Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Editorius (talk | contribs) at 14:20, 27 June 2006 (→Khaybar). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Hello, can you sign your comments with ~~~~? Thanks! Luchador 72.21.33.130 20:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

templates substituted by a bot as per Misplaced Pages:Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad

Editorius, many Muslims consider it offensive to claim that Muhammad was the founder of Islam.

Hence the opening para in the Muhammad article is a compromise: it gives the Muslim version and the non-Muslim version. By removing the Muslim version, you're destroying compromise that took a long time and much argument to craft. I reverted it. Please let the compromise stand. Giving all relevant POVs is the Misplaced Pages way -- not imposing your own POV and removing all others. Zora 01:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, if some Muslims consider calling Muhammad "the founder of Islam" offensive, then this is their problem, because a Misplaced Pages biography is not meant to be a hagiography, i.e. a worshipful or idealizing biography.

That Muhammad is in the full sense of the term "the founder of the religion of Islam and of the Muslim community" ("Muhammad." In Encyclopaedia Britannica) is a historical fact—period.

Islamic fundamentalists who are not prepared to accept this for purely ideological reasons ought not to call the tune here.—But apparently they somehow do.

Editorius 13:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your work on Mohammed, Editorious, and the fact that when you're right, you stay at it. Keep up the good work! Zenosparadox 23:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Editorius, you're right it's as simple as that. (Anonymous User) 12 June 2006

Barnstar Award

--FairNBalanced 18:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad

Thanks for the pointed words, but a tip anyway: Don't get personal, even on a mere formal level - that's not appreciated, even if your points are well made. Moreover, you might want to use consecutive edits, boldings and exclamation marks more sparingly: nobody needs to know that we're krauts :-) An RfC is underway, and uninvolved wikipedians might need to wade through the mud thread, so civility and conciseness rule. Fortiter in re, suaviter in modo... --tickle me 16:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh, just noticed: better "don't mention the war": kraut or not, one tends to lose it. If you're prone for zesty analogies, use Stalin or better yet, Animal Farm, but I advise against that too... Less is often more, and the Islam related articles are minefields already. --tickle me 16:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Islam

Hi Editorius,

I am wondering what you think of recent changes to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Islam.Timothy Usher 10:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad article

In response to your beg, I also beg please leave the introduction and Muhammad (PBUH) article from you "scientific" edits alone. I do not know what yours interest in Muhammad (PBUH) is? But for Muslims he is more beloved than our Parents, our lives, and no one is more loved than him. But according to you we have to compromise and you want your version. It should be easier for you to compromise than us. It is sad. --- Faisal 21:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like what you're saying, Faisal, is that because your views are more extreme, they ought to be given more weight. The opposite.

Everything about your contributions suggests that you are unwilling to address Islam-related subjects with neutrality, and consider your persistent refusal to do so as an act of piety. On your user page, you say you don't like Misplaced Pages, but you love Islam. That's up to you, but please do not promote the latter at the expense of the former. If you see your religion as mandating this approach, we can't change that, but we're then faced with the question of how to limit the damage.Timothy Usher 23:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, "my" formulation doesn't hinder you by any means from loving Muhammad more than your parents and your life. — What is really sad is that you stubbornly refuse to concede that the introductory sentence (+the footnote) is not at all anti-Islamic per se! Editorius 13:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you prove that Muhammad (PBUH) was not God prophet or visa versa scientifically? Obviously not. Hence the last formation was as scientifically as good as this one is. Which say he establish... Hence your change is illogical and un-neutral. The last one was much more neutral. --- 13:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy read your view and then analyse your own neutrally.

.. considered his (Muhammad) actions and those of his companions - the cold-blooded execution of Jewish POWs, the taking of female Jewish captives as slaves and wives, the sale of Jewish children into slavery, the confiscation of Jewish property and the imposition of serfdom upon its former owners, the murder of Jewish poets, etc. - right, just and glorious . You have fequently saying such things. I could present multiple post of yours on the similar line. Still you think you are neutral? Even if your religion is not mentioned on your user page (unlike mine) but still everyone can guess what your religion is by your edits. --- Faisal 09:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, take a guess, what is it? I'll not consider it a personal attack, as I've solicited it.

Muhammad was a real living breathing person. Islam teaches that there is no intervention between us and God - our appendations of (PBUH) cannot help Muhammad, nor can he help us, similarly with Jesus or saints. I endorse this view as common sense.Timothy Usher 10:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hay Editorius

Hi Editorius. Recently your post regarding me is becoming much harsher. Please do not think me your enemy. We both should have right to disagree with each other. It is not at all personal. It should never be personal. I think that previous intro of Muhammad was very good and putting things in footnotes, that no one usually read, will not solve the problem. I do not want to see it change. You disagree with me on this so what? We can still be friends and polite to each other. At least, I have no harsh feeling towards you. And I know that you intensions were good. Unlike few others, you are looking for compromise with good intensions. I hope that we could also agree on few things in future and when we have to disagree then we will not keep any bad feeling towards each other. Okay friend, see you around. Best regards. --- Faisal 10:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, I realize this might sound strange, but consider: even those who don't wish to compromise with you have good intentions. It's not about upsetting you - it's actually somewhat painful for me to realize you're upset - but about preserving the standards of western secular scholarship. It's served the west well, just as the known alternatives have served their adherents poorly.Timothy Usher 10:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy my first post was not regarding you. And I know you very well now. Just as you said. those who don't wish to compromise with you .... Editorius on the other hand wishes to compromise. --- Faisal 11:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, as long as you remain a sportsman, I'm going to try hard to remain one too.

— I may have been too rash in calling you a (potential) saboteur, but, unfortunately, it has appeared to me that for you no "compromise" is reached before I and the ones sharing my opinion have simply *given in*, i.e. conceded defeat. But that wouldn't be a compromise (=def a settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions) but a kind of coercion.

— I don't know how many people actually read the footnotes in Misplaced Pages, but what matters is that the footnote in the entry on Muhammad is there, eagerly waiting to be read by somebody.

Editorius 15:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam article

Hello Editorius,

We are trying to increase the quality of the criticism of islam article. Your help will be appreciated (of course if you have time :) ) Thanks, --Aminz 07:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Khaybar

Please assume good faith. You've begun pushing your POV on the article without agreeing anything on talk. In addition, some of your edits were simply unacceptable, as I wrote on talk. I've had very little time for the wiki recently, and it takes time and efforts to do additional research on my part. If you're willing to wait a week or so, that'll be fine; otherwise, we may have problems on that article. Pecher 14:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Is that a threat?

If you consider the statements by some of the most eminent scholars in Islamic studies (Paret, Buhl, et al.) "simply unacceptable", then this has little meaning to me, because, I beg your pardon, I tend to find their statements more trustworthy than yours.Editorius 14:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)