Talk:Din (Arabic)

message: First of all, Din is an Arabic term meaning religion.  What you're doing here (as Zora said) is just quoting Islamists and trying to claim that Islam itself can only exist as a combination of church and state. Second, you included long quotes that don't belong in an article, so I have shortened many of them.  Please read other articles on this encyclopedia to get a feel for when to include quotes.  Third, your section on the practicalities of Din is total original research and reads like an essay about your fears of Islam conquering secular societies.  Jinnah's quote had nothing to do with Din.Heraclius 22:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "What you're doing here (as Zora said) is just quoting Islamists and trying to claim that Islam itself can only exist as a combination of church and state." Uh. There is no seperation of church and state in Islam. Islam is the state and the church. The word "deen" encompasses both the religion of Islam as well the political ideology of Islam and as well as the governmental apparatus of the Islamic state. It is only in the post-9/11 world that people have even started using the neologism "Islamist" and no equivalent of this word can be found in Islamic terminology. "Islamist" is a controversial word, and while the article on Islamist may explain what it supposedly means, you cannot enforce this erroneous and controversial neologism onto the whole of Wikipedia. --Zeno of Elea 09:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Frankly, I sincerely hope that Islam can exist with religion and state separated.  I am quoting Islamic scholars, and reputable ones who have claimed that it cannot, and I have shown historical precedence of how muslims have implemented that practically.  Quotes are appropriate because look at Striver's and your reactions.  You are unwilling to even accept the words of the Muslim scholar's themselves!!!  Muslims do use "complete code of life".  What does it mean?  What does din mean?  I am merely showing what the muslims have said about it themselves since the early 1900's.  Show how those words affect practical affairs is not original research.  Even there I have cited and quoted actual muslim leaders.  If this makes you uncomfortable as a muslim, then think about what the muslims have been saying and doing and do something about it, instead of trying to suppress actual historical facts and information.  Please bring solid secondary sources that contradict the voices of the muslims that I quoted.  Zora stated two western sufi's and I took the trouble to find the original source, ibn Tamiyah of those statements.  I could have gone into original research and pointed out the key difference between ibn Tamiyah and keller but I did not.  Those who know the concepts can see the difference.  Nickbee 18:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems

message: Please tell me what sources do you not believe?  Those are the words of reputable muslims.  You may not like them or their words but that is what they said.  So instead of engaging in another revert war, why do you not answer and tell what are your objections?  Quoting is appropriate here, and your attitude shows why it is appropriate.  Where in Wiki policy does it say that appropriate quoting is verboten?  Why do you not cite your secondary sources and those can then be incorporated in the page? Nickbee 03:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nickbee, the dispute wasn't about your sources.  It was about your long, rambling paragraphs and the fact that it read like an essay.  When this gets unlocked, let's start editing little by little and by summarizing quotes.Heraclius 02:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

text: No, we shouldn't revert it to the way it was.  We should start from this version.Heraclius 15:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I think you mean "mediation".Heraclius 17:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no more to say to you on the Din page.  You just won't take no for an answer even when presented with Wiki policies that contradict your paragraphs.  I have called for third opinions as well.  You can place the article on RfC if you want and see if anyone responds, though I doubt many people will be interested.Heraclius 17:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please State your objections 

message: Nickbee wrote the page.  He cites solid sources.  No one disputes the sources.  Heraclius edits are cutting out real information about what the muslims say about their "complete code of life".  And the gall to accuse Nickbee of POV pushing!  Exmuslim 19:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exmuslim, you ARE nickbee.  Looking at your contribs, all you have done is add the FFI link and follow Nickbee around on his articles.Heraclius 19:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I am not nickbee.  Why do you not talk what is your problem with what Nickbee has posted?  Exmuslim 19:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nickbee, you truly dissapoint me.  Your edits will be reverted soon as other editors have been notified of this page.  I was hoping we could build up to a version we both agree on, but that doesn't seem to be the case.Heraclius 19:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Heraclius blatant attempt at cutting information

message: No ongoing discussion so I've unprotected. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: Just pointing to an article published today about this page . It looks unfairly harsh to me (appears to claim that Wikipedia's definition of Din is 13 words long), but it also seems to contain some useful information. Cormaggio @ 01:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that the disambiguation page was mistaken for the main article. Oh dear. I've added a link here to Deen. --Kizor 09:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article published about this page 

message: Totally inaccurate article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: this article is indeed crap. As any article containing sections entitled "according to scholars" is bound to be. I'll try to clean it up and put it on its feet some time. --dab (𒁳) 19:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is wrong. 'Din' does not mean 'religion, faith' in Hebrew. It means 'Law'.    

message: Having read the very entertaining, but somewhat long as well as frustrating, history of the controversy surrounding this article, I think I may be able to clean the article a little to clarify the main point of disagreement. In doing so, I'll also present the references systematically, and remove a few of the less formally reliable references, the contents of which are are adequately represented by the more reliable references anyway. I'll have a look at it now, and post my edit over the next day or so. Please feel free to edit, revert, comment, applaud, all you like, but remember that I'm only trying to help, and I really don't have an axe to grind - honestly folks, at least not on this occasion ;-)
Danny Dayus, 11.32pm (UTC), 1st August 2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannydayus (talk • contribs)  
You'll notice that the article appears shorter than before. This is because some of the previously used quotations have been placed in the overall prose of the article, and because the references are now placed in a reference list at the end. Also, some of the quotations have been deleted, not because I have a problem with them, but partly because they're less traceable (indeed some of the original sources no longer exist on the internet), and hence less reliable, and partly because the content of the quotations are at least implicit in those still used. 
Also, I've removed the section on deen in Sufism, because there's nothing particularly about the section's content that sets it apart from that referring to deen as used in mainstream Islam.
I also deleted the link to Deenport, a private website which has nothing about it to mark it out as having any particular relevance to the subject ... but whose general nature might be considered as evidence for deen being bigger than religion :-)
I left the reference to Muzdhab in because I'm pretty sure I've seen it before in this regard, but I can't find a reliable internet source for it, so I've placed a "citation needed" so that someone can do the reference in the future, should one be found.
Finally, I've removed the template asking for expert help. Considering that it's no more difficult than any other subject concerning a foreign word, so I'm assuming that this was connected with the revert war incidents (now over?).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannydayus (talk • contribs) 22:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Time for a Non-Controversial Tidy-Up

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Din (Arabic). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090317074105/http://www.learndeen.com/jm/deen-islam/aqueeda-a-tawheed/36/172-deen-ul-islam.html to http://www.learndeen.com/jm/deen-islam/aqueeda-a-tawheed/36/172-deen-ul-islam.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello, . It looks like we are mostly in agreement, except for a couple of points:
1) The unsourced speculation about etymology of Madina seems to be OR, since all the sources I've seen derive Madina from the root m-d-n. What was your rationale for reinstating this part?
2) Don't you think that discussing the etymologies of the three senses in separate paragraphs and the order in which we -- and the source we cite -- list them is a clearer way to organize this section?
3) The expression "Arab Christian religion" seems generally problematic, since we are referring to Arabic speakers of various Christian denominations and not "a religion". Substantively, the word din is one of the standard words for religion in Modern Standard Arabic, so it would be used by Arab speakers of all religions and no religion. When we say that it's used "in" a religion, we're implying something more about its religious usage, which would need to be sourced. An uncontroversial statement would be something like "used by Muslims and Arabic speakers generally". Eperoton (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey , I agree. Is it better now? Musicfan122 (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks fine, thanks. Eperoton (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes