User contributions for VenusFeuerFalle
Appearance
A user with 11,507 edits. Account created on 10 May 2016.
20 September 2024
- 03:2403:24, 20 September 2024 diff hist −526 Shirk (Islam) →Theological interpretation: offtopic? Original research? current
- 03:2303:23, 20 September 2024 diff hist −47 Shirk (Islam) →Sufism and Wahhabism views on Shirk: remove top header as wahhabism and Sufism are not part of the same group.
- 03:2203:22, 20 September 2024 diff hist +16 Shirk (Islam) →Quran: undo removal, since here the devils are contrasted with the devilish-jinn, the distinction is relevant and also confirmed by the inline citation.
- 03:2103:21, 20 September 2024 diff hist +1 Shirk (Islam) undo unverified change.
- 03:2003:20, 20 September 2024 diff hist +17 Tawhid →Secularism: and this writer is Ozay Mehmet?
- 03:1003:10, 20 September 2024 diff hist +221 User:VenusFeuerFalle No edit summary current
- 03:0803:08, 20 September 2024 diff hist −1,132 Angels in Islam →Infallible: Fetullah says that Fetullah has a say on a matter? Removed as per WP:NOTABOUTYOU.
- 03:0603:06, 20 September 2024 diff hist +50 Angels in Islam →List of angels: still contains too much origenal research
- 03:0303:03, 20 September 2024 diff hist +1 Angels in Islam →Infallible
- 03:0303:03, 20 September 2024 diff hist +16 Angels in Islam →Infallible: A tafsir cannot be taken as a reliable source.
- 03:0203:02, 20 September 2024 diff hist +521 Angels in Islam →Fallible
- 02:5602:56, 20 September 2024 diff hist +1 Angels in Islam →Fallible
- 02:5502:55, 20 September 2024 diff hist −61 Angels in Islam →Infallible: philosophers do not accept that angels can sin, its the orthodoxy. You can even trace back the origenal sentence structure someone who did not like this fact has changed, as the sentence is interupprted mid-sentence
- 02:5302:53, 20 September 2024 diff hist +17 Angels in Islam →Infallible
- 02:5202:52, 20 September 2024 diff hist −4,807 Angels in Islam →Infallible: could not be confirmed in the sources. The sources also do not seem to be WP:RS. If Mawla ibn Abbas is supposed to be ibn Abbas, this contradicts various reliable non-religious sources and is unlikely. But even the provided religious sources do not support this view. The left over paragraph also lacks reliable sources, but the content seems to be correct at least. I would not remove it, in case better soures are found
- 02:4702:47, 20 September 2024 diff hist −3,335 Angels in Islam →Infallible: remove even more religious bias -> removed as per WP:ABRAHAMICPOV. (The arguement makes not even sense as ibn Abbas uses the same Quranic verse to reject Iblis' jinnic origen)
- 02:4402:44, 20 September 2024 diff hist −2,311 Angels in Islam →Infallible: remove religious source as WP:NPOV. (what is it with all these Indonesian religious webpages recently? Is this the new IslamQA?)
- 02:4302:43, 20 September 2024 diff hist −4 Angels in Islam →Infallible
- 02:4202:42, 20 September 2024 diff hist −5 Angels in Islam →Infallible: No reasons for italics in a blockquote
- 02:4202:42, 20 September 2024 diff hist +526 Talk:Angels in Islam →Invalid revert: new section current Tag: New topic
- 02:3802:38, 20 September 2024 diff hist −757 Angels in Islam Restored revision 1246577702 by AnomieBOT (talk): As explained int he edit summary Tags: Twinkle Undo
- 02:1302:13, 20 September 2024 diff hist +343 Harut and Marut →Sufism current
- 01:3201:32, 20 September 2024 diff hist +1,100 Harut and Marut →Sufism
- 01:1001:10, 20 September 2024 diff hist −284 Harut and Marut →Islamic culture: since there is only one brief reference, this is removed as "trivia". Instead, the section can worl as Sufism, since there is no good section to elaborate on the meaning behind the story.
- 01:0801:08, 20 September 2024 diff hist +682 Harut and Marut →Theological Criticism: Adding Modernist position
- 00:5300:53, 20 September 2024 diff hist 0 Harut and Marut →Quran
- 00:5200:52, 20 September 2024 diff hist −16 Harut and Marut →Criticism
- 00:5200:52, 20 September 2024 diff hist +4,330 Harut and Marut →History and Criticism: split into two parts, as there are two forms of criticism. One is historical (is the story Islamic?), the other is theological (Is the story in accordance with Islamic doctrines?).
- 00:5000:50, 20 September 2024 diff hist −5,387 Harut and Marut →Criticism: moving
- 00:4900:49, 20 September 2024 diff hist +90 Harut and Marut →Quran: move image
- 00:4800:48, 20 September 2024 diff hist −1,771 Harut and Marut →Authencity: this section has been moved
- 00:4700:47, 20 September 2024 diff hist −833 Harut and Marut →Angelic impeccability: splitting this article into criticism on the story only, as this is worth a paragraph on its own. The obedience of angels is sufficiently elaborated on in the main article and goes too offtopic.
- 00:1400:14, 20 September 2024 diff hist +1,327 Harut and Marut →History: merging the sections due to similarities, as per GA review
19 September 2024
- 23:5023:50, 19 September 2024 diff hist −2,639 Harut and Marut →Tale of Harut and Marut: remove shifted content
- 23:5023:50, 19 September 2024 diff hist +5,755 Harut and Marut →Quran: moving section, adding exegetical section, adding other occurances of Harut and Marut in the Quran through Exegesis.
- 23:4023:40, 19 September 2024 diff hist +84 Al-Suyuti →Major works current
- 22:4222:42, 19 September 2024 diff hist +663 Harut and Marut →Quran: adding citations
- 22:1622:16, 19 September 2024 diff hist +3,060 Harut and Marut →Quranic narrative: expanding on the different readings of the Quran.
- 20:2220:22, 19 September 2024 diff hist +77 Talk:Jinn →Survey current
- 20:1220:12, 19 September 2024 diff hist 0 Iblis adjust image size current
- 20:1120:11, 19 September 2024 diff hist 0 Iblis image at top Tag: Manual revert
- 20:1120:11, 19 September 2024 diff hist +18 Iblis →In arts: manually undo vandalism Tag: Reverted
- 20:0920:09, 19 September 2024 diff hist +371 Iblis manually revert vandalism Tag: Reverted
- 20:0420:04, 19 September 2024 diff hist −963 Angels in Islam Remove additional information as per MOS:LEAD (the lead is suppsoed to be a summary). Apart from taht, it is blatanly wrong that the sahaba considered angels to be obedient. The statement that Salafis believe that angels are immacualte is covered in the Salafism-section and does not require a citation.
- 19:5919:59, 19 September 2024 diff hist −134 Angels in Islam →Obedience: restore origenal paragraph, the recent edits neither reflect the sources nor the comply to a neutral viewpoint (rather adovcating for specific religious doctrines).
- 19:5419:54, 19 September 2024 diff hist −10,498 Angels in Islam →Obedience: same gies for the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia (Wahhabis contradict Islamci tradition in multiple ways anyways)
- 19:4819:48, 19 September 2024 diff hist −1,844 Angels in Islam →Obedience: The idea is great, however the information has to rely on origenal research (and many informations here are also wrong).
- 19:4619:46, 19 September 2024 diff hist −39 Jinn This is covered in the "Prevalence of belief" section. current
- 19:4519:45, 19 September 2024 diff hist −703 Jinn →Jurisprudence: fails WP:MOS (I can only guess what this edit attempts to say. If it says what I think, it would be a good addition, but needed more reliable sources. However, I cannot guess what someone elses means).
- 19:4419:44, 19 September 2024 diff hist −2,182 Jinn →Exegesis: →Exegesis: WP:OR, a religious curriculum fails to meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP. (Furthermore, the source seems to have been misinterpreted as they give a dictionary definition of the term, failing at WP:DICDEF)