User talk:Starwarp2k2

Welcome!

Hello, Starwarp2k2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 23:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey[edit]

Why do you keep deleting my articles? --Qasqass 04:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I am not "deleting" persay, but rather I am substantially overhauling various articles, especially "halal", "dhabiha", and "comparison of kashrut and dhabiha halal".

I have moved around alot of information, and any information that I have not found to be incorrect has been kept. If you cannot find it where you placed it, it may be in one of the other articles. If it is not in one of the other articles, it is on my computer waiting to be editted, verified, cited, and reinserted into one of the aforementioned articles.

Which articles, may I ask, are you referring to?Starwarp2k2 04:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for ur reply[edit]

thanks for ur reply. i wasnt looking for an authoritative answer as i know that under the common consensus, chicken and all are deemed as halaal. but when i studied the quran, it clearly mentions that all carnivorous animals are haraam. and since hens eat small organisms, so ideally it should have been haraam. conventional quran has liberally diluted the quran and as u rightly said that now a days only animal to be considered as haraam is swine.so i was looking for someone who can confirm or deny this ON THE BASIS OF QURAN. so if u have read quran urself, or someone in ur vicinity has read it, then please help me. or if u can confirm it by any of ur sources than i shall really be greatful for u. this is not something i am asking through wikipedia, its a personal request. nids 22:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the kind reply. so u r saying that quran does not mention about carnivorous as haraam. it only forbids swine. may be for the second part, can i say that hadith, atleast, bans chicken. because fanged beast of prey cannot be a matter of POV. it either has talons or it does not have them. and as far as i know, cock does have talons, and it does eat small organisms. Please take notice that i am not askin the devout muslims to leave eating cock. this is what i m asking just for my personal knowledge. As a matter of fact, i live in India, where the traditional Islam is heavily influenced by Sufism. even though it is forbidden in both Quran and Hadith, but it is accepted globally.

so cock will be eaten by all Muslims and they will continue to follow Sufi saints (in India). and nobody is going to argue on it.

i just thought that it would be better to ask someone else too who has read Quran and other religious epics of Islam. Since when i read them, i found enough evidence of Cock as haraam. (Actually i didnt read Quran and Hadith differently, since in india both are accepted as divine. and also i read a much abridged version)

nids 10:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God vs. Allah[edit]

Hi - thanks for the link on God vs. Allah, I hope it creates cosistency in the articles. Also, I was just reading you discussion (above) on halal food. I just wanted to point out a small, but important fact - a carnivore literally means "meat eater". When chickens or cocks eat "small organisms" they are not consuming meat per say, it is probably more appropriate to consider these organisms as "bacteria" or other life forms that are present in their food that they can not avoid.
Cheers, Ozzykhan 14:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particulary have any reservations of chickens being un-Halal, but I know in here in Calgary, where Halal food is hard to find in a grocery store, the muslim community considers "farm fed" or "grain fed" chicked to be 'more' halal than non-classified or "animal by product fed" chicken (though non of the chickens available are ever classified as "animal by-product fed"!!)

I think I'll try to find some information on this, and the worm/small organism bit and then include it in the merger of the Halal and Islamic food articles!

Thanks Ozzykhan 17:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Halaal[edit]

Thank you for your reply. Urine is najis and (najasat) unlawful in Islam. Refer to najis for citation. (However there is exception for medication purpose.)

In other form, urine consider dirty in most culture and the example is basicaly giving a parallel (for non muslim), that what is not seen is not totally gone. ie. would you eat bread made from urine, even if you are non muslim and it is non restricted for you (ie in Fear Factor). Some would, but most would certainly decline. In tha same basis, even alcohol is gone, it is not clean (in religious contex). The same issue is for filtered urine, is it clean (in religious contex)? The answer is not unless it is more that 2 kolah (I lazy to find the translation/measurement) and have no smell and no color.

Back to the main issues, the example is a reply that I got when asking for coment from Imam (religious teacher). It certainly clear to me the sprit of it, thus I put it in there. This mean although the alcohol is gone is is not yet purified, and cannot be knowingly eaten. Hope this will clarified the issues. Yosri 09:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hai there again, Well, actually just like I put it there, alcohol and urine is both najis. People who say alcohol evaporated and make it clean, by the same argument is saying that using urine is ok as it evaporated. I do not think I need to find any citation on this, because this is fact, and common logic. * ps, for citation of urine is najis, it is stated in Wiki najis. Yosri 12:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hai again, I am quite please that you are very willing to learn about this.

Alcohol and urine share same classification as both is najis. As such, using one is similar to the other (according to religious teaching). Citation for this (alcohol and urine is najis) is stated in najis article.

Regarding to animals not slaughtered acording to proscribe rite, it is considered as carrion "bangkai" and is najis therefore not fit for consumpsion (by religion rule). Any claim that state otherwise woule require citation, not the other way around.

Of course, there are muslim who do otherwise and also muslim who consume alcohol. But it does not change the rule (hukum), and it is not for human to forgive.

"Maiyatah" signifies an animal which has died a natural death or which has not been slaughtered in the manner prescribed by the Law of the Shariah. It is not only the flesh of the swine, which we are forbidden to eat, but every part of it is unclean and the Muslims are prohibited to make use of it.

Referance

The dead body of an animal whose meat is haraam to eat, and whose blood does not gush, like, a snake, is Pak but does not become halal by slaughtering.

Referance

http://www.al-islam.org/laws/hunting.html

??. I thought I have given all citation, in terms of urine and alcohol is najis, and mixing it with food convert all of it to najis; and any meat not slaughter became carrion (I never heard reciting Basmalah over carrion convert the meat into halal meat). As such, the onus should be on the other party to provide citation that state otherwise. This is according to Wiki standard. Yosri 04:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Please note that your sources in Wiki Halal did not provide any verification. In fact, "Verification needed" is clearly stated in the article (second basmalah), whereelse, I provide Pakistan goverment web site for my verification. It even from Pakistan, wherelse I from Malaysia. This show that meat not slaughter in Islamic rite (sembelih) is consider carrion worldwide. Article from Wiki is considered second hand at best, what more if it is unsupported. There is no issues of this being my personal opinion. Please note I provide supporting argument for both issues from other web site.

I was unable to verify http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/fiqh/haram_meat.html as such unable to comment if this is goverment sponsored point of view of just deviant teaching. But, I certainly never heared it before, and based on the halal article "Some believe that the " what is define as some? 2 person, 3 person, or which state? Is there any goverment sponsered web site supporting this? From Wiki guidelines "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."

Hope you understand my sceptic point of view. I have come across web site by Christian fundementalis dressed as Islamic web site, therefore have come to question anything non-goverment sponsored web site.Yosri 12:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hai Starwarp2k2, Can you provide link here (172)? Being in Malaysia, halal meat is not an issues, but being a student in US last time, I can relate with the problem. But never have I encounter such fatwa. Yosri 05:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hai Starwarp2k2, Noted. BTW, before eating, all muslim is stress upon to recite "Bismilah" during Phrophet time until today [1]. Even then, the animals still need to be slaughtered in certain rite. As such, I find it strange any muslim would claim as above. ie. why then the need for slaughter rites if you going to recite Bismilah before every meal. That is why I reject any such claim as deviance as there is no basis in the claims. Yosri 11:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Starwarp2k2, In my ref, reciting "Bismillah" is done before every meal, but still the practice of slaughter animals is done in prescribe rite. As such, I wonder if this claim, reciting "Bismillah" before eating carrion meat make it ok as a new teaching/deviant; one which is not in original teaching. There are muslim consuming alcohol, this does not make it halal. We do talk about Islamic law, and not what muslim is doing? Yosri 12:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Starwarp2k2, I beg to differ. There are 4 major scholar (known as Mazahab) on Islamic law. All those law is based on studies on Al Quran and Hadis. Any interpertation by them is fully supported by scholarship studies. On the other hand, there have been and always been people who is going to reinteprate the law, some according their whimp and fancies, and some by finding supporting Al Quran and Hadis to do so. Akhbar the Great, Janin, Singh, Qadyani, to say some the least, but they never claim to be ISLAMIC LAW, so it's clear they are not. I take exception to those that claim to represent Islamic law, without any supporting proof. Yosri 00:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Starwarp2k2, It is irelevant what I consider to be Islamic Law, as it already been laid out by 4 school of tought Islamic jurisprudence. You certainly would not want view by Jim Jones of Guyana World to be said as representing view on Christianity on mass sucide. And how do you measure significant group. 50 people or 50% of the said group. Because Jim Jones certainly more than 50 people. I have no problem of having significant group view represented. But representing "minority /significant view" as majority is misrepresentation. If it is majority view, it would be as one of the 4 major scholar, and should be stated as such, ie. according to Hanbali Scholar. Yosri 00:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Starwarp2k2, We both agreed not to generalised, as such, general claims agreed by all muslim (ie. pork is haram) is ok, but otherwise, each view should carry disclaimer " .. as followed by Sunni/Shiah/muslim in Sweden/US/Europe etc.". This would avoid generalisation and help to determine the validity of such claims. Yosri 04:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Starwarp2k2, I have check your link and glad that is being presented clear manner. Thank you for your understanding. Regards Yosri 00:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halal[edit]

Could you provide a source for that type? I've never heard of it. And do people who follow that philosophy say that a Muslim can eat pork if they say bismillah? BhaiSaab ^talk 00:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I never heard about this that if they say bismillah they can eat halal animals that is not slaughter according to prescribe rite. If this is the case, there is no need for the rite itself. However, in case of emergency (no food, disaster, famine) muslim can ate any meat, just enough to avoid death, not as daily food. This is according to Shafie teaching. Yosri 12:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've never really heard of this second Bismillah argument before, and would prefer it if you could find a source before adding it. BhaiSaab ^talk 00:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salam. Well if you can't find a source, doesn't that mean it's an insignificant opinion? BhaiSaab ^talk 02:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The unsourced tag is meant to encourage editors to insert citations when citations are probably available. I don't think any possible citations are available for the "second bismillah halal." BhaiSaab ^talk 03:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dhabiha Halal[edit]

Apologies for that. I thought the contents weren't there - there's too many sections titled Dhabiha halal and I looked at the wrong one. I've corrected it although the whole article could do with some cleanup. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 18:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} Hello, I'm looking for what to do regarding the content dispute on Halal. There have been multiple reverts on this page by both parties (I'm one party). I've tried to talk to the other party repeatedly, but they have not been receptive. What should be done? Thanks!Starwarp2k2 03:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you've tried talking to them, the next step in dispute resolution would probably be to back away from it for a little while - maybe by giving it a rest for a short time, things will calm down and you'll be able to discuss things again. Failing that, you might try asking someone who's not currently involved to get a third opinion. From there, just keep going through WP:DR until things get smoothed over. The most important thing is to keep a cool head, which I'm sure you know. Good luck, and happy editing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]