect it. There's no reason regular editors should be prevented from editing because of the actions of a few irresponsible ones. Anyway, the page is unlocked now that it's quietened down. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:58, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that both versions are flawed. Terrorism isn't defined, so it's whatever the next editor wants it to be; and there are no or very few sources cited. I'm not keen on getting involved in it. It would be a thankless task. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:17, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hallo, and thank you: I just added the source to the picture's page. Jeus 00:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh -- much obliged. I had no idea. Hopefully this'll be the right one. Jeus 01:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check back on your vote? There's been some extensive debate and Transwiki to Wikibooks seems like the logical choice. Thanks! Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 21:00, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for posting it to the Wikiportal (I didn't know there was one!). I'm glad it's going to be useful. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out of ideas on how to prevent revert wars on West Bank. The intro right now, without mention of population, reads like it is describing some disputed junkyard, and the only reason those opposing describing population give is that other articles don't do that. I've tried to explain in Talk: Gaza Strip why the special circumstances of these territories warrants a description of population, because otherwise in ignorant reader will gain no contextual information, but to no avail. This is ridiculous.Ramallite ^(talk) 00:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I must disagree with you; I think being POV conlangcruft is a reason for deletion.  ;) Anyway, wittiness aside, I think you forgot to sign your vote. The Literate Engineer 01:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This user keeps removing the tag off the Palestinian terrorism article even after specific objections have been given. He has violated the 3RR and is a very combative editor. I really have no idea how to deal with him.Heraclius 02:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to add my support - he has gone totally out of control on Zionist Terrorism changing the article to totally reflect POV and insists on reverting back to non consensus versions on Israeli terrorism Worse he is making it plain that he is not interested in the truth just reverting to ensure that his POV is paramount. 62.253.64.15 00:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that Guy has been reverting some sort of "consensus" version of Israeli terrorism is simply false. As for the tags, Heraclius has been playing games with them; putting tags on articles without any issues in Talk:. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Montag has already violated the 3RR many times and you both will not accept that there is a dispute. The fact that there is an edit war suggests that the neutrality of the article is disputed.Heraclius 03:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If Guy has broken 3RR, get him blocked for it; regardless, there is no "consensus" version he has been reverting. As for tags, your placement of them on pages is just a game to mark pages you don't like, but don't have any specific complaints about. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And your removal of tags is just a game to make pages you like seem totally neutral. Remember that you were the one who removed the tag and set off this whole edit war.Heraclius 04:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually *do* have to agree about Guy Montag -- he's out of control. There can be no changes to the Israeli Terrorism article without his express approval. It's quite frustrating, because WP isn't supposed to consist of a single POV -- particularly on already-controversial issues. Avivle 06:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Those are really useful! Ramallite ^(talk) 03:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wandering around randomly. I ended up at Belaïd Abrika's page and was curious about the red link. So I did a bit of research and filled it in. I'm glad you liked it! Pburka 23:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at the Talk: page. However, considering that it was entered in the article by User:Heraclius without consultation, one of many of his attempts to do so without agreement or consultation or really any rationale for doing so (aside from his usual "this is better"), I don't think its removal is particularly controversial. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salam dear brother in Islam!

Care to take a look?

Talk:Fatima Zahra

--Striver 23:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any expertise you could lend to the Qiyamah page would be much appreciated. Thanks. freestylefrappe 02:47, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'm putting together an RfC for Germen's behaviour on the Islamophobia article and associated pages. Since you have been involved in disputes with this user before I was hoping you might be able to contribute to the draft before I publish it on WP:RFC. Axon 12:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the draft of the RfC. If you could review it to ensure you still endorse it I will publish it ASAP. Axon 16:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

these are the current titles of Turkish province articles. Could you move them to Tunceli Province and Denizli province ? It is usually that Turkish provinces are having their article titles not after the town but the xxx province format. Regards, Sarcelles 13:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mustafaa, I'm looking to categorize a short article on French/Algerian director Tony Gatlif. Can you sort it on the Algeria side? I can't really tell where the relevant spot to include him would be, but I'd like to include him there. Thanks!! Best, --Dvyost 15:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salam!

Care to comment on this? Wikipedia:Requests for comment/London bombing

--Striver 15:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote says redirect, but if you could change it to redirect to Hamas that would be appreciated as almost all the other votes are that way too.Heraclius 17:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hello! I appreciate the edit you did on that article I re-worked, (mere minutes before your own contribution). I must admit that I know very little about the actual topic or of Islamic history in general, but I feel that some mention of the citizens known as Dhimmi is warrented. Also the section concerning prohibitions that Muslims had to follow compared to the dhimmi seemed appropriate to the article. My feeling is that the piece concerns persecution of one group by another for various infractions of existing law or prohibitions. Your edit is good, but removes some material, which makes it read more as a history of early Islamic expansion and less on the topic at hand. I will however make an effort to ascertain the veracity of some of the material you felt was superfluous. For contrast, please read the edit prior to the one I applied. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Hamster Sandwich 01:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Thanks for your input on this article, as I stated my intention was simply to make non-perjoritive edits to the piece, to tighten up the pace and to try in general to make it more readable. One of my roommates is a Muslim, he read it, and didn't see anything that was glaringly wrong with the article as it was after my edit. The recent additions are very much taking a perjoritive stance, and superfluous material is obfuscating the subject. Certainly subject material concerning the oppression and persecution by one identifiable group towards another is basis for historical record, and as such a useful addition to the wikipedia. My suggestion would be that in cases where an individual contributes an article that concerns a "hot button" issue such as this, that if ones personal feelings cannot be separated in a very real way from what the historical record indicates, that they should stay well away from the article, in an editorial capacity at any rate. However as you must be aware, very few people have that level of restraint! I do, so the editting I did on that article as of the 20th, will be the last time I will personally work on it. Important to the wikipedia, but not to me and in any case, I have no agenda to push concerning it. Good luck, and good writing! Hamster Sandwich 00:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was getting frustrated with the link war reverts on Islam so I looked at the three (non-anons) who keep adding the links (User:Nickbee, User:Exmuslim, and User:A Kaffir) and I realized that their only edits are that revert warring. Is there something that could/should be done? It's bad enough to revert with established editors but that is literally their only edits. I realize you're probably busy so if you don't have time you can surely put it off. gren 20:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RFC - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Noitall - against someone who called you a terrorist for making continued personal attacks on users. ~~~~ 15:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi.

i saw on the page history of Breathanach that you had first & second thoughts on deleting it.

in case you are interested, it is now up for deletion: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Breathanach.

peace – ishwar  (speak) 19:38, 2005 July 23 (UTC)

Thanks for your heads-up to me. I'm glad to see that there is little rancor among the people editing the linguistics pages; there is little more stressful than a Wikipedia argument/edit war. Benwing 06:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mustafaa. Allow me to introduce you to Jeffrey Newman (User talk:Jeffrey Newman). He is interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias and was curious to know if there were any authors who worked on African, Indian and other languages.

Jeffrey, I dont know Mustafaa so well, but I hope that he doesnt mind this introduction. Mustafaa is a linguist who has written about African (esp. North Africa) languages, politics, people, culture, and other related topics. Mustafaa also is an active participant in the CSB project and (from his user page) is interested in historical linguistics. – ishwar  (speak) 16:58, 2005 July 24 (UTC)

Mustafaa - I hope you don't mind my being 'introduced' to you! I have in fact visited before but do not wish to become too involved in all the Israeli-Jewish-Palestinian-Arab-Islamic-Christian controversies (and I hope that is NPOV!) In fact, the whole question of NPOV is probably a major interest for me which is why when I came across WP:CSB I went searching, and found the work of ishwar which is the most important and impressive (to me) that I have yet encountered on WP. I am still very new, so am mainly browsing, doing a little editing and commenting while I find my way around. I am extremely interested in WP - but also seriously concerned. I have been and am a teacher, with major interest in philosophy and politics. Perhaps from time to time we will encounter one another on some areas. I hope so. Greetings and, as ishwar would say, Peace. Jeffrey Newman 17:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind voting here?

Congrats on the successful FAC! I think you were right to move the history template up, though, and I reverted Raul. Let's see if it sticks. If not, I'll just leave it be. It's still a good article.

cheers

Peter ^Isotalo 19:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that is impressive. TheUnforgiven 01:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[9] I thought you might be interested in this.Heraclius 17:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that, in light of the RfC against Germen, I have raised an request for arbitration for him. Axon (talk|contribs) 10:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look att this : Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Sunni Guild

Ma salam!

--Striver 16:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The prior VFD that you voted at ended with no consensus, a new VFD has been opened at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Historical persecution by Muslims. ~~~~ 18:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salam, my brother in Islam.

Is this Ethic_of_reciprocity#Exceptions NPOV?

--Striver 00:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a chance, would you mind taking a look at Slave trade? I believe that User:Heraclius has been involved in a determined attempt to POV the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have a complaint against UninvitedCompany, an administrator. Basically, he violated the blocking policy, by blocking me (for 72 hours) after I made 2 reverts, claiming I had broken the 3RR policy listing 4 reverts - 22:51 5 August 2005, 23:00 5 August 2005, 08:58 6 August, 23:12 6 August 2005 - however, none of these cover a period over 24 hours. At the time of the fourth revert listed, there was only 1 prior revert in the prior 24 hours. This is also true for the time of the 3rd revert listed.

I accused UnivitedCompany of breaking the blocking policy, and UnivitedCompany openly admitted doing so - "I have indeed violated the letter of the blocking policy". I also accused UninvitedCompany of blocking me because he/she has an anti-Islamic POV and didn't like the fact that I was opposing anti-Islamic POV pushers, UninvitedCompany replied admitting that they have an "extremely anti-Islamic" POV.

I don't feel this is appropriate behaviour for an administrator - violating blocking policy, and reinterpreting 3RR as 1RR, simply to punish people whose opinions they disagree with, isn't really something that should be permissable. Several administrators have already stated that the block was probably inappropriate (and none have supported UninvitedCompany's stance), but they seem unwilling to become involved (possibly due to UninvitedCompany's status as a longstanding admin (which UninvitedCompany claims makes him a "senior administrator", a post which simply does not exist), not that a cabal exists).

I would like to raise an RFC over the matter, but I need a co-signatory to do so, so I was wondering if you would be able to look into the matter.

Thanks,

-Ril-

~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any place you can think of that this/my wonderfully-written article should be mentioned? Tomer ^TALK 04:05, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Under exactly what authority does UninvitedCompany think he can unilaterally permanently ban users, and destroy their user pages, and protect their talk pages so that they can't respond? - [10]

It should be noted that the alleged images were listed at User:Evil Monkey/Nudity as well as being considered entirely appropriate for articles, having, as far as I can tell, already survived IFD, and have been on Wikipedia for over a month.

Note that an arbcom case has only just opened and has by no means come down with even remotely any penalty such as a ban. UninvitedCompany seems to think he has greater authority than ArbCom, and can completely act outside it.

Does UninvitedCompany has infinite power and permission to unilaterally with impunity?

Particularly when the user/victim in question has challanged a prior abuse of adminship by UninvitedCompany in an RfC, and has diametrically opposed political opinions?

This seems to be a case of right wing evangelical Christian admins thinking they have the right to dictate to everyone else.

It also seems in contempt of the arbitration committee's right to make the decision.

SomeAccountThatIWillListOn-Ril-'sUserPageWhenOrIfIEverGetItBack (-Ril-) 11:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mustafaa! Returning home I've discovered that Assyria 90 has turned Assyrian Neo-Aramaic into his own little political football (you can see my comment on the talk page). All of his contributions have been on Assyrian nationalist topics: this diff shows him reducing the Kurdish population, and this diff shows him increasing the number of speakers of Chaldean Neo-Aramaic. Please keep an eye on this editor and help me keep the 3RR! Gareth Hughes 14:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there much likelihood of expanding those individual articles you've written? I don't think it likely (I've encounterd them as I've been doing a sorting of {{hist-stub}}'s) but you're definitely more familiar with the source material than I am. If not, I think it might be better to try and merge them into a single article (possibly Massacres of the Algerian Civil War) with each article being a section or subsection and the existing article made into a redirect to it. Please let me know what you think. Caerwine 22:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a dispute at the Al-Qaeda article due to the translation of "database." You may have heard of the Robin Cook article in the Guardian, which stated that the name of Al-Qaeda was due to its origin as a CIA database. Some have tried to exclude this from the article on the basis that it's not the right translation for "database," but I have heard that the word "qaeda" can mean "base" in any sence of the English word. So could you weigh in there as to whether or not the word "qaeda" would be used in Arabic to mean "database" (or as a shortened form of the word "database," like the English "base" as a shortening of "database.") Thanks. Blackcats 21:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The parties listed at List of political parties in Morocco, List of political parties in Algeria, List of political parties in Tunisia and List of political parties in Mauritania are usually only listed with the French name. Could you add the Arabic names with romanization? - Electionworld 08:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back.. Its been a dodgy place without you.. hope everything is ok? --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add my welcome too. I hope you've had a good summer, and can resist the temptation to be drawn into the addiction that is Wikipedia. What projects do you have on the boil this year? Gareth Hughes 17:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! — mark ✎ 11:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everybody! Best wishes for the new academic year :) - Mustafaa 19:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very glad to have you back, Mustafaa. Zora 15:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please add your consideration to this, Musy. :( - Gilgamesh 07:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know you don't wanna get bogged downa dn what not, but could you have a gander at Maria al-Qibtiyya. There is a lot of unsourced apparent gibberish, but then again, maybe its from places I've never read. Eithert way, I'd like you to have a look!--Irishpunktom\^talk 10:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a new template so as to make viewing the months easier to navigate. Also, I've an idea whereby we create a calendar for each of the months, linking the important dates, for example the first of Shawwal will be linked to Eid ul-Fitr.. and so on. I've only done Muharram thus far (And that is not finished yet) but I'd like your input and ideas for improving.. and opinion on the template on the right. Thanks. --Irishpunktom\^talk 19:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh.. an example to follow.. thank you! I might remove the names of the days.. i just put them there because it looked bare without.. But, yeah... makes no real sense having them. Cheers! --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've become more than idly interested the religious history of Najd. Nuh Ha Mim Keller makes an argument (POV but interesting) that the tribes of Najd were the ones who rebelled against Abu Bakr, the ones who left Ali and started the Kharijite movement, and then, centuries later, the ones who conquered much of the rest of Arabia under a Wahhabi banner. Is there any real continuity between the Kharijites and the Wahhabis, or is it merely a matter of a strict puritanical Islam being a good excuse for banditry?

(This connects to Donner's anthropology-derived theories about the relationship between nomads and settled folks, Bulliet's book re camel transport, and some other stuff I've been reading, but I don't want to go into it here.)

I've already got a fairly good collection of e-book versions of European travel books re Arabia, but I'm wondering what there is in Arabic germane to this question. There must be histories of Najd, especially religious histories of Najd, and travel books, especially by Hajjis. I'm looking for a history of religious justifications for attacking settlements and plundering pilgrims. If I could read Arabic, what should I be reading?

If I ever get a job and have some money, I'm thinking of learning Arabic, just do I don't feel so limited in dealing with fascinating historical questions ...

Original research, not suitable for Wikipedia, I just want to know, thought you might be able to help. Zora 09:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for quick reply! I'll bookmark the site and go back to it some day when I can read Arabic. When I'm really really old and have completely white hair ... why do lives have to be so short when there's so much fascinating research to do? Zora 10:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah najd. It is where the prophet said that it will be the source of seditions and turmoils and where the horn of the devil will rise. A lot of scholars said that the horn of the devil meant by the hadith is Mohammad Bin Abdul wahhab. So if you want to know what seditions and trumoils started there just do know that wahhabi started from that area. rarely you can a find a real muslim scholar who is from that area. It was a a desert and most who inhabited it were backward people. Most of books that today talk about the history of that area are written by wahhabi since nobody gave a penny about that area before. You could read the book of the famnous hanbali scholar who was the hanbali mufti of mekka 150 years when he spoke about wahhabi. The name of the book is ' Al Su7ub Al wabila 3ala dar'i7 al hanabila" section about the father of Mohammad Ibn Abdul wahhab that is a good start also the book " Fitnatul wahhabiya by the Shafi3i Mufti of mekka 180 years ago. Also read Mir'at al najdiya about great maliki scholar Al Sawi And Ibn 3abidin's Radul Muhtar (who was a hanafi).

If you want to know more about the history of that area and the wahhabi history in that area read "^aja'ib al Athar" for al Jabarti who had some wahhabi inclination.

Also you can read the Memoirs Of Mr. Hempher

Sorry, clear forgery. I've read about this book and it's just not credible. In my work for Distributed Proofreaders, and also in my research on Khuzestan, I've read all too much British imperial prose. That isn't even a close approximation.

The other stuff could be useful, if I ever learn Arabic. I've copied it and pasted into a document for my "Najd research" folder.

Right now, through my Questia account, I'm reading Explorers of Arabia from the Renaissance to the End of the Victorian Era, by Zahra Freeth, H. V. F. Winstone; Allen & Unwin, 1978. Old, not all that well-written, better to go to the original sources -- but some of those are not all too easily available. Anyway, some of the writings re the very early Saudi kingdom are quite, um, illuminating. Zora 23:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

n.b If it was not for wahhabi we would not have had Bin Ladin. Shafi3i 20:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I've been wandering through some articles on Algerian history and have been blown away by their quality. I noticed that several of them seemed to be mostly your work. Wow. Fantastic job. I was in Algeria in 1999...I wish Wikipedia has been around back then, I would have loved to have access to these articles! Take care. Babajobu 01:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - Mustafaa 20:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An anon has been blanking the Ibn Taymiya article. The current article IS a mess and I hate to have to defend it. On the talk page for the article, there's a notice that Ibn Taymiya is a featured article in the Arabic Wikipedia. If the article is any good at all, could you translate it? I've also asked Shafi3i, but he may not be a Wiki-holic yet. We need a balanced, NPOV take on Ibn Taymiya, explaining what his supporters and opponents see in him, and I hope that the Arabic Wiki article fits the bill. Zora 23:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - can't help just now. Maybe some time. - Mustafaa 20:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mustafaa,

I've been nominated for admin, and was wondering if that were something you'd support: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kwamikagami.

Hope you had a nice break! kwami 00:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference to the Patricia Crone article. Now for getting access to the article.

Being a non-university scholar can be difficult, especially when it comes to getting access to books and articles. Zora 20:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can't get access to the article -- not on my Questia account, not at the public library. Might be at the University of Hawaii, but ... the library was hit by a flash flood a year ago, which nearly wiped out the serials and map collections. Could you possibly copy the article for me? OCR, send as images to my gmail account ([email protected]), or just send paper copies to my address, which you can get if you email me. This is a lot of extra work for you, so I won't be at all upset if you don't have time to do it. Zora 20:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mustafaa. Wb to WP. I am sorry to bother you but I really need your help in this issue. There's a battle going on surrounding the issue of Western Sahara and Morocco. I tried to avoid the conflict as I am a Moroccan. I've tried to help by suggesting the creation of a google group solving the conflict there instead of wasting the space in WP. The result of the sugesstion is not promissing so far here is the link as for September 30th. Some WP pages related to the issue are already protected. It's getting hot out there Mustafaa. I hope you can help. Svest 22:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}[reply]

Hi Mustafaa. You seem to be the person who originated at Moroccan Wall the reference to a 1963 Morroccan attack on Algeria as being behind (in any of several different specific verbages offered) Algeria's backing of the Polisario, I guess for the next 42 years. Isn't that a lot to lay on one event, particularly given that the 1963 attack-Polisario support connection is not mentioned in any of the related (Algeria, Morocco, Western Sahara, and Polisario Front) articles, and that the Polisario Front apparently was not even organized until 1973? The connection presumes that a very specific grudge over a very specific event was kept on ice for ten years, and then manifested itself in a very specific way. I need to kick the tires before I buy that one -- do you have a reference for the claim? Marsden 23:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have a very happy Ramadan. Salaam, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mustafaa. Welcome back. The article is a bias because it presents only one face of the coin about the identity of Dhul-Qarnayn. While this identity has been debated for centuries between scholars -and no consensus has been reached yet, the article presents only (as a fact) that he was Alexander the Great. Some editors are trying to push this opinion forward and give no way to present that as a theory among many others. The intro says all and therefore it looks like if the article is just a mirror of Alexander the Great. There is one other version at Zora's page User talk:Zora/Dhul. -- Cheers -- Svest 17:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The quote you bring about the image of the Arabs in the West is unconvincing. Do you really believe that Mr. Bin-Laden has nothing to do with it? And why is it that the Hebrew Wikipedia has a much greater number of articles than the Arab Wikipedia, when there are at least 40 times more speakers of Arabic than speakers of Hebrew? Or speakers of Danish or of Swedish for that matter? And why is there not a single Arab institution listed in the much quoted Shanghai Jiao Tong Ranking of World Universities? But instead of introspection, it is a hallmark of Arab culture to blame outside forces for the reigon's woes: Israel, the US, the 'West'. Arab society must do it's reckoning if it is to grasp the opportunities and face the challenges of globalisation. Why shouldn't Arab countries manage a similar transformation as in India and China?

But of course I am not naive. I know there is no chance of that happening in our lifetime. The rest of the world will continue to pay the price of one region's resultant resentment, frustration and insecurities. Someday, however, change will come. We are one mankind on one globe and we cannot afford to believe otherwise. RCSB 09:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the arab populace are behind the Regimes in their countries. nothing to Picot or Sykes. King Faisail.. Gertrude bell.. T. E. Lawrence - they had no part in it. That war in Iraq.. that was the arabs fault, in fact they should be cheering on the invading army. They should have been happy to have been starved by the UN for ten years, and even happier that conditions are now worse and that US soldiers now use that starvation as a weapn. Those Arabs in Al Quds would be happy they have been stripped of their identity and nationality. Those Arabs in Hebron should build the settlements and knock down thier own homes. Those arabs in Western Financed Saudi Arabia should cheer on the US Army bases in the nation.

I love ignorance. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To RCSB: "Unconvincing"? What doesn't it convince you of? Its main point is that Arab media gives a far more accurate idea of what the West is like than vice versa, which you don't even address. Anyway, it predated "Mr. Bin-Laden" by several years. Your mini-jeremiad about the Arab world's sad state can scarcely compare with the much longer, more detailed and better-informed ones that Arabs come out with more or less every time they talk politics. - Mustafaa 11:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently been going through a lot of articles about Guantanamo Bay detainees, and a lot them make a hash of the detainees' names. If you got a lot of time spare (which I doubt), take a look to see if I'm getting them right. There's a little conversation on talk:Omar Abu Omar about this man's name: he's often known as Abu Qatada. If you have any thoughts about his name, please let us know. Also, if you can point me in he right direction, I can't quite remember when to use ibn and when bin — I keep seeing it used the opposite way to what I thought was right. Hope this doesn't sound like too much of a burden. --Gareth Hughes 00:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what does "Agglutinative language" means in arabic do u have any idea??.--Marquez 02:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafaa, Anonymous editor has an RfA (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous editor). Myself and SlimVirgin and 25 others thus far have voted for it, whereas another editor I respect, Zora, has voted against. You have yet to vote, and I am rather curious to see what way you land on this! Also, this is being added so as to draw your attention to it... Check out OceanSplashs reasons for voting against!! --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might be interested in joining The Muslim Guild.--JuanMuslim 06:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mustafaa,

The List of country names in various languages, List of European regions with alternative names, List of European cities with alternative names, List of European rivers with alternative names, and others, have come under attack by a certain Mikka, who, having just stumbled into all these lists, having found them of little use to himself, and having repeatedly ridiculed them and their users, has then promptly filed a petition to delete the lists in question.

Please cast your vote to keep these valuable, informative, and indeed fascinating lists at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of country names in various languages.

Thanks! Pasquale 16:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Ramallite? I'm concerned with the POV expressed by some of the oppose votes. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eid Mubarak to you and best wishes. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eid Mubarak and best wishes from my side . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 18:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eid Mubarak -- and thanks for all the many contributions you have made here. Best to you and your family. BrandonYusufToropov 21:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The user categorisation scheme for linguistics has changed. Henceforth there are separate categories for Wikipedians who are professional linguists (Category:Wikipedians by profession→Wikipedian linguists) and Wikipedians who simply have an interest in linguistics (Category:Wikipedians by fields of interest→Wikipedians interested in linguistics). You are currently listed under the former category; please reassign yourself if necessary. —Psychonaut 17:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafaa, some Arabic help please. Striver is insisting that Mu`āwīyah (the Shi'a-loathed Muawiya I) means "Barking bitch in heat" in Arabic; I found an anon's comment that it means "Caller" much more convincing. (He derived it from the Arabic root for "call".) I suppose it is possible that bitches in heat were called "callers" in Quranic times, but I'd certainly like some confirmation of that. It strikes me as strange that a child would be given a name that could be construed as an insult. Please advise. Zora 03:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, not "Barking bicth in heat", it was the catholic that stated that. See muaviya talk page for my full statment. --Striver 03:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Jordan#Blatherskyte. Tomer ^TALK 06:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) to add your opinions about this important matter. Thank you. IZAK 17:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mustafaa,
I just wanted to thank you for the great work you're doing on Wikipedia. I'm quite new here, and too busy to make significant contributions, but I'll do my best to live up to the high standards established by the only Wikipedian who identified himself as being from Algeria! --Smiley77 10:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please make your best call here... [11] BrandonYusufToropov 23:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mustafaa. I am the main author of the article on Amir Peretz. Lately I am having problems with an anonymous editor with IP address 192.44.76.8, who has repeatedly modified the stated birthplace of Amir Peretz in that article. Peretz's birthplce is Boujad, Morocco, which is a provincial town in the mid-Atlas. This fact is corroborated by articles in the Israeli press, by the article in the Hebrew Wikipedia, as well as by Peretz's own campaign website (these links can be accessed via the article page). The article talk page has a discussion on this which includes a link to a map of the area. Howevwer, it seems that 192.44.76.8 has not heard of Boujad and probabaly believes we have confounded it with Oujda, which, being a city near the Algerian border, is a totally different place. He has twice made edits which replaced all instances of Boujad with Oujda. He hasn't written any notes and doesn't seem to be aware of the discussion in the talk page. He doesn't have a user page I can contact (though I have left him a note on a talk page I started for him as well as a note on the article talk page itself). In short, how can this menace be stopped? Thanks, RCSB 21:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you have come across Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Candidate statements? Why not add your own?

Is the term "Black Berber," which has cropped up a couple times at Jugurtha a valid entity? You know more about that area than I do, and I didn't want to take the axe to that page without consulting you. Speaking of Jugurtha, check out La:Iogurtum --Iustinus 07:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Black Berber" is sometimes used of the Berberophone black minorities of the fringes of the Sahara, like the haratin; I am not aware of any evidence for Jugurtha being black, or for these minorities predating the Middle Ages. - Mustafaa 16:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please help maintain the Islam-related portals:

• Islam Portal
• Sunni Islam Portal
• Shia Islam Portal

--JuanMuslim ^1m 04:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed Mustafaa and Svest as the maintainers of the Middle East Portal at Wikipedia:Portal. I figured since you guys are the maintainers of Algeria Portal, you would do well with the Middle East Portal as well. The Middle East Portal still needs more work. --JuanMuslim ^1m 04:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, any chance of adding refs to Muhammad Boudiaf? Cheers, Lupin|talk|popups 03:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG, which is desperately in need of some idea of Wikipedia's concept of NPOV (also note the "you don't have to be secular or islamic to join" bit) ? --Victim of signature fascism vote for the arb com 18:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]