The Signpost: 03 September 2012
edit- Technology report: Time for a MediaWiki Foundation?
- Featured content: Wikipedia's Seven Days of Terror
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback
editI would like to thank you for your patience in an issue which, I am sure, can be annoying to deal with repeatedly. Of course, my edits may be inappropriate, and I never meant to insinuate that the issue was my edits vs. someone else's; I just want some civility and an end to what I feel has been seven years of POV pushing. This absolutely doesn't rule out that some of my own edits could be incorrect or inappropriate, though they were all in good faith and attempts to better represent sources. I hope that in the future, despite your busy schedule, you will still be able to lend a third party view on such issues. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Cleanup
edit You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. |
|---|
The Teahouse Turns One!
editIt's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!
|
Teahouse First Birthday Badge |
| Awarded to everyone who participated in the Wikipedia Teahouse during its first year! To celebrate the many hosts and guests we've met and the nearly 2000 questions asked and answered during this excellent first year, we're giving out this tasty cupcake badge. |
- --Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 22:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
editHello, Pass a Method. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Book of Leviticus.The discussion is about the topic Book of Leviticus. Thank you. - MrX 03:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
WP:V
editG'day. Saw your post to my talkpage the other day. I think the wording as it was should have applied to this particular situation. However, the general view seems to be that if one has enough friends that can be contacted offline, things like "consider" and "should" and most of the editing policy and so on don't apply. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Pope Francis
editPlease stop trying to insert the "devil" quote into the Pope Francis article. First off the source you are using doesn't meet RS standards for the translation, second, the actual quote is already in the article from a source that is reliable. Marauder40 (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you must have seen it, since it came up on the diff - a very long comment in the article about not adding items to the list. I don't know who inserted it, or when, but it seems that we should abide by it while it remains. StAnselm (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
edit
Message added 01:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Please, let's work towards consensus here. You've started an RfC, which means we may get some more people's opinions, but you shouldn't add the material back in until we've achieved consensus, as I've said a couple of times. Please read WP:STATUSQUO. StAnselm (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 31
editHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Interfaith dialog, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jains (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Just a small remark: it's better to wait until an AfD is finished before moving an article that is still being discussed. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User:Pass a Method/Userbox/Motherfucker
editUser:Pass a Method/Userbox/Motherfucker, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pass a Method/Userbox/Motherfucker and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Pass a Method/Userbox/Motherfucker during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
April 2013
edit
Hello, I'm Novusuna. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Homosexuality because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Novusuna (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the American Founders
editAs far as I understand they were often members of organized religions, but embraced some aspects of deism, such as submitting religious belief to rational analysis, which has led them to be categorized by some authors as deists. I tried to take your advice on partial reverts...For instance, on biographies where you added deism as the religion, I tried to correct the info to represent what the source actually said, or I added info about their main religions that you failed to mention. I also started a discussion at WT:WikiProject United States History where I hope you'll comment if you're not satisfied with my edits. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Tips, advice, or assistance...
editWith my side project: User:Jenova20/List of suggested causes of homosexuality. Can you spare any Pass a Method? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 21:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
FYI
editI saw you had interactions with one of these socks, so I thought you deserved to know about all of their accounts.[1]. I'm fairly certain more are roaming free now. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 04:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Keted6
editHi, PaM. Well, I can see Keted6 is suspiciously savvy for a new user, but SPI isn't really any use unless you have a notion whose sock they might be. Have you? Because I don't. Bishonen | talk 21:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC).
SPI sections
editHi! I noticed you moved my comment to the "other users" section at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keted6. Just wondering, why is that? I've understood from the instructions that admins patrolling SPI should write in the last section unless they're commenting as involved users. Or is there something I've missed here? Jafeluv (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 23
editHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rafida, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bakri (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Add content?
editWhat are you talking about on my page? -- Thus Spake Lee Tru. 12:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
sunni islam
editMr pass a method my edit it totally nutral and also depended upon a reliable source.dont insert your WP:OR
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[1]
you are making this article less informative.Dil e Muslim talk 14:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- That's an absolutely ridiculous claim, Am Not New/Dil e Muslim. Barelvis comprise 200 million out of 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, and they share South Asia with several other sub-categories of Sunni Islam like Deobandis and Ahl al-Hadeeth. Please don't use Wikipedia as a Barelvi propaganda platform; see WP:SOAPBOX. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Mr mezzomezzo your above made statement is WP:OR.and where i added my own contents.mezzomezzo stick to what the sources say in stead of making your own analysis.Dil e Muslim talk 07:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Every single source on all the related articles note that Deobandis and Ahl al-Hadeeth are also Sunnis and that Barelvi is a sub category for Sunni, not referring to all Sunnis in South Asia. Even if you refuse to accept that, the fact that at least six editors are now regularly reverting what they all agree is OR in your part is telling. You're only making things worse for yourself by being combative. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Mr mezzomezzo your above made statement is WP:OR.and where i added my own contents.mezzomezzo stick to what the sources say in stead of making your own analysis.Dil e Muslim talk 07:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
mr mezzomezzo havent you read the source.the source is oxford dictionary of religion and it is clearly written on it that souce that alhesunnat wa jamaah is commonly known as barelvi.i am pasting that.and for your information my edit is according to nutral point of view.see me sentence.even its you who is making less informative.Dil e Muslim talk 17:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
well i am copying discussion to page Sunni islam to discus.Dil e Muslim talk 17:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Better to take this riduculous POV pushing and OR there, then. Pass a Method, sorry for bringing this onto your talk page. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
You left a note on my talk page saying you'd nominated the category "Sunni Muslims" for deletion, and that I should see "the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page". But there is no such entry there, and it looks like you didn't actually nominate the category for deletion at all. What were you trying to do? – Quadell (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Theres some sort of glitch sorry. Pass a Method talk 17:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
edit
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
| Thank you for helping to keep Wikipedia a safe place to edit for legitimate editors. - MrX 12:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC) |
Sup
editWe've been outed, apparently. Go check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MezzoMezzo and try not to wet your pants from laughing so hard. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
RFC/U on user:Arzel
editYou took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. Based on that discussion, I started a WP:RFC/U, here.Casprings (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Re:Coast
editwhy do u think the coastline is redundant? Pass a Method talk 09:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's noted a few sentences earlier. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Israel
editAlthough I agree partially with you that in some form Israel should be mentioned in the infobox unilateral edits are not appreciated. Yes, verifiability is a criteria, but when the issue is disputed by a number of editors no edit can be made until the issue is resolved and consensus is reached so there wouldn't be an edit war, that's Wikipedia policy. I will not revert you again because of the revert ban on the articles page, but someone else will revert you like they did in the past and I am giving you a friendly advice to resolve the issue in a compromising manner on the talk page before conducting unilateral edits. But in my personal opinion I think you have added Israel in an appropriate format to the infobox so good work. Cheers! :) EkoGraf (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Response
editI responded at Talk:Kutub al-Sittah. Specifically, I'm wondering if there's some way we can list it to elicit feedback from more than just the two of us. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hey man, I used that template under page moves. You could go and get the discussion/survey started. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Also this. I don't think it would really count as canvassing because you're a user I'm 99% sure would be interested in the matter, sort of like notifying people of Prod nominations. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Still interested in making a move request? If we bring up the issue again, does it look bad or look like a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT violation? MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Depends on the administrator - some prefer you to wait a month or so. I however recommend notifying the Arab wikiproject for more input. Pass a Method talk 10:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- If you make a request, i recommend linking to a high-quality source. Pass a Method talk 11:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Depends on the administrator - some prefer you to wait a month or so. I however recommend notifying the Arab wikiproject for more input. Pass a Method talk 10:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Still interested in making a move request? If we bring up the issue again, does it look bad or look like a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT violation? MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Also this. I don't think it would really count as canvassing because you're a user I'm 99% sure would be interested in the matter, sort of like notifying people of Prod nominations. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Ahmadiyya and the Jewish State Israel
editHi Pass, thank you for giving attention to my edits, I did not understand, why my edits on Ahmadiyya View about Israel, were reverted. Well what is exactly incorrect (materially and formally) in the edit I made? I had tried to improve and compliment the Article. Sincerely --ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 06:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Clearing the air
edit You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
alanyst 22:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Removal of referenced content from the Islam Page
editHi, I noticed that you deleted a lot of referenced content from the Islam page. Is there a reason for the removal of the referenced content. Do you want some changes. What was the reason? --Johnleeds1 (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Can you please provide a reason. There are references on that material.--Johnleeds1 (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Invitation to a Wicnic in Gainesville on Saturday, June 22nd
editGreetings!
Seeing that you've edited the article on Gainesville on Wikipedia, I'm inviting to the North Central Florida 2013 Great American Wiknic that will be on Saturday June 22, 2013, commencing at 1:00 pm, ten blocks north of UF campus in Gainesville,.
If you're able and inclined to come, please RSVP at at this URL.
Type to you later, Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Re: your 2 Level 3 Warnings to this new user... Since they're new (started editing May 30th), maybe they don't know how to search the article's talk page archives for the previous Deist discussions (since they don't appear on the page as it is seen by most readers). I have posted on their talk page about the matter and am asking you to consider reverting your 2 Level 3s to a Welcome/Level 1 and a Level 2. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- I just noticed that there was no linkage to the article/s where the edits occurred for the delete 3 & vandalism3 Warnings & was wondering why you chose not to link to the article. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Sources
editYou left a message on my page saying:
- You are continuing with original research, please read WP:RS. Pass a Method talk 10:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- I added
"The books followed by the Twelver Shi'a were written by Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Kulayni (864- 941), Ibn Babawayh (923-991), and Nasir al-Din al-Tusi (1201-1274)."
How is this original research. If you go to those authors pages it shows you that these books are followed by the Shia. It is common knowledge. What is your objection. Can you be more specific. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
June 2013
edit
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you may be blocked from editing. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Re: Your deletions
editThe problem with this is the double standards. I dont have any problem to put Shia Islam on the infobox, but then I see that in other articles about other factions of the Syrian civil war other users try (and unfortunately finally could) to avoid putting the ideology. Examples? Liwaa al-Umma, a sunni jihadist group according to sources, but some users from what I called the "Pro-Arab Spring or Islamist Winter but only In Libya or Syria lobby" there are trying to avoid that fact. Perhaps I look so rude and radical to some, but I dont mind. Regards,--HCPUNXKID (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 11
editHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of mosques, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iranian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
edit Message added 17:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Faizan 17:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please get consensus for your edits at Prophet Muhammad, at the respective talk. You cannot change the statement which was agreed upon by consensus, and please don't remove the referenced info. If you think that they are unreliable references, feel free to discuss them at talk. Faizan 17:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
"Almost universally "
editWe had a fairly prolonged discussion on the talk page about this wording, and the consensus came out that the "almost universal" phrasing was right. The problem is that there is a large group that views the belief that Muhammad was the last prophet as being a part of the definition of being Muslim and think the phrasing should just be "Muslims believe that Muhammad was the last prophet". There are a lot of reliable sources that do just that. All of these "most people that consider themselves to be Muslim" phrasings are significantly different than what can be found in reliable sources and significantly overstate the controversy, as the actual percentage seems to be about 99%.—Kww(talk) 17:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Kww for clarifying the things to this user. Kww, you see, phrase like "people who identify themselves as X" is very derogatory for any large and respected community. We say doctors, we don't say people who identify themselves as doctors…".--AsceticRosé 17:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- There's nothing derogatory at all in the phrasing he has proposed, and if the percentages were different I might even endorse it. There are a lot of groups that really don't have a clear-cut, exact definition of who belongs to them and who does not. "Muslim" is one of those groups, being an aggregation of dozens of different groups that have different opinions as to which other groups belong. Self-identification is a way around that: "people who identify themselves as Muslim" evades the issue of what to do with people that believe themselves to be Muslim while others believe them not to be.—Kww(talk) 17:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Ijtihad
editI wanted to inquire about this edit. All Sunni schools of law allow Ijtihad, they just differ about how - for Shafi'is it's Qiyas, Malikis use Istislah and qiyas, Hanafis use qiyas and Istihsan, and so forth. Perhaps you could qualify the statement a bit more clearly as a reader new to the subject might take from the phrase that other Sunnis don't allow ijtihad. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
June 2013
edit Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Quranism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- 1-Arabic:<ref>Sahih Bukhari, vol. 7, p.9 (book of illness and medicine)</ref> 2-English version (slightly different translation which incorrectly states "the Prophet is seriously ill" instead of "
- *Ibn al-Abbas (?-688) A Mecan whose legal opinion derived from only the Quran and ''ra'y'' (individual judgement.<ref>Islamic Societies to the Nineteenth Century: A Global History, p 160, Ira
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that Salafism is a movement
editBut what did you mean by not necessarily? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- The word Salafi also means the first generation of Muslims, but i dont feel stronly about it though. Pass a Method talk 13:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it depends on context. "salaf" means ancestor or predecessor, and the verb "aslafa" means like when I forwarded some info to you previously. The term used for the early generations of Muslims is "as-salaf as-salih" salih meaning "righteous" as an honorific. The nisbah "salafi" is an attribution to the past or past ways, whereas the modern day movement from about 100 years ago was "as-salafiyyah" and prior to Muhammad Rashid Rida, I don't think "salafiyyah" was ever used as a noun - there is a research piece on this in Arabic (it obviously hasn't sat well with actual Salafis today). So there is the Salaf article and Salafi movement; regardless of the honesty or dishonesty in the movement calling itself that, perhaps we could include it with that name in order to make clear that it refers to the modern-day movement and not dead guys? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
RE: Interested?
editHi! Thanks for asking but I may politely decline because first of all I don't have much time to spare & secondly we are not on the same page. I have tried to communicate with the user some time back but most of the time the user ignores or tries to proof that he has more knowledge, experience, etc in related field and he is sort of authority (may be he actually is a research scholar or something) so free to make his judgments and draw inferences based on primary sources, many have tried to explain to the user that at WP it amounts to the violation of policy WP:OR but to no avail.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 09:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 23
editHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Early scholars of Islam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dark Ages (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding ibn Abbas
editHi Pass a Method. I don't think ibn Abbas should be included in the Notable Quranists section. Not only was he not notable for his opposition to hadith (although like most early Muslims, he probably did follow only the Quran), later hadith fabricaters posthumously attributed countless hadiths to him (like the "hadith of the pen and paper" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_Allah_ibn_Abbas#Muhammad.27s_statement and the "hadith of stoning", both ironically involving Umar who was an outspoken opponent of hadith). In his book "The Development of Exegesis in Early Islam: The Authenticity of Muslim Literature from the Formative Period," a non-Muslim scholar, Herbert Berg, suggested that most if not all the hadith/tafsir attributed to ibn Abbas was false. A Muslim scholar, Ibrahim Mustafa, has also questioned the hadith and tafsir attributed to him:
"Again the corruption of Bukhary appears in his acceptance of children who witnessed the Prophet as Sahaba, and he accepted their narration of Hadiths despite the fact that they were too little to realize what was going on at the time. Bukhary had many hadiths narrated by Abdullah Ibn Abbas who was a young child during the Prophet's life. He was never documented to accompany the Prophet as one of the Sahaba, but Bukhary made him one. Other children who narrated hadiths and accepted by Bukhary are Al-Nuaman Ibn Basheer (8 years old), Mahmoud Ibn Al-Rabee (5 years), Abdullah Ibn Al-Zubeer (9 years), Al-Hussein Ibn Ali (7 years), Al-Hassan Ibn Ali ( 8 years), Omar Ibn Aby Muslima ( 9 years)......etc. Who would accept to take his religion from these children ??!!!!!
"Because Bukhary identified himself with the Abbasyeen and politically was against the Talibeen (followers of Ali Ibn Abu-Talib), he gave in his book many pages to the hadiths of Abdullah Ibn Abbas, the grandfather of the Abbasyeens with whom Bukhary identified. Here we witness politics influencing what hadiths to report and what to omit (those praising Ali Ibn Abu Talib). Some of the Hadiths narrated by Ibn Abbas contradict the laws of the Quran , e.g. the laws of inheritance. To witness the political corruption of Bukhary in reporting hadiths that would serve his views and please his masters (Abbasyeen then) is to witness the corruption that God described 6:112-113 in action."
http://submission.org/Corruption_of_Religion.html
Melwood19 (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think Ziya Gökalp and Taha Hussein should be included in the Notable Quranists section either. Other than that website, there doesn't seem to be any information about Gokalp's position on hadith. The website just seems to arbitrarily slap the name quranist on a big, scary secularist like Gokalp the same way people slap the name communist, socialist or fascist on people they don't like. There is evidence that Taha Hussein was skeptical of hadith:
- "Methodology -Quranic teachings are primarily about morality and personal piety; accepts that Hadith have been forged for a number of reasons ;accepts well authenticated Hadith with regards to morality and personal piety if in accordance with Quran. -Role of Hadith is to explain in practical detail what Quran summarizes or alludes to (p.66) -sceptical regarding early Muslim historiography in general (p.90)"
- However, I see him as more of a hadith skeptic like Mahmud Abu Rayya and not a quranist like Muhammad Tawfiq Sidqi. I think that what distinguishes so-called quranists is that they reject hadith where it concerns religion (theology, ritual, etc.), though not necessarily where it concerns secular matters (history, philology,etc.) after they have subjected it to critical evaluation. Edip Yuksel wrote:
- "As for pure historical events that are isolated from their moral and religious implications, they are not part of the religion, and we don’t need them for our salvation. I never said “we should not read hadith.” In fact, we can study hadith books to get an approximate idea about the people and events of those times. We can even construct a “conjecture” about the history, without attributing them to God or his prophet. Please don’t forget that “history” is not immune to filtration, censorship and distortion by the ruling class. You can see many different versions of histories (!) regarding the era of early Islam . Just read Sunni and Shiite histories."
- I'm pretty sure Ziya Gokalp wasn't a quranist, but I'm a little ambivalant about Taha Hussein and Mahmud Abu Rayya. Melwood19 (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Akbar's religion
editSalutations, I'm confused whether to put Islam/Din-i-Ilahi or Din-i-Ilahi or just Islam in the Akbar article page infobox? From what I've read, it is clear that he was originally a not orthodox muslim and later founded Din-i-lahi which he followed? What do you think? Just Din-i-lahi seems the way to go, but at the same time, not many consider it a religion. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 3
editHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mother, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)