I'm going to snip all over the place, because half of this isn't even relevant.
You alleged that I had 'strong ties' with Tariqabjotu, yet my response to this myth becomes irrelevant?
On 12/15/06, IAJ < zzvash@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Jimmy, Parker Peters.
<snip>
"to the point where it's almost two articles side by side"
That is patently false, and a total exaggeration. You're treating the content dispute with a heavy dose of bad faith. An attempt by myself to merge the two versions together in compromise seems to you a disguised revert. I don't believe that merits a response.
After looking back, you and a group were reverting to "your" version, and others were reverting to another, constantly, on that page. Small "changes" happened here and there, but the fact remains there were two very divergent versions going on.
Not at all.
Incidentally, RunedChozo did not consist of the 'other' side of the debate.
Nobody reverted to RunedChozo when they could have,
Arrow740 did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93...
So did Proabivouac.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93...
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=92... - or how about this:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=92... - Proabivouac reverts to Alecmconroy instead of one forward to RunedChozo, where the only diff between the two was the insertion of that OR. or; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=92... where Proabivouac again reverts to three versions back to Arrow instead of two versions back to RunedChozo, where the diff between the two is that same OR (minus a lead tag).
You're out of line, mister.
Spare me the rhetoric, please.
At least some scholars and researchers, not to mention prominent Muslim
politicians, seem to disagree with your assessment.
You're missing the point: the sources he points to, which are over half a dozen centuries old (and to some, arguably primary sources), do not substantiate the preceding sentence. You're also overstating a rather irrelevant selection of quotes from individuals, most of whom either don't support what you're postulating, or should probably stick to their field of specialisation.
At best, his insertion was an editorialised
intepretation of events listed in those biographies (and thus still OR).
At worst, it was a deliberate attempt to misrepresent sources.
I don't know if it's an appropriate use of the mailing list to engage in content disputes, but I'll respond to the other stuff here too.
The sources you provide present an opinion of the Treaty of Hudaybiyya, I'm not convinced that this is a substantial scholarly opinion, for reasons
I
will outline. According to you Lewis describes the murder of a Muslim as
the casus belli for attack. Well... uh.. yeah, I think that's what the
article
states. The murder *is* what some scholars consider as the reason for
the
attack, because it is the murder which nullified the treaty. Does it
imply
deliberate searching by Muhammad to look for a reason, or mere convenience? Not entirely apparent from that small quote you provide.
Who are these people you're quoting? Is Yasir Arafat a scholarly,
reliable
source? No. He does not have any qualifications in Islamic studies or
Arab
history, last I checked. He's not considered an authority.
Those who voted for him would seem to disagree. And he wouldn't just come up with statements like that in a vacuum, either: they come from somewhere in his Muslim upbringing.
That's non-sequitur. His political career has nothing to with whether he is a scholar in Islamic studies. That he's a Muslim and a politician doesn't automatically make him an authority in any academic field. The concept is pretty simple: for articles related to a particular topic, you consult qualified experts in that field. That is, amazingly, how an encyclopaedia works. Please do try to understand that.
Why, then, does
his opinion matter here?
For the same reason Dr. Mahathir Mohammed's opinion would matter here, or the opinion of a Saudi Prince, or the President of Iran, or the Ayatollah...
In wiki articles related to classical Arab history or even Islam in general, no they don't matter. We don't base historical narratives on the assertions of non-historians.
I'm not sure who "MA Khan" is. Enlighten me as to
his educational history, his qualifications, the fields he has worked
in.
We have this nice encyclopedia. Perhaps you've heard of it? It's an excellent place to start.
'MA Khan' isn't much to go by, link me to the relevant article please so we can see how qualified he is to write on Arab/Islamic history.
Who is "John Glubb" A British military officer? Exactly what is his
scholarly pedigree in the field of Islamic studies?? The opinions of
such
people, it seems, are completely expendable considering that we write an encyclopaedia with reliable, relevant sources.
See above.
Sorry, but nothing about a military officer educated in not a single discipline of academia (let alone Islamic studies) suggests that he becomes a reliable source for anything concerning history or Islam at all, much less classic Arab/Islamic history.
"The comment by Yassir Arafat is most relevant, since it directly indicates that Muslim scholarly opinion sees the Meccan treaty as not a peaceful treaty, but one to buy time to build up military force."
It doesn't seem you're acquainted with Muslim scholarship then.
I am, but you seem insistent that the scholarship of any non-Muslims be discounted, and that anything that contradicts you also be discounted out of hand, so I really can't say anything more to you.
That's not even a proper response to my comment. Since when were politicians representative of academic scholarship of any field?
As for this red herring, what has someone's being a non-Muslim got to do with their academic education and reputation in Islamic studies (and thus usability on Wikipedia)? This, as well as that "strong ties" farce, are vivid examples of how you have been ready to assume bad faith whenever and wherever you can.
And now that I've caught you not bothering to check, and claiming two people
didn't revert to RunedChozo who clearly did... Have a Nice Day.
Get it right: Alecmconroy didn't revert to RunedChozo. Proabivouac reverted to Arrow (who reverted to RunedChozo), yet he also twice avoided reverting to RunedChozo, opting to revert back one version more.
Your 'research' is less than
convincing, I'm afraid.
Your handwaving arguments aren't holding up, see above.
Unfortunately, your empty rhetoric plus rather poor understanding of what constitutes a reliable source on Wikipedia forces me to announce that I will not respond to you any further, though I doubt not for a moment that you will desire the last say. Good bye.