Danrah

please use This page and don't use a language other than English

Re: Administrator's Noticeboard

I apologize for writing here, however the page your message above asks to be written on is on the Farsi Wikipedia, I wasn't sure how to approach that exactly.
This is about your comments on the Administrator's Noticeboard. If you have an issue with the edits of a certain user, then you should go to that user directly first. If you feel direct commenting with a user may not be fruitful, then the official Wikipedia:Mediation policy can be helpful. Going straight to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, however, with no attempt at discussion, is a bit irresponsible. I won't bite your hand off, you can discuss any issues with me like with any other human being. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. I am glad to hear from you and let me say up front that I hold no animosity over this, there is no reason to let an editing dispute get personal. So if anything I do say or have said seems that way, then please accept my apologies in advance. I'll try to cut to the chase real quick.

1. Regarding your references, there are two issues. The first was your insertion where you said that "most" scholars allow music and singing, when this has never been the case; we can thus infer that your reference is incorrect due to historical evidence. I am not commenting on which position is more correct as that is for the readers to decide for themselves, but the fact of the matter is that most Muslim scholars historically have ruled music being impermissible. The second issue are the ahaadeeth, neither of which actually proves permissibility. The first is regarding 'Aa'ishah witnessing young girls beating the duff, a type of drum, on the day of Eid and to the best of my knowledge this has been ruled as permissible for women on the day of Eid specifically; this is the position of the majority of scholars. It is not, however, a proof for the permissibility of music in general; check out Ibnul Qayyim's Madaarijus Saalikeen for the comments on the consensus of the scholars on that historically. As for the other hadeeth, this mentions the reciting of poetry regarding topics such as bravery and such and thus also isn't a proof for the permissibility of music. I am not here to convince you of my point of view, however - and this is the position of the majority of Muslim scholars, right or wrong - I am simply pointing out that these ahaadeeth are not widely accepted as proofs for music, so there is no contradiction.
2. Regarding your comments on "Wahhabism", it is ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY NOT ACCEPTABLE to be using that term. I am not writing in capital letters due to anger, just for emphasis. This is actually an issue we have dealt with a number of times on Wikipedia; Wahhabi is a religious slur for a group that does not actually exist. It's a catch all/bogeyman term and there is no actual group as intended by the term. This has been the general rule here, and as such calling other Muslims by that word is inappropriate and insulting. In addition, Saudia Arabia has Hanbalees, Shafi'is, Salafis, Sufis, Shi'a, and a myriad of other sects - to say that Saudi Arabians are "Wahhabi" is stereotyping and not very fair to people from there. As for Islam-QA, it's run by a guy living here in the West - he has no financial or administrative ties to Saudi Arabia, so I don't know why you would suggest that.
3. As for your addition of other points of view, then that is good, as all views should be represented. However, you did change the main body - saying that some Muslims just "believe that" Muhammad banned musical instruments in the provided hadeeth, when it isn't an issue of belief; that's what he said. It also isn't an issue of belief whether or not the major scholars of the past, including the four imams, forbade music - they did; that is fact, not belief.

Regardless, I am happy to see you here at the "negotiating table" so to speak. I will consent to the suggestion on my talk page on two conditions:

1. The word "believed that" is removed, because as I stated that the majority of Muslim scholars considered music impermissible is fact. We're not saying this is the correct position as that would be POV, we're just stating the fact.
2. That this is settled between you and I for now but that doesn't prevent other editors besides us from throwing their two cents in.

Please share your thoughts and let's see how soon we may get this resolved. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that version for now, thanks for the help! MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2008 (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) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Danrah. 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, Danrah. 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)