User talk:MuslimsofUmreka

Surah 53:19

Hi,

You seem to know a lot about Islam so I thought maybe you could help me with this cause im kind of confused:

Have ye thought upon Al-Lat and Al-'Uzza And Manat, the third, the other? These are the exalted cranes whose intercession is to be hoped for

who were these people and why did muhamed calling them exalted cranes?67.188.110.197

Welcome

Hello MuslimsofUmreka and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Inotice you have removed the cleanup and sources tags from the article on Islamic Rulings. I have to advise you that this is against Wikipedia policy as the article still needs citations and sources other than just the Qur'anic verses. If perhaps you could link to the relevant verses on an online version of the Qur'an with English explanations it would be better for the article's potential English readers. I hope you don't mind but I will return the tags to the article until this task is finished. The text also needs spelling and grammar checks as well as a more netral approach - avoid lines like "Many Muslims feel that this is an effective way to wiping out theft." unless you can provide a citation which can be checked. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Green Giant 04:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self

For artcile dua left of on chapter 5 of the book I am referencing. Pick up from there.

Moving discussion here

MOU, you say that the book on dua you used was written by a Salafi, and that you've only used the material that you think is non-controversial. But who are YOU? What kind of filter are you introducing? Do you see the problem? We have two people saying that they speak for millions of Muslims.

That's why the only safe thing is to step back and say "Muslim A believes X" and "Muslim B believes Y" and give exact references for those beliefs. Quotes and page numbers are the best.

The other problem is self-promotion. You wrote the article, you think it's great, you want it in the Islam template. But is dua that important? I don't think so. I'm coming at this from the viewpoint of a non-Muslim who has, by this point, read a lot about Islam, and no one has mentioned dua. Not the academics, not Ziauddin Sardar, not Reza Aslan, not Maududi, etc. I've just touched the surface in my reading but ... if it were that important, don't you think more people would mention it?

If the article had attracted lots of editors and had many references and quotes, that might be a sign that the topic is notable. But if it's just you, perhaps that's a sign that it isn't? Zora 03:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Zora, that is why I have decided to finish writing the artcile as quickly as possible and let other people add to it. I have written a conclusion asking other people to add their material if they like. MuslimsofUmreka 03:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MOU, the names I mentioned are not people here, but writers. Ziauddin Sardar is a British journalist. I liked his book Desperately Seeking Paradise. Reza Aslan is an Iranian scholar and writer who published No God But God. Maududi was a famous Pakistani writer -- not someone whose view of Islam I like, but he's famous and influential. You might enjoy reading these authors. Zora 18:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic rulings

I think that article is unfortunate, and should be merged with sharia. I just haven't had the time or energy to deal with it. Zora 03:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't ask me to comment... but... here I am. The biggest problem, before I even read content, is that it's a fork of a bunch of other articles. Islamic marital jurisprudence, Apostasy in Islam, Homosexuality and Islam all cover those topics more in depth. So, you're a new user and I'm sorry if you spent a lot of time but you should probably look around for a while and get a sense of how things are named in our articles. There's a lot of content here and it's not always easy to find.

Secondly all but one of your citations are from the Qur'an. That may be good as a Muslim; but, for an encyclopedia it doesn't work as well. Osama bin Laden and Cat Stevens are both Muslims to us. It's apparent that they interpret the Qur'an very differently so citing the Qur'an becomes almost useless as a source. So, we never cite primary sources like that as being self-evident. Basic policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources

Also, Islamic rulings would be a vague mix of sharia, fiqh and fatwa. I tend to think that it's unwise to put too much of this under sharia since sharia is interpretted through fiqh... even if many Muslims call their interpretations sharia. It's definitely not a universal that all Muslims agree upon.

Those are the basic complaints I have... I didn't read all of the content but... this article should be deleted and if any of it is well and relevant than it can be merged into other articles. gren グレン 15:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your question on how to delete the article: Make sure you have merged all useful parts or copied them away for later use. Then please adjust all links from other articles or redirect pages to this article. You can use the "What links here" tool for that. Currently there are links from Sharia, Islamic rules and Islam rules. You do not need to bother with links from talk pages and such. Now the article is ready to be deleted. All you need to do is just add db-author}} to the page. After some time, usually short, an administrator will then delete the article. Lambiam ^Talk 23:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute

Hello MuslimsofUmreka. I need to know a little more about what the exact dispute is. So please tell me and I'll help you. I also agree with you about a rewrite because the article is mainly stuff that was added by many different editors and anonymous editors over the last few months. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is mostly POV. When non POV stuff would be added, most of the other editors would keep changing it back to the original form. But now they have seemed to stop. Before some of them were being very rude and nasty and anti-Muslim at times. The article is in the process of being fixed up now. The dispute got personal between editors but now it seems to have died down. But if something else comes up again, I will contact you. Thank your for your help. MuslimsofUmreka 20:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Usher keeps playin ggames and keeps reverting the new cited edits back to the old version. Please suspend his account. User_talk:Timothy_Usher. He is a complete jerk. MuslimsofUmreka 20:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been protected so that both of you can discuss before the article is changed again. Discuss this on the talk page. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The protected tag

Please don't just add {{protected}} to an article. You probably don't realize this, but that isn't enough to actually protect an article -- an administrator has to press an extra button. All the protected tag does is notify editors that an article has in fact been protected. If you add the tag and don't actually press the protection button (which is only available to administrators), then it's quite confusing, as the article can in fact still be edited. Please don't do that. If you want an article to be protected, you must request that it be done by an administrator at requests for protection. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personnal attack

"Dear KKK member, I know that you hate Muslims and all..."[1].

I'm blocking you for 48 hours for disruptive personnal attacks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tom. Kyaa the Catlord 02:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To request unblocking, add "{{unblock}}" to your user talk page. This puts the page in Category:Requests for unblock. Please include an explanation of why you should be unblocked. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended the block to a week. There was absolutely no excuse for making that sort of comment; use this time off to think about ways you can contribute more constructively to Wikipedia. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 04:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

I am really sorry. Can you unblock me. I will not leave comments like that anymore. I will stay away from the Islamism page since there is no use to editing it anymore and I dont think it is that serious. So i'll promise i'll stay away from the page and the other editors from that page. I'll just do the positive contributions I had been doing earlier, before I saw the Islamism page. Please unblock me. I have learned my lesson and I will not do that anymore. MuslimsofUmreka 04:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you're attacks were totally unacceptable and you are quite lucky you received a fairly short block, you'll have to wait until the block expires. --pgk^(talk) 11:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion with sockpuppets

I'm resetting your block to one week from today. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again, I've reset your block to one week from today. Why not just wait it out, collect your references, and come back ready to edit? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As above your initial action was unacceptable, your use of sockpuppets to evde the block is unacceptable, why would anyone in their right mind unblock? Continue to misuse the unblock tag for frivolous unblock requests and you'll lose the ability to edit your talk page. --pgk^(Pgk) 07:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Pgk there is no reason to be that rude. "why would anyone in their right mind unblock? Continue to misuse the unblock tag for frivolous unblock requests and you'll lose the ability to edit your talk page." You do not know me personally to be that rude. What you said could have been stated in a much nicer manner such as, "Please do not abuse the unblock request buuton, or I will be forced too take action." There is no need for you too be that rude. Regardless off what I may have done, you as an administrator should maintain some sort politeness. You do not know if I am older than you or younger than you. I am new too wikipedia so please stop being mean. Kyaa the katlord attacked me first with words such as Muslims of Urethra and words such as f*****. So next time try to show some politeness. MuslimsofUmreka 00:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pgk read what I have too say above please. I only put the unblock request back up so you would come read what I have written in response to what you said to me before.

When you started using several sockpuppets to evade your block you lost any residual assumption of good faith. Regarding attempts to show politeness do you believe your attacks to be politeness? Do you believe multiple block evasion to be politeness? Do you believe wasting mine and others time on dealing with your block evasion to be polite? So please if you want me to show you some respect and some politeness, then earn it by discontinuing such actions. --pgk^(talk) 13:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[[2]] Yep. I used the f word. But this wasn't used as an attack, albeit MOU seems intent of suggesting that. Yep. I called him MuslimsofUrethra. Of course, he just mispelled my name as well. I'll call it even. You have a history of violating WP:NPA, MOU. You have engaged in sockpuppetry to avoid the block you earned the other day. Apparently, you just don't get it, man. Kyaa the Catlord 07:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unbef***inglievable.Timothy Usher 08:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi MuslimOfUmreka,

I hope you are well and doing fine. It is unfortunate to see that you are blocked for a long time. Wikipedia, I believe, just wastes our precious times. There are lots of better things we can do in real life. --Aminz 10:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I guess so. My block expires in a few hours. MuslimsofUmreka 04:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamism

Hi,I have reverted your edit to Islamism as I felt it was not an improvement to the content already there. Please do not take this personally. T. J. Day 23:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Hey, welcome back! Don't worry about it, we got a bit heated, it happens. :D Kyaa the Catlord 07:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We kindly ask that you respect your statement on the talk page on Islamism and refrain from engaging in... well... you know. Kyaa the Catlord 22:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not your socks

I'll take your word for it and remove the tags. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother denying it to me. Make them stop, and I'll drop it. Surely you can find some more productive way to contribute to wikipedia.Timothy Usher 00:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ShawnCarter is not me nor is he my sockpuppet. MuslimsofUmreka 03:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is he your associate, as you'd claimed User:InDaHoodSoGhetto to be?Timothy Usher 03:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I am Muslim, I am forbidden from doing that and accusing others of sinning unless they openly acknowledge their sins."

But you've already done this under the MOU username to another user, have you not?Timothy Usher 03:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop bothering me and accussing me. Write your artciles and leave me alone, please. MuslimsofUmreka 15:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is strong evidence that you are using puppet accounts to harass another user. I want that to stop at once, and not happen again. If there are any more attacks of this nature, I'll take the whole thing to the arbitration committee for a full investigation. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides that

Besides your abusive sockpuppets, why can't you keep your word?Timothy Usher 05:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody has the right edit wikipedia, even Muslims. MuslimsofUmreka 05:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Muslims have the right to edit Wikipedia. I'm glad you don't feel unwelcome.

I was just wondering since you'd twice sworn you wouldn't come back to the page, and then told Kyaa you'd try to keep your word from now on [3], it's kind of strange to see you there. I can't stop you. I'm just asking. Also, why don't you join the talk page?Timothy Usher 05:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]