Kbahey

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~~~~

snoyes 02:12, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Regarding your recent claim about the circumcised state of mummies in the Circumcision article, I have read authors that dispute that claim. Do you know where it comes from? Shimmin 13:17, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

People who have examined the royal mummies of Egypt have consistently found that men were always circumcised. One exception is Ahmose (or Amosis). Check this link on the Theban Mummy Project where it says

"Ikram and Dodson note that Amosis, in distinction from other ancient Egyptian men, had not been circumcised".

Also, regarding Amenhotep II, the same site says

"he had been circumcised".

In contrast, in the page on a mummy of an unidentified boy they say:

"had not yet been circumcised".

All their work is referenced from scholarly publications that are peer reviewed by experts in the field.

Some have even speculated that the Hebrews took circumcision from the Egyptians, although it seems that it is more of a Semitic practice widespread in the region since antiquity.

It is important for all of us to distinguish between established scientifically proven facts, and denial of such facts for ideological bias.

Does that answer the question? -- KB 20:54, 2004 Apr 30 (UTC)

you stated on your edit of the Mu'tazili page "Rewrote the page in its entirity. Was inaccurate, confused Philosophy with Mutazilism, added more info)"... what do you mean? Mu'tazili are those who espouse the philosophy of Mutazilism no? User:Grenavitar

No. Mu'tazilism and Philosophers were separate schools of thought, with different adherents.

Although there is much borrowing and overlap from one group to the other, the schools of thought at the time had different views. On the extreme rational side of the spectrum, you have some philosophers (e.g. some views of Ibn Sina, and al-Farabi) whose view on revelation and religion as theology for the consumption of the masses, and the higher truth is attainable for the elite few without the need for prophets. Then you have Mutazilis who do try to reconcile faith and reason in theology, and accept revelation as a true source for theology, but refuse some other theologies on the basis of dialectics and logic. They also make reason the prime source, that revelation confirms, and use allegory for certain things, not a literal interpretation. Then you have Ash'aris who are still rational, but give precedence to revelation over reason, and are less allegorical. Then you have the Salafi school which is more literal, less rational.

Think of all this as a spectrum, with some overlap. Averroes (Ibn Rushd), Ibn Bajah (Avempace), Ibn Sina (Avicenna), ..etc. were all philosophers, and never Mu'tazilis. The original article confused Averroes as a Mu'tazili, which he never was.

The List of authors on Islam by period and_bias is listed as a NPOV issue. Since you created this page, could you try to fix it? Personally, I have trouble with understanding why you portray people like Bernard Lewis as biased, but others like John Esposito as neutral. Anyway,JeremyBicha 01:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC).Reply

Khitan

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Your claim that the Khitan converted to Islam has been challenged. They were clearly Buddhist. Please either come up with a legitimate source for your claim, or I will delete the reference when I do a rewrite/expansion of the article later this month. Ludahai 07:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

It seems I was mistaken, I re-read the chronicles and put a corrected summary. KB 20:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Monitor Lizard

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I changed the etymology of the name "monitor" and genus "varanus" for monitor lizards. The book on Varanids I've got says that the Arabic word "waran" (not "waral") means "monitor" (in the sense of to watch or watch over, I guess), and that the genus "varanus" is a lantinzed form the of the word "waran". I noticed you added the Arabic to the article in the first place. Do you happen to know if the arabic you added is still correct? I'm just hoping I didn't muck it up too badly! If so, I'm hoping you can fix the arabic! Thanks so much. Enuja 03:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Elohim

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

The Arabic word in Qur'an verses 9;8 and 9:10 is usually transcribed as illan (not "El") in scholarly transliterations, and is not usually considered to refer to divinity, and has no obvious relationship to the Hebrew word "El" (which does not have a double consonant in suffixed forms). AnonMoos 02:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Being a native Arabic speaker, I can say for sure that Illan is composed of two part. Il and the suffix -an, which is an i'rab. Depending on the position of a word in the sentence, it can have various suffixes, such as -an, -oon, ...etc. So it is definitely Il. User:Kbahey

Of course the -an ending is i`raab (i.e. tanwiin); however, that doesn't change the fact that the stem is "Ill-" with double consonant (i.e. shadda / tashdiid) and not either "El" (as you put in the article previously), or "Il" (as you're claiming now). AnonMoos 17:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Whether El or Il, it is just transliteration in English. In Arabic they are essentially the same, and Alif with a hamza below it plus a Lam. Moreover, if you can read Arabic, you can see that many scholars have stated it means God. The exact quotes are blow. KB 20:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you check a Quran tafsir, you will see that many scholars have said that Il means God. For example, check al-Tabari's tafsir (in Arabic).

Here is the quote:

واختلف أهل التأويل في تأويل قوله : { لا يرقبوا فيكم إلا ولا ذمة } فقال بعضهم : معناه : لا يراقبوا الله فيكم ولا عهدا . ذكر من قال ذلك : 12816 - حدثنا ابن وكيع , قال : ثنا أبي , عن سفيان , عن ابن أبي نجيح , عن مجاهد : { لا يرقبون في مؤمن إلا } 9 10 قال الله . 12817 - حدثني يعقوب , قال : ثنا ابن علية , عن سليمان , عن أبي مجلز , في قوله : { لا يرقبون في مؤمن إلا ولا ذمة } 9 10 قال : مثل قوله جبرائيل ميكائيل إسرافيل , كأنه يقال : يضاف " جبر " و " ميكا " و " إسراف " إلى " إيل " , يقول : عبد الله { لا يرقبون في مؤمن إلا } 9 10 كأنه يقول : لا يرقبون الله . * - حدثني محمد بن عبد الأعلى , قال : ثني محمد بن ثور , عن معمر , عن ابن أبي نجيح , عن مجاهد : { إلا ولا ذمة } لا يرقبون الله ولا غيره . وقال آخرون : الإل : القرابة . ذكر من قال ذلك : 12818 - حدثني المثنى , قال : ثنا عبد الله بن صالح , قال : ثني معاوية , عن علي , عن ابن عباس , قوله : { لا يرقبون في مؤمن إلا ولا ذمة } 9 10 يقول : قرابة ولا عهدا . وقوله : { وإن يظهروا عليكم لا يرقبوا فيكم إلا ولا ذمة } قال : الإل : يعني القرابة , والذمة : العهد . * - حدثني محمد بن سعد , قال : ثني أبي , قال : ثني عمي , قال : ثني أبي , عن أبيه , عن ابن عباس : { لا يرقبوا إلا ولا ذمة } الإل : القرابة , والذمة : العهد . يعني : أهل العهد من المشركين , يقول : ذمتهم . 12819 - حدثنا ابن وكيع , قال : ثنا أبو معاوية , وعيدة عن حوشب , عن الضحاك : الإل : القرابة . * - حدثنا أحمد بن إسحاق , قال : ثنا أبو أحمد , قال : ثنا محمد عن عبد الله , عن سلمة بن كهيل , عن عكرمة , عن ابن عباس : { لا يرقبون في مؤمن إلا ولا ذمة } قال : الإل : القرابة , والذمة : العهد . 12820 - حدثنا عن الحسين بن الفرج , قال : سمعت أبا معاذ . قال . أخبرنا عبيد بن سليمان , قال : سمعت الضحاك يقول في قوله : { لا يرقبون في مؤمن إلا ولا ذمة } الإل : القرابة , والذمة : الميثاق . 12821 - حدثني محمد بن الحسين , قال : ثنا أحمد بن المفضل , قال : ثنا أسباط , عن السدي : { كيف وإن يظهروا عليكم } المشركون , لا يرقبوا فيكم عهدا ولا قرابة ولا ميثاقا . وقال آخرون : معناه : الحلف . ذكر من قال ذلك : 12822 - حدثنا بشر بن معاذ , قال : ثنا يزيد , قال : ثنا سعيد , عن قتادة , قوله : { لا يرقبوا فيكم إلا ولا ذمة } قال : الإل : الحلف , والذمة : العهد . وقال آخرون : الإل : هو العهد ; ولكنه كرر لما اختلف اللفظان وإن كان معناهما واحدا . ذكر من قال ذلك : 12823 - حدثني محمد بن عمرو , قال : ثنا أبو عاصم , قال . ثنا عيسى , عن ابن أبي نجيح , عن مجاهد : { إلا } قال : عهدا . 12824 - حدثني يونس , قال : أخبرنا ابن وهب , قال. قال ابن زيد , في قوله : { لا يرقبوا فيكم إلا ولا ذمة } قال : لا يرقبوا فيكم عهدا ولا ذمة . قال : إحداهما من صاحبتها كهيئة " غفور رحيم " , قال : فالكلمة واحدة وهي تفترق , قال : والعهد هو الذمة . * - حدثنا ابن وكيع , قال : ثنا أبي , عن أبيه , عن خصيف , عن مجاهد { ولا ذمة } قال : العهد . * - حدثني الحارث , قال : ثنا عبد العزيز , قال. ثنا قيس , عن خصيف , عن مجاهد : { ولا ذمة } قال : الذمة العهد . قال أبو جعفر : وأولى الأقوال في ذلك بالصواب أن يقال : إن الله تعالى ذكره أخبر عن هؤلاء المشركين الذين أمر نبيه والمؤمنين بقتلهم بعد انسلاخ الأشهر الحرم وحصرهم والقعود لهم على كل مرصد أنهم لو ظهروا على المؤمنين لم يرقبوا فيهم إلا , والإل : اسم يشتمل على معان ثلاثة : وهي العهد والعقد , والحلف , والقرابة , وهو أيضا بمعنى الله . فإذ كانت الكلمة تشمل هذه المعاني الثلاثة , ولم يكن الله خص من ذلك معنى دون معنى , فالصواب أن يعم ذلك كما عم بها جل ثناؤه معانيها الثلاثة , فيقال : لا يرقبون في مؤمن الله , ولا قرابة , ولا عهدا , ولا ميثاقا . ومن الدلالة على أنه يكون بمعنى القرابة قول ابن مقبل : أفسد الناس خلوف خلفوا قطعوا الإل وأعراق الرحيم بمعنى : قطعوا القرابة ; وقول حسان بن ثابت : لعمرك إن إلك من قريش كإل السقب من رأل النعام وأما معناه : إذا كان بمعنى العهد . فقول القائل : وجدناهم كاذبا إلهم وذو الإل والعهد لا يكذب وقد زعم بعض من ينسب إلى معرفة كلام العرب من البصريين , أن الإل والعهد والميثاق واليمين واحد , وأن الذمة في هذا الموضع : التذمم ممن لا عهد له , والجمع : ذمم . وكان ابن إسحاق يقول : عنى بهذه الآية : أهل العهد العام . 12825 - حدثنا ابن حميد , قال : ثنا سلمة , عن ابن إسحاق : { كيف وإن يظهروا عليكم } أي المشركون الذين لا عهد لهم إلى مدة من أهل العهد العام ; { لا يرقبوا فيكم إلا ولا ذمة }

By contrast, the Arabic word 'ilah (إلاه or إله) has an absolutely perfect historical cognate relationship with Hebrew Eloah (taking into account the Canaanite long [a] to long [o] vowel shift, and the later insertion of "furtive" [a] vowels). AnonMoos 02:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, ilah is just god in Arabic, any god. User:Kbahey

Yes, and that's the exact meaning of "Eloah" in Hebrew.

Unfortunately, the Qur'anic word Illan does not have any obvious linguistic cognate relationship with Hebrew, and even if it did turn out to have such a relationship (something which needs to be demonstrated), it would be cognate to El, not to Elohim, so that the relevance of Qur'an verses 9:8 and 9:10 to article Elohim is absolutely zero. AnonMoos 17:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

If we take the possibility of Elohim being a plural of Eloah, and that Eloah could be derived from El, then the Quran 9:8 and 9:10 uses a form of that. So, yes, Elohim is not the same, but all of Elohim, El and Illan come from the same root. KB 20:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pasquale Carpino, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deglazing. 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) 09:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pad Thai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese. 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) 09:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Birmingham Quran Manuscript

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Birmingham Quran manuscript. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

This is not original research. This is a verbatim quotation from an email reply from Dr David Thomas, professor at Birmingham University. Here are the questions and his answers (preceded by the "DT" prefix):

Q:Has the testing methodology taking into account the ink as well as the parchment?

DT: No, only a tiny corner of the parchment. The test involves the destruction of the object, and we did not want to lose any text.

Q: The reason I ask about the dating of the ink is this: What is the possibility that this manuscript is a palimpsest? Could the parchment be indeed from 645AD, but the ink was washed away and the parchment recycled at a later date?

DT: There are usually signs of underwriting in palimpsests, though there are none here. It is theoretically possible that the ink, and therefore, the Qur'an, was written on parchment that had been prepared earlier, but our assumption is that this parchment was prepared expressly for this Qur'an and therefore the writing would have been applied very soon after the surface was prepared.

Q: Caliph Othman's unification of the Quran was around 650 AD (he died in 656 AD). Has there been any text variance analysis on this document to see if it is a pre-Othmanic or post-Othmanic variant of the Quran text? For example, similar to the work on Sanaa 1 Manuscript.

DT: This analysis was the subject of Alba Fedeli's PhD thesis (which involved the research that led to the discovery of this date). There are some minor variants from the standard 'Uthmanic text, though in these fragments nothing significant.

KB 15:22 EDT 23 July 2015

That's a textbook case of OR. Also, you should not be publishing others' emails here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

This email has nothing private on it. It is academic research by a public university after all. Its content is a clarification on the matter at hand, by an academic and the subject matter expert. If you are interested, I can forward it to you. Email me at my user name at the big search company. KB 20:30, EDT 23 July 2015 (EDT)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kbahey. 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.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, Kbahey. 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)Reply