User talk:Anonymous editor/Archive 9

I am still nervous :-) εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The following argument is taken from the following website (http://www.themodernreligion.com/comparative/christ/bible_meaningtomuslims.html). It explains my edit.

:"The Muslim used to have probably a very different attitude about the gospels than he does today. I’m just speaking of the majority or large segments of the community who use to feel much differently than large segments of the community feel today. And most of the blame for that I suppose could be placed on one hand on the Muslim and on the other hand on some of the Christian community and how it was they present the gospel. So I have to talk a little bit about that, I am trying to clear the air both for the Muslim and the Christian, and the interested bystander.

:You see the Quran commands the Muslim to show respect for the books of other people, their religious scriptures. That commandment was abused by certain, I stress just certain, missionary efforts. By taking these verses that relate to the respect for scripture out of their context, and quoting them back to the Muslims saying, "Look, your book says my book is true. So read my book and then you’ll be in trouble because you’ll find out that my book is different than your book." And I’m afraid than that the blame must be shifted over to the Muslim who very often never thought about that before but thought that made a lot of sense, and he was letting someone else tell him what his own book said. So it was that before too long when the missionary would on the one hand say your book says you should listen carefully to my book now let me read you my book, the Muslim tended to think that it must be that your book is full of lies.

:Even if the Quran says respect the books of other people, it must be that some people have put some lies in there, because I don’t go along with that thing you’re reading. He looked back into the Quran to try to find some verses to justify the position that the Christian changed his scriptures and put some lies in there. And that just made it worse because now the missionary said, "You’re really off your book because on one hand it says believe in our book and on the other hand it says we changed our book. "The problem being that the Quran doesn’t say any such thing of the kind, and these arguments that were first brought forward about 200 years ago are reprinted every year by certain missionary groups. The arguments are old and tired and quite insufficient."

:THE QURAN’S THREE ACCUSATIONS

:What the Quran really criticizes is not anybody else’s books. It never mentions the Bible, but as a matter of fact neither does the bible, that is just a nickname for a collection of books. What it talks about are scriptures and what it criticizes is the way that some, I stress some people, use their scriptures. It criticizes the handling of whatever people call scripture. It endorses the fact that the truth has been preserved by people, that they have in their scriptures the truth, but they mishandle it.

:It makes basically three accusations which probably you could go to any church and the pastor will say those things are true of those people over there.

:(I) The Quran says some of the Jews and Christians pass over much of what is in their scriptures.

:(II) Some of them have changed the words, and this is the one that is misused by Muslims very often giving the impression that once there was a true bible and then somebody hid that one away, then they published a false one. The Quran doesn’t say that. What it criticizes is that people who have the proper words in front of them, but they don’t deliver that up to people. They mistranslate it, or misrepresent it, or they add to the meaning of it. They put a different slant on it.

:(III) And the third accusation is that some people falsely attribute to God what is really written by men.

:Now probably in any church there will be people who will say, "Yes, I know a church that does all those three things. They pass over much of what is in their scripture, they‘ve changed things, they put the wrong slant on the words, and they’ve credited God with things that men said. "So really there is not a cause for a problem between the Christian and the Muslim on these charges, the Christian, I would like to think, would generally go along with those ideas."

I think based on this text, my edit to the article was justified.

Thanks --Aminz 02:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

:Would you please let me know your opinion about my edits? The reason that I think my edits were important is that Many fundamentalist Christians and Jews find the statement that Bible has been changed offensive in the first place. Of course saying that at least some parts of the Bible have been changed is defensible (e.g. book of Esther) though some people may not like it. But I think it would be illogical to ask Christian and Jews to not to use their book in their judgments. The Quran states:

::"It was We who revealed the law (to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed to God's will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: for to them was entrusted the protection of God's book, and they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear not men, but fear me, and sell not my signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers. "(Quran 5:45)

::"Let the people of the Gospel judge by what God hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel." (5:48)

::"To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what God hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God. it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;"(5:49)

:Your sentence that "Quran wants Jews and Christians to judge by and stand fast to what were their original scriptures (e.g. 5:45-49) " could be improved I think(since Jews and Christians don't have access to the original manuscripts, Quran can not ask them to hold fast to their original scriptures). Thanks --Aminz 06:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Anonymous editor, I completely agree with you point. But there are some Muslims like me who do not believe so. Of course, Qur'an asks People of the book to believe in Qur'an. But there is no verse in the Qur'an saying that you should believe so, because your scripture is corrupted. On the other hand, Muhammad(pbuh) says that since your scripture says something about me and since I pass the criteria of being a prophet, you must believe in me (because your scripture says so).

The idea that the Bible has been corrupted is brought up to explain the differences between the Qur'an and the Bible. Most of the differences are historical differences which I don't care (e.g. Noah's son died in the flood or not; I don't care)

What the Qur'an asks People of the Book is "O People of the Book, commit no excesses in your religion".

The Qur'an doesn't say these Christians are doing sin in saying that Jesus was crucified. No, It says “They do blaspheme who say: “Allah is Christ the "son of Mary". But said Christ: Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. ...” (5:72)

The Qur'an claims that they do not do whatever their scripture tells do to do. On the other hand, they mistranslate their scripture, or misrepresent it, or they add to the meaning of it. They put a different slant on it.

Now, I am concerned about this because many Christians and Jews at the first place find the sentence "Bible has been changed" to be offensive. Please also have a look at (5:45-49). Thanks.--Aminz 22:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

:Well, It is not a personal belief: In the article Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an we read "Particular Muslims such as the Mu'tazili and Ismaili sects (accounting for a fairly small percentage of total Muslim population), as well as various liberal movements within Islam, believe that different revelations are created by God for the needs of particular times and places."

:The Qur'an itself says (assuming this verses actually refer to the issue):

::"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?"

::"When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not. Say, the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation from thy Lord in Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims."

: Could you please let me know only one verse saying that "it is wrong to believe in the crucifixion, and likewise say that the other books have major changes and not just small changes." There is none. Please show me one; that would be enough for me. The crucifixion itself is not important; the interpretation attached to it is important (i.e. saying that it is "THE salvation of man".)

: Anonymous editor, of course, we should report everything no matter some people may find it offensive. But my purpose here is to help presenting Islam in the best possible way. I don't like it when some Jew or Christians read the article, at the beginning of the article reads this and says "Ah Ah" or becomes angry. If I want to explain this matter to a Non-Muslim, I would not start with such a statement. The Qur'an itself mentions this point implicitly not explicitly. It says that we replace something with a better one. This is the proper way in my mind.

: Currently, please revert my edits if you want. I'll prepare some passage and consult it with you before adding. How is that? Thanks.--Aminz 23:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, blasphemy is sin. But saying that “Jesus was crucified” is not a blasphemy. The Qur'an never says that "They do blaspheme who say: Jesus is crucified". Qur'an says that the scriptures do not say that Jesus is God; on the other hand, it says that Jesus said “ worship God, my Lord and your Lord”; Quran gives hint to Christians in order to help them realizing that their scripture doesn’t say that Jesus was God. In fact, in the gospel of John, Jesus says “I am ascending to my father and your father, to my God and your God” This is the Qur’an’s hint. Thanks --Aminz 23:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

:That depends on what you think the verse means. But can you explain the addition that you want? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading :Image:GlowBarnstar.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{tl|GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{tlp|Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 13:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

:I have tagged it. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello AE from an Indian wikipedian. I am wishing you a happy Holi, the unique Hindu celebration of color and brotherhood among all members of the humanity. The festival falls on 15th March 2006. By the way, I have been around here for about a year, including being an administrator from 18th September 2005. I request you to kindly do me the favor of providing me your valuable comments and suggestions on my contributions, activities and behavior pattern. I shall be awaiting your free and frank opinion, which you are most welcome to give here. Thanks. --Bhadani 05:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

:Yes happy Holi to you too. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

:: Thanks. I was amazed to see comments about you. Please help me in this discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bhadani#Samarkand_manuscript Thanks again, and good morning ... --Bhadani 17:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Hmm? Yes that's what I get for telling a racist (who had a problem with me even before I met him) not to attack other editors and insult people from other countries :p. Comments which mostly have me reverting anon users and evidence where I am dealing with offensive editors. But I know enough about him. Anyways I can improve that article later. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

::::I could understand the matter. But in spite of me coming here several times, you have not come to my talk page, thogh you claim --Bhadani 10:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)"I usually reply to messages on the talk page of the user who left the message but sometimes you can also find replies here." I was just kidding. --Bhadani 10:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to erase images. You might want to delete [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bush.jpg this]. The content is offensive. Aucaman^Talk 09:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Other than his edit summaries, I'm not finding a lot of personnal attacks; It would be helpful if you could give me some links to specific diffs. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

:Heh; Clearly you were right. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you still shortening the article? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

: I starting making those changes during my lunch break at school (yes, I've become addicted). I had to interrupt the endeavor since I had to go to class. Now that I am at home, I will continue. joturner 21:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are addicted. I thought you were still editing it for many hours. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I created Wikipedia: WikiProject Prophets of Islam. Since I once again am on my lunch break, I have only created a preliminary project page. Feel free to contribute to it, expand it, and invite others to participate. I should be add to it significantly in about five hours. joturner 17:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

:Okay sure. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Wish I'd thought of it. LeoO3 02:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

:Thank you. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Adab from an Indian wikipedian. I was not aware that you are from Pakistan, I thought you belonged to Canada. --Bhadani 09:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

:Hi again. You seem to come here a lot. I am both Canadian and American through my parents. Why did you think I was from Pakistan? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I could use another opinion on the forgiveness article. An opinion has been expressed that the article reads too much like an essay. When you get a moment can you give it a look. The suggestion that it should be several short sentences for an intro seems a bit much (or little). I think most of the sentences provide important information. One or two could go, but other editors added them and I didn't think it was my place to delete them as they do have info.(eg Last sentence of third paragraph). Also what do you think about the picture debate. You will find these matters on tha talk page as well.

I could also use an opinion with an editor that keeps trying to slip in that Christianity is the espicially forgiveness religion.

Thanks again for you earlier submission to the article. --speet 07:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

:I looked at it again. I think the introduction can be shortened a little bit as well as the Christianity section. But I don't think it's like an essay. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

::Dang you are busy. Thanks for the input yesterday. As you probably saw, there was a major, basicly undiscussed deletion (or move to the bottom) of the old lead and now rewrite. I am letting it go, but still want the best for an article that means a lot to me. I don’t trust my own biased eyes. If you have a moment to read the last “old” lead at 3/16/06 @ 1:26 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Forgiveness&oldid=44017606] versus what is there now I would greatly appreciate it. Any thoughts? How does one versus the other hit you coming in more from the outside? Any suggestions for my style? Please feel free to be honest, and I promise not to drag you into anything. Thanks again, --speet 23:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You are aware that his recent addition to his userpage proved him to be an ignorant Racist? - Further, you'll be pleased to know, according to Karl, that you and I needed shelter when we were driven from Canada and Ireland respectively - In Denmark no less, We had an oppurtunity to get a good Danish education, and were fed by the Danes when we had no food, Denmark, apparently, has been paying all our bills (So where the hell is my money going?), but, thankfully, we were not forced to work (I do it for thrills really), Further, Denmark offered us free Rent, phone,internet,car and school for our 20 Children.. It's amaxing the life I've had without knowing it. Apparently we built "Moske"s in the Christian land of the danes, and, we can't speaking Danish having lived there for 30 years.. from a pre-birth age I've lived there, and I still can't speak the language.. I'm sorry.. the stupidity of racists makes me laugh. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

:Yes Canada is a place with horrible schools and no food at all and I think I should run away to Denmark so that I can finally buy a phone a build a Moske. :) Yes this makes me laugh. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been told by some friends (as if there are any foes on Wikipedia) that you will probably be able to help with some of the problems we're having on the Persian people article. Could you watchlist the page and keep an eye on it? Let me know if you have any questions or need me to expand on some of the problems we're having. Aucaman^Talk 17:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Anonym, several editors are trying to bring the Jesus article up to featured status. It would be good to have Muslim editors take a look at the Jesus#Islamic_views section to make sure it correctly represents Muslim views, as we made sure with the Jewish views section. Would you mind taking a look, and making sure any sources cited are from authoritive Muslim sources? And could you invite anyone else you think might be helpful? Thanks! --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks. I have added some verses and I will find some references for the Hadiths later. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it's good to be back. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

A brand new user took all the material on "age at marriage controversy" from Aisha and moved it to a new article, Mohammed's sexual orientation, which accuses Muhammad of being a pedophile. I'm exhausted and involved in too many things -- could you see about dealing with this? I dunno if it deserves a speedy delete or whether we have to grind through a regular AfD.

This new user knows too much about how WP works for a new user; I suspect that this is the return of someone banned. Enviroknot?

As you may know, I'm having problems with some of the Iranian editors, and I feel just too distracted to deal with this. Could you?

On second thought -- maybe it would be better if someone is known NOT to be a Muslim were to handle this. I'll see if Gren has any energy for this. If you can think of anyone who might be interested, please do what you can. As you know, I try to be absolutely neutral as to the pro/anti Muslim arguments, but I think that this is just over the line. Zora 05:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, do you think {{cl|Egyptian Americans}} should be protected? Zerida has violated 3RR on more than one occasion (see user's talk history) trying to impose political beliefs (also see: Category talk:Egyptian Americans). Thanks. - Eagle^talk 06:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks, but don't you think it should be reverted to its original state (on December 19, 2005) before protecting it? - Eagle^talk 06:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say that you did well to properly administer the 3RR violation against Irishpunktom and that the impartiality you demonstrated is appreciated. From reading that report I see that unfortunately admins like User:William_M._Connolley who show [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=43805983 apathy] (ie: No, *you* do a little work, if you care so much. Im going to bed and leaving this to someone else to sort out, or not.) to such reports really do a disservice to Wikipedia.

Netscott 13:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks. However William was fine by letting someone else sort out the problem. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

:* Ah, I see I suppose that should have been evident from the utter dearth of links that would ordinarily be found in the previous comments on this talk page of yours. Don't forget that particular part of the Talk Page guidelines is in effect to be considered "Wikipedia policy". Thanks again! Netscott 20:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

::Okay thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Adam (prophet of Islam) may be in jeopardy as editors in Talk:Adam and Eve are calling it a fork. Make sure you express your sentiments there. I think I have already been very clear on that talk page about my opinion that the article about Adam as a prophet of Islam (as well as all information about just Adam) should be on a separate page. joturner 02:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Anonymous editor, it is my apologies to bring you that I've withdrawn my RFA. Due to the lack of experience, I would go under admin coaching first before trying again later. I would thank you for your vote in this RFA whether you voted support, oppose or neutral for me. I appericiate your comments (if you do have) you made and I hope to see you here in future. --Terence Ong 14:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

:You won't have any problems next time. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Why have you labelled my edits POV? Are they factually incorrect?

+10 000 thundering typhoons 20:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)+

:Because you can't say that two sides are occupying something while the territory belongs to one of them. Btw administered means that it is controlled by the country. Saying things like occupied is pov. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion would be appriciated here regarding deletion of the article Serbophobia. The article is making references to Srebrenica massacre and those who contributed to that issue. Thanks--Dado 17:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

{{User:Smurrayinchester/Thank you template|text=Thanks for your vote! }}

Image:WikiThanks.png Hi Anon! Thank you for supporting my RfA. It passed at 105/1/0, putting me in WP:100 - I'm delighted and surprised! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. Cheers! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Would you mind checking something for me? Our article at Alexandrian Wicca has an interwiki link to :ar:ويكا اسكندرية. Would you mind double-checking that the article at ar is actually about the same thing? Jkelly 18:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

:Hi. Yes the link seems to say the same thing, but I don't know about the article. I will ask someone about it. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

::From the responses below, it looks like it really is about the same thing. Thanks for checking, I appreciate it. Jkelly 21:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

:::You're welcome Jkelly. Thank you Eagleamn and AnonMoos. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

:Seems to be "Alexandrian wicca", whatever that may be... AnonMoos 21:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

::But is the Arabic article about this too? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)