User talk:LissanX - Knowledge (XXG)

2939:اَلْحُسَيْنُ. As the first بن is in apposition with الحسين, it should also be in the nominative, as بْنُ. Next, علي is the second element of a prothetic compound (إِضَافَةٌ) and must consequently be in the genitive, as عَلِيِّ. To be clear, if this were the end of the name, it would be عَلِيٍّ, with nunation, but as there is another بن, it is not nunated. The second بن is in apposition with عَلِيِّ, which is in the genitive, so it too should be in the genitive, as بْنِ. Next, أَبِي is the second element of a prothetic compound and must consequently be in the genitive, as أَبِي, which you did not dispute. Finally, طالب is the second element of a prothetic compound and must consequently be in the genitive, as طَالِبٍ; if you doubt that the name طَالِبٌ is a triptote, I refer you again to 1839: 2419:(الاقامة). Of course, the meaning of this word is multivalent, as mentionned in the article. But the very idea of a visa (as it is the case in the Egyptian arabic) derives probably itself from the action (masdar IV) of staying ('iqâma). It is an extension of one of the primary meanings of the word, that is to say "the action of staying and/or residing in a country" (Same thing for . The question is that - as Michel Neyreneuf and Ghalib Al-Hakkak say in 749:

which are from the areas bordering Armenia and Azerbaijan. None of this is my point of view, nor is it my personal theory. These are facts that deserve to be legitimately represented. Regardless, my intention is not to get into some kind of editing conflict. I have added two citations at the end of the sentence. There was an error due to an extra ref tag. I am not very Wiki-savy, so can you please explain what you specifically mean by 'inline citation'?

5509: 5418: 2149: 1066: 4695: 4140:, who was actually a student of Ali b. Abi Talib, the father of al-Husayn b. Ali, prior to the latter’s passing away. The primary difference between the two systems was that al-Du'ali’s system wrote harakah as dots and i'jam as strokes, while al-Farahidi‘a system was reversed and harakah were written as stroke and i'jam as dots. There were also differences in where Dhammah was written, and how harakah were written on letters like ʾAlif. 5591: 5095: 1716:

article, with his own written works being cited, to which Sistani's office responded. There are no misrepresentations. Attempting to say it’s a “Shia Muslim” issue is the libelous misrepresentation, either because you are completely ignorant about the subject and know nothing about Shia Islam; or because you’re intentionally attempting to propagate a falsified narrative. I can provided evidence of all this whenever needed. —

529: 972: 5803: 605: 496: 5711: 5623: 2217: 1342: 4518:). That’s how pronunciation is known – you actually have to know the rules of Arabic. The only time a Waslah is silent is when it is preceded by a vowel from a preceding word, which replaces the vowel of the Waslah. It is the common behavior of Arabic for sentences to be written with the original diacritics, even if those diacritics change based on the reading rules. For instance, in your example of 1997: 992: 5345: 2074: 633: 2825: 1738: 1651: 1550: 1159: 803: 2438:? Moreover, the word refers clearly to an ACTION, since it is the action of calling for prayer - and then the action of making the prayer. This detail is not that important, in my view :-) - but it's a nice intellectual challenge - and I'm quite sure that, ON A GRAMMATICAL LEVEL, this word IS a masdar, BUT POSSIBLY USED AS A SUBSTANTIVE. 5013: 4925:

making your edits is just unacceptable, especially for someone with your history of editwarring (which I've just discovered). If when you return to editing today or tomorrow you try to move it back, I'll block you for editwarring (note that you don't have to exceed 3RR to be blocked for editwarring). I've read

3335:. This is for the most part correct, the primary reason I reverted it was because I thought that the infobox of the article would be better with a more readable version without special characters. However, there are some mistakes with it. Firstly, you used the word "ibn" when you changed the Arabic to 4672:

While I agree that the term is sometimes used in current English, it was mostly used in earlier years when Islam was being widely discussed in the media, and has mostly been replaced with the more modern spelling of 'Shia'. The term 'Shi'ite' or 'Shiite', as well 'Sunnite', 'Kharijite', etc. all use

2873:

Hello Bukhari, how did I treat it as if I were the owner of the page? You arbitrarily removed content, including vowel diacritics and the word 'Shia' from the religion of a Shia Imam. Doing so did not improve the page, though I only reverted your removal of vowels. Other users have since re-added the

1715:

It is not referring to “simply Shia Muslims”. The Hawzah in Iraq is headed and administered by Sistani, and to a far lesser extent Mohammad Yaqoobi. The practice is not administered in Iran or Lebanon, whose Hawzahs and religious laws are headed by other Marjas. Sistani was the primary feature in the

748:

are also a Turkic tribe, the name of which is not adopted by ethnic Persians, let alone with the Turkic -lou suffix. Earlier in the same section, it also explicitly states that his mother Noush-Afarin Ayromlou was originally a Muslim from Georgia. The Muslim population of Georgia is only 10%, most of

4457:

Respectfully, I believe you are inaccurate in your understanding of the Waslah diacritic. A Waslah does not just indicate silence, it is an abstract diacritic which is pronounced differently based on the context of of the word it’s on. As you know, a Waslah is added when the word begins with a Sukun

3974:

So, to call the conventions I am following “false Arabic” is to reject the common usage of some of the most authoritative Western scholars of Classical Arabic. If you have evidence from earlier sources contradicting them on these or other points, I would greatly appreciate if you could share it. I

2048:

on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit

1043:

743:

people. Ethnic Persians don’t adopt this Turkish form of name, which is why Abbas-Ali Dadash-Beyg was called 'Abbas-Ali Khan' when addressed in Persian. Khan is also of Turkic origin but is used by ethnic Persians as well, unlike Beyg and Ayromlou. The feminine version of Beygom is sometimes used as

5043:

No one hates Sunni scholars, and I didn’t write that content. I undid your arbitrary wiping of sourced content, which you have now revealed is because of some kind of personal crusade. If you have any legitimate reasons to remove the content, not that you just don’t like it, then bring it up on the

4643:

2. ‘Shiite’ is not an archaic term, but very common in current English, and found as a current term in major dictionaries. I suspect the original editor of this add-on might have some idea that anything but a direct transliteration of the Arabic source is ‘wrong’ (I wonder if they feel the same way

1699:

article as it clearly misrepresents the source material, making it seem that the clerics that are engaged in misconduct are Sistani's followers rather than simply being Shia Muslims. This is a serious BLP violation as well as being a case of plagiarism, I will refer to the BLP noticeboard shall you

3851:

is internally inconsistent in many places. I would certainly be interested to dig deeper to find an Arabic source for the rules described by Wright and Lane and apparently followed also by Howell, but unless you can find a reliable authority who argues to the contrary, I see no reason to question

849:

The only possible ambiguity is in his father Abbas-Ali Dadash-Beyg. Not only his name, but also his and his fathers positions in Turkish dominated Qajar politics, as well as their story of settling in Alasht, Savad Kooh, Mazandaran have information suggesting Azeri origins. Of course that alone is

4983:

I didn’t realize I had to explain breaking headers and changing the poorly written lede which started the article with “x is based in the word...” required such a meticulous explanation. If you want to arbitrarily block me because I fixed a header by adding “==” and changed the wording of a lede,

3680:

we know today did not exist in the classical period and from what I understand were not even invented until after the death of al-Ḥusayn b. ‘Ali. Of course, there is some anachronism in the way we write Classical Arabic today (as with the way we write other classical languages, such as Latin and

2798:

Yes, of course, Ciringacenjunga, I totally agree about ism fa'l. And I agree also about your analysis; in my previous answer, I just wanted to say that there are several types of ism (which often derive from masdars, by the way) but in the case of iqâma, it wasn't a purely "nominal" word -but you

1457:

We have a great deal of problem with what appears to be Persian users Community that wants to push their view and block other information, There are phrases in this Article that ment to change clear historical records and don't even has a Refrence , any request for Refrence being removed by these

4924:

but it was a very bad idea to do that without a new move request. To make things worse, you are misusing edit summaries (when you do you them, which is not often enough) - saying that an editor has made "shockingly bad edits" without explanation of what was wrong with them or indeed why you were

3661:

is largely a translation of a German work by Caspari from the first half of the Nineteenth Century AD, whereas Knowledge (XXG) says the Nahḍah began in the late Nineteenth Century. Regardless, the corruption of the Arabic language began no later than the lifetimes of the Companions in the First

2727:

Thank you for those interesting answers, and sorry for answering so late! I didn't get any notification on fr.wikipedia :-(( (although I've followed LissanX's page of discussion), and I thought nobody bothers about the question. I was wrong!! Well, I must say that I'm close to Ciringacenjunga's

4008:

Firstly, sorry for the late response. I have been pre-occupied with work stuff and though I intended to reply to you I haven’t and the time to sit down and write a response. I also want to thank you for the thought-provoking discussion. Not to sound immodest, but it's refreshing discussing with

2950:

Finally, I note that I also made some changes to the romanization, but your stated objection was to the Arabic. There is a lot more subjectivity involved in romanization, so I am not as concerned about changing the romanization, but I am prepared to explain those changes as well if they are an

4968:

It's not a personal attack, it's saying that if you editwar I'll block you. You didn't explain your "shockingly bad" comment to the editor or at the talk page although you could have used the edit summary to explain in some detail what you thought the problems were. Your lack of good faith and

1458:

users with no logic, we even explained the problem in Talk page but they refuse to responded and keep,reverting the ask for reference, they simply use our lack of understanding of wiki rules to push their ideas and block any opininon , please check the page and help us to deal with this issue

689:

I’m not trying to edit war or to push my personal POV. I could care less whether or not Reza Shah's parents are Turkish or not. I’m just trying to put relevant information along with the links for further reading. Both the surnames Beyg and Ayromlou are Turkic which I am continually editing to

2475:) as you mentioned is a form 4 word. I don’t believe it’s a substantive, I think it’s a proper noun because reading through many Hadiths I see that whenever the Iqama is used in the sense of performing an action, a verb form of أَقَامَ/يُقِيمُ‎‎ is used, such as أَقَمْتَ, تُقِمْ, يُقِمْ, etc. 881:

I think you should desist from misrepresenting what the sources say. If you can read the Persian quote you posted above and can see that it does not support any Turkish ethnicity, it just says that Reza Shah's mother was a "Caucasian muslim". Also, you kept adding the Turkish claim while the

2759:

Just to clarify, the مصدر is also called اسم فعل. It is an اسم, a special category of اسم that shares certain characteristics of the فعل, such as governing an object in the accusative. As for the boundary between the مصدر and other substantives being unclear, this is true insofar as the

2938:

Fourth, the name as currently written is missing most indications of case. This is a strange omission. The nominative is used unless some operative requires another case (see some examples on Wright, p. 23). As الحسين is not governed by an operative, it should be in the nominative, as

1354:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2926:

in ابن when it is not at the beginning of a name and precedes the father’s name. So, while we write اِبْنُ عِبَّاسٍ, for instance, we usually write مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ ٱللهِ rather than مُحَمَّدُ ٱبْنُ عَبْدِ ٱللهِ. To be clear, both variations are correct, but that without the

2007:; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 2946:

Please consider the above and if you are still convinced that the changes I made are “false Arabic,” give your reasons and cite your sources. If you would like me to provide additional clarifications or more citations to back up what I am saying, I would be happy to do so.

2502:

I believe that ‘Iqamah’ referring to the establishment of prayer is derived from the verbal noun of the first meaning, not that it is a substantive (i.e. a verb being used a noun). I believe that ‘Iqamah’referring to visas is from the second meaning. 21:16, 22 December 2019

2995:" is always required to have an Alif al-Wasl, as is the case with all words that start with a sukun and require a liaison vowel. Only later was the Alif al-Wasl dropped and epenthesis added, creating the word "bin". All of the early Quran manuscripts also exclusively use " 1527:

I’ve seen Wikaviani and Warioman do that before. Apparently they censor information they don’t like others to hear. You can try reporting them for vandalism, but unfortunately Knowledge (XXG) is poorly managed and many articles related to Iran are completely handicapped.

4009:

someone who actually knows what they're talking about, as opposed to the usual semi-literate casuals that are usually involved in editing topics related Arabic on here. I expect that I'll have the free time to sit down and write a reply either this weekend or next. —

791:. If you need any help with the quote and since you say that you're not very Wiki-savy, just provide the citation here on your talk and if the Turkish claim is really supported by the sources, then i'll cite your sources in the article with the relevant sentence. 4984:

while reverting a word’s ‘e’ to an ‘a’ while unaware of a short two-year-old conversation, then you can do so right now, no need to wait. I didn’t realize it was a privilege to volunteer my time for free while being trivially harassed for no real reason. —

4673:

use an obsolete English pattern which is rarely, if ever employed anymore in common English. How about a compromise of writing it as "sometimes written as Shi'ite", which I think still implies that it's used, but not as frequently as the former ('Shia')? —

3662:

Century AH. The Arabic language had dramatically changed from the chaste classical language many centuries before the Nahḍah, so I do not see how it has anything to do with the reliability of Wright’s work. If you have other criticisms of Wright’s

4124:

As for the conventions used in some of the earliest sources, I think they should be referenced but their conventions should not be wholly adopted, as spelling during the classical period was not rigorously standardized. To be pedantic, the

3675:

708:. Also, you failed to provide an inline citation, as i asked you above ... BTW, names and surnames are irrelevant reasons to find a person's ethnicity, since many Iranian famous people have Arabic or Turkish names while they are Iranian. 850:

not 100% confirmed, but I believe his mother’s established Turkic identity, along with his father’s somewhat substantiated Turkic identity via circumstancial evidence, is more than enough to state “suggesting that Reza Pahlavi

5262:

Can you tell me how you know that Schwartz was the surname at birth for Alicia Garza? Because I couldn't find it in the sources. She was raised using that name, and she has a Jewish stepfather. What is the stepfather's name?

806:, page 3 : "Some writers believe that Reza Shah was of Turkish origin, but the authenticity of this claim is uncertain." Therefore, any Turkish claim should be balanced with sources supporting a non-Turkish origin, per 2728:

point of view: this is definitly a masdar (مصدر), and not a noun (اسم), although in Arabic the boundary between the two is not always clear - far from it. I therefore plead for a modification of this point on the page

4950:

If you want to change the primary word used, go ahead, but don’t break the page or make bad edits in the process. If you actually cared about the state of the article, then you would have fixed these errors before my

5754: 5666: 2260: 1382: 3965:) rather than a short vowel followed by a geminate consonant then the stress would fall on an earlier syllable. The reduction of such endings to a long vowel is a typical feature of post-classical Arabic dialects. 2959:

would never appear in this word and the glottal stop would only be articulated at the beginning of an utterance. I think it is better the remove the glottal stop from the romanization in cases where there is no

3104:

As you can see, not only is an Alif present when the first word of a name (e.g. ٱبْن جَابِر, ٱبْن حَدِيدُو), but also in the standard form (e.g. تِدْرَاق ٱبْن أَبُو قِير ٱلْأَصْغَر, إِصْطُفُر ٱبْن أَبُو قِير

821:

I agree with balanced information, but also there is no doubt that his mother was a Qashqai Turk, so he is certainly maternally of Turkic descent. This is a well established fact among the Iranian community.

3322:, in which Arabic was severely mutilated as a language. While his book is often cited, it unfortunately contains many errors contradicted by earlier sources, especially from during the Islamic Golden Age. 3666:

and the works of Howell, Lane and the other Western authorities or if you would like to elaborate on any errors in Wright contradicted by earlier sources, I would certainly be interested to hear details.

3023:قَالَ عِيسَىٰ ٱبْنُ مَرْيَمَ ٱللَّٰهُمَّ رَبَّنَآ أَنزِلْ عَلَيْنَا مَآئِدَةًۭ مِّنَ ٱلسَّمَآءِ تَكُونُ لَنَا عِيدًۭا لِّأَوَّلِنَا وَآخِرِنَا وَآيَةًۭ مِّنْكَ ۖ وَٱرْزُقْنَا وَأَنتَ خَيْرُ ٱلرَّٰزِقِينَ 5738:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 5650:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2244:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1366:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 4030:

Not a problem, please take your time. I look forward to hearing your thoughts at length, especially as regards issues with the classic Western works on Arabic and what earlier sources have to say.

4209:

is actually incorrect. While it’s true that the modern standardized Quran writes it as such, this spelling was standardized relatively recently in Egypt. The Tashkent Quran of Uthman wrote it as

2836:, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the 2423:, Le livre de poche, 1996, p. 31: "Halfway between NAME and VERB, will sometimes be used as a SUBSTANTIVE and sometimes WITH A CLEAR VERBAL MEANING" (Capitals are mine) - and same comment in 127:!. We are a group of editors working on improving articles in the scope of this project, and we need your help to meet the project goals. Please come over to our project page to take a look! 5291: 5724: 5636: 2230: 3648:. This is the point made explicitly by Wright, and this convention is followed by plenty of other reputable Arabic scholars, including Howell, Lane, Caspari, Socin and surely many others. 265:

Hi. Although most of your edits seem ok1 (I need to xchexck1 the sourxces), you xcan't xchange the name without xchanging the titl2e of the artixcl2e, whixch requires a move request. See

4797: 4783: 4747: 2898:, calling what I wrote “false Arabic” without elaborating. Allow me to elaborate on the reasons for my changes and the problems with the Arabic text on the page as it currently stands. 1562: 2636:), as in Koran 24:37, and never otherwise; and the reason given for this is that the second element of the prothetic compound serves as a compensation for the elision of one of the 976: 4101:

and not, unless I have overlooked it, its feminine counterpart. So, as far as I am aware, there is actually no patronymic in the Koran similar to the one we have been discussing.

4149:

While completely accurate, the example provided was for the orthography, not the grammar. I posted it to demonstrate the use of ʾAlif before 'bn' during the Classical Period.

1826:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting

4811:

Hi. Before I start an edit war, you should know that this Knowledge (XXG)'s transliteration of Arabic tends to be based on ALA-LC romanisation, which transliterates a final

3725:

is internally inconsistent in many places. As for PERF 558, it has ابو where one would expect ابي, and I suspect you would not argue in favour of following that convention.

1553:

Welcome to Knowledge (XXG), and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a

3841:(which he spells thus). As far as I am aware, the only example in the Koran where a name is given containing a true patronymic of the type we are discussing is in 66:12 ( 5141:

World renowned historical sources, academics and even official government reports are “poor sources”? No, you just want to push your POV so you’re fishing for excuses. —

4701: 4694: 3681:

Chinese), and I think that is as it should be. Similarly, I would not necessarily mimic Koranic notation in the context of a Knowledge (XXG) page, such as writing

3057:وَمَرْيَمَ ٱبْنَتَ عِمْرَٰنَ ٱلَّتِيٓ أَحْصَنَتْ فَرْجَهَا فَنَفَخْنَا فِيهِ مِن رُّوحِنَا وَصَدَّقَتْ بِكَلِمَٰتِ رَبِّهَا وَكُتُبِهِۦ وَكَانَتْ مِنَ ٱلْقَٰنِتِينَ 783:

You got me wrong, by "Iranian", i meant the ethnolinguistical group, not the citizens of modern Iran. By inline citation i mean quote the part of the source which

4329:. Additionally, tafseers have elaborated that the phrase is also a divine acronym, which is why the ʾAlif is omitted. If you’d like, you can read more about that 3949:, I recognize that it is very widely used, and yet I consider it incorrect because it is not an accurate reflection of the classical pronunciation; in words like 4637:

Hi, I see you undid my edit to Shia Islam. The reasons for the edit, rewriting ‘...sometimes spelled Shi'ite is also used in archaic English’, were as follows:

1300:, a forum on Knowledge (XXG) for new editors to ask questions about editing Knowledge (XXG), and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! 4644:

about eg ‘al-injliziya’, the Arabic for ‘English’) but they don’t get to determine what is archaic: the English language community does as a whole. It isn’t.

4578:). In educational settings, for the benefit of those who don’t know how a Waslah behaves (i.e. non-Arabic speakers), sometimes informally a regular Alif (i.e. 1286: 3438:, and because it ends in a weak letter that happens to be a yāʾ, the letter gets assimilated to the second yāʾ and is written as a single yāʾ with a shaddah. 5025:

Please stop spreading lies about al-Dhahabi and Sunni scholarship. Knowledge (XXG) is supposed to be a serious platform, not a place for sectarian hatred.

1619: 191: 2655:

Fourth, as for the two meanings under discussion, the meanings relating to prayer include the “performance” or “observance” of prayer and the reading by a

2375:

You’re right, I meant to add additional sources but forgot all about it. I’ll re-edit the content with the relevant sources later when I get the chance. —

735:

That’s because Iranian is a nationality, not an ethnicity. The suffix -lou or -lu is strictly Turkish and only used by ethnic Turks in Iran, particularly

4494:, etc). When at the beginning of a verb that starts with a Sukun, the Waslah is usually read as a Kasrah if the next vowel is a Fathah or a Kasrah (e.g. 827:(Translation: Reza Shah Abbas-Ali Khan of the Pahlavi’s was of Alasht of Savadkih, Mazandaran. His mother was Noush-Afarin who was a Qafqaz immigrant.) 2832:, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Knowledge (XXG). This means that editors 5866: 3444:

I also don't object to including the I'rab cases for the word. The only reason I prefer to keep them out is because the Arabic text included isn't a

613: 504: 3821:

in the Koran actually conform to the rules given by Wright (he even includes it as an illustrative example), which state that if the name following

38: 2016: 1011: 1662:

without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Knowledge (XXG) with an accurate

4129:

we know today did not exist in the classical period and from what I understand were not even invented until after the death of al-Ḥusayn b. ‘Ali.

1002:. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 62: 2919:, pp. 16-20. To quote Wright (p. 20), “it is naturally an absurd error.” Based on that, we should write اَلْحُسَيْنُ rather than *ٱلْحُسَيْن. 137:

Overall, this is a friendly place to discuss any issues related to Kurdistan, ask questions, and collaborate on improving articles on Kurdistan!

69: 824:“رضا شاه فرزند عباسعلی خان از طایفه پهلوان های آلاشت از توابع سوادکوه مازندران و از مادری بیگانه به نام نوش آفرین که از مهاجرین قفقازی می باشد“ 5537: 5446: 4260:

You said that in Classical Arabic all words that start with a quiescent consonant and require a liaison vowel were always required to have an

3734:

You said that in Classical Arabic all words that start with a quiescent consonant and require a liaison vowel were always required to have an

2308:, where you added some information not represented by the sources (also adding some sources that are not reliable). These may be considered a 2177: 1117: 1615: 187: 5777: 5688: 5075: 3441:

If you prefer to include the romanization with special characters in the infobox, I don't object, but I think ‘Alīy or ’Alī should be used.

2282: 1396: 590: 2760:

lexicographers often differed as to whether a given substantive was actually a مصدر (typically of a type-I verb) or a normal substantive.

295:. Thanks, I actually wanted to change the name of the article but didn’t know how as I’m not really Knowledge (XXG) savvy. Thanks again. 234: 5198: 4251:

is an unusual spelling, it is consistent with the rule of the Waslah before 'bn'. You can see Uthman’s original manuscript of the Quran

1509:

They removed ask for refrence again Users Wikaviani, Warioman and Historyofiran acting as a Disinformation Gang and this is frustrating

222: 4708: 1208:

Welcome. Please open a discussion on its talk page and ping editors to join. edit summaries are not counted as discussion. regards. --

5870: 1571:, people are mentioned subsequently by their surname, not their given name (and he had not changed his name to "Kareem" yet, either). 124: 5295: 3126:

In Classical Arabic, it is illegal according to the language's rules to add any harakah on an Alif, other than an Alif Hamzah (i.e.

1413: 2008: 1098: 1003: 541: 537: 3516:

is, to the best of my knowledge, a post-classical development and I reject it as far as the classical language is concerned. The

3238:

had a silent letter that was added due to early Arabic not having any diacritics, including letter dots, and the word was written

4947:

Second, making edits like formatting errors that break headers and a poorly written lede have nothing to do with that discussion.

4146:

As for PERF 558, it has ابو where one would expect ابي, and I suspect you would not argue in favour of following that convention.

2104:

Stop provoking other users with insults and then leaving troll warning messages on their talk page. This conversation is over. —

1305: 5526: 5435: 5349: 4929:'s comments on the talk about about the word itself and to me they more than amply justify using the title agreed upon in 2018. 4330: 3815:

is really relevant except insofar as it demonstrates that there are exceptions to the rule you described. The many examples of

2166: 2078: 1773: 1252: 52: 5773: 5684: 5233: 4133: 3468:

Thank you for the interesting and thought-provoking response. Let me first take note of some points on which I agree with you.

2278: 1392: 5747: 5659: 5595: 5099: 2253: 2024: 1375: 1106: 1019: 533: 57: 3885:. Any of these options is fine with me, but I think it is important to indicate them rather than to leave them out. As for 3215:

Note that in some cases, an Alif can have a sukun to indicate that it's silent and not pronounced at all, such as the suffix

1666:. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the 5858: 5814: 5792: 5376: 2028: 1110: 1023: 2486:) meaning ‘people’, ‘nation’ or ‘tribe’. The term qawm itself is derived from the root meaning ‘to rise’ or ‘to establish’. 1742: 22: 5862: 802:

His surname or his mother/father's name are quite weak reasons to conclude that he was of Turkish descent. I quote, from

230: 5607: 5517: 5426: 5357: 5111: 4056:. See also Koran 20:85 and 20:87. I think it will be apparent that there is in the ending of the latter word a short 2335:, the information I added are from videos of high-ranking MEK members who were part of the MEK Leadership Committee. — 2157: 2086: 2036: 1554: 1074: 1031: 843: 649: 549: 5759: 5671: 2265: 1958: 1605: 1387: 1301: 787:

supports that Reza Shah was of Turkish descent. Any other extrapolation with his name or surname is nothing else than

141:

Feel free to put your name on the project member list. Hope you will have fun here, let us know if you need any help!

5103: 4307:

are used in Uthmani rasm. While not entirely certain, some have speculated that this is because of issues related to

4095:

in Koran 66:12 contradicted Wright’s rules, I failed to consider that Wright only explicitly mentioned the masculine

910: 637: 617: 508: 1561:, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the 1557:

that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in

5107: 2125: 1895: 1240: 372: 106: 4954:

What I did also has nothing to do with edit warring, so please refrain from making irrelevant personal attacks. —

4317:

according to Hisab al-Jummal, and that an additional ʾAlif would distort this value by 1. Simillar is the case of

4197:

You are correct in that Uthmani rasm is at times inconsistent, however it is consistent regarding the spelling of

2679:; and the meaning relating to residence comes from the meaning “remain,” “reside,” “dwell” or “abode” of the verb 1772:

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The

645: 5845: 5290:. We're not required to maintain unreliable sources while waiting for "better sources," despite your preference. 5221: 4252: 4109: 3989: 2969: 2770: 2699: 545: 500: 5530: 5439: 4432:

because there is no preceding vowel with which for liaison to take place, so it does not make sense to write an

3626:

because there is no preceding vowel with which for liaison to take place, so it does not make sense to write an

3168:

is itself an absurd abomination. It is also incompatible with the basic functions of Alif al-Wasl. For example,

2837: 2170: 2041: 2020: 2004: 1248: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1036: 1015: 999: 980: 423: 350: 43: 29: 5822:

It's been several months since the no reference template has been in place, and still not a single source given

5229: 4554:) because the Kasrah changes into a Sukūn in pausa. However, we don’t change the spelling of the diacritics to 932: 5735: 5647: 5079: 4352:

in his untitled book. In it, he describes the letter Yāʾ as a layyin letter, which provides contexts into why

2955:

for the two instances of بن. I find the indication of a glottal stop here to be problematic because a normal

2241: 1363: 594: 465: 4137: 1936: 177: 5353: 5030: 2355:"voluntarily left Canada in 1998, at the age of 15, to join MEK seeking to overthrow the Iranian government" 1784: 5287: 4889: 1609: 314: 181: 80: 4793: 4779: 4743: 4105: 4001: 3985: 2982: 2965: 2857: 2793: 2766: 2722: 2695: 2019:

for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant

1517: 1499: 1466: 1014:

for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant

5874: 4044:

that follows it. Listen to a recitation of Koran 20:94-95 and note the difference between the ending of

3959:

suffix, the stress falls on the final syllable of the pause form, whereas if it were a long vowel (as in

3827:

is that of the mother (or indeed in any case where it is not the real name of the blood father) then the

2012: 1102: 1007: 92: 5882: 5492: 5384: 5365: 5268: 5026: 4975: 4935: 4842: 4760:«كَمْ مِنَ ٱلنَّاسِ صَرَفُوا۟ ٱلْعُمْرَ فِي إِتْقَانِ فَنِّ ٱلْكِتَابَةِ فَقَطْ لِيُذِيعُوا۟ جَهْلَهُمْ» 4723: 2133: 2094: 2058: 1789: 1217: 1176: 322: 278: 102: 84: 5379:

until your eyes bleed. It is a foundational site policy and if you can't follow it, that's a problem.

2943:, where you will find many examples demonstrating that it should be طَالِبٍ rather than *طَالِبَ here. 1297: 73: 3869:, respectively. It does not make much difference to me whether one uses single quotes or the symbols 1954: 1601: 975:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at

123:

Welcome! You are receiving this message because we've noticed your great edits related to our project

25:. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: 5810: 5796: 4742:

Do you even know Arabic? انا بعرف العربيه العاميه وكمان أَعْرِفُ ٱلُّغَةَ ٱلْعَرَبِيَّةَ ٱلْفُصْحَى.

4104:

I look forward to hearing back. I think we will both enjoy and find benefit in further discussion. –

2424: 1809: 1592:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

906: 736: 160:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

33: 5718: 5630: 3861:

Finally, with regards to romanization, I usually use opening and closing single quotes to represent

2224: 1667: 1350: 839: 690:

include both citations as well as referrals to other Wiki articles for sources and further reading.

72:, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Knowledge (XXG). You can visit 4717: 4652: 4608:). This is not the same thing that Wright has indicated, but is used for the reason noted above. — 3929:, although this is a highly disapproved pronunciation, as in a line of poetry cited by Lane in his 1891: 1852: 1832: 1828: 1558: 1211: 1170: 368: 5731: 5643: 5142: 5045: 4985: 4955: 4857: 4764: 4674: 4609: 4506:); if the next vowel is a Dhammah then the Waslah is usually also pronounced with a Dhammah (e.g. 4025: 4010: 3451: 3450:, and I'rab isn't really necessary, but if you want to include it I would be agreeable to that. — 2931:

is far more common, as you will immediately notice upon looking through a book of Traditions like

2875: 2785: 2714: 2376: 2336: 2237: 2105: 1863: 1717: 1529: 1478: 1432: 1359: 1320: 1195: 855: 750: 691: 665: 296: 5206: 2497:

2) A reflexive causative, i.e. he made himself do something transformative to a place or a state.

2366: 2317: 1705: 1431:

Thanks for pointing it out. I’m going to remove it for now until I can figure out how to fix it.

4834: 3110:

Note that early writings that include harakah also never write any harakah on the Alif, such as

1746: 419: 346: 3309:, the former of which is blatantly incorrect and the latter of which has incomplete diacritics. 928: 91:(~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out 5841: 5599: 5329: 5248: 4904: 2847: 2806: 2737: 2446: 2350: 2305: 1982: 1910: 1819: 1761: 1753: 1680: 1671: 1663: 1635: 1578: 1513: 1495: 1462: 1421: 1267: 1140: 956: 831: 480: 461: 438: 396: 249: 207: 146: 5743: 5655: 5159:

Stop adding poorly researched and misleading information. Provide a citation for your claim.

4132:

While the exact forms of most harakah used today were not developed until the 8th century by

2249: 1932: 1670:. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on 1371: 807: 173: 5878: 5766: 5678: 5575: 5557: 5543: 5488: 5466: 5452: 5380: 5361: 5264: 5174: 5125: 4970: 4930: 4853: 4838: 3744:). However, your first example from PERF 558 (not to mention the Koran itself) starts with 2829: 2272: 2197: 2183: 2129: 2090: 2054: 1950: 1814: 1593: 1123: 1055: 317: 290: 273: 5828: 5746:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 5739: 5658:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 5651: 4885: 4270:). However, your first example from PERF 558 (not to mention the Koran itself) starts with 2833: 2309: 2252:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2245: 1838: 1804: 1374:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1367: 5508: 5417: 3052: 3018: 2148: 1065: 902: 558: 517: 4969:

incivility come as a surprise to me, by the way, I always assumed you were an ok editor.

4033:

In the meantime, allow me to tack two brief additional thoughts on to my earlier message.

1924:

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

898:

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

788: 338:

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

266: 1612:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 1477:

Hi Ted, thanks for your request to include me in the conversation. I will check it out.

184:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 5399:... I would suggest you to desist from attacking fellow Wikipedians. Thanks in advance. 5310: 5068: 4665: 4648: 4308: 2895: 2358: 2301: 2082: 2045: 1848: 1794: 1696: 1040: 740: 5827:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, pages may be

5590: 5396: 5094: 4647:

Maybe my rewriting wasn’t ideal, though an improvement. But this does need to change.

2951:

issue. One specific point I shall note though is that the current romanization gives

835: 528: 5202: 4926: 4370:. Similar is the case of Wāw, which is also a layyin letter, for example in the word 3210:, the former of which is incorrect and the latter of which has incomplete diacritics. 2362: 2330: 2313: 1883: 1701: 1626:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

457: 364: 259: 198:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

5485: 4342:, perhaps we’ll have to agree to disagree. My understanding of the pronunciation of 2630:

also exists, but that it is only used as the first element of a prothetic compound (

2558:, Book 4, pp. 1571-2, explains the reason it takes this form. Howell says that the 5325: 5321: 5244: 5240: 4921: 4900: 4896: 2802: 2749: 2733: 2464: 2442: 2053:—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- 1978: 1974: 1906: 1902: 1675: 1655: 1631: 1627: 1574: 1417: 1263: 1259: 1136: 952: 948: 917: 476: 472: 434: 430: 392: 388: 245: 241: 203: 199: 142: 48: 5710: 5622: 3279:

As you known, it also breaks the changes vocalization of a sentence. For example,

2216: 1341: 1285: 1048:—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — 678:

Then go ahead and make an inline citation, but stop edit warring to push your POV.

604: 495: 1862:

I will fight to the death for my right to edit without leaving edit summaries! —

5571: 5553: 5479: 5462: 5164: 5115: 2904:

First, let me clarify that in what follows I am talking about Classical Arabic.

2480:

The meaning relating to visas I think is more closely related to the word qawm (

2193: 2015:

among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See

1659: 1568: 1165: 1050: 1010:

among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See

4118:

I’m very sorry my response has taken so long. Assuming you’re still interested:

3807:

With that said, neither of the two examples I have given of the omission of an

3162:) as the maddah is actually added to the Alif Hamzah. As such, the spelling of 2907:

Second, it is incorrect to use ٱ at the start of an Arabic text. Instead, the

2901:

The page currently has the name as *ٱلْحُسَيْن ٱبْن عَلِيّ ٱبْن أَبِي طَالِب‎.

1996: 991: 2732:, but as I am not English-speaking, I will not be able to do so. All the best 570: 553: 512: 411: 342: 3917:

vowel followed by a geminate semivowel, and it as indicated as such with the

3341:. Second, you used an apostrophe to transcribe the letter Ayn, as opposed to 5071:

that concerns one of your edits to that page, and figured I'd let you know.

3913:). However, in terms of the actual pronunciation the sound here is a short 3132:). The only time a plain Alif is used is to indicate the long vowel ā (e.g. 1799: 924: 641: 609: 5160: 4036:

First, to illustrate my point concerning the pronunciation of the sequence

3150:), but does include a maddah indicating an Alif Hamzah-Alif sequence (e.g. 2843:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ja%27far_al-Sadiq&diff=932451011

1452: 5851:

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing

5360:

from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. --

2089:

from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. --

1158: 5536:

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the

5445:

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the

4349: 4311:. Certain tafseers have indicated the significance alphanumeric value of 4203:, which suites our purposes here. Your example of Quran 20:94, which has 3064: 2176:

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the

1116:

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the

453: 165: 5750:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

5662:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

5540:, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: 5449:, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: 4584:) is added with the harakah it would create instead of the Waslah (i.e. 3942:خَالِي عُوَيْفٌ وَأَبُو عَلِجِّ * اَلْمُطْعِمَانِ ٱللَّحْمَ بِٱلْعَشِجِّ 3552:

only because it is familiar in English and it looks awkward to just put

3244:

so that it wouldn't be confused with other words that could result from

2824: 2256:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2180:, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: 2003:

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an

1650: 1549: 1378:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1319:

Hey, thanks for the invitation. I will check it out when I have chance.

1120:, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: 998:

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an

5728:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

5640:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

4914: 4136:, standardized harakah were actually established in the 7th century by 2234:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1928: 1244: 939: 620:

and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

584: 511:

and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

379: 169: 161: 4064:

sound) followed by a geminate semivowel. Then compare both of these (

2357:, but the source does not say that. There are similar examples in the 5603: 5314: 5282:

Please do not restore unreliable and blacklisted sources, as you did

3717:

or joining the vocative marker to the following word and eliding its

2894:

I noticed that you reverted the changes I made to the Arabic name of

2828:

Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to

2431:: "The masdar is used either as a noun or with the value of a verb". 745: 134:

You will find a group of editors who share similar interest with you.

5886: 5781: 5692: 5579: 5561: 5496: 5470: 5405: 5395:

Hard to assume good faith when one takes a look at your comments on

5388: 5369: 5333: 5299: 5272: 5252: 5209: 5184: 5150: 5135: 5083: 5053: 5034: 4993: 4978: 4963: 4938: 4908: 4865: 4846: 4801: 4787: 4772: 4751: 4732: 4682: 4656: 4617: 4476:, etc) to act as a liaison carrying a vowel to begin the word (i.e. 4113: 4018: 3993: 3459: 2973: 2883: 2867: 2810: 2774: 2741: 2703: 2450: 2384: 2370: 2344: 2321: 2286: 2201: 2137: 2113: 2098: 2062: 1986: 1914: 1871: 1856: 1725: 1709: 1685: 1639: 1582: 1537: 1521: 1503: 1486: 1470: 1440: 1425: 1400: 1328: 1309: 1271: 1226: 1203: 1185: 1144: 1059: 960: 888: 863: 816: 797: 758: 714: 699: 684: 673: 658: 626: 598: 563: 522: 484: 442: 400: 325: 304: 281: 253: 211: 150: 110: 5201:

and removing well-sourced content from it, or you will be blocked.

2754:, thank you for the reply. I can look into revising the page soon. 5012: 4944:

Firstly, I didn’t notice a discussion that was made two years ago.

4877: 3319: 2729: 2407: 1965: 415: 357: 226: 88: 3847:). This case indeed contradicts Wright’s rules. But again, the 5763:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 5675:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 5309: