Talk:Jihad/Archive 4

Talk page is totally useless

This 'talk page' is totally useless. I see little meaningful discussion about the topic of "jihad."

A person can make an argument that Islam is inherently authoritarian, as the first respondent suggests in his -- frankly, incoherent -- post. As he seems to tacitly acknowledge, and then quickly casts to the side, an identical argument -- correction: perhaps a stronger argument -- can be made about Christianity. One must only point to the forced conversion of the European pagans, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch hunts, the blood libel, the invasion and conquest of the Americas -- all explicitly in the name of Christianity. And the violence continues. We have massacres in Uganda, carried out in the name of Christianity, violent Phalangists who adhere to Christianity, white supremacists and fundamentalists murdering abortion providers, all in the name of Christ. Even in the West, which has recently turned "secular," despicable policies are often sold to the public with barely concealed allusions to Christianity, or the Judeo-Christian tradition, or whatever.

Anybody who makes claims such as, "Christianity says THIS," or "Islam says THAT," simply doesn't know what they are talking about. There is not one Christianity or one Islam or one Judaism, but a collection of radically different and often contradictory interpretations of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. I find it difficult to believe that a "substantial" percentage of Dutch Muslims support the death penalty for people who criticize Islam. I would agree that, for (actually, quite recent) historical reasons, there is a problem with fundamentalism in the Muslim world; but the problem is with religious fanaticism, not Islam.

But again, this has absolutely nothing to do with "jihad." Until someone can come up with a real discussion that addresses the issue of "jihad," I'm going to delete the "warning." - Joe pythag3@yahoo.de

Yes, remove this talk page. It is filled with useless drivel---Jim, unity_of_one@hotmail.com

fdhfdhf

Reverted vast landscapes of anonymous POV edits

... that reinserted, for instance, the myth that the Qur'an promises 72 virgins, and deleted, for instance, the Qur'an's actual teachings on matters of warfare ... much of this has been debated at length. See the archives. Instead of hijacking the article anonymously, please see talk page or discuss specific edits to specific sections here. BrandonYusufToropov 17:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edits by 165.247.42.41

Most of these edits seem excessively POV and should be reverted. But some of them do add new information. I was going to just mass revert his changes but I have not been working on this article at all so I thought it would be better to point it out and let others debate what to change back. The anonymous author seems to be of the opinion that suicide bombing and terrorism against civilians is much more popular among Muslims than it really is, and even makes the claim that there are no "liberal" Muslims anywhere. I think a lot of it should be reverted. Also the poll he points to should be clarified -- these are Muslim Palestinians on the West Bank being interviewed, not Muslims around the world. I think the article had a lot of POV problems before, but these edits make it a lot worse. --csloat 18:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Still more undiscussed anonymous edits

Hi there 80.58.4.42 -- consider this relevant quote, which struck me as appropriate and not, perhaps taken into account in your undiscussed anonymous edit:

Jihad, therefore, does not mean every single battle fought by any Middle-Eastern soldier, who may be anything from a Marxist to a member of a private bodyguard, and not a martyr for God. Many battles have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. The Qur'an is quite clear on the limits that define jihad .... Women children, and the old and the sick are not to be harmed ...

There are a lot of interesting names for the phenomenon you're writing about, but Jihad is not one of them, regardless of what Western media sources may have to say about it.

Thanks again for stopping in 80.58.4.42, I hope to hear more from you here on the talk page BrandonYusufToropov 18:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jihad today includes murder of innocent civilians

It would be funny if it wasn't sad to read the apologetic twistings by Torporov, some self-proclaimed Russian Jew who converted to Catholicism and then Islam. As with most late in life converts to any religion, he sees his newfound religion as perfect, and he refuses to acknowledge the ugliness in any of its religious practice, instead falling back repeatedly on the argument that in effect is "No, even though Al Qaeda refers to its Jihad against 'Crusaders and Jews', even though Egyptian Islamic Jihad refers over and over again to Jihad in its murderous attacks against innocent people, and even though Al Qaeda sympathizers repeatedly invoke Jihad when murdering innocent people, Jihad is really only what I Mr. Torporov say it is". That reminds me of Communists who used to say "The Soviet Union was not Communist! Mao's China was not Communist! There is no need to discuss the Soviet Union and Mao's China when talking about Communism!"

There are many great aspects to Islam, as with most any religion that can survive for hundreds of years. But, it does no good to pretend there are not problems. Just like it is foolish and dangerous for the Catholic Church to deny that there are more than a few priests throughout the world (not just in the USA, but across Europe, Latin America, Africa, and Asia too) who violate their priestly vows by engaging in sexual abuse of children, so too is it foolish and dangerous to deny that Jihad is invoked by more than a few Muslims today to justify the murder of innocent civilians. No one has argued that most Catholics or most Catholic priests abuse children or condone child abuse. No one has argued that most Muslims condone the murderous self-proclaimed Jihad of Al Qaeda, the many different terror groups that call themselves Islamic Jihad, and similar Islamist terror groups that murder innocent civilians. However, Torporov either wants to pretend these groups and their wide bases of support do not exist (and they are certainly very relevant in any discussion of "Jihad"), or he wants to pretend that since he feels that Islam cannot justify murder that these groups are actually engaging in justifiable defensive moves and not murder, or he wants to pretend that these groups exist but they have not committed any violent acts at all.

No one edited out the detailed description of the history of Jihad. That was left in clear format for all to see. My opinion (which is not directly relevant to this discussion) is that Islam can and will continue to grow and improve in its commonly practiced forms, just as all religions that survive do. The Catholic Church has many ugly episodes in its past, yet in the past century has begun to make apologetic overtures towards many of the people that it wronged in the past, i.e., Orthodox Christians, Jews, and Muslims. I believe that in the decades to come, there will be courageous Muslim leaders with truly mass followings (not state-appointed leaders who the masses ignore or don't take seriously) who express clear condemnation and apologies for the wrong done by too many terror groups in the name of Islam and Jihad. Note that such courageous Muslim leaders would not be under any obligation to issue such apoligies -- only the terrorists and their supporters can be held accountable. But just like there are no Catholics alive who were involved in the brutality of the Crusades, yet the Catholic Church today expresses apologies and regrets of the evil actions of those who acted in its name, I believe courageous Muslim leaders with true mass followings will behave similarly in great gestures of peace, reconciliation, and apology.

The above unsigned garbage was written by "Peter chehabi" who I think is the same user as Enviroknot, who I think is also the jerk who was making these changes anonymously. User account "Peter chehabi appears to have been created exclusively to continue vandalizing this page.

And, just for the record, many Muslim organizations condemn terrorism.--csloat 22:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And just for the record, you obviously didn't read any of the additions to the article. There is no evidence that those Muslim organizations represent large segments of Muslims anywhere. The condemnations out of Egyptian leaders are all state-appointed leaders. If you grew up in the region or follow the region in the news you would be well aware that the man on the street does not give a fig what the government's lackeys say. Also, to be very clear, it seems that you are "jumping the gun". Nowhere in the article does it say that majorities of Muslims support terror against innocents. It seems that you are being close-minded and not reading the article.

Why the whitewashing of Jihad, terror, and murder of innocents?

No one has deleted the lengthy discussion of the history of jihad.

That lengthy discussion is still there. But, what has been added are issues of modern relevance and modern context. It does not say anywhere that most Muslims believe jihad involves violence against innocents or even terrorist murders of innocent civilians. The additions show that this is how the term has been used by Al Qaeda and other terror groups such as the Islamic Jihad groups. Note that these terror groups all have Wikipedia entries.

No one is saying that all Muslims favor murder. No one is saying that any Muslims favor murder of innocents except for those Muslims in groups like Al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad. There are evil Muslims in this world just like there are evil Catholics, evil Hindus, evil Jews, evil atheists, evil Buddhists, evil Protestants, evil Orthodox Christians, etc. No one has said that the evil among any of those groups are a majority. There is plenty of context and information in the article all about the historical derivation of jihad and the way some Muslims condemn the terror attacks of groups like Al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad.

Stop being paranoid, PeterChehabi is not Environot

I don't give a fig who Envirowhatever is.

Ya'ani, ana lubnani. That good enough for you? I think that whoever is making those accusations is the spammer or vandal, since instead of responding on the issue of Jihad and terror in the modern world, the person(s) sidesteps the issue.

Well, if you're not Envirowhatever, it's awful curious that you created your user ID just today, specifically to edit this article, and you jump right into an edit war head first and talk smack on a discussion page without signing your posts. You're pretty bold, for your first day on Wikipedia. --csloat 02:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I doubt this guy is Enviroknot.Yuber^(talk) 22:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Read the opening sentence:

"In the Western media and among Islamic fundamentalist movements, the word jihad has gained connotations and meanings that in some cases are narrower and and in some cases different from its original meaning."

That is a pretty fair and balanced sentence. It specifically says that Western media and Islamic fundamentalist movemements have given "connotations and meanings" to Jihad that are narrower or different from its original meaning. It does not say that mainstream Muslims accept these meanings, and in fact the rest of the article still gives a very clear history and discussion of Jihad.

I'm willing to stop mass reverting this article and deal with specific edits -- I don't disagree with this particular sentence at all, but many of the edits seem to make exactly the point that you claim is not being said here.--csloat 02:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding a supposed "Edit War"

Sorry, no "edit war" here unless Sloat and BrandonYusufToropov are trying to have one. Toropov's POV pushing and rampant deletion of content doesn't stand.

Incidentally, while he's correct above in claiming that the Koran itself doesn't "promise" 72 Virgins, he sidesteps the issue because the Hadith clearly do and because the Koran still promises an unnamed number of either "virgins" or "angels dependent on your translation (along with, of course, a permanent and un-softening erection). linkEnviroknot 00:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You do realize you quoted an article that talks about Houri not being virgins... not to mention there are other interpretations of it. gren 06:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please note that Enviroknot is a SOCKPUPPET of Kainthe Scion, against whom proceedings have been undertaken. BrandonYusufToropov 12:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That kind of pathetic accusation is your usual bad faith, Toropov.Enviroknot 12:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi , just for my personal information , is there any hadeeth about this un-softening eternal erection , or is it just Syuooti . Farhansher 18:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The reference of the un-softening erection is from the renowned Koranic commentator Al-Suyuti who died in 1505: “the penis of the Elected never softens. The erection is eternal; the sensation that you feel each time you make love is utterly delicious and out of this world, and were you to experience it in this world you would faint. Each chosen one will marry seventy houris, besides the women he married on earth, and all will have appetizing vaginas.”

So its not in Hadeeth....!!! Farhansher 20:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it is. Al-Suyuti read it somewhere in his Koranic studies. Since in 1505 they did not spend much time actually referencing things properly, and because there are multiple versions of Hadith by different authors, knowing which Hadith he is referring to is difficult.

POV tag

Some of the edits are rather troubling. For instance "Even if the death of a martyr in a military operation is certain, many Muslims consider the act martyrdom rather than suicide." changing "Islamic militants" to "many Muslims" is a problem... in fact, neither are good ways... it's true that more than Islamic militants do support such missions but "many Muslims"? Many is an incredibly subjective word. In a class of 26, 15 students is many students... but in the population of about a billion Muslims what is many? Is 2,000,000 or are you trying to imply that maybe 100,000,000 support it? The truth is, we don't know how many support it. It's just conjecture. How about something like "an unknown number of Muslims are supportive"... why? because that's true and isn't misleading. That's just the first problem I have with this article... trying to change size descriptors to suit one's POV is not good. gren 04:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stop the edit war!

I put up a compromise version. If you want to revert those passages then justify the reversions. The claims I deleted are bogus. csloat 05:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Obviously this page needs to be locked down, and Enviroknot should be banned from editing all pages, as well as the IPs he used to continue vandalizing this page. Anyone know how to go about doing this? This is absurd.csloat 18:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Considering that none of us are Enviroknot, that's quite a load of horse shit you're spouting. Besides, Wikipedia policy says remove personal attacks. Knock the vandalism off, Slowt.

It's not a personal attack. It's evidence of violation of Wikipedia policy. It's curious that anonymous IPs keep vandalizing the talk page and the main page, always with the same edits.

Look, if you want to make edits please defend them. You have not defended them. Some of the claims are outrageous; that is why they keep getting erased. Present support for your points rather than going on an immature little jihad to shape this page to your POV. You might learn that your fellow wikipedians are actually quite reasonable about making changes that make sense. But simply calling everyone who disagrees with you an "Islamist vandal" is stupid and immature. And, if you're not Environot, please sign your damn posts.--csloat 19:07, 13 Jun 2005

"None of us"? Careful. Or is that the royal "we," a la Queen Victoria? BrandonYusufToropov 19:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also move to protect this page and will support any move that bans user enviroknot and his/her band of anonymous IPs from editing this page. He/she is becoming nothing more than a nuisance to wikipedia editors and also a hypocrit as he/she makes personal attacks against others while saying that they should not make any against him/her. ALSO enviroknot and anon IPs, you do NOT have the right to edit other users messages in the talk page and making personal attacks against BrandonYusufToropov is not solving any disputes. --Anonymous editor 19:38, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, an Islamist sockpuppet pops up and demands that someone who's barely involved in this be banned. Go home Toropov and take your sockpuppet "Anonymous editor" with you.

Intervention

Ok guys. I've watched this revert war go back and forth even on this talk page. Let's sit down and figure some stuff out. Firstly I'm gonna assume a few things:

• Everyone has read Wikipedia:Civility
• Everyone has read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and understood it
• Everyone agrees that a continuing revert war is pointless

So what are we gonna do about it? Perhaps we could start by everyone stating what they think is wrong and propose a solution to fix it. If you could be so kind as to fill me in on history if needed, I would really apprechiate it. The mic is yours gentlemen. Inter\^Echo 19:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to protect the article, as the edit war seems to just continue. Can we have a friendly chat about it gentlemen? Inter\^Echo 19:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Edits of note:

1. - However, there are no liberal Muslim movements that have significant power in any Muslim states, nor is it clear that such liberal Muslim movements have significant followings in any Muslim states. This is a matter of public record, documented and verified. Every Islamic-based state, and even states that are not Islamic but have enough of an Islamic presence that they have significant political power, is currently backsliding or worse on human rights and in the introduction of barbaric Sharia law. Islamists wish to remove this sentence because it presents an accurate picture of the current political situation in regard to Jihad.

1. - A discussion of the military dimensions of jihad within Islam follows below. - the word in question is "below"; I think this merely has been caught up in the reverts, and is irrelevant to the discussion.

1. - They are also likely to emphasize Islamic traditions that endorse tolerance for other religious and social groups. - Islamists seem to object to the "and social" section, because it exposes the fact that the war type of Jihad is as much about societal factors (such as the subjugation of certain tribes by other tribes as Mohammed did in his time) as it is about strictly "defending Dar-Al-Islam"(the domain of Islam) and subduing/converting "Dar Al-Harb (the domain of war).

1. - Self-referencing tags in line 69: assuming these are incidental and not caught up in the discussion.

1. - Notably, the brutal terrorist tactics used by Jihad groups against Israel, the United States, and European Union member states, the Philippines, and non-Muslim persons in Muslims states suh as Egypt and Turkey, has not led to a large outcry against the religious legitimacy of such groups. - Islamists object to the phrasing "brutal terrorist tactics"... I would believe that the word "terrorist" should probably be there, though "brutal" is never likely to pass POV muster.

1. - Some Muslims believe that a person who dies as a part of struggle against oppression as a shahid (religious martyr) is assured a place in Jannah (Paradise). Accounts in the hadith and the Qur'an of the exceptional rewards specifically awaiting martyrs... - Islamist insertion is the word "Some"; inarguable as a point, as the Koran specifically states reward for all who fight in wars that are definitively Jihad. The weasel word "some" makes the sentence inaccurate.

1. - The U.S. military's 2003 invasion of Iraq has sparked violent retaliation by a wide variety of opponents, some of who are relatively secular in orientation, others of whom are Islamist. Some of the groups have captured and murdered Iraqis and foreigners, as well as deliberately targeting innocent, non-combatant Iraqi civilians in murderous bombing and shooting attacks that kill/has killed up to several dozen people at a time. The beheading of civilians, even those involved with the United States military, has been denounced by some Islamic religious leaders, although it is often noted that these leaders have tended to be government-appointed leaders and are not necessarily reflective of the mass opinion in their communities or the opinions of popularly supported Islamic religious leaders. For example, in the Muslim world, the killing of Nick Berg was condemned by some. Scholars at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, state-controlled/run university, issued a declaration of condemnation [1], as did numerous Muslim groups in the West including the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Shiite Islamist group Hezbollah and Palestinian nationalist group Hamas denounced the murder, although at the same time both groups supported and carried out similar acts of violence and murder against innocent, non-combatant civilians. Hezbollah issued a statement calling it a "horrible act that does an immense wrong to Islam and Muslims by a group which falsely pretends to follow the precepts of the religion of pardon." - The Islamist version pretty much amounts to a whitewash here - as above, it is not hard to find rhetorical denunciations of "terrorism" (especially those which quickly add "but the Jews are the real terrorists"), but it is entirely hard to find sincere ones and even harder to find those with which the greater Muslim population actually agrees.

1. - Some Iraqi conservative and fundamentalist religious leaders also denounced the killing, although it is uncertain how wide their following is. Furthermore, the Iraqi religious leaders who supported the execution generally do not preach in Western languages or speak to Western language media. Muthanna al-Dhari, a member of the Board of Muslim Clergy, said the act "does disservice to our religion and our cause. Even if he was military personnel he should be treated as a prisoner who, according to Shari'ah, must not be killed." Iyaad Samarrai of the Islamic Party commented "This is absolutely wrong. Islam does prohibit the killing or the maltreatment of prisoners." [2] - Questions of how large a following Clerics who produce statements intended for consumption for Western press are entirely valid, as is the point that the most extreme tend NOT to speak in Western languages at all.

1. - === The Western Media === In the Western media and among Islamic fundamentalist movements, the word Jihad has gained connotations and meanings that in some cases are narrower and and in some cases different from its original meaning. Many non-Muslims initial, and in some cases only, exposure to the word Jihad has come from the activities of Al-Qaeda and its affiliates, Abu Sayyaf,Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other similar organizations that used the word Jihad in the context of attacks on and murders of non-combatant civilians as well as support for groups engaging in such activities. -- This exists in both versions, but keeps being moved by Islamists to its own section. Not sure why. Assuming it got caught up in the reversions, but I think it doesn't deserve its own section and should be in the main section.

There you have it. Mostly it's a NPOV issue; there are a number of determined Islamists who are determined that they should be able to whitewash this article, by removing factual information. This isn't the first article they have targeted.

Thank you. I will read this tomorrow and formulate some thoughts. If anyone else has something to add, I would like to see it. Inter\^Echo 21:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A revert war over the talk page? Seeing as I am involved in this case now I will leave the administrative duties to others. Let's hope this calms down a bit tomorrow and perhaps then we can do something constructive. Inter\^Echo 22:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's because there ARE no "liberal Muslims." I should know. I used to BE a Muslim. My parents came from Saudi Arabia. They tried to sell me in marriage to a 30 year old man when I was 12. I can't ever go home and I have to hide from my family because they will kill me for the "shame" I supposedly brought on the family when I left Islam.

This is what Mohammed's mysogynistic religion is all about. Keeping women barefoot and pregnant, nothing more than brood mares. Toropov and "Anonymous" should go rot in hell.

I don't think you can generalize your experience to over a billion people. It also has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is the notion of jihad, not of women's rights; there are other pages to discuss that. the stuff I removed from the page had to do with such generalizations about Muslims and terrorism. It also had to do with the popularity of certain viewpoints in Iraq. It had nothing to do with your experience as a 12 year old in Saudi Arabia, which I think everyone here will agree about. By the way, please sign your posts with a user name.--csloat 03:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh really, Envirokno? You lived in Saudi Arabia and you were a girl? Then you probably speak Arabic don't you? Let's see if you understand this:

Kess ummak ya ibn el kalb. Mus zib abook. Please respond asap.Yuber^(talk) 03:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wash your mouth out with soap, you mysoginistic Islamist fuck.

38.112.194.37, You have vandalized Mel's page, removed my NPOV label and add POV rants like the above post wishing hell on other users. There are liberal Muslims... I know some, you got owned apparently, too bad, but it doesn't makes your point any more valid gren 04:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guys, this anonymous person who posted the Saudi Arabia story is obviously another sockpuppet/anon IP of enviroknot. HE WAS NEVER MUSLIM. I have been following his posts and he has posted this story in so many locations. He is just making up this story about him 'being a muslim' because he wants to insult me (user Anonymous editor) who is a convert to Islam and has been reverting the vandalism that enviroknot has done to Islam-related articles. It is truly sad to see that people are making personal attacks against other editors. I believe admin should step in and stop enviroknot's personal attacks and vandalism edits.

Many attacks by enviroknot and his anon IPs/sockpuppets can be seen on his user page, user SlimVirgin's page [3], prev versions of Anon editor's talk/user page, and in the edit history of the Saudi Arabia article. Peter is also another enviroknot puppet as his posts follow wherever enviroknot goes. How often do you change gender, enviro? -- Anonymous editor

Peter is not enviroknot's sockpuppet, please don't label him as one. His tone is totally different and he has given proof that he is a native Lebanese.Yuber^(talk) 04:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Peter must realize, I (Anonymous editor) am not whitewashing anything. I was simply separating the article about what the west commonly considers to be Jihad from the 'general rule' because frankly what the west or extremists consider Jihad to be is not the general rule of Islam. Also there are liberals in every religion and thus there are liberals in Islam, the western media just does not give as much attention to them, but rather focuses on some extreme groups. I don't think we need the western media POV to be reflected in the entire article. Anonymous editor

No, "Anonymous editor" is just a mysogynistic Islamist fuck like Yuber who tries to whitewash that racist religion.At least Peter has the decency to tell the truth about Islam rather than whitewashing it. It's so hard to find honorable men in a world full of Islamist shits like you.

I'll ignore the previous statement because I know that in enviroknot's opinion anything that is factual is considered 'whitewashing'. If it were up to him this entire article would be right-wing christian propaganda. I'll just leave him to his own abnormally large ego and personal attacks. -- Anonymous editor

And if it were up to you, the whole of Wikipedia would be one big advertisement saying "convert to Islam it's great, look you get four wives and everything." Fuck that and fuck you, you mysogynistic creep.

I am saddened that you find offence that I converted to Islam. Unlike you, I looked through the bigotry and found the real meaning behind Islam which is quite contrary to the personal attacks you are making against it. I don't like extremism in any religion either and you should realize that you are being nothing more than an extremist. -- Anonymous editor

Islam is slavery of women. Nothing more and nothing less. I HAVE BEEN THERE AND LEFT, I KNOW MORE ABOUT IT THAN YOU EVER WILL. That you fell for it is an indication that you have a weak mind, that your wife fell for it indicates that she's even worse and needs to be clued in. Go rot in hell with Mohammed.

More personal attacks. Hey, enviroknot, maybe you like people running around like prostitutes but in Islam we have rules for life. If that is considered slavery, then that shows how misinformed you are. 4 times as many women convert to Islam then men (as did my wife). The fact that you are telling me to 'go rot in hell' and that lying you were 'once muslim' is further indication of how stupidly pathetic and racist you have become that you would resort to personal attacks and lies. Keep your fingers crossed, truly one day you will indeed 'rot in hell'. -- Anonymous editor

Look you Islamist fuck, I left Islam because I wanted to be EQUAL TO ANY MALE. Your wife may have fun being nothing but a stupid brood mare, I wanted more out of life. "4 times as many women convert to Islam then men" is pure bullshit and you know it. You just lost any and all capability to claim ANY moral high ground when you started the usual Islamist line about how any strong woman is a "prostitute." Go rot in hell and I hope your wife comes to her senses and chops your dick off in the middle of the night.

Gals !!!! dont U ever ever chop off your husbands' dick in the middle of the night . Lol...atlast this islamphobe has come down to what he/she/it really is , a racist , illeterate , dum bigot !!! . Btw , being a Saudi , your translation of Yuber's sentence was wrong . That also makes U a liar & hypocrite . So just shut the fuck up & go back to the sewers U belong . Also say hi to your gurus from my side . Farhansher 05:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Man, enviroknot, let it go. The truth is out and you were never muslim in the first place. This is getting old really fast and your stories about 'leaving Islam' (written through your anon IPs), though hilariously pathetic, are clearly one of your new inventions for your anti-Islamic POV. Perhaps why you so eagerly play various inter-gender roles in your stories is because your wife has already 'chopped off' your thing. Btw, I think you misinterpreted my last message.'strong women'? Please learn to understand english.You keep repeating the same words over and over: hell and islamist, and don't worry maybe by repeating yourself over and over again, you in your mind will find this moral higher ground that you are looking for, I mean it sure makes you sound intelligent (sarcasm). Your repetitive use of profanity clearly shows how pathetic you are. Perhaps what you mean by 'wanting more out of life' is going through Islam-related articles on an encyclopedia and vandalizing them. Surely, you are the only extremist( and racist) here and you still keep saying that I am a so-called "Islamist". If to you that is what I am then so be it, I rather be that then the pathetic mindless, racist vandal that you are. -- Anonymous editor