User talk:TheFlyingHorse

Hi User:BiKaz I have looked at this further, and re-written my reply at User talk:Arjayay#Misplaced post, and I apologise for any confusion from my first post.
Although I know enough to reject a request that does not include a source, I do not know enough to decide on inclusion/exclusion of sourced names, with their own articles which has caused disputes in the past, which is why the page Mujaddid is semi-protected. - Arjayay (talk) 07:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Accents. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Mujaddid— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Accents 11:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. BiKaz, thanks for creating Muhammad Al-Tahir Ibn 'Ashur!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. /

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear, you are most welcome! :) I will try my best to improve the article as requested. With my best regards and respect.

Please don't resort to such blatant sectarianism where it is inappropriate. Your edits would perhaps more appropriately belong under the Criticism sub-section, or in the Sufi–Salafi relations article.--58.106.251.124 (talk) 04:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear! Thank you for the kind advice and suggestion, greatly appreciated! Best regards from Egypt to Australia! :) --BiKaz (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you completely misinterpreted my advice. What i meant is that your cites might belong in these sections under info that is presented in sentences—not literally taking your previous edits and dropping them into these areas. This is unacceptable editing.--58.106.251.124 (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem! Have a nice day! :) --BiKaz (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Barelvi, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.Take it to the talk page. Ogress _smash! 06:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message. Please take a look at this page: Ash'ari. The majority of Muslims around the world and during history are Ash'arites, however, you will see a section for criticism in the page, and I did not remove it myself, and I did not find it to be sarcastic or not constructive, because criticism is criticism! And removing information and contents that is supported by reliable sources is considered to be vandalism! PEACE.--BiKaz (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Barelvi. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. This is the third warning I have given you. Take it to the talk page. You do not have consensus. Ogress _smash! 08:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:BiKaz reported by User:Ogress (Result: ). Thank you. Ogress _smash! 08:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Barelvi, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Human3015 knock knock • 08:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw some of your outlandish edits. Are you muslim born or recent convert? Salafist are not considered muslim. They are considered kufar and khwarijs. Great sunni scholars like the hanafi Ibn Abidin said so. Raza khan only referred to them as kufar because of their accusations at him. Its quite odd that your interested in "Sufism" but you go on a anti raza khan triade but I might have a hunch of an idea on who you are, based on "Alexandria residence". Muslim brotherhood qutbist leaning I suppose? Based on your edits you dont seem to support salafism but you insert salafist websites into articles. Are you confused? The brotherhood and groups like it were placed inside Egypt to confuse muslims. The pure form of Salafism could not be placed in a Sufi leaning population so they developped a group that accepts both salafist and sunni teaching. The same was done in the indian subcontinent with Deobandism. Misdemenor (talk) 12:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you are a big fan! :D But unfortunately, you are not smart enough! :)

Do you want answers to your questions?

[Qur'an 6:159]

SAHEEH INTERNATIONAL: Indeed, those who have divided their religion and become sects – you, [O Muhammad], are not [associated] with them in anything. Their affair is only [left] to Allah; then He will inform them about what they used to do.

ALI ÜNAL: Those who have made divisions in their Religion (whereas they must accept it in its totality), and have been divided into different parties – you have nothing to do with them. Their case rests with God, and then He will make them understand what they were doing.

NURETTIN UZUNOĞLU: As for those who divide their religion and become divided into different sects, no concerns at all have you with them. Their case will go to Allah, who will tell them what they used to do. ("Divide their religion": i.e. (1) make a distinction between one part of it and another, take the part which suits them and reject the rest; (2) do religion one day in the week, and plunge into the world for the other six; (3) "keep religion in its right place", as if it did not claim to govern and uplift all of life, thereby making a distinction between the secular and the religious; (4) show a sectarian bias, seeking differences of views in order to attempt to destroy Islam's unity.)

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: "Whoever tells lies about me deliberately, let him take his place in Hell." Grade: Sahih [Reported by Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Al-Tirmidhi, & Ibn Majah].

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: "Whoever innovates something in this matter of ours (i.e. Islam) that is not part of it, will have it rejected". Grade: Sahih [Reported by Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah, & Al-Nawawi].

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: "The believer is not a slanderer, nor does he curse others, and nor is he immoral or shameless (talk indecently)." Grade: Sahih [Reported by Al-Tirmidhi, Al-Bukhari, Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, & Al-Nawawi].

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: "I have not been ordered (by Allah) to search the hearts of the people or cut open their bellies." Grade: Sahih [Reported by Al-Bukhari & Muslim].

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: "When a person calls his brother (in Islam) a disbeliever, one of them will certainly deserve the title (or it will have settled upon one of them). If the addressee is so as he has asserted, the disbelief of the man is confirmed, but if it is untrue, then it will revert to him." Grade: Sahih [Reported by Malik, Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Al-Tirmidhi, & Al-Nawawi].

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, "Once someone said: 'By Allah! Allah will not forgive such and such (a person).' Thereupon Allah, the Exalted and the Glorious, said: 'Who is he who takes an oath in My Name that I will not grant pardon to so-and-so? I have granted pardon to so-and-so and rendered your good deeds fruitless."' Grade: Sahih [Reported by Muslim].

"Salafist are not considered muslim. They are considered kufar and khwarijs. Great sunni scholars like the hanafi Ibn Abidin said so."

This is NOT true! He just warned the people and criticized them and exposed their damnable/evil doctrines! I am pretty sure if he was alive today, he would do the same with you! :) BiKaz (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can not recognize ibn taymiyyah and salafists as kufar you yourself is a kufar. They will waterdown people like you to not do takfir while they do takfir on others. You fell for the trap and now you are one of them. When the salafists call muslims Mushriks and innovators, is that in your opinion an acceptance? When they reject ahlulsunna and create their own misguided school system under the criminal ibn taymiyyah, is that ok? Do you know what ibn saud said when he besieged medina? "Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated" and that is exactly what he did. You can sit and play peace and love while they try to corrupt religion. "I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) as saying: There would arise at the end of the age a people who would be young in age and immature in thought, but they would talk (in such a manner) as if their words are the best among the creatures. They would recite the Qur'an, but it would not go beyond their throats, and they would pass through the religion as an arrow goes through the prey. So when you meet them, kill them, for in their killing you would get a reward with Allah on the Day of Judgement"- Sahih Muslim. Do you even know the devils horn rises out of Najd? because that is where there is dissension. If you can not recognize these signs I dont know what to tell you. Instead you are ediitng on behalf of salafists. You add links to salafist websites to criticize ahlulsunna. The Beloved Prophet (Salla Allahu alaihi wa sallam) said: “He who deviates from the largest group of Muslims, even as much as a hand span, has himself cut off his connection with Islam”. (Abu Dawud) Raza khan followers are over 200 million. Misdemenor (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Qur'an 85:10]

TALAL ITANI: Those who tempt the believers, men and women, then do not repent; for them is the punishment of Hell; for them is the punishment of Burning.

The Prophet (PBUH) said: "After me there will be many calamities and much evil behavior. Whoever you see splitting away from the Jama'ah or trying to create division among the Ummah of Muhammad [SAW], then kill him, for the Hand of Allah is with the Jama'ah, and the Shaitan is with the one who splits away from the Ummah, running with him." Grade: Sahih [Reported by An-Nasa'i].

The Prophet (PBUH) said: "And I command you with five that Allah commanded me: Listening and obeying, Jihad, Hijrah, and the Jama'ah. For indeed whoever parts from the Jama'ah the measure of a hand-span, then he has cast off the yoke of Islam from his neck, unless he returns. And whoever calls with the call of Jahiliyyah then he is from the coals of Hell." A man said: "O Messenger of Allah! Even if he performs Salat and fasts?" So he (PBUH) said: "Even if he performs Salat and fasts. So call with the call that Allah named you with: Muslims, believers, worshipers of Allah." Grade: Sahih [Reported by At-Tirmidhi].

The word Jama'ah means the main body of the Muslims, the majority group or the consolidated majority of the community. The majority of Muslims are Ash'arites & Maturidis!!! :) The correct Meaning of the term “Ahlus-Sunnah Wal-Jama'ah”

The Prophet (PBUH) said: "The Hour shall not be established until tribes of my Ummah unite with the idolaters/polytheists (those who associate partners with God), and until they worship idols. And indeed there shall be thirty imposters in my Ummah, each of them claiming that he is a Prophet. And I am the last of the Prophets, there is no Prophet after me." Grade: Sahih [Reported by At-Tirmidhi].

The Prophet (PBUH) said: "There will come to the people years of treachery, when the liar will be regarded as honest, and the honest man will be regarded as a liar; the traitor will be regarded as faithful, and the faithful man will be regarded as a traitor; and the Ruwaibidah will decide matters.’ It was said: ‘Who are the Ruwaibidah?’ He said: ‘Vile and base men who control the affairs of the people.’" Grade: Hasan [Reported by Ibn Majah].

Barelwi follow maturidi school. why then do you attack ahlulsunna followers? Please respond to all of my questions such as the "horn of shaytan" Hadith of Najd Do you not believe the horn of the devil is in najd yes or no? Misdemenor (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This hadith is mentioned in Sahih Al-Bukhari, and it's reliable and authentic.

Sahih al-Bukhari Chapter: “Al-Fitnah will appear from the east.”

Narrated Ibn `Umar: The Prophet (PBUH) said, "O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Sham! O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Yemen." The People said, "And also on our Najd." He said, "O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Sham (north)! O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Yemen." The people said, "O Allah's Apostle! And also on our Najd." I think the third time the Prophet (PBUH) said, "There (in Najd) is the place of earthquakes and afflictions and from there comes out the side of the head of Satan."

And in Sahih Muslim Ibn Fudail reported on the authority of his father that he heard Salim b. `Abdullah b. `Umar as saying: O people of Iraq, how strange it is that you ask about the minor sins but commit major sins? I heard from my father `Abdullah b. `Umar, narrating that he heard Allah's Messenger (PBUH) as saying while pointing his hand towards the east: Verily, the turmoil would come from this side, from where appear the horns of Satan and you would strike the necks of one another; and Moses killed a person from among the people of Pharaoh unintentionally and Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, said: "You killed a person but We relieved you from the grief and tried you with (many a) trial" (xx. 40). Ahmad b. `Umar reported this hadith from Salim, but he did not make a mention of the words: "I heard".

• The Salafiyya and the Saudi Arabian Wahhâbîs Hidaya Research
• The Tribulations Inflicted by the Wahhabiyyah Hidaya Research
• Fatwa on the Heresy of Wahhabism Hidaya Research

Salafits are EXTREMISTS and takfiris! They are EVIL, like Raza Khan Barelvi. :)

The Prophet (PBUH) said: Beware! The extremists perished, saying it three times. Grade: Sahih [Reported by Abu Dawud]. BiKaz (talk) 08:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You quote Muhammad Abduh the freemason? I dont think you know what is ahlul sunna. Abduh is a salafist. Misdemenor (talk) 03:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha! What about these quote? ---> Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) said: There is no one among us but he may refute or be refuted, except the occupant of this grave -- meaning the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him).

Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, "The deeds are considered by the intentions, and a person will get the reward according to his intention. So whoever emigrated for Allah and His Messenger, his emigration will be for Allah and His Messenger; and whoever emigrated for worldly benefits or for a woman to marry, his emigration would be for what he emigrated for". Grade: Sahih •PEACE•--BiKaz (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unreliable information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Barelvi. Human3015 knock knock • 12:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just go and play away, kid! And stop spamming my page with this BULLSHIT!--BiKaz (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Barelvi. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  —Darkwind (talk) 05:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Human3015: I am really sorry for being rude and disrespectful to you, I become CRAZY sometimes! :D Your reply reminds me of a quote by Muhammad 'Abduh: "I went to the West and saw Islam, but no Muslims; I got back to the East and saw Muslims, but not Islam." Thank you so much for your kindness and patience with me. MUCH appreciated! With my deepest respect and sincere gratitude. BiKaz (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, Bikaz it happens sometimes, its ok, but we should be civil, specially its holy Ramadan month going on. Religion teaches us politeness but its not only about religion but its also about Wikipedia policies, for many people Wikipedia has became a religion. Wikipedia policies like WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:Consensus etc are like religious teachings. --Human3015 knock knock • 15:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Human3015: I apologize again for any inconvenience/inconveniences or misunderstandings, I'm not an angel. :)

There are numerous verses in the Quran that enjoin having good manners and treating others well.

[Qur'an 2:83]

TALAL ITANI: We made a covenant with the Children of Israel: "Worship none but God; and be good to parents, and relatives, and orphans, and the needy; and speak nicely to people; and pray regularly, and give alms." Then you turned away, except for a few of you, recanting.

[Qur'an 14:24-26]

TALAL ITANI: 24. Do you not see how God presents a parable? A good word is like a good tree-its root is firm, and its branches are in the sky.

25. It yields its fruits every season by the will of its Lord. God presents the parables to the people, so that they may reflect.

26. And the parable of a bad word is that of a bad tree-it is uprooted from the ground; it has no stability.

[Qur'an 4:36]

ALI ÜNAL: And (as the essential basis of contentment in individual, family and social life,) worship God and do not associate anything as a partner with Him; and do good to your parents in the best way possible, and to the relatives, orphans, the destitute, the neighbor who is near (in kinship, location, faith), the neighbor who is distant (in kinship and faith), the companion by your side (on the way, in the family, in the workplace, etc.), the wayfarer, and those who are in your service. (Treat them well and bring yourself up to this end, for) God does not love those who are conceited and boastful;

[Qur'an 17:53]

ALI ÜNAL: And say to My servants that they should always speak (even when disputing with others) that which is the best. Satan is ever ready to sow discord among them. For Satan indeed is a manifest enemy for humankind.

[Qur'an 42:40-43]

TALAL ITANI: 40. The repayment of a bad action is one equivalent to it. But whoever pardons and makes reconciliation, his reward lies with God. He does not love the unjust.

41. As for those who retaliate after being wronged, there is no blame on them.

42. Blame lies on those who wrong people, and commit aggression in the land without right. These will have a painful punishment.

43. But whoever endures patiently and forgives-that is a sign of real resolve.

[Qur'an 60:8-9]

ALI ÜNAL: 8. God does not forbid you, as regards those who do not make war against you on account of your Religion, nor drive you away from your homes, to be kindly to them, and act towards them with equity. God surely loves the scrupulously equitable.

9. God only forbids you, as regards those who make war against you on account of your Religion and drive you away from your homes, or support others to drive you away, to take them for friends and guardians. Whoever takes them for friends and guardians, those are the wrongdoers.

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said: "I have only been sent to perfect good moral character."

"By the One in whose hand my soul is, you will not enter the Garden until you submit. You will not submit until you love one another. Extend the greeting to one another and you will love one another. Beware of hatred, for it is the razor. I do not tell you that it shaves the hair, but it shaves away the deen."

"Nothing will be heavier on the Day of Resurrection in the Scale of the believer than good manners. Allah hates one who utters foul or coarse language."

"Nothing is placed on the Scale that is heavier than good character. Indeed the person with good character will have attained the rank of the person of fasting and prayer."

"The fear of Allah and good morals (Akhlaq) are the two major characteristics which lead to Paradise."

Messenger of Allah (PBUH) was asked about the deed which will be foremost to lead a man to Jannah. He replied, "Fear of Allah and the good conduct." Then he was asked about indulgence which will admit a man to Hell (Fire) and he answered, "The tongue and the genitals."

"The best of you in Islam is the best of you in character when they possess understanding (of the deen)."

"The dearest and nearest among you to me on the Day of Resurrection will be one who is the best of you in manners; and the most abhorrent among you to me and the farthest of you from me will be the pompous, the garrulous, and Al-Mutafaihiqun." The Companions asked him: "O Messenger of Allah! We know about the pompous and the garrulous, but we do not know who Al-Mutafaihiqun are." He replied: "The arrogant people."

Happy Ramadan for you and for all the good people, everywhere! :) Have a nice day, full of peace, joy and happiness.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi. You were JUST banned for the edits you have just reproduced here. Ogress _smash! 00:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT vandalism! --BiKaz (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are not technically vandalism, no, but when editors disagree with the material you've added to an article, the best thing to do is to start or join the discussion on the article's talk page. By reverting twice on Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi, you're creating the appearance that you plan to edit war instead of discussing.

A good rule to follow to avoid edit warring is to limit yourself to one revert maximum, then discuss the reason why you want to make changes on the talk page. You're not required to follow this guideline, but I think it is helpful when editing in topic areas that people feel very strongly about, such as religious topics. —Darkwind (talk) 05:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, good morning! :) Thank you so much for taking the time to explain to me, I appreciate it so much. As you see, EVERYTHING I have posted is supported with sources. I don't want any edit war or disputes, all I want is NEUTRALITY. Any suggestions are welcome, but I won't promise I'll implement them! :D Thank you again for your assistance, understanding and consideration. With much respect and best regards!--BiKaz (talk) 08:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BiKaz and Misdemenor InshaAllah forgive me if I offended either of you, I've cancelled the report may Allah forgive me I was just angry. Please inshaAllah can we just stop fighting okay. I just want to add the salafi scholars on Mujaddid and I'll put it under a labelled section just leave it there inshaAllah and the rest of the page is how it was okay. Sakimonk ^talk 03:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sakimonk Sisi is a hero compared to morsi who backed the MB and other radical elements in egypt. How can you say sisi installed those in Al azhar? Are you kidding me? You do know sisi doesnt have a problem with Salafis and Saudi Arabia right? His issue was with Qatar and Ikhwan. Historically Salafism is outside the fold of Sunni Islam they dont follow the major schools of thought except for wahabism who seems to follow Hanbali partially. By the way why are you deleting edits that i made on someone else's talk page? Its unacceptable. Bikaz please take a look [1] Misdemenor (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mujaddid. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --MelanieN (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: Thanks for your advice, respect and understanding in this matter! :) PEACE.

Your recent editing history at Mujaddid shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts 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 warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DeCausa (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DeCausa: You have only TWO days to finish the discussion in this article.--BiKaz (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? DeCausa (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocrisy?--BiKaz (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what are you talking about. This is very simple: if you reinstate your edit again you are going to get blocked. Furthermore, English Wikipedia doesn't follow Arabic Wikipedia, what you believe to be majority muslim opinion or anything else except its own policies, which include WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. If you are not interested in complying with these policies your time editing English Wikipedia wil come to an end. It's up to you. DeCausa (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For you biased edits regarding Ahmed Raza Khan. Misdemenor (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Misdemenor: You are most welcome! It's my pleasure and I'm happy you like it! :)--BiKaz (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Barelvi page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been making edits to the article on the Barelvi. Your most recent edit makes reference to two books:

• Barelawis – History and Beliefs, by Ehsan Elahi Zaheer
• The Book of Unity or Oneness of Allah, by Muhammad Iqbal Kailani

Do you have access to these books?

Unfortunately I do not. I have seen reference to them on this website.

Maybe you could discuss this matter at Talk:Barelvi#Ehsan Elahi Zaheer's book.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to use information from the books, you need access to them. The two websites I have seen that refer to them are not obviously reliable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Barelvi. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges.

You need to use the article talk page to discuss this matter. If you got hold of copies of Zaheer's and Kailani's books you could cite the books (including page numbers). Websites like Ahya.org are not all that reliable. I realise that you probably find this frustrating; but edit-warring is not the answer.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi, you may be blocked from editing. Other editors have branded edits similar to yours as clear vandalism. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're editing in good faith; however, the material you added is so contentious and biased that you must discuss it at the talk page and get consensus before you add it to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will be forced to report you to moderators of wikipedia. Misdemenor (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2½ days for edit warring, as you did at Barelvi. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Stifle (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BiKaz, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.  Toddy1 (talk) 10:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TheFlyingHorse (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is so harsh! The ban/block should have a specific time limit. I think 1 week is enough! :)

Decline reason:

Indefinite blocks for disruptive users who abuse our policies are pretty much standard, I'm afraid. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Indefinite is not infinite. The block is subject to being reviewed in the future. That said, the standard offer after an indefinite block says to go six months with no abuse or block evasion. —C.Fred (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: Thank you so much for your explaining, and for being patient with me! I'm NOT a vandal. I don't want any disputes or edit wars. I just want to add some criticism, that's all. And I think I have this right, according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. There is NO neutrality at all. And I have used reliable sources:

goo.gl/VpEJLl

http://www.ahya.org/tjonline/eng/01/02chp1.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20021128102829/ahnaaf.tripod.com

I don't understand what is wrong with that! BiKaz (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What is wrong with it is when you add the same material repeatedly but refuse to discuss it at the talk page: that's edit warring. The worse offence than that was that, after this account was blocked, you created other accounts and used them to add similar material: that's abuse of multiple accounts.

You are blocked indefinitely because you used other accounts while this one was blocked to contravene the block. This account was initially blocked because of edit warring.

There may be a place for the criticism in the article, but that's not the issue here. The issue here is that, rather than discuss on the article talk page whether the material should be added, you edit-warred in an attempt to add it. —C.Fred (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to explain to you that you needed to use proper books, not the Ahya site. On the article talk page, other editors had objected to the Ahya site, giving reasons. Both the books suggested by the Ahya site are available.

But you did not seem to be interested in reading them. One of the books is available from Islamic bookshops (including online ones) and Amazon. A possibly illegal scan of the other book is available online in pdf form. People might object to a URL to an illegal scan - but you could still read it and cite it just as if you had bought the English-language paperback that was published in Pakistan. Anyone reading the book would be able to make good and useful additions to the articles you were interested in.

Wikipedia is very forgiving - but only to people who recognise where they have gone wrong, say sorry, and agree not to do it again, and then KEEP TO THEIR WORD.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Activities like Special:Contributions/BiKaz07 guarantee blocks.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: I don't care about the block, I can UNblock myself! But as I said to you before, I'm not a vandal, and I don't want any disputes or edit wars!

"There may be a place for the criticism in the article, but that's not the issue here."

Really? Then there is no problem. But they don't want any criticism at all. The article is filled with lies, half-truths, and misrepresentations. And I did not discuss, because my English is not good enough! And the discussing will be useless in the end and provide no real value, like what happened in Mujaddid talk page. Anyway, feel free to discuss my suggestions with them, but they will claim that my sources are unreliable!!!

HERE'RE MY SOURCES:

goo.gl/VpEJLl

http://web.archive.org/web/20021128102829/ahnaaf.tripod.com

Can you please help me with this issue? You can add the criticism by yourself, I'm sure your English is better than mine! :)

Kind regards. BiKaz77 (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you evade the blocks, you will reeblocked, and your contributions all reverted. This is policy.

If you used proper sources, you could fix the problems with the articles, but you would need to behave. Edit-warring, and saying "discussing will be useless in the end and provide no real value" makes it impossible for you to succeed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BiKaz, please clarify what you mean by "I can UNblock myself". —C.Fred (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: Not sure if it went right past you (understandable), but his meaning is patently clear. He created another account, BiKaz77 (talk · contribs · count) (see above), to comment here. I've blocked the account and revoked Talk page access here. Enough is enough. @BiKaz, you may use WP:UTRS to appeal. If you start complaining on one of your other accounts' Talk pages, I will immediately revoke Talk page access there as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to give him the opportunity to address it, but Bbb, you're right, his actions speak loud enough. This user, regardless of account, can deal with UTRS from here on out. —C.Fred (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Ahmed Raza Khan article could include criticism but you need better wording. Terms such as extremism and radical are not appropriate. It might be too late because your blocked now though. If your english isnt good you should have gotten a wikipedia mentor. Misdemenor (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BiKaz, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

--Peaceworld 11:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]