Misplaced Pages

Archive panel
• — 25 September 2006 • — 2 November 2006 • — 1 January 2007 • — 1 January 2007 • — 27 January 2007 • — 25 March 2007 • — 21 April 2007 • — 21 June 2007 • — 27 July 2007 • — 16 August 2007 • • — 5 November 2007 • — 7 January 2008 •

Haykal

You have said a number of times that Spencer is not a reliable source because his stuff is not peer reviewed and he doesnt have any special education in Islam.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 06:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You're still having doubts? What's the reason for this Matt57?Bless sins (talk) 06:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to know what Itaq says. --Matt57 06:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I need to look at the issue of Haykal in closer detail. According to Andrew Rippin (Muslims: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, Routledge, 2005, p. 204), Haykal is "the most significant and the most studied of all contemporary biographers" of Muhammad. If you look through scholarly works, you'll see that Haykal's work is frequently discussed in scholarly literature (Rippin says, p. 206,: "Haykal's work, The Life of Muhammad, published as a book in 1935, has been extensively read, translated and studied, both in a popular way as well as in scholarly analysis."). Of course, it is known that there's an apologetic leaning in areas where he discusses Western attacks on Muhammad, as Rippin notes. At the same time, presenting an opinion by itself does not disqualify the reliability of a source. Spencer's opinion itself isn't the reason he's deemed unreliable. It is the fact that he is decried by experts on Islamic studies for lacking the competence, and that he doesn't subsequently appear to meet WP:RS.

So, I'm currently undecided. I am satisfied, however, that many of Haykal's most significant arguments have been relayed and attributed to him in other appropriate sources. ITAQALLAH 17:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see the uncertainty, I feel the same way. Inspite of him being recommended by this professor and other bullet points which Bless Sins pointed here, I dont think he satisfies this important part of WP:RS:

- This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.

But the bullet points Bless Sins brought up (Britannica recommended him) could maybe satisfy this part:

-Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are preferred.

So if we go by strict requirements (peer reviewed, academic journals) which we frequently do for other sources, you know, then he doesnt satisfy it.

I might start a little section on WP project Islam on sources by the way, which would list unacceptable websites and say, sources that are not accepted here to make it easy to do cleanup when the time comes. There are some websites which are bieng linked e.g. and there are lots of other bad links as well. Listing these and others in a clean up list would help. People can add other links too if they want. This will eventually keep the quality up. --Matt57 16:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, peer review is important. I suppose the question is whether peer review was a standard academic practice back then (I've just been looking at this). If it wasn't, then it might be too much to expect it from these books from pre-1950s. Nowadays, of course, peer review is a standard facet of academic discipline. ITAQALLAH 18:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

islamic peace

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. blessZikrullah (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)ings wassalam.

Responded on your talk page. ITAQALLAH 20:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Rewriting Husayn ibn Ali

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)

I'll have a look in a while to see if I can add anything. Regards, ITAQALLAH 18:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

new article - qur'an miracles list

Hi, would you be interested to participate in the discussion going here ? (Imad marie (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC))

Sources

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 02:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability has nothing to do with reliability.

Matt, I have always maintained that the source must be reliable for it to be used on any page of Misplaced Pages. At the same time, it's quite clear that if information about what particular people said is transmitted through a reliable source, then that source may be used to report so-and-so's views. This is the case with Luther - he isn't a reliable source, but a reliable source has seen it fit to relay specific attacks of his - these we can relay as a reliable source has relayed it. This is also the case with Spencer and anyone else - whatever critiques they make that are actually relayed by reliable sources may merit inclusion. What I and others object to is consulting polemical sources directly, such as directly using Spencer's books or blogs. That isn't acceptable.

About Haykal, you need to read my comments again, or perhaps I didn't express myself clearly. I said that the very least we can do is mention what other reliable sources have said about Haykal's view on this or that. The question surrounds whether Haykal himself is reliable. But this is what I'm sure I said in my above comment (edit: please refer to my 9 Jan 17:54 UTC comment on this page, last sentence). ITAQALLAH 18:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus

I am happy with "According to Islamic texts". --Be happy!! (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad at Medina

Do you have that book? Arrow740 (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. ITAQALLAH 20:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

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)

Day of Ashura

Salam Alaykum

The day after tomorrow is Ashura and the article is on the main page of wikipedia. 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)

Many parts of the article need sourcing and copyediting. I think it's a little unbalanced towards Shi'i views and practices too, but that's just my opinion. ITAQALLAH 19:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Because most of the participants are Shia. Of course I coworked with a Sunni to improve it as you can see in the talk page.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Please explain about this edit in the talk page of the article. As I know many Sunnis participated in commemoration especially in Iran as well as Indian sub-continent. During 14 and 15th centuries it was usual in Iran to mourn for Imam Hussayn and Uthman.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Muslim psychology DYK

On 19 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Muslim psychology, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Origin and Development of Quran

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).

Responded. ITAQALLAH 23:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(Raaid (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)) Thankyou for welcoming me! I'm certainly enjoying my time at Misplaced Pages and it has helped me in various ways. From Pakistan-India wars to Valentich's disappearance, Misplaced Pages has kept me informed throughout!

Thank you once again! Raaid

No problem. :) ITAQALLAH 23:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Islamonline.net

Salam Alaykum

It's written in Misplaced Pages: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)

Probably best not to use it as a source. Whether it should be used as an external link might be up for further discussion (it might vary depending on which page is linked to). ITAQALLAH 20:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

keep neutral

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)