The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You have said a number of times that Spencer is not a reliable source because his stuff is not peer reviewed and he doesnt have any special education in Islam. What is your opinion of Muhammad Husayn Haykal? This is a source which Bless Sins is using and has claimed that he's a reliable source. At first I was about to agree with him but now I'm thinking how Haykul is any more reliable that Spencer. You have said something here but I thought I would ask you in this way: Do you think Haykul is anymore reliable than Spencer and if so, why? I have seen Bless Sin's justification but I want to know what you think also. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 06:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
please help me to improve the article as somebody question about reliable sources . in the name of God. wassalam Zikrullah ( talk) 07:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC) sir, i need your kind attention to the new article on concept of peace in islam which is as important as the basic belief in islam like tauhid risalah etc. but a person User:Matt57 is trying to prove that there is nothing like peace or islamic peace in the context of islam. please tell him that the article's subject is very basic and the purpose of the islamic movement some 140 years ago was based on it. bless Zikrullah ( talk) 16:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)ings wassalam.
assalamu alaikum good guidance! i can suggest the title to be abode of peace or global peace in islam and what you say about islamic peace does not exist in islam is a fault not even by common muslims like us but those who want to interpret islam without the context of quran. i ask a question what is the idea of kingdom on earth in christianity . is it a political . can you dare to criticise it in the article of Kingdom of God.the very basic movement started by a person some 1400 years ago was to establish that kingdom of God as JESUS CHRIST told. but the poor understanding of islam created the laden al qaida and taliban in islam which was a threat to humanity. regards on good knowledge of islam
Zikrullah ( talk) 06:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Salam alaykum This article was too weak and violated copyright as well as WP rules. Therefor I rewrote it. I hope you can help me with it.-- Seyyed( t- c) 17:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, would you be interested to participate in the discussion going here ? ( Imad marie ( talk) 20:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC))
Acceptable sources for Islam articles is a big issue. Why dont we decide on a few principles so we dont keep edit warring over who is reliable and who is not, who should be kept in and who not. Martin Luther is being mentioned calling Muhammad a pedophile. Is he a reliable source, tell me? No, so why is he being mentioned here? Likewise for Zwerner which you removed. These are notable people. Samuel Marinus Zwemer has written a lot of stuff on Islam. Like you said in the case of Haykul, we can write his stuff as long as its being attributed to him. Your comments? Right now, these are not the problems in Islam articles. The problems are unknown XYZ people. These are the people we need to get rid of first. So again, please compare this to Haykul. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 02:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I am happy with "According to Islamic texts". -- Be happy!! ( talk) 03:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you have that book? Arrow740 ( talk) 22:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I really appreciate the barnstar you gave me. I never thought I'd get two barnstars just for one article. Peace be upon you, bro! Jagged 85 ( talk) 20:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Salam Alaykum
The day after tomorrow is Ashura and the article is on the main page of wikipedia [1]. Unfortunately the article doesn't represent Sunni view precisely. I wanted to improve it, but I prefer to leave it for you. -- Seyyed( t- c) 18:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Itaqallah. I would greatly appreciate your response on my proposal on Quran Talk Page, which i left long time ago after you've removed many para from that section suddenly. Thanks. -- Tarikash 09:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
( Raaid ( talk) 23:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)) Thankyou for welcoming me! I'm certainly enjoying my time at Wikipedia and it has helped me in various ways. From Pakistan-India wars to Valentich's disappearance, Wikipedia has kept me informed throughout!
Thank you once again! Raaid
Salam Alaykum
It's written in Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Links Cleanup that this site is not acceptable. But it's under supervision of Yusuf Al-Qaradawi. I think it's acceptable source. What's your idea. -- Seyyed( t- c) 16:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sa.vakilian ( talk • contribs) 05:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I know it is hard for you as a Muslim but do it. All religious people tend to be bias I don't blame anyone. But you can not just remove link because you don't like what they say.
All the links in the article about the Quran miracle are Islamic and as such not reliable. No article about such thing without showing the other side of those who claim to refute. Infidel is well known atheist web site and as such it will stay.
I will complain to administrator if you remove any link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.151.98 ( talk) 13:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Moreover the link you added was dangerous. use WOT extension to firefox https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3456 before you add link or any other program that good for that matter. Oren.tal ( talk) 13:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC) And just for the recorded the Jews have their own "miracle" http://www.torahscience.org/natsci/photo1.html Surely I wont allow anyone to use such thing as reliable.I will do the same with Hindu miracle and they also have. Oren.tal ( talk) 13:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any reply to my question posted on talk The relation between Islam and science?
Thanks for uploading Image:TafsirBaghawi.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 06:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
You are invited to participate here ( Imad marie ( talk) 07:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC))
I think it makes sense e.g. here. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 14:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The article
Jesus in Islam you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold.
It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See
Talk:Jesus in Islam for things needed to be addressed.
jackturner3 (
talk)
16:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The article
Jesus in Islam you nominated as a
good article has passed
, see
Talk:Jesus in Islam for eventual comments about the article. Well done!
jackturner3 (
talk)
18:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Itaqallah, I have been looking through some of your recent work on a few articles such as the Bucaille/Islam/science related ones and a pattern I see in your deletions is an eagerness to delete sourced material on less than solid grounds. On what ground do you claim Campbell is not a reliable source? or any less reliable than Bucaille at any rate? -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 20:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 ( Talk) 04:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I noticed your request for a third opinion on Commission on Scientific Signs in the Quran and Sunnah. I attempted to provide an unbiased opinion regarding this dispute. Hopefully it can be of some help to you. The opinion is here. Thank you for posting it and again, I hope it is at least a teensy bit valuable :) Lazulilasher ( talk) 17:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
About this , I think we have enough sources to create a new article, I will create a new article called Qur'an and Science; The_relation_between_Islam_and_science#Belief_that_scientific_facts_are_supported_by_the_Qur.27an and Qur'an_and_miracles#Scientific_miracles will link to it as a main article; and Maurice_Bucaille#Bucailleism as see also. ( Imad marie ( talk) 14:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC))
The
January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
00:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I've created this initiative (and notice new banner at top of talk page) so that we will remove any sections below the one I just linked and add them to Talk:Muhammad/images to begin to clear up that page and maybe stop some of this madness. I did this boldly since nothing else was really being done and I hope you will support it. Feel free to keep up your work on /images but I think it is a problem that Talk:Muhammad was becoming more of a political discussion forum than an article talk page. Thank you. gren グレン 22:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Salam, Dude can you please explain why you continually remove my edit regarding Zakir Naik and the extact nature of his comments. I am not saying anything which is not factual! You mention the contraversy but refuse to allow the details to be shown.
I've actually been pondering whether it'd be worthwhile to set up so less obvious location to discuss actually working on the article while it's under attack for people seriously interested in working on it to build a neutral, encyclopaedic article. Facts are that the image issue isn't the only this - the article is poorly written, needs a lot of work, and anyone near it is just trying to hold back the tidal wave of problems. I mean, more power to you if you can get anything worked out there, but I have doubts ... Wily D 19:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Itaqallah, I'm thinking of reporting Oren.tal, please see his edit history here in the past couple of days, and there is also the (Off-wiki canvassing) that you have pointed out. He just does not use common sense and it's difficult comminicating with him, What do you think? ( Imad marie ( talk) 17:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC))
By-the-by, I mentioned your name as someone who's moderate, knowledgeable about Islam/Muhammad, knowledgeable about Wikipedia and familiar with the image issues on Muhammad on enwiki-l, where there's also extensive discussion of the latest brew-ha-ha. So it's possible you'll be contacted by editors drawn in from that. For what it's worth, I think that's a good place to find potentially productive contributers, who're neither here to promote or denigrade Islam, but merely to write an encyclopaedia. Just a head's up, anyhow. Cheers, Wily D 14:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I really appreciate getting the outside attention. There's a definite concerted effort to promote Shahi and his group on Wikipedia, and I just don't know enough about the field in general to confidently reign it in. — Scien tizzle 00:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Salaam Alaykum I recently added the reply of Ammar Nakshawani to Dr Naik regarding the Yazid issue. However, it was removed. Did you remove it? Muhammad (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Itaqallah, Assalam u alaikum. I added some external links to Websites criticizing Zakir Naik in the article Zakir Naik as well as two links to sites which contain the rebuttals of many of his claims. Could you please be so kind enough to inform me as to in what way am i defaming him? I have merely added the links to other websites revealing the critical opinions of other researchers including the well known internet debator Ali Sina's opinions about him. If they write articles about thier own analysis of Zakir Naik, debunk many of his claims and i add external links to these sites under the heading "Critical Articles", then how am i defaming him? You have added links to his official website and other websites which praise him and his work, then why cant i also present the other side of the picture?
In what way is this against wikipedia's standards? In many other articles including an article about Wafa Sultan, a Muslim Reformer, there are external links to websites including Islamic Sites containing articles from well known scholars and criticizing her under the heading "Critical Opinion".
Do you consider that defamatory? Dont you think that it is not neutral? They just present their own opinions which might be part true/ part false. So why cant i add external links to websites criticizing Zakir Naik?
Regards, Joyson Noel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyson Noel ( talk • contribs) 14:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you happen to have a link to where on the talk page removal of this image was discussed? I looked but couldn't find it. -- NeilN talk ♦ contribs 13:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I see that you have recently begun making some edits to this heavily unorganized and poorly written page. I was wondering whether or not you'd have the time to work on that page more often. The current version says that the Pact of Umar (written around the 7th/8th century) prohibited the usage of guns (invented in after the 10th century). IMO, it will need several more editors to even be salvageable.- Rosywounds ( talk) 06:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Itaqallah. As a serious Muslim Wikipedian, it would be great if you could help out some more in editing the Bahira article. I've added some new sources in Bahira#Bibliography from which we can expand the article. It would be great if you could provide some more scholarly Islamic sources to the article. Thanks! — EliasAlucard / Discussion 16:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
For your information, User:Falconkhe has copied your user page. Kingturtle ( talk) 12:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You have said a number of times that Spencer is not a reliable source because his stuff is not peer reviewed and he doesnt have any special education in Islam. What is your opinion of Muhammad Husayn Haykal? This is a source which Bless Sins is using and has claimed that he's a reliable source. At first I was about to agree with him but now I'm thinking how Haykul is any more reliable that Spencer. You have said something here but I thought I would ask you in this way: Do you think Haykul is anymore reliable than Spencer and if so, why? I have seen Bless Sin's justification but I want to know what you think also. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 06:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
please help me to improve the article as somebody question about reliable sources . in the name of God. wassalam Zikrullah ( talk) 07:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC) sir, i need your kind attention to the new article on concept of peace in islam which is as important as the basic belief in islam like tauhid risalah etc. but a person User:Matt57 is trying to prove that there is nothing like peace or islamic peace in the context of islam. please tell him that the article's subject is very basic and the purpose of the islamic movement some 140 years ago was based on it. bless Zikrullah ( talk) 16:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)ings wassalam.
assalamu alaikum good guidance! i can suggest the title to be abode of peace or global peace in islam and what you say about islamic peace does not exist in islam is a fault not even by common muslims like us but those who want to interpret islam without the context of quran. i ask a question what is the idea of kingdom on earth in christianity . is it a political . can you dare to criticise it in the article of Kingdom of God.the very basic movement started by a person some 1400 years ago was to establish that kingdom of God as JESUS CHRIST told. but the poor understanding of islam created the laden al qaida and taliban in islam which was a threat to humanity. regards on good knowledge of islam
Zikrullah ( talk) 06:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Salam alaykum This article was too weak and violated copyright as well as WP rules. Therefor I rewrote it. I hope you can help me with it.-- Seyyed( t- c) 17:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, would you be interested to participate in the discussion going here ? ( Imad marie ( talk) 20:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC))
Acceptable sources for Islam articles is a big issue. Why dont we decide on a few principles so we dont keep edit warring over who is reliable and who is not, who should be kept in and who not. Martin Luther is being mentioned calling Muhammad a pedophile. Is he a reliable source, tell me? No, so why is he being mentioned here? Likewise for Zwerner which you removed. These are notable people. Samuel Marinus Zwemer has written a lot of stuff on Islam. Like you said in the case of Haykul, we can write his stuff as long as its being attributed to him. Your comments? Right now, these are not the problems in Islam articles. The problems are unknown XYZ people. These are the people we need to get rid of first. So again, please compare this to Haykul. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 02:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I am happy with "According to Islamic texts". -- Be happy!! ( talk) 03:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you have that book? Arrow740 ( talk) 22:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I really appreciate the barnstar you gave me. I never thought I'd get two barnstars just for one article. Peace be upon you, bro! Jagged 85 ( talk) 20:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Salam Alaykum
The day after tomorrow is Ashura and the article is on the main page of wikipedia [1]. Unfortunately the article doesn't represent Sunni view precisely. I wanted to improve it, but I prefer to leave it for you. -- Seyyed( t- c) 18:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Itaqallah. I would greatly appreciate your response on my proposal on Quran Talk Page, which i left long time ago after you've removed many para from that section suddenly. Thanks. -- Tarikash 09:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
( Raaid ( talk) 23:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)) Thankyou for welcoming me! I'm certainly enjoying my time at Wikipedia and it has helped me in various ways. From Pakistan-India wars to Valentich's disappearance, Wikipedia has kept me informed throughout!
Thank you once again! Raaid
Salam Alaykum
It's written in Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Links Cleanup that this site is not acceptable. But it's under supervision of Yusuf Al-Qaradawi. I think it's acceptable source. What's your idea. -- Seyyed( t- c) 16:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sa.vakilian ( talk • contribs) 05:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I know it is hard for you as a Muslim but do it. All religious people tend to be bias I don't blame anyone. But you can not just remove link because you don't like what they say.
All the links in the article about the Quran miracle are Islamic and as such not reliable. No article about such thing without showing the other side of those who claim to refute. Infidel is well known atheist web site and as such it will stay.
I will complain to administrator if you remove any link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.151.98 ( talk) 13:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Moreover the link you added was dangerous. use WOT extension to firefox https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3456 before you add link or any other program that good for that matter. Oren.tal ( talk) 13:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC) And just for the recorded the Jews have their own "miracle" http://www.torahscience.org/natsci/photo1.html Surely I wont allow anyone to use such thing as reliable.I will do the same with Hindu miracle and they also have. Oren.tal ( talk) 13:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any reply to my question posted on talk The relation between Islam and science?
Thanks for uploading Image:TafsirBaghawi.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 06:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
You are invited to participate here ( Imad marie ( talk) 07:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC))
I think it makes sense e.g. here. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 14:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The article
Jesus in Islam you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold.
It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See
Talk:Jesus in Islam for things needed to be addressed.
jackturner3 (
talk)
16:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The article
Jesus in Islam you nominated as a
good article has passed
, see
Talk:Jesus in Islam for eventual comments about the article. Well done!
jackturner3 (
talk)
18:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Itaqallah, I have been looking through some of your recent work on a few articles such as the Bucaille/Islam/science related ones and a pattern I see in your deletions is an eagerness to delete sourced material on less than solid grounds. On what ground do you claim Campbell is not a reliable source? or any less reliable than Bucaille at any rate? -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 20:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 ( Talk) 04:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I noticed your request for a third opinion on Commission on Scientific Signs in the Quran and Sunnah. I attempted to provide an unbiased opinion regarding this dispute. Hopefully it can be of some help to you. The opinion is here. Thank you for posting it and again, I hope it is at least a teensy bit valuable :) Lazulilasher ( talk) 17:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
About this , I think we have enough sources to create a new article, I will create a new article called Qur'an and Science; The_relation_between_Islam_and_science#Belief_that_scientific_facts_are_supported_by_the_Qur.27an and Qur'an_and_miracles#Scientific_miracles will link to it as a main article; and Maurice_Bucaille#Bucailleism as see also. ( Imad marie ( talk) 14:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC))
The
January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
00:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I've created this initiative (and notice new banner at top of talk page) so that we will remove any sections below the one I just linked and add them to Talk:Muhammad/images to begin to clear up that page and maybe stop some of this madness. I did this boldly since nothing else was really being done and I hope you will support it. Feel free to keep up your work on /images but I think it is a problem that Talk:Muhammad was becoming more of a political discussion forum than an article talk page. Thank you. gren グレン 22:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Salam, Dude can you please explain why you continually remove my edit regarding Zakir Naik and the extact nature of his comments. I am not saying anything which is not factual! You mention the contraversy but refuse to allow the details to be shown.
I've actually been pondering whether it'd be worthwhile to set up so less obvious location to discuss actually working on the article while it's under attack for people seriously interested in working on it to build a neutral, encyclopaedic article. Facts are that the image issue isn't the only this - the article is poorly written, needs a lot of work, and anyone near it is just trying to hold back the tidal wave of problems. I mean, more power to you if you can get anything worked out there, but I have doubts ... Wily D 19:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Itaqallah, I'm thinking of reporting Oren.tal, please see his edit history here in the past couple of days, and there is also the (Off-wiki canvassing) that you have pointed out. He just does not use common sense and it's difficult comminicating with him, What do you think? ( Imad marie ( talk) 17:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC))
By-the-by, I mentioned your name as someone who's moderate, knowledgeable about Islam/Muhammad, knowledgeable about Wikipedia and familiar with the image issues on Muhammad on enwiki-l, where there's also extensive discussion of the latest brew-ha-ha. So it's possible you'll be contacted by editors drawn in from that. For what it's worth, I think that's a good place to find potentially productive contributers, who're neither here to promote or denigrade Islam, but merely to write an encyclopaedia. Just a head's up, anyhow. Cheers, Wily D 14:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I really appreciate getting the outside attention. There's a definite concerted effort to promote Shahi and his group on Wikipedia, and I just don't know enough about the field in general to confidently reign it in. — Scien tizzle 00:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Salaam Alaykum I recently added the reply of Ammar Nakshawani to Dr Naik regarding the Yazid issue. However, it was removed. Did you remove it? Muhammad (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Itaqallah, Assalam u alaikum. I added some external links to Websites criticizing Zakir Naik in the article Zakir Naik as well as two links to sites which contain the rebuttals of many of his claims. Could you please be so kind enough to inform me as to in what way am i defaming him? I have merely added the links to other websites revealing the critical opinions of other researchers including the well known internet debator Ali Sina's opinions about him. If they write articles about thier own analysis of Zakir Naik, debunk many of his claims and i add external links to these sites under the heading "Critical Articles", then how am i defaming him? You have added links to his official website and other websites which praise him and his work, then why cant i also present the other side of the picture?
In what way is this against wikipedia's standards? In many other articles including an article about Wafa Sultan, a Muslim Reformer, there are external links to websites including Islamic Sites containing articles from well known scholars and criticizing her under the heading "Critical Opinion".
Do you consider that defamatory? Dont you think that it is not neutral? They just present their own opinions which might be part true/ part false. So why cant i add external links to websites criticizing Zakir Naik?
Regards, Joyson Noel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyson Noel ( talk • contribs) 14:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you happen to have a link to where on the talk page removal of this image was discussed? I looked but couldn't find it. -- NeilN talk ♦ contribs 13:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I see that you have recently begun making some edits to this heavily unorganized and poorly written page. I was wondering whether or not you'd have the time to work on that page more often. The current version says that the Pact of Umar (written around the 7th/8th century) prohibited the usage of guns (invented in after the 10th century). IMO, it will need several more editors to even be salvageable.- Rosywounds ( talk) 06:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Itaqallah. As a serious Muslim Wikipedian, it would be great if you could help out some more in editing the Bahira article. I've added some new sources in Bahira#Bibliography from which we can expand the article. It would be great if you could provide some more scholarly Islamic sources to the article. Thanks! — EliasAlucard / Discussion 16:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
For your information, User:Falconkhe has copied your user page. Kingturtle ( talk) 12:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)