Devotus

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Devotus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Be happy!! (talk) 07:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Great source

The reference (Rudi Paret: Mohammed und der Koran. Geschichte und Verkündigung des arabischen Propheten) you've presented on Banu Qurayza is something new to me, I've never read or even heard of it. A new source on this topic greatly interests me. Could you please e-mail me more information about it (i.e. the topics explored, whether it is about Muhammad's entire life, or the entire Qur'an, or both).Bless sins (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

A comment and A request

Hi Devotus,

I think it is better to say that "Meir J. Kister" has argued against the Arafat and Ahmad's thesis. Prof. Khalid 'Abdulhadi Yahya Blankenship (an assistant professor in Islamic Studies at Temple University's Department of Religion) says [1]:

As for the question about the Jews, it relates to the story of the Jews of Banu Qurayzah, an Arabian Jewish tribe of al-Madinah, a varying number of hundreds of whom were said to have been executed, after their surrender in 627, for collaborating with the pagan besiegers of al-Madinah. This story is found only in the Muslim biographical tradition of the Prophet; the Arabian Jews are unknown to the surviving Jewish tradition. The Muslim scholar Walid Arafat wrote an article now available on the Internet that this never took place, and the Indian Muslim writer Barakat Ahmad wrote a whole book, "Muhammad and the Jews," to disprove it.
My own Jewish professor Jere Bacharach said after reading that book, "I am convinced it never happened." On the other hand, M. J. Kister, the dean of Israeli historians at the Hebrew University, wrote an article reaffirming that it must have happened. Although an Israeli, Kister's opinion is not to be taken lightly because of the detailed depth of his scholarship and his lack of bias against the Muslim sources. Indeed, in this case it is interesting to see two Muslim scholars denouncing a Muslim story and a Jewish professor upholding it....
Although I myself am tempted by Arafat's work to deny the story, or to restrict the executions to seventeen named persons as Ahmad does, I am also leery of doing too much violence to the tradition overall. That is, if this is denied, then what else might be denied in the received tradition? Instead, I would point out that the Bible, specifically the Torah, contains much more violent episodes where whole peoples are justly slaughtered, such as the Egyptians, the Amalekites, the people of Heshbon, and the people of Bashan, yet those texts do not seem to cause a problem for modern practitioners of Judaism and Christianity to be recognized as non-violent. Nor do they seem to delegitimate the status of, for example, Moses as a true recipient of God's revelation.

This is because the Jews and Christians are accorded the right to interpret their own scriptures and other traditions themselves and not be violently confronted with opponents foisting their own hostile interpretation on the followers of those religions. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and the Muslims must be accorded the same right, to speak on their own behalf. The existence of this story does not mean, by the way, that Muslims cannot live in peace with Jews; indeed, for over thirteen centuries until the appearance of modern political problems caused by modern materialist nationalism,followers of the two religions did just that. However, there is a lot of informational work that needs to be done to achieve understanding on both sides of that divide, and with the Christians as well.

Next, I have a request: As you know, in Islam much emphasis is placed on "God's names". Man is called "Perfect man" (al-insan al-kamil) and placed over the angels because he has the potential of embodying God's names. Next, in Islam, God is not only "merciful" but also severe in punishment ("shadid al-iqab") and "avenger" (muntaqim). Thus for Muslims, a perfect man should not only show mercy but also be sometimes an instrument of God's judgment against unbelievers (existence of both type of reports is indeed a necessity in this view). It is in this light that many Muslims see the incident of Banu Qurayza. Of course from the perspective of someone who does not consider Muhammad a prophet, the story would be different. Since you are very knowledgeable in Islam, I appreciate it if you know of any sources on the Muslim interpretation of the incident. Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Aminz,

It's not a problem, i've already changed it ;)

Today's Muslim Views or that of older times? For the latter we would have the primary sources, ibn Ishaq, Tabari etc. For today's views there would be Muslim academics, e.g. Tariq Ramadan or Reza Aslan. Also, there are scholars like Yusuf al-Qaradawi (there are probably some articles at islamonline.net, a website of Qaradawis) or the Turkish Fetthullah Gülen (see his biography of Muhammad, p.243). There are many sources in the internet, not only of average Muslim authors, but also of people with a reputation (on websites like the just mentioned one of Yusuf al-Qaradawi). There should also be Arabic sources from al-Azhar etc., but I have no access to such sources, so I can't tell you much about them. --Devotus (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Devotus,

Oh. Sorry. I didn't notice that you have already changed "refuted".

Actually, according to the current consensus of Wikipedia, we can not directly use primary sources; we can do that only when secondary sources cite them. We can not use the works of Muslim authors who do not have any academic degree either. Therefore Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Fetthullah Gülen could not be directly used unless a secondary academic source (published by university presses) cites them. So, only people like Tariq Ramadan and Reza Aslan would remain.

Re "oday's Muslim Views or that of older times?" - I am probably referring to the older ones. Those who viewed history from the perspective of God's names (I remember reading somewhere that Ibn Arabi wrote such a history but I am not sure). I personally think this is closer to the Qur'anic perspective on history because whenever it tells some event in a verse it ends it with "God is all hearing", "God is all-knowing", etc. The secular history is filled the story of kings but the theological history is the story of the prophets. Muhammad could not have viewed his dealing with unbelievers outside the context of that of previous prophets with their people. I am not necessarily suggesting that he created the Banu Qurayza incident to have it paralleled with the flood of Noah incident or other stories, but that might have been in his mind at that time. There is currently a sentence in the article Arab Muslim theologians and historians have either viewed the incident as "the punishment of the Medina Jews, who were invited to convert and refused, perfectly exemplify the Quran's tales of what happened to those who rejected the prophets of old" or offered a political explanation but they way F.E.Peters puts it is inaccurate because 1. Instead of saying that "who were invited to convert and refused" it should say that "for whom the religous truth is completely clarified and the completion of proof is realized". 2. it does not connect it with the idea of "God's names". Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Aminz,

Well, if it is from older times, then I'd suggest the views of the most important scholars of those times, Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf etc. As far as I know, all the historians writing about this event - Tabari, al-Waqidi etc. - refer to some kind of compact between Muhammad and the Qurayza, which they are said to have broken. Ibn Ishaq writes that Jibril himself told Muhammad to attack the BQ. But I don't think that's what you're looking for (since these are all primary sources). I don't think there's any mentioning of the theological views on this event in the technical literature either, only legal issues related to that. But I'm not sure. I guess I'll have to visit my library again, sooner or later :)

About the primary sources: I'm aware of the fact that we cannot cite them just like that, but can't we make exceptions, e.g. if there is no mentioning in the secondary literature? Well, if not, I'll have to look for academics writing about this. --Devotus (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Devotus,

Yes, you are indeed right that there was a compact. But there is also another completely different narrative vividly present in Ibn Ishaq. Most of the academic literature I have seen do not pay much attention to the latter. Those who do mention it (like Peters above) usually present it inaccurately i.e. do not focus on the concept of completion of religious truth leaving no rational excuse for not believing: according to Muslim sources, the Arabian Jews had carried with themselves some (now-lost) sources that indicated that a prophet comes from Arabia, together with much details about him. Ibn Ishaq has a lot of stress on that. Western scholarship probably discounts the possibility of existence of such extra-today's-biblical sources but whether they are historical or not, the reports do reflect how certain Muslims thought of the matter.

Now, why I think Ibn Ishaq viewed the matter primary as a judgment and then as breach of a contract? I have a quote on Banu Qayniqa (unfortunately not Banu Qurayza). According to Rizwi S. Faizer:

The basic structure of the narrative as established by al-Waqidi is quite different from that of Ibn Ishaq. Ibn Ishaq moves immediately into the scene, showing Muhammad inviting the Jews to Islam. In contrast, al-Waqidi begins with the agreement made between Muhammad and the Jews, moves to the sudden revolt of the B. Qaynuqa, and only then tells of the Prophet's inviting them to Islam—all of this relayed on the authority of Abd Allah ibn Jacfar from al-Harith ibn Fudayl from Ibn Kacb al-Qurazi. The phrase, "You think that we are your people," included by Ibn Ishaq and indicating that Muhammad may have believed that the Jews would acknowledge his authority, is not mentioned by al-Waqidi.Particularly interesting is the way in which al-Waqidi gives us information paralleling that reported by Ibn Ishaq on the authority of Asim ibn cUmar ibn Qatada. It is also noticeable that Ibn Ishaq avoids mentioning an agreement between Muhammad and the Jews. He informs us that the B. Qaynuqa were the first of the Jews "to destroy what was between them and the Messenger of God." "What" was between the Prophet and the Jews may very well have been an understanding or a peace. On the other hand, we observe that by introducing the chapter with information regarding the contracting of an agreement between Muhammad and the Jews, al-Waqidi leaves no room for doubt that the what that was destroyed was indeed the contract. The parallel narrative as reported by al-Waqidi-—-and here I provide a literal translation so that the reader may appreciate how al-Waqidi makes his point by adding what is probably an interpretative gloss ("of the agreement")— states: When the Prophet overcame the companions of Badr and arrived in Medina, the Jews acted wrongfully and broke what was between them and the Messenger of God, of the agreement.
A closer examination of the traditions concerning the raids on the Jewish groups reveals that the isnãds in the two parallel passages of Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi are nowhere the same. One cannot deny that the tradents used by al-Waqidi have already been made familiar to us by the work of Ibn Ishaq. Nevertheless, they are not identical to the ones that Ibn Ishaq uses as his authorities when he narrates the episode regarding the B. Qaynuqa; in fact, the actual traditions used are also different.

I think the academic works have largely neglected the second perspective (theological) while having laid much emphasis on the first one. That's why it is so hard to find an academic source on the latter.--Be happy!! (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's because the academics describe history from their own point of view, in accordance to the way things are described in their time. It's the same with the ridda-wars: European scholars maintained (and still maintain) that the revolts were mainly political, which is true from our point of view. However, the Muslims did certainly not consider them as political, since there was no seperation of such things in economical, political and religious aspects at that time, at least not regarding the Muslims.

Our problem here is that at least most scholars of today, if not all of them, describe these events from our point of view without further mentioning the opinions of older Muslim historians. Thus we cannot write about the latter since we cannot simply use primary sources. If I'm lucky, I might find some technical literature about that. Kister has mentioned sth. about Muslim scholars seeing these events as a result of the unbelief of the BQ, but that was only a sentence without further description. --Devotus (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I would not though personally apply the same theological views to ridda-wars because Abu Bakr did not claim to have a direct link to God :) --Be happy!! (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Banu Nadir

Do not attempt to rewrite history. This is completely unjustified. Accredited (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I've already said enough about this. The statements which you keep on deleting have been sourced. The Encyclopaedia of Islam is the authorative source in this area. Watt has written basic works about Muhammad which I am refering to. You simply do original research, since you don't refer to any reputable source for your statements. If you keep on doing vandalism like this by continuously reverting my edits I'll have to report you. --Devotus (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not the Encyclopedia of Islam but Wikipedia. What is the original source for your claim that Banu Nadir had "participated in attacking the Muslim community in the Battle of the Trench" and that "Muhammad had thus a straightforward reason for attacking Khaybar"? Accredited (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Enough said. Read WP:5, especially WP:NOR.

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy, and strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments."[2] --Devotus (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Accredited, that "Banu Nadir had participated in attacking the Muslim community in the Battle of the Trench" is a well-known fact.--Be happy!! (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edits constitute pure vandalism by substituting whole paragraphs with a deliberate distortion. You need to quote the words of the Encyclopedia of Islam and their reference. Accredited (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Assume Good Faith and WP:CIVIL. There is no scholar I have ever seen that doubts that statement that Banu Nadir had participated in attacking the Muslim community in the Battle of the Trench. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The previous text is one of long standing on Wikipedia and on Muslim Websites. It is therefore unwarranted to erase the whole account and replace it with an unfounded allegation. Accredited (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Accredited. Though it's your own problem that you don'T have the cited works I'll do you a favor and cite them directly here. Watt: Muhammad at Medina, p.217-18: "Though the Jews of Medina had become quiescent, those at Khaybar, among them the leaders of an-Nadir were the most prominent, were still anxious to avenge themselves on Muhammad. They made lavish, though no doubt judicious, use of their wealth to induce the neighbouring Arabs and especially the strong tribe of Ghatafan to join them against the Muslims. Muhammad had thus a strightforward reason for attacking Khaybar." idem "Muhammad. Prophet and Statesman", p.189: "The Jews of Khaybar, especially the leaders of the clan of an-Nadir exiled from Medina, were still incensed at Muhammad. They made lavish, though no doubt judicious, use of their wealth to induce the neighbouring Arabs to take up arms against the Muslims. This was a straightforward reason for attacking Khaybar." And finally, the Encyclopaedia of Islam, article "Khaybar": "Montgomery Watt has drawn attention to the fact that the Banu 'l-Nadir, driven out of Medina, had taken refuge in Khaybar and that their chieftains and the chieftains of other Jewish groups, eager for revenge, were intriguing against Muhammad along with the Arabs tribes of the neighbourhood. So Muhammad had not only a just motive for attacking them, but there was also the positive necessity to destroy these enemies..." article "Nadir": "From Khaybar, the exiles planned with the Quraysh the siege of Medina..." I hope this should solve our little problem here. Greetings, --Devotus (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The above does not say that Banu Nadir "had furthermore participated in attacking the Muslim community in the Battle of the Trench." Accredited (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

They quote says more actually. Not only they joined the confederacy but also instigated Ghatafan against Muhammad. --Be happy!! (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to quote the actual words without adding a false interpretation. Accredited (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There is now "false interpretation". It's your own problem if you can't read properly and don't have the cited works. The quote from "Nadir" should be clear enough. End of Discussion. --Devotus (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The quote from the Wikipedia of Islam "Nadir" that they planned with the Quraysh the siege of Medina has also been added accordingly. Accredited (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's still wrong: who sais they joined at khandaq because he would attack them? It's the other way around according to Watt. The execution of the Qurayza is unrelated to Khaybar. Greetings from Devotus (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We have also quoted Watt's assertion that they tried to "to induce the neighbouring Arabs and especially the strong tribe of Ghatafan to take up arms against the Muslims."

It reads that Akhtab and his son were killed alongside the men of Banu Qurayza they tried to recruit to join the battle. 80.179.192.75 (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Accredited tries to make me believe he's accompanied by two other guys... Enough said. --Devotus (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to declare that "Muhammad had thus a straightforward reason for attacking Khaybar" without stating that this is Watt's opinion. Neither Watt nor the Encyclopedia of Islam says that "they had furthermore participated in attacking the Muslim community in the Battle of the Trench. Accredited (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Accredited, Banu Nadir not only joined the siege of Medina but also bribed Ghaftan to join the Battle of Trench. During the siege, the chief of Nadir tried to win over Banu Qurayza to have them attack Muhammad from behind. You can find such details in any history book on early Islam. Why is that so hard to do? --Be happy!! (talk) 09:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Islamic sources mention that only Akhtab and his son rather than the whole Banu Nadir tribe, joined the siege of Medina. It should also be mentioned that they bribed Ghatafan and tried to recruit Banu Qurayza. Accredited (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Watt's theory is generally accepted in scholarship. That the Nadir joined the siege is also a fact that any recognized scholar accepts as such. "From Khaybar, the exiles planned with the Quraysh the siege of Medina..." EI2, s.v. Nadir. "Montgomery Watt has drawn attention to the fact that the Banu Nadir, driven out of Medina, had taken refuge in Khaybar and that their chieftains and the chieftains of other Jewish groups, eager for revenge, were intriguing against Muhammad along with the Arabs tribes of the neighbourhood... The sources give support to the view of Montgomery Watt, showing that the Jews, already responsible for the coalition which had laid siege to Medina in 5 A.H. and worried by the growing power of the Prophet, continued to stir up the Arabs against him..." s.v. Khaybar. Primary sources are not to be used in Wikipedia. End of Discussion. --Devotus (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is Watt's theory it should read according to Watt. No scholar has said that the Nadir joined the siege. You may quote Watt or any other scholar on the matter. Accredited (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

see above. it doesn't say hat they joined the siege, it sais they had participated in attacking the Muslims; there's a difference. --Devotus (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither Watt nor any other scholar has said that the Banu Nadir participated in attacking the Muslims. Accredited (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

See quotes above. You don't seem to have any academic work, neither Watt nor anyone else, so I doubt you could know that. --Devotus (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How would the Banu Nadir participate in attacking the Muslims if they did not join the siege? Accredited (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not here to give you private lessons. End of discussion. --Devotus (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It will be consistent with Watt's words and the Encyclopedia of Islam. Accredited (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It is consistent with those works which you don't have. --Devotus (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been blocked for days from responding to you on the references on the article talk page.

Here are the pertinent references on the armies composition in the Battle of the Trench.

7. ^ a b c d Lings, Muhammad: his life based on the earliest sources, p. 215-6.

8. ^ a b c al-Halabi, Sirat-i-Halbiyyah (Vol. II, part 12), p. 19.

Furthermore, the long standing text since June 14, 2006, that you deleted is sourced and referenced to Stillman (1979), p. 17 in which he states: "The Jews of this rich oasis must have clearly understood the danger they were in. Huyayy B. Akhtab had gone from Khaybar with his son to join the Meccan and Bedouin forces besieging Medina at the time of the battle of the Trench." Apparently, they were the exiled Banu Nadir Jews who again appeared with an army before Medina since no source makes mention of any Banu Nadir troops in the army. Your statement that indicates that Watt had said and modern scholars also agree that Muhammad attacked Khaybar because the Jews had furthermore "participated in attacking the Muslims" is false. Accredited (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It is most appropriate to restore the long standing text since June 14, 2006, which is sourced and adopted by Islam Pakistanway. There was no justification for deleting it in the first place. Accredited (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My proposal

Hi Devotus,

Could you please take a look at my proposal here [3] (diff [4]). Thanks in advance, Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it :) --Devotus (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oneness of God (Islam)

Hi Devotus,

In case you had time, could you please take a look at this article (Oneness of God (Islam)) and see if anything is lacking there. If not, please feel free to ignore this message. Thanks, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also appreciate if you could share your personal opinion regarding the "Secularism and the evolution of public policy" subsection in the "Influences on the Muslim culture" section. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it, but I'm very busy at the moment. --Devotus (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's really good, but - as far as I know - the 99 names of God are not derived from the Quran only.--Devotus (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'll check what the source says. maybe it said that only the phrase of "best names" comes from the Qur'an... Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Help

Hi Devotus,

If someone is undoing you on your talk page, then you can ask an administrator for help. You can remove any message posted on your talk page as soon as you have read them. Regarding the al-Nadir, let's discuss this once and for all on the al-Nadir talk page. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Banu Nadir

Please don't undo edits by accredited when he is the most recent contributer to the talk page. You have to explain on the talk page why you are undoing, since he took the trouble to explain why he was making the change. Thanks (and sorry if it is boring and repetitive, but WP needs these niceties)--BozMo talk 21:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I know you have explained before but if he posts a reason on a talk page and then makes a change correct behaviour is to reply on the talk page as well as revert even it is only to link to a diff where you have discussed before. --BozMo talk 15:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:

Hi Devotus,

Sorry for getting back to you late. I am very busy in real life and am staying away from wikipedia for some time.

Hope things are going well with you.

--Be happy!! (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, if you're content with what I've done, I am happy about that. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh, I was totally confused. Of course this was the right page. Thanks. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't really know what you've done, but it looks like you and BlessSins have found a solution, which is the reason I think we needn't to discuss the matter anymore. Sincerely yours: Devotus (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What you see in the article is a temporary version, not a solution. There are still problems to solve, and you're more than welcome to join the talk page.Bless sins (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll see what I can do.--Devotus (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Devotus, could also keep an eye on Pioneer on BQ. Cheers, Str1977 ^(talk) 19:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple complaint :)

You recently reverted my edits to Jihad, which included the re-inclusion of this statement: "Jihad" used without any qualifiers is, as Reuven Firestone points out, "universally understood as war on behalf of Islam The term "points out" implies that Firestone's opinion is correct, which is—unless it is established that he is correct—encyclopedic. In this case, it happens that his opinion is simply false, as it contradicts data from the Gallup poll. Just a friendly reminder not to revert all changes when you only object to one. Thanks!  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 07:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see the problem. I gave an answer to your statements here, including references. According to that answer, Lewis' as well as Firestone's statements are in accordance with the current state of scholarship and thus to be represented as correct in this particular encylopaedia. That most Muslim's don't primarily regard Jihad as warfare does not contradict Firestone's statement which refers to classical as well as current Islamic scholarship. And if you would give a closer look to my recent changes you'll notice that I did not revert all changes, but rather gave a direct reference to the book containing that Gallup-poll data.--Devotus (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to move this to the article talk page.

The issue is that something is not true simply because someone (even an expert) said it was in a book. Firestone is one scholar, and his opinion does not constitute absolute fact, nor consensus among experts. Indeed, he has a reputation for being non-neutral, and his opinions are fringe opinions. Stating something as fact requires that it is either unquestionable fact, or that it represents consensus. Firestone's opinion is not equivalent to consensus. In addition, whether 'jihad' implies warfare depends on the interpretation.

Please explain how these two are not contradictory:

The term 'jihad' used without any qualifiers is, as Reuven Firestone points out, "universally understood as war on behalf of Islam"

The term 'jihad' is often understood as a nonviolent spiritual struggle

I think it is entirely unreasonable to use the term "points out" here.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 22:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Devotus. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Devotus. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)