Talk:Milestones (book)

• Milestones by Sayyid Qutb, The Mother Mosque Foundation, 1981
• Radical Islamic Fundamentalism: The Ideological and Political Discourse of Sayyid Qutb

by Ahmad S. Moussalli, Beirut: American University of Beirut Press, 1992.

• Syed Qutb Shaheed, Hasan, S. Badrul, Karachi, Pakistan, International Islamic Publishers, 1982
• "Sayyid Qutb: ideologue of Islamic revival" by Haddad, Yvonne Y. in Voices of the Islamic Revolution, edited by Esposito, J., (1983)

• Sayyid Qutb, Milestones.
• Robert Irwin, Is this the man who inspired Bin Laden? The Guardian (November 1, 2001).

• Elmer Swenson, Sayyid Qutb's Milestones .

Here is the deal. I have been around this claim that Qutb and fascism share this connection (see the Qutb talk page and a note page of my own ). The cited sources are all familiar to me. There are some parallels, but they are not particularly "fascist." Therefore, I removed most of this paragraph:

Qutb's intense dislike of the West not withstanding, certain of his ideas (such as the "infertility" of democracy and victimhood from malicious foreign and Jewish conspiracies) are reminiscent of European fascism. "Ideas, constructs and phrases clearly adapted from the works of" German "fascist philosopher" Carl Schmidt have been found by some comentators.^[1]

Other have found ideas of the French fascist Alexis Carrel.^[2] Qutb mentions Maududi. He does not mention either Schmidt or Carrel.

Here are the problems with this passage:

I removed the phrase

Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't you yourself lectured others on the impropriety of editing wikis before discussion? --Leroy65X 16:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"and the necessity of a corrective revolution led by a vanguard following principles from a earlier golden age", because this is not something especially common to fascism. The concept of an ideological party educating and leading the people is far more relevant to communist revolutions.

It is the COMBINATION of these characteristics that makes them reminiscent of European fascism: disdain for democracy, hatred of foreigners and Jews, need for revolution etc. BTW, just what other ideologies is it common to? Communists did not "follow principles from a earlier golden age." They believed their ideology was the social, economic, political trend of the future. Dictatorship of the proletariate, scientific socialism, and eventually classless, moneyless society, were all new concepts. The Germans talked about a "Third Reich," i.e. they looked back at least in theory to two previous empires. I grant you Lenin used the term vanguard and, so far as I know, Nazis and Fascists did not. --Leroy65X 16:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The quote from Euben does not appear on the cited page (199), nor can I find a mention of Carl Schmidt in the text. The footnote itself does not provide any content about Qutb other than that he cited Alexis Carrel, but this is only a correlation. Also, Euben is speaking of non-rationalism and its commonality to Qutb and fascist thinkers. She is not making an argument for Qutb as fascist.

The cite comes from Khaled Abou El Fadl.

"Although Qutb does not once mention him in his works, a careful reading of Milestones on the Road reveals that many of Qutb's ideas, constructs and phrases are clearly adapted from the works of Schmidt." i.e. Carl Schmidt.

I have not read the Euben book myself. --Leroy65X 16:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• The citation from Al-Azmeh occurs on page 71 in the paperback (pg 30 in the 1996 hardcover). Most of the cited passage (p. 71-101) is about Afghani. Schmidt is not referenced in Al-Azmeh's text. The passage mentions the following details:

-- A parallel between Qutb and Alexis Carrel in their general subject matter (both dealt with the decline of modernity).

-- The fact that Qutb read and cited Carrel.

-- The parallel between Qutb and Carrel that both mentioned the need for some type of enlightened elite to reform society.

-- The parallel that both Qutb and Carrel use a naturalistic argument, though Al-Azmeh says this is only "implicit" in Qutb. Whatever this means, Qutb and Carrel's naturalism are two very different things. It's entirely misleading, if not wrong, to use the term "naturalism" in refernce to Qutb's philosophy.

All things considered, this passage does not establish a link between Qutb and Carrel which can be identified as "fascism".

• None of the two citations mentions Schmidt, source the quoted text, nor state that Qutb "clearly adapted" ideas from Schmidt.

• In Ali's book, Qutb (where he appears as Kutb) is only mentioned as a reader of Carrel's work. That's the same correlation which Euben and Al-Azmeh noted, but it is only a correlation. (the citation above is from hardcover 2002 edition ISBN:1859846793).

I will accept the deletion of coments about Schmidt. Right now at least we don't have proof that what Khaled Abou El Fadl is right about Qutb's "ideas, constructs and phrases [being] clearly adapted from the works of" Schmidt.

As for Carrel I have to argue that

• there is no doubt that he showed at least strong fascist tendencies: he `advocated the use of gas chambers to rid humanity of "inferior stock"` and worked to implement `eugenics policies during [the Nazi-allied] Vichy France` (from wikipedia entry).
• Qutb read and cited Carrel and Azmeh sees Carrel's influence in Qutb.

I hereby propose replacing my original passage with this:

Qutb's intense dislike of the West not withstanding, certain of his ideas (such as the "infertility" of democracy, inspiration from an earlier golden age, victimhood from malicious foreign and Jewish conspiracies, and revolution to expell alien influences from the nation or community and rebuild its power and international domination) are strongly reminiscent of European fascism. Some commentators have found influence of fascism in Qutb -- French fascist Alexis Carrel in particular. ^[3]

--Leroy65X 16:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's stick to keeping the comments properly organized (rather than inserting them inbetween posts) so they can be easily read. I'm having trouble following myself.

1) No, there is no impropriety on editing a wiki prior to discussion. If I ever said that, I was wrong. However, editing in lieu of discussion is bad form, particular when the facts are not clear. As far as I can tell, I made the last edit based on facts, which I don't think need major discussion. Obviously, however, I explained what edits I made and why because I wanted to bring the facts to light.

2) It's not productive to debate the various philosophies associated with fascism in depth here. Let's just stick with the language "strongly reminiscent of European fascism", being sure to be descriptive (as you have done) as to what we mean by this statement.

3) I found the citation from Khaled Abou El Fadl ("The Great Theft" pg.83), so that should be cited directly (maybe it was, I didn't see that in the article though). However, the passage in El Fadl only states this argument that Schmidt directly influence Qutb and provides no proof. He doesn't even elaborate. His endnote says this (pg.298): "The influence of facist theory upon Qutb has been noted by other writers. See Roxanne L. Euben, Enemy in the Mirror: Islamic Fundamentalism and the Limits of Modern Rationalism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), 199, n. 181; Aziz Al-Azmeh, Islam and Modernities (London: Verso Press, 1997), 77-101..."

This is a circular reference. I see this all the time with connecting Qutb to European fascist authors. El Fadl cites other authors, who cite other authors, etc. Euben does the same. But none provide the evidence, not even a discussion, of the relationship between Qutb and fascist European authors. This circular referencing is not acceptable, certainly not for a scholarly work, but also not to make claims about direct influence.

On the connection to Carrel. As far as I know, Qutb cites Carrel in only one book. I have never seen this text. It would be good to know why Qutb was citing Carrel before we say Qutb was citing Carrel's facist ideas. Because context, let alone content, is important. None of the scholars cited provide this basic evidence. The topic of "who influenced whom?" occupies thousands of volumes in Western scholarship, but here we can't bring up the single piece of evidence we can identify - how do we know we haven't misidentified it?

Regardless, I support your revised version if we can remove the last sentence. I would support its inclusion if we had material to back it up (e.g. scholarly analysis). --Vector4F 02:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Per editing a wiki prior to discussion, this is what I'm going to put in the text:

Qutb's intense dislike of the West not withstanding, certain of his ideas (such as the "infertility" of democracy, the decline of contemporary Western civilization, inspiration from an earlier golden age, victimhood from malicious foreign and Jewish conspiracies, and revolution to expell alien influences and rebuild the power and international domination of the nation/community) are strongly reminiscent of European fascism. The influence of fascist thinkers (particularly French fascist Alexis Carrel) in Qutb's work is disputed. ^[4]

Even assuming Tariq Ali, Aziz Al-Azmeh, Khaled Abou El Fadl are all using circular reasoning (which I haven't time to verify), the fact they have found fascist influence in Qutb is worth a line in the text.

--Leroy65X 15:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please understand, I am not interested in being difficult or defining Qutb in a certain way. If we are going to make serious claims about who influenced whom then I think it is only fair that we do our best to be correct, not merely speculative. Let me be clear: I will not be taking this issue into an edit war, an RFC, or anything else. All we need is to identify what we know and what we don't know. I am perfectly willing to be proven wrong.

My argument is against the inclusion of these scholars opinions on the grounds that they do not provide justification for their assumptions. If scholars have found the fascist influence, they should explain and make a case for it. A scholar is only as good as their scholarship. To establish influence and qualify it as "fascist" is a significant claim. To do so with no evidence is a significant omission. I have no issue with simply saying that Qutb read and cited Carrel. That much is clear. But the incidence of this is isolated and we do not know the content or context. How do we get from this to "fascist influence" - how can we say this influenced a specific work (e.g. Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq)? Isn't there a rather large difference between saying "Bob influenced Alice" and "Bob's fascism influenced Alice"? The difference justifies explanation. We have no sources which provide this justification. We only have sources which say "it's there; so-and-so has seen it; here's a correlation." This opinion has no more value than a piece in National Review; it contributes nothing more than an editorial byline.

So I am unsure as to why a scholar's conclusion should be advanced without the content of their argument (in article or via citation). I cannot overlook the absence of verifiable argument on account of a person's/institution's/etc. reputation. What else do we have here? --Vector4F 21:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The current section on Qutb's supposed link to fascism is much better then the previous ones, AND shows how shaky the argument is: The first bullet point comes from Leninist historical materialsm, and was copied clumsily into Hitler's version of facism. The second bullet point (earlier golden age) is the core of most nationalisms, and absent in fascism, The third point (victimhood from conspiracies) is not core Qutb (Qutb claims that deviation by those INSIDE islam is the core problem) The forth point (establish international domination of the nation / community) is outside Qutb's ideology, as his idea is to INCLUDE all people and nations into one world wide Islamic state, and certainly not to have one nation to dominate over the others. So the argument is flawed on all four points. I propose it to be declared to be unsubstantiated.

There is a semantic problem here: Qutb himself was always arguing for an inclusive, egalitarian world system, making him more like a communist. His call for violence was quite theoretical, made when he was in prison, threatened to be hung by an unjust judicial system, maybe never meant to be applied on any significant scale. But small, violent sections of todays djihadist movements often selectively cite his work in order to justify random killings, sometimes even mass random killings like 9-11, against all considered infidel or deviaters of the righteous path.

Although that is not facism in the strict meaning (justifying random mass violence to establish a biologically homogeneous nation, dominating all others) it is a very similar thing: justifying random mass violence to establish a religious homogeneous nation, to replace all others. There remains a theoretically important diffrence: facsism strives for exclusion of all with a slightly different biology, where even the most extremist version of jihadist Islam strives for inclusion of everyone with any biology (as a muslim). Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Two chunks of text were removed by "Islami"

Yet for the last decade and a half of his life (1953-1966) Qutb himself belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization founded on almost military-like structure at least as hierarchal as most Christian or Jewish congregations or denominations. Before his assassination "Supreme Guide" Sheikh Hassan al Banna had the power to overrule any decisions by local Brotherhood branches not to his liking. ^[5]

and

American Racism

- Qutb condemned "evil and fanatical racial discrimination" in America ^[6] but in Milestones he describes the enslavement of Africans by early Muslims as a great benefit to the deprived Africans. "When Islam entered the central part of Africa, it clothed naked human beings, socialized them, brought them out of the deep recesses of isolation, and taught them the joy of work for exploring (sic) material resources" (p.105), such work being the job of African slaves in the Islamic empire, and the reason their very short life expectancy. ^[7]

Both these pieces of information are documented by reputable sources. If Islami has any reason to dispute the accuracy or relevance of them kindly share it with us --Leroy65X 14:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The first one is not related to what Qutb is talking about. He does not have a problem with a hierarchal organization. He is talking about giving priests and rabbis the authority to make laws, as in reference to Quran (Tauba:31). As for the second one, he was not talking about the slaves. --Islamic 14:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The critic of Qutb in question, (one Elmer Swenson) argues that "Supreme Guide" al Banna was making "laws" (regulations is probably a better word) for the Brethren that were more strict than priests and rabbis make for their followers, i.e. Qutb was being hypocritical in his accusing Christians and Jews of being polytheists.

As for the second complaint, do you have any reason for us to believe that the Africans that Qutb says were given the "joy" of "work for exploring (sic) material resources," i.e. working in mines and farms in early Muslim empires, were not slaves as described below?

Zanj slaves used to drain the salt flats of southern Iraq, and the blacks employed in the salt mines of the Sahara and the gold mines of Nubia. These were herded in large settlements and worked in gangs. Large landowners, or crown lands, often employed thousands of such slaves. While domestic and commercial slaves were relatively well-off, these lived and died in wretchedness. Of the Saharan salt mines it is said that no slave lived there for more than five years ...

Again the critic is suggesting Qutb's complaint about America's treatment of Africans is hypocritical. This certainly seems relevant to an article about this book. --Leroy65X 22:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Making an orgnaizational regulations is very different than making divine laws. And since Sayyed never talked about slaves, that paragraph does not belong there. Islam had build large empires in the West balck africa (Mali, Nigeria, etc). That is not related to the "Zanj".--Islamic 23:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Christians and Jews as Polytheists: Are you familiar with what Qutb said in Milestones? He did not talk about the "divine laws" of Christians and Jews, he said

[Jews and Christians] did not consider their priests or rabbis as divine, nor did they worship them; but they gave them the authority to make laws, obeying laws which were made by them [and] not permitted by God... [p.82]

[This is not permitted by God because] it clear that obedience to laws and judgments is a sort of worship [p.60]

in other words, it's obediance to other human beings and/or laws made by human beings that is the problem. The laws do not have to be designated "divine" by the human law-maker according to Qutb for obediance to them to be an act of shirk. Only sharia law should be obeyed because "obedience to laws and judgments is a sort of worship"

I have worked very hard on this article and would appreciate it if you did not delete text again. I will drop the racism issue for the time being.

A Rabbi interprets Halakkah and law based on the Torah just as much as Ulema interpret the Sharia... if anything in Islam Ulema are given far more deference in their judgement and can't be disagreed with. This effectively gives them the power to make laws of their own judgement and declare it the divine will. It's hilarious that he obstinately refuses to see this and considers it at all true that in practice sharia consists purely of following God's commands. The direct orders in the sharia are few and far between, who interprets what is the will of God in other areas effectively had the power to issue laws. Christianity is unique in that its not a law based religion and we're merely told to obey the ruler, but that is the command of our religion, it's not his place to apply the standards of Islam to Christianity and object to our religions commandment to render one to Caesar as some firm of worship. As for Judaism he's apparently entirely unaware of its details and the fact that it's very similar to his own religion in being based on religious law. Except that they don't demand the laws of their religion rule the whole world.69.138.196.15 (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I have revised the "Christians and Jews as Polytheists" section to make it clearer and hope we will not have to continue this revert war. --Leroy65X 21:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

One thing need to be added here. Qutub's view (Christians and Jews as Polytheists) is a traditional, so I don't see a point of criticizing Sayyed only. --Islamic 04:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Tell us more. Is Qutb's reasoning -- that ahl al-kitab are mushrik because they give 'priests and rabbis "the authority to make laws" and "it is clear that obedience to laws and judgments is a sort of worship"` -- is that traditional too? Isn't it traditional that ahl al-kitab are in a different class than mushrik? That they can pay jizya and do not have to convert to Islam? --Leroy65X 14:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with some of your edits but thank you for finding mistakes and wikipedia-ing it better. -Leroy65X 14:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sayyid Qutb may or may not have been a dangerous nut, but he deserves - more importantly Wikipedia readers deserves him - to be heard without original criticism dogging him at every step. No doubt, there is much notable criticism which should be included, but skewed language and original argument violates policy, and makes for an even poorer article than were his ideas presented without any commentary at all.Proabivouac 06:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you are confusing language that explains what the criticism is, with non-NPOV. i.e. Wikipedia readers deserve to know what the controversy is about. --Leroy65X 17:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism deserves to be here, but it must attributed to notable critics, and I did not remove any of this; indeed there sould be more of it. We cannot write, "Qutb insists this but this is obviously wrong because of that," or any variant thereof. See my message on your user talk.Proabivouac 17:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Proabivouac above. Current criticism section is all about original argument using sarcastic and biased language. Readers deserve to know what the dispute is about in a scholarly fashion. Using language like "It's not clear whether he includes among these lucky Africans the slaves who worked in the salt mines of early Islam...", while might represent the actual controversy, still betrays the obvious bias of the editor and violates policies. Aslamt 18:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[proabivouac message on my user talk] Leroy65X, I'm inclined to agree with your dim view of Qutb, but it is a fact of policy (though often violated) that articles can't be structured in such a way as to advance an argument, except insofar as a neutral presentation of facts is suggestive in itself. We can and certainly should quote Qutb's critics, so long as they are either acknowledged experts in their fields or otherwise notable. What we are not to do is (for example): "Critics of Sharia insist that it presents an insufficient and outdated model for human society. However, these criticisms ignore that [Arguments for Sharia]..." That's fine, of course, in an essay, which rightfully aims to advance a point of view, but not encyclopedic. What is needed is to find notable critics who say something you might want to say, quote or paraphrase them appropriately, and make sure Qutb backers (he seems to have quite a few) don't bias the article in the other direction. In any event, never fear: even if only Qutb's words were presented, statements such as the entire world must be governed under Islamic law are likely to be seen (by most non-Muslims at least) as lunatic fringe, even if they go unrebutted (as they shouldn't).Proabivouac 17:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My opinions about Qutb are irrelevent if they do not enter into the article. Articles should not be structured in such a way as to advance an argument, but they should be written in a way advance understanding. I think you are confusing encyclopedic with dull, for example your removal of

This uniquely free socio-economic system not only frees Muslims to be true Muslims, but explains why ...

in the paragraph

This uniquely free socio-economic system not only frees Muslims to be true Muslims, but explains why offensive jihad to "establish the sovereignty of God ... throughout the world" (p.62) is not aggression but "a movement to wipe out tyranny and to introduce true freedom to mankind." (p.62)

does not remove something Qutb would in any way disagree with. To Qutb Islam is not a free system it is the only free system.

As for notability of critics it is true the author of is not notable (so at least I've never heard of Elmer Swenson). If mr. Swenson was offer a judgement that Qutb was crazy or ignorant or whatever, that certainly should not be included in any wikipedia. But the argument based on Qutb's writing, made on that page seems to me to be rather important. Qutb's explanation of how conqest is liberation is contradicted by his explanation of how Islam is free.

I will attempt to remove any POV insinuation but if your going to remove it again we are going to need dispute resolution. --Leroy65X 18:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: "this uniquely free socio-economic system not only frees Muslims to be true Muslims" I removed because it seemed untopical to the following material, which is about global jihad. You are free to restore it if you must.

However, the use of Swenson is not acceptable, nor is there a need for dispute resolution, as the way forward is quite clear: as Swenson is neither notable nor an acknowledged expert, citing him fails to support the inclusion of the material, even if we think (as we do) that he makes some very good points. As I wish neither to confront you nor to discourage you, I suggest you seek feedback from other experienced editors on this point; you will find that I am only representing the prevailing orthodoxy in this regard.Proabivouac 19:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added some complementary references to Qutb's book from other writers to avoid giving the impression the beginning of the criticism is proforma and just a setup for the points of criticism below. --Leroy65X 17:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear whether he includes among these Africans the slaves who worked in the salt mines of early Islam[24] and whose short life expectancy was a result of the conditions under which they explored for the resource of sodium chloride.

This is clearly either POV or from a biased source, it should be removed.149.125.234.115 21:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This section was clearly POV and fallacious at that -- asking Qutb, amongst other things, to "answer" for the actions of slaveholders 1000 years ago.149.125.234.115 17:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag added - the criticism section is plain silly and needs extensive rewriting - if the author wants to sarcastically refute or attack Qutb then they should write a book, a so called neutral encyclopedia is not the place for that.

1st October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.39.34 (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The term "shirk" (hence the designation mushirk) does not necessarily entail "polytheism" (i.e., the worship of many gods.) Shirk means idolatry and a mushirk is one who practices idolatry, i.e., an idolater. An idolater is one who venerates material things, even if only a single thing is venerated. This is a meaningful distinction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.157.104.108 (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Milestones.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Reason: The translation of Ma'alim fi al-Tariq into english uses the title Milestones.

Any objections? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. There's no need to state the name twice. Arguably, the title should be Milestones (book) if we wanted to use the English terminology, but there's definitely no point in having both in the main title line. As an example, the article Joan of Arc is there, not at Joan of Arc (Jeanne d' Arc). The only example I can think of where something like this was done was for the Sega Genesis/MegaDrive, and they eventually moved that out of the / title anyway.

I think this name is fine. It's accessible from Milestones easily anyway, and states the most commonly known title (Milestones) right at the beginning. SnowFire (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Qutb.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be good to have a list of countries this book is banned in. For starters, at least one edition is banned in UK (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16171251) 92.20.10.252 (talk) 07:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I've done my best to clean this article up (diffs ), but there are problems here which are outside of my expertise, both in terms of content and regarding how to write a Wikipedia article. I am no scholar, nor do I have any knowledge of this work or its author, so I can't really clean up the content itself. I suspect there are significant issues with the content, though, which really needs to be overlooked by someone erudite in this material (preferably someone without a POV and who could write it encyclopedically). There are significant WP:MOS issues, however, including the citing of page numbers within the article (which should be cited via {{sfn}}, and how there is bullet list usage which may be better as a paragraph. I'd do this myself, but I simply don't know how, or I am not knowledgeable enough to make these edits.

For the time being, I've placed some template headers on this article in the hopes that someone could come in here and clean this up. I did what I could, but this is out of my level at this time. Sorry. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 06:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Have done the {{sfn}} and gotten rid of some quotes. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

going to change name of title per Article titles#English-language titles --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

To what...? Also WP:RM is where you want to go if you think it might potentially be controversial. SnowFire (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

To "Milestones (book)". Milestones being the title used in all translations I know of. And Article titles#English-language titles being pretty clear on what the language should be. Yes, the book is very controversial, but the title ...?

However, it didn't work. this happened. will have to appeal to an admin as Snowfire says above. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You can use db-move (see WP:G6) on the redirect, and I think I'd even support that proposal, but I wouldn't be surprised if an admin turned that down since the article has been here & stable for a decade. Is there a hurry? Just file a brief RM and wait the week, IMHO. SnowFire (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

RM made. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests#Uncontroversial_technical_requests No hurry. Yes, stable for a decade, but consistency is nice and Milestones is much more well known and easier to remember for English speakers than than Ma'alim fi al-Tariq. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Milestones (book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100813111858/http://web.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/milestones/hold/index_2.htm to http://web.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/milestones/hold/index_2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)