User talk:Freewit

September 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Muhammad appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. JForget 20:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

Hello, JForget,

I cannot understand what you are talking about. I've used a reference from a site which has "exploded" or "proved" that Mohammed was not predicted in the Hindu scriptures. Could you please explain how this does not confirm with Wikipedia's non-neutral view? Furthermore, if you read the article it clearly explains the following points:

1. The word "Mohammed" and "Maha-Madh" are clearly unrelated. 2. Similarly, the words "Abraham" and "Brahma" are also unrelated.

What other "proof" do we need? This site has given a very detailed article and has further explained how linguistics in both languages have been twisted to prove that Mohammed has been indeed predicted in the Hindu scriptures. The site: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Prasadh51229.htm

I also fail to understand the misleading TOC which has been inserted in the Mohammed article. The TOC says: "Views according to Hindu Scriptures". I'm afraid that it is actually saying that without doubt Mohammed has been predicted in the Hindu scriptures.

I would be very happy if you could explain why my edit was rejected.freewit (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Well the biggest issue is that you have removed a large section of sourced content to replaced it with a much shorter version with only one source. When you make major edits to an article or section like you've did can you please write a summary in the edit summary box below the box containing the article text. It would help understand your edits. Extensive content removal can be perceived as vandalism by some editors especially if there is no explanation for the removal/or no discussion in the article's talk page. If the content you add is neutral and has a reliable source also but not coming from a debate/rebuttal or editorial, it can be added but please do not removed the existing content without discussion first on the talk page.

Feel free to discuss the issue and your two points on the article's talk page. I am unfortunately not an expert on the subject so I cannot provide a view on Muhammed and Maha Madh.

Also you've wrote in your edit "However, these claims have been proved to be wrong" as the last phrase. I'm not sure if that bit is clear maybe you can specify that by adding a couple of sentences on it if it is neutral. Maybe it is why the previous editor taught it was not neutral. But my biggest issue was the content removal without explanation.

I could have simply placed a warning on content removal instead. --JForget 17:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

New Response (a long one! Please bear with me)

Thanks for your reply. However, I need a few clarifications before I can proceed:

1. There is nothing wrong with "neutrality". I've always loved Wikipedia's point of neutrality. But some of the arguments placed here seem to be very confusing. For starters, the "Bhavishya Purana" which has "verses" about Mohammed, was heavily edited during the 19th century. Therefore, one cannot take passages from this book seriously. Here is a quote from this website:http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Al-Kadhi/r07.html#hindu

"But of course, for a document that has seen revisions up till the 19th century and a country once governed by the Muslim Moghuls, one would be surprised if "Muhammad" is not mentioned by name. The Purana even contains modern words and names like "Queen Victoria", "Sunday", "February" and "Sixty"

A word on Sanskrit vocabulary. The word "Mlecha" actually means "a speaker of foreign tongues". Furthermore "He who eats cow's meat, and speaks a lot against shastras and he, who is also devoid of all forms of spiritual practice, is called a mlechha". I don't think Mohammed fits into this picture.

To clarify let me quote the original verse which has the word "Ahmad":

"Ahamiddhi pituṣpari medhamṛtasya jagrabha l Ahaṃ sūrya ivājrani ll (8/6/10)"

In plain English: "I from my Father have received deep knowledge of the Holy Law: I was born like unto the Sun (Tr: ibid, p- 396)."

In this verse the word ahamiddhi(aham+iddhi) stands for “I have received”. Notice how close it sounds to "Ahamad"!(ref:http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1913)

In conclusion, the subtopic "View according to Hindu Scriptures" should be removed or modified accordingly.I hope that I have been clear. Please let me know how exactly I can provide a new write-up for this article and change it accordingly. Hoping to hear from you soon.freewit (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that their is a FAQ page on Muhammad. Please see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. You can discuss about your concerns about this section on the talk page of Muhammad which is a place to discuss about ways to improve the article or discuss or questions some of the content or proposes to add some material that can either prove the contrary (or support) of a theory, a thesis, an aspect, a view, etc or to remove all or parts of material that is questionable or considered as original research, false or unsourced (or with dubious sources).

Sure plenty of people who knows better about the subject then me. Otherwise as I said before if the material you provided is from a reliable source and neutral. This page (since it has multiple tags in the talk page and has already over 20 general discussion archived pages) should have frequent activity and probably several experts on the subject who could discuss your concerns related to the section before (if a there is an agreement) a section gets removed. --JForget 15:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it was you who left a message on my talk page. It was just signed with an IP number. I'm sorry I did not reply sooner. I suffered a computer breakdown and only now have (brief) access to the internet. Deleting the whole section is fine if you explain it in your edit summary and on the talk page, and link to the Reliable Sources board discussion. Paul B (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Dasavatar

I have added a comment agreeing with your point of view regarding Dasavatara of VIshnu. Wikidas is good editor and prime mover of that article; let's see how he adjusts it before ripping out the passages entirely. --nemonoman (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Frewit, I'm sorry I haven't had time to comment on this for a few days. I think I need to look again at the book that Wikidas is using. Paul B (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)