Imaam al-Shatibi said in his excellent book al-I’tisam (tahqiq M. Salman, Maktabah Dar al-Tawhid, 2/127-128), clarifying the different types of innovation:

Regarding the Rulings Pertaining to Proper Innovation and Relative Innovation and the Difference Between Them Both

Before we look into that it is necessary to look at the explanation al-bidah al-haqiqiyyah (proper innovation) and al-idafiyyah (relative innovation).

So we say and with Allaah lies success:

The bidah haqiqiyyah (proper innovation, in every sense of the word) is that which is not indicated by any shariah evidence, neither from the Book, nor the Sunnah, nor ijma’ (consensus), nor qiyas (analogy) and nor any accepted evidence with the people of knowledge, neither in the generality nor in the detail. For this reason it is labelled “bidah” – as has been mentioned previously – because it is something invented without any prior example.

This is the case even if the innovator refuses that he should be ascribed with exiting from the (confines of) the shariah, since he is claiming that he is (still) within it on account of what he has deduced upon the requirements of the evidences. However, that claim is not sound, neither in the affair in and of itself, and nor from what is apparent. As the affair in and of itself, then this is known by looking at it through (the evidences) and as for what is apparent, then his evidences are but doubts, they are not evidences, even if it is established that he has brought evidence, otherwise, the affair is clear.

And as for the bidah idafiyyah (relative innovation) then it has two elements to it:

The first: It has a connection from the evidences, hence from that angle it is not an innovation.

The second: It does not have any connection with the evidences except what there is for the bidah haqiqiyyah (in other words, no connection at all).

So when this action which has two elements to it is never devoid of one of the two affairs, we have given it this label of ‘al-bidah al-idafiyyah.’ Meaning that in relation to one of the two angles, it is sunnah, because it is supported by evidence, and in relation to the other angle, it is bidah, because it is [either] supported by a doubt (shubhah), not upon evidence, or it is not supported by anything.

And the difference between them in terms of meaning is: That the evidence for it (bidah idafiyyah) from the angle of the foundation (asl) is established. And from the angle of the details (kaifiyyaat) or states (ahwaal) or particulars (tafseelaat), or times (awqaat), no evidence is established for it despite the fact that it is in need of (evidence) because most of (this type) occurs in the matters of worship, not in the pure customary matters, as will be mentioned shortly inshaa’Allaah.

It is important to note that the contemporary Sufi grave-worshippers and other than them from the innovators try to deceive and confuse between what is bidah idafiyyah (relative innovation) – which is what they are upon, and what they call the people to – and between other matters which a minority of scholars include within the label of “good innovation” but who are merely using this label from the purely linguistic point of view in relation to matters of beneficial public interest (maslahah mursalah). Refer to these articles for more on this:

• Innovation Is of Two Types, Haqeeqiyyah and Idaafiyyah: Read article
• Understanding Matters of public interest (al-masalih al-mursalah) Read article

Source : www.bidah.com

This article should be read alongside this one (on the completion and perfection of the Shariah) and this one (al-Shatibi’s definition of bidah).

Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, the followers of the Righteous Salaf, follow the Messenger (alayhis salaam) in all of their beliefs and understandings. Hence, all of their conceptions, thoughts and understandings are founded upon what is related in his Sunnah, because they believe that final authority rests with him, and they are the greatest of people in loving, respecting and giving precedence to him.

This is opposed to the way of the people of innovation who raise other authorities above and over him and prefer their sayings over and above his, despite their lip service in the claim of love and obedience to him. There is nothing which illustrates this more clearly than in the issue of the understanding of bidah (البدعة). In this article we will present the Prophetic definition of bidah. Before proceeding into the main subject of the article, we will quickly mention the linguistic definition of bidah.

The Linguistic Definition of Bidah

The linguistic definition of bidah is provided by (الشيء المخترع على غير مثال سابق),

“Something invented without having any prior example.”

This is based upon its usage in the Qur’an in the saying of Allaah,

(قُلْ مَا كُنتُ بِدْعًا مِّنْ الرُّسُلِ), “

Say: “I am not a new thing amongst the Messengers” (46:9),

meaning Muhammad is not a new thing amongst the Messengers, as he has precedents and prior examples before him (Eesaa, Musa, Ibrahim and so on). Also the saying of Allaah,

(بَدِيعُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ)

“The originator of the heavens and the earth” (2:117),

meaning the one who originated them without them having any prior example. This definition of bidah incorporates all new things, religious or otherwise, since its general meaning extends to all things without restriction, be they praiseworthy or blameworthy, be they from the religion or not from the religion, as the general underlying concept behind the word bidah is “anything which has no prior example for it.”

And there are from the Salaf those who used the word bidah specifically upon its linguistic meaning (not its Shariah meaning) within certain contexts and situations (and this is what has allowed the Innovators to confuse and deceive others about the true nature of innovation intended by the Shariah).

Shariah definitions of words differ from linguistic meanings because the Shariah may restrict, qualify, expand, or attach conditions (to the linguistic meaning) to give a new conceptual meaning which is employed by the Shariah to address the people. Examples include, prayer (الصلاة), belief, faith (الإيمان), charity (الزكاة) amongst others, all of which have intended Shariah meanings which are different to the original linguistic meaning afforded by the root words in the language. Thus, anyone who claims the Qur’an can be understood purely through the language, or primarily through language will go astray no doubt.

The Shariah Definition of Bidah is Founded Upon Five Statements of the Messenger (alayhis salaam)

The conception of the word bidah (البدعة) as intended by the Shariah and as conveyed by the Messenger (alayhis salaam) to his Ummah, and upon which warnings have been made is found completely in five ahaadeeth of the Messenger (alayhis salaam), and we will address them here one by one.

1. The First Hadeeth of Aa’ishah

Both al-Bukhari and Muslim relate the hadeeth of Aa’ishah (radiallaahu anhaa), which is the foundation of the definition of bidah in the Shariah:

عن عائشة رضي الله عنها قالت: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: مَنْ أَحْدَثَ فِي أَمْرِنَا هَذَا مَا لَيْسَ مِنْهُ فَهُوَ رَدٌ

Whoever introduces into this affair of ours that which does not belong to it, will have it rejected.

Al-Shatibi’s definition of bidah (see article here) is in fact founded upon this hadeeth, since this hadeeth has provided three very important conditions or restrictions which have made the meaning of bidah intended by the Shariah to be something unique. As such, nothing is considered a bidah in the Shariah sense except when these conditions are met.

These three conditions are:

• (الإحداث) – Introducing something new
• (الإضافة) – Ascribing it to the religion
• (عدم الدليل الشرعي) – Absence of Shariah evidence [for this newly-introduced matter] in either a general way or a specific way

These three qualifications are found in the hadeeth itself:

First, he (alayhis salaam) said, (مَنْ أَحْدَثَ), and this refers to bringing anything new without any prior example. At this point, this could refer to all newly-invented things, praiseworthy or blameworthy, religious, or otherwise.

Second, he (alayhis salaam) then qualified and restricted this by saying (فِي أَمْرِنَا هَذَ), which has now made it specific to the religion, so this newly-invented thing must be ascribed to the Shariah and to the religion. This now excludes all worldly matters and customs which have no connection to the religion, and likewise all matters of sin and disobedience which are unlawful in the Shariah (like stealing, fornicating gambling and so on), since no one takes them as being from the religion when falling into them.

Third, it could be the case that this newly-invented thing may have a basis in the Shariah, so he (alayhis salaam) further qualified the affair and said (مَا لَيْسَ مِنْهُ), which means, as explained by the Scholars, that it has no support from the Shariah, neither in a general sense (a general evidence) or in a specific sense (a specific evidence).

An example of a general, non-specific evidence would be in the case of the compilation of the Qur’an into a single book (mushaf), since this comes under a general foundation in the Shariah which is the preservation of the religion (as one of the five essential matters it came to protect, religion, life, intellect, wealth, honour). So the compilation of the Qur’an exits from the Shariah definition of bidah.

And an example of specific evidence would be that of the Tarawih prayer being prayed in congregation that was initiated by Umar bin al-Khattaab. This has a direct, specific evidence (the Prophet led the people in congregational Tarawih prayer for three nights in Ramadan in the mosque), and thus it exits from being a bidah in the Shariah sense.

The same would apply to all legislated matters which have been forgotten or abandoned, and which are revived, they do not come under bidah with its Shariah meaning. And some scholars may refer to these matters as “good innovations” purely from a linguistic point of view, but what they really mean is revival of a forgotten Sunnah, and this is the meaning of the saying of Umar bin al-Khattaab (نعمة البدعة هذه), “What an excellent innovation this is“ about his re-instituting the Tarawih prayer in congregation in the mosque.

This is the same understanding of bidah that is found in the explanations of the overwhelming majority of Scholars such as Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali and Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and others. And everything that comes under this definition is what is intended by the Messenger (alayhis salaam) in his saying (وَكُلَّ بِدْعَةٍ ضَلاَلَةٌ), “Every innovation is misguidance.” Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali said:

فقوله صلى الله عليه وسلم كل بدعة ضلالة من جوامع الكلم لا يخرج عنه شيء وهو أصل عظيم من أصول الدين وهو شبيه بقوله صلى الله عليه وسلم من أحدث في أمرنا ما ليس منه فهو رد فكل من أحدث شيئا ونسبه إلى الدين ولم يكن له أصل من الدين يرجع إليه فهو ضلالة والدين بريء منه وسواء في ذلك مسائل الاعتقادات أو الأعمال أو الأقوال الظاهرة والباطنة وأما ما وقع في كلام السلف من استحسان بعض البدع فإنما ذلك في البدع اللغوية لا الشرعية فمن ذلك قول عمر رضي الله عنه لما جمع الناس في قيام رمضان على إمام واحد في المسجد

So his saying (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) that “every innovation is misguidance” is from the comprehensive, concise words from which no matter (of innovation) [introduced in the religion] escapes from, and it is a mighty foundation from the foundations of the religion. It resembles his saying (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), “Whoever introduced into this affair of ours that which does not belong to it will have it rejected.”

Hence, everyone who introduced something and ascribed it to the religion and it does not have any foundation in the religion to which it returns back to, then it is misguidance and the religion is free of it, irrespective of whether it is in the matters of belief, or actions or outward and inward statements. As for what occurs in the speech of some of the Salaf of considering some of the innovations to be good, then that is with respect to innovations with the linguistic meaning, not the Shariah meaning and from [the examples of that] is the saying of Umar (radiallaahu anhu) when he gathered the people together for praying in Ramadan behind a single imaam in the mosque. Jami’ al-Ulum al-Hikam of Ibn Rajab in explanation of the hadeeth of al-Irbaad bin Saariyah (2/128).

And Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani said:

والمراد بقوله كل بدعة ضلالة ما أحدث ولا دليل له من الشرع بطريق خاص ولا عام

And what is intended by his saying “Every innnovation is misguidance” is whatever is newly-introduced and has no evidence in the Shariah in neither a general way nor a specific way. Fath al-Bari (13/253).

And he also said:

و ” المحدثات ” بفتح الدال جمع محدثة والمراد بها ما أحدث ، وليس له أصل في الشرع ويسمى في عرف الشرع ” بدعة ” وما كان له أصل يدل عليه الشرع فليس ببدعة ، فالبدعة في عرف الشرع مذمومة بخلاف اللغة فإن كل شيء أحدث على غير مثال يسمى بدعة سواء كان محمودا أو مذموما ،

And “the newly invented matters” (المحدثات), with the fathah on the daal, is the plural of novelty (محدثة) and what is intended by it is what has been newly-introduced and does not have any basis in the legislation. It is referred to in the usage of the Shari’ah as innovation (بدعة). As for what has a basis indicated by the Shari’ah then it is not an innovation. For “innovation” in the usage of the Shari’ah is blameworthy as opposed to its usage (with its) linguistic (meaning), for everything that has been newly-invented without any prior example is named “bid’ah” irrespective of whether it is praiseworthy, or blameworthy. Fath al-Bari (13/253).

2. The Second Hadeeth of Aa’ishah

Muslim relates the hadeeth of Aa’ishah (radiallaahu anhaa) with his wording, in addition to the one above, that the Prophet (alayhis salaam) said:

مَنْ عَمِلَ عَمَلاً لَيْسَ عَلَيْهِ أَمْرُنَا فَهُوَ رَدٌّ

Whoever did an action which is not upon our affair will have it rejected.

3. The Third Hadeeth of Ai’shah (through Ibn Isa)

And Abu Dawud relates in his Sunan, from Ibn Isa, that the Prophet (alayhis salaam) said:

مَنْ صَنَعَ أَمْرًا عَلَى غَيْر أَمْرنَا فَهُوَ رَدٌ

Whoever worked an affair in discrepancy with ours will have it rejected. Sahih. See Sahih al-Jami al-Saghir (no. 6369)

The second and third hadeeths both add further meaning to what has preceded in that whoever works an affair or does an action which is not in agreement with the Shariah in its details and particulars will have it rejected. Together with the first hadeeth, these three ahaadeeth cover a) what is newly-invented having no basis whatsoever and b) what may have a basis but which in its details and particulars deviates and differs from what is in the Shariah. Thus, both the bidah haqiqiyyah (proper innovation) and bidah idafiyyah (relative innovation) – [see this article] – are both clarified in the Sunnah, warned against, and rejected.

4. The Hadeeth of al-Irbaad bin Saariyah

There occurs in the well known hadeeth of al-Irbaad bin Saariyah (radiallahu anhu) about the Prophet’s farewell sermon:

وَإِيَّاكُمْ وَمُحْدَثَاتِ الأُمُورِ؛ فَإِنَّ كُلَّ مُحْدَثَةٍ بِدْعَةٌ , وَكُلَّ بِدْعَةٍ ضَلاَلَةٌ

And beware of the newly-introduced affairs, for every newly-introduced affair is an innovation, and every innovation is misguidance. Reported by Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah and al-Tirmidhi.

This hadeeth establishes that everything which falls under the confines of the first three ahaadeeth – bidah haqiqiyyah, bidah idafiyyah and which meet the three conditions of,

There are no exceptions to this because the precise nature of the bidah intended has already been qualified by the Messenger (alayhis salaam) in what has preceded. Thus, the word (كُلَّ) has already been qualified, it does not mean every innovation absolutely and unrestrictedly (with its linguistic meaning), but rather every innovation qualified as such by the Shariah and as intended by the Shariah, which has narrowed down, restricted and qualified the linguistic meaning.

The Hadeeth of Jabir bin Abdullaah

Al-Nasaa’ee relates with his wording, from Jaabir bin Abdullaah (radiallaahu anhu) the following:

عن جابر بن عبد الله رضي الله عنهما قال: كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إذا خطب يقول: أَمَّا بَعْدُ، فَإِنَّ أََحْسَنَ الحَدِيثِ كِتَابُ اللهِ، وَأََحْسَنَ الهَدْيِ هَدْيُ مُحَمَّدٍ، وَشَرَّ الأُمُورِ مُحْدَثَاتُهَا، وَكُلَّ مُحْدَثَةٍ بِدْعَةٌ ، وَكُلَّ بِدْعَةٍ ضَلَالَةٌ ، وَكُلَّ ضَلالَةٍ فِي النَّار

The Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) used to say when delivering a sermon:

To proceed: Indeed, the best speech is the Book of Allaah and the best guidance is the guidance of Muhammad and the worst of affairs are the newly-invented matters, every newly-invented matter is an innovation and every innovation is misguidance, and every (instance of) misguidance is in the Fire.

Sahih. Reported by al-Nasa’i, al-Bayhaqi, al-Aajurree and others.

This hadeeth establishes that every innovation (as qualified and defined by whatever has preceded) which is misguidance is in the Hellfire, and this completes the understanding of bidah in the Shariah, upon the Prophetic Sunnah. This also connects with the other Prophetic statements such as the hadeeth of the seventy-two sects that are threatened with the Hellfire (all of whom split away from the Sunnah and Jamaa’ah and become sects due to innovations), and the hadeeth of the straight line and the lines to the right and left at the end of which there are devils, calling the people to these divergent paths.

Refer to:

• al-I’tisam of al-Shatibee
• Qawa’id Ma’rifat al-Bida’ of Muhammad al-Jizani.

Source : www.bidah.com

I cried for a long time as the tragedy sunk in. I feel as a society, we failed her. And her story is not unique. It happens all over the world every single day. And it’s not good enough.

It made me realize a few simple facts.

- People don’t appreciate anything until it’s gone.
- People don’t care until something drastic happens.
- Words can effect people, both positively and negatively.
- People really see whatever the want to see, and hardly anyone looks beyond the surface.
- And sometimes no matter how much you try, most people will never get you.

This also makes  those amazing people who do all the more special. The world needs more compassion, more understanding.

Sometimes I feel my finely crafted veneer is starting to crack. It’s a harsh to admit not just to you, but especially to myself. It’s funny, the things that used to give me the most fulfilment are now only a cruel reminder of how selfish people can be, and how insignificant I really feel at times.

I’m not saying that everyone is selfish, and even I am too. In my own ways of course, I crave acceptance. I like to help others for selfish reasons. It just makes me feel great. Makes me feel that I’m worthwhile. I’ve tried and tried, and in all honestly, I wanna live for me and not for anyone else. But I just don’t know how. It’s a lesson I’ve learned over and over and still nothing ever changes. It’s like I can see the dark clouds rolling in on the horizon, and I forgot to bring an umbrella.

I’m such a fucking hypocrite. What business do I have making videos and blogging about being positive? How can I be a role model to others when I’m the way I am?

The answer is simple really. Because I can. Because I am willing. And because someone has to. Depression and other mental illnesses are a battle often fought in silence, and so many bothers and sisters just disappear into the night. THAT is my purpose.

I’m always afraid… That I’m never going to be anything special. You see, I’ve always felt that way deep down. But I hope that I’m wrong. But right now, I’m not so sure about anything. I know that the darkness will be a part of my life forever. I just don’t know if I can handle that. I know I have a choice. I can fight or I can give up.

And I’ve never been any good at giving up on anything or anyone.

But I’m tired of always being strong for everyone else. It makes me want to resent people, for expecting me to be strong for them, but everyone’s so wrapped up in themselves. I can understand, but it makes me feel that I’m invisible. Doesn’t how I feel matter too? Or maybe the problem is all on me. I don’t like to confide in people. Partially from fear of rejection, and also a bit of trying hard to maintain something to make someone else feel better about themselves. But I cannot deny that making others happy has always made me happier than anything else. It makes me feel worthy of love. But sometimes I feel that the fake smile I wear is fading, and now the world can see me.

And I cannot have that.

So once again, I am afraid of so many things. That I might do something stupid. Because I want to… more than I care to admit. It’s something selfish, and yet something I can’t take back. Sometimes it’s easy to fantasize about an escape. But I realised that my path was never meant to be easy. And that was an especially hard lesson for me to learn.

I’m lonely. I don’t feel drawn to anyone really, and on a rare occasion I find myself catching a feeling, it knocks me about something fierce. There really is no feeling in the universe like it. For it’s strong and oh so true. It’s  the one emotion I don’t doubt. It’s actually nice to believe in something with such clarity. It’s a nice change for me, even as it hurts and yet excites me. But most importantly, it reminded me that I am alive.

Is it foolish to cling on to hope so tightly? Is hope just another delusion? Or am I just impatient to see some real change happen? Is the problem is that other people cannot meet my expectations? Or is the fact that I have expectations the problem? I find it safer to not have any expectations, but when someone gets to me and I really care, it’s hard not to romanticise about something greater than a simple relationship. For anyone to spend their life with me, it would never be something simple. But I am worth it. I try and remind myself everyday of this… even though the darkness tries to remind me that it’s there, to make me weak.. to doubt myself. And I refuse to lose.

I WILL NEVER LOSE… Not to this.

It’s the hardest thing I’ve done, confessing my feelings for another person. Most of the time I regret having exposed myself in such a way, but it’s something that again makes me feel something more than even I am prepared for. I still find it hard to be the calm collected person I like to pretend I can be, when in reality, whenever it comes to any emotion be it love, loss, affection, anger, doubt and the like… And I feel it stronger than most people do. It’s a fact of my life. I had to accept it… and I hope someday that someone else can too.

A friend told me that am I brave for sharing all this. The fact that I am determined to not suffer in silence makes me stronger than most. And it’s nice to hear someone say something so complimentary. I still don’t know how to take compliments…  I just don’t want your fucking pity, or your sympathy. I just want someone who understands that this is how I am, and loves me regardless.

The idea behind all of this (blogs, videos etc) was to show other people that this struggle isn’t something you should go through alone… That other people are the key to surviving but the reality is that it really is a lonesome battle for most of us, and it takes exceptional people to handle something like depression. I suppose a lesson I could learn is to be mindful of who you expose yourself to. Emotionally, physically and all of the above. For when you are vulnerable, then the world can hurt you.

But there is a certain level of bravery that comes from wearing your heart on your sleeve. It’s both exhilarating and terrifying. And it reminded me that I am alive. Being alive is a gift, and I realize this more than most people ever could. I’ve lived on the precipice my whole life. I’ve attempted suicide before, and I still survived. Even now it still lingers as an option in my mind.

But what I realized that if we gave up when things are their darkest, we’d lose any chance to do it all over again.

There would be no more kisses in the rain. Having the chance to gaze into someone’s eyes and say “I love you” and see their eyes light up. To see her wonderful smile, and that feeling I get in my stomach whenever I think about her. How strong she makes me feel, and how for the first time I know what’s real. I know what’s right. And I know what I want.

Now THAT is something worth fighting for, worth suffering for. Even if I don’t get what I want, and as dark as things will get along my journey, it’s love that will always light my way. And for that, I am eternally grateful.

For mine is a life that will be intertwined with darkness. And love can ignite the stars.

And wouldn’t that be something amazing?

Until next time…

Adding-In:  Another problem with labels is that people think it is all or nothing, they think oh I could never be a vegetarian or vegan…. But instead of trying to fit into a rigid box, be flexible and compassionate with yourself.  When it come to healthy eating my philosophy is pure, clean, whole foods and the acting principle is to ADD-IN.  Add in hemp seeds, add in vegetarian chili, add in superfood smoothies… the more good stuff you add in the less room for the bad stuff.  As you keep adding good stuff in, your diet shifts to a healthier one naturally, without feeling like you are depriving yourself.  You’d be surprised how much your diet and health can be transformed by simply acting on this principle, clean out your shelves of real food poisons like artificial flavors, colours  and preservatives and then start adding in.

He was saying how He wanted to increase the taxes on the “rich” to match the tax rates during President “I lied to the American public under oath” Clinton.

I’ll make a deal with ”The One”,….. I’ll agree to let the tax rates INCREASE to the level during President “It depends on what the definition of the word is, is” Clinton, IF we can limit Government spending to the levels that it was during the SAME time!!!  If you will CUT government spending to 1999 levels, I will agree to 1999 tax rates!!

What say you Mr. President???

What was Hipocrite’s defense?

Well, that known sockmaster of old and unknown sockmaster of new gave us this gem:

2005? That’s the best you’ve got? And you co-run blog with a banned user, who is now sockpuppetering with proxies that has explicit “how to make a new account that won’t arouse suspicion you are a sock” instructions? Right, it’s all clear.

His immediate reaction is to cry, “But there be an statute of limitations on cabals! You got nuthin’ on me!” That’s odd, usually an innocent person, even when faced with overwhelming evidence of guilt, will proclaim their innocence – Hipocrite merely evokes a legalistic defense and attacks GoRight and myself.

What is the significance of this? Hipocrite assumed he was guilty of the charges and tried to deflect attention away from himself – an innocent person would’ve said the evidence was falsified or misinterpreted . Not only that, if he assumed he was guilty of off-wiki coordination then he is also implicating Tim Lambert (recall this post for a refresher) and William Connolley.

Of course, as I told Hipocrite, criminals tend to get better at committing crime as they become more experienced – it is likely impossible to discover such blatant evidence of cabalistic coordination these days since they know to keep that information private, which means his defense merely boils down to the fact that he is a better criminal now and you won’t be able to pin anything on him.

My message to Hipocrite is simple – once a cabal, always a cabal.

William M. Connolley has been trying to insure that this article does not refer to Lawrence Solomon as an environmentalist.  That’s right.  This is the level of detail that these climate science advocates are worried about.  I kid you not.  You can see the latest rounds of these discussions here and here.  It’s a ridiculous argument because there are numerous reliable sources that refer to him as an environmentalist, but Team AGW persists in their quest none the less, over and over and over again.

This is dishonest editing at its most ridiculous.

Bonus Feature

This flare up was begun by an IP editor, 69.63.53.25, back on July 3, 2010.  With all of the socking which has been going on lately it seems prudent to check out every new IP that shows up so I did a reverse DNS search on that IP which yielded the following information:

69.63.53.25 – Geo Information
IP Address	69.63.53.25
Host	node-9494.tor.pppoe.execulink.com
Location	CA, Canada
City	London, ON -
Organization	Execulink Internet Services Corporation
ISP	Execulink Internet Services Corporation
AS Number	AS7794
Latitude	42°98’33″ North
Longitude	81°25’00″ West

The item of note here is the reverse DNS name: node-9494.tor.pppoe.execulink.com.  This is a TOR exit node.  The significance of this is that this editor is trying to hide their identity similar to someone using an open proxy.  For this reason Wikipedia rules consider editing through a TOR network to be a policy violation even though there are many legitimate reasons for using such techniques off-wiki.

Now, do we know of any editors who are admitted sock puppeteers with a history of using TOR networks?  Why yes we do, Hipocrite.  Indeed, when Hipocrite left his “Busted” comment on this site it was posted by IP address 66.96.16.32 whose reverse DNS search yielded the following information:

66.96.16.32 – Geo Information
IP Address	66.96.16.32
Host	tor-exit.eicat.ca
Location	CA, Canada
City	Toronto, ON m5c1n7
Organization	E. I. Catalyst
ISP	E. I. Catalyst
AS Number	AS30528
Latitude	43°66’67″ North
Longitude	79°41’68″ West

The item of note here is the reverse DNS name: tor-exit.eicat.ca.  This too is a TOR exit node.  So I am fairly certain that Hipocrite is still using TOR networks for whatever reasons he feels the need to do so.  I don’t particularly have a problem with it, however Wikipedia would have a problem with him editing through them in this manner.

Now a review of the edit history of the Lawrence Solomon BLP shows three important things:

(1) after a few days of back and forth arguing amongst the regulars on that page Hipcrite shows up and tries to broker a compromise between the IP editor’s position and that of those who oppose it,

(2) prior to this episode Hipocrite never edited that article, and

(3) the position of the IP editor was exactly the same position as that of WMC.

So, here we have an IP editor who is using a TOR network to make the exact same edits that William M. Connolley has been trying to make for a long time kicking off an edit war followed by Hipocrite showing up at an article he has never edited before to broker a compromise between the position of the IP editor and its opponents.  All just a coincidence?  You decide.

Personally I believe that this was either WMC himself using the TOR network to mask his identity, or it was Hipocrite who regularly uses TOR networks making an edit without realizing that he wasn’t logged in thus exposing the IP address of his exit node.

Update to:  Well isn’t that special?

I see that Hipocrite has posted some armchair statistics for everyone’s amusement.  I don’t have much to say on the matter as they are what they are.  Coincidences do happen in the real world and two people both using punctuation marks hardly seems unlikely to me, not much of a stretch there IMHO.  His own analysis identifies like 20 to 30 other people who have all done the same thing.  Go check, he lists them by name.  He even identified a couple of them who have done it more than once but neglected to analyze their statistical significance relative his selected population why?  Because he didn’t believe that they were the ones running this account.  He made that determination based on what?  Nothing.

Quite simply what we have here is a case of Hipocrite putting together a set of statistics which confirmed what he already believed.  There’s a term for that kind of thing and this is a prime example of it in action.  (Someone should go link to this case as an example of confirmation bias in the real world.)

Technically his assessment of the “population” is also distinctly non-random so there is no particular reason to believe that his sample “population” is statistically representative of the whole population.  A point that is key to his analysis.  And a sample size of 6 total edits would seem a bit light for any truly rigorous statistical analysis, but I don’t claim to be an expert in such matters.

Even more importantly, he isn’t even asking the proper question.  Even if we accept his conclusion on face value, that both myself and TheNeutralityDoctor vary in a statistically significant way from the whole population in terms of using punctuation at the ends of section headings, so what?  The real question is how many people in the whole population of editors also vary statistically in this regards because this determines the proper pool of potential candidates of which I am only one?  He has chosen out of hand to ignore two potential candidates already.  How many such persons exist out of the whole population that exhibit this rather dubious trait?  10?  100?  1000?  He wishes you to assume just 1, me.  Bah and humbug to that.

The simple fact of the matter is that the probability of this being me is a function of the number of such persons within the population, not simply the fact that I (or anyone else) exhibits this particular trait.  A better  example of voodoo statistics I could not come up with if I tried.  Don’t buy into it.  Don’t fall for the slight of hand that you see right before your eyes.

I can definitively state that these statistics don’t actually mean what he wants you to believe that they mean.

UPDATE 7/23/2010: I just noticed this but apparently Hipocrite was also of the opinion that this account was an obvious sockpuppet of Scibaby as well.

Moving on …

Now I have provided evidence above to suggest that Hipocrite is actually my sock puppet and asked that he be checkusered immediately on those grounds.  No such information has come forth at this time.  Apparently more evidence is required to get this checkuser run so allow me to provide some more.  One of the distinguishing characteristics that has been attributed to me is that I use “vs.”.  This is such a rare thing that it is actually called out in a Wikipedia article on the topic here.  Note that several variations exist for the abbreviation.

Now notice that Hipocrite makes the following statement on the SPI page:

… while the difference between RAG/GoRight and the population is statistically significant (RAG vs Population .0000, GoRight vs Population .0000) Hipocrite (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Look, I have bolded the important bits for you.  Hipocrite used the rare “vs” abbreviation for versus.  What more proof do you require that he is my sock puppet?  Please check user him immediately based on this newly discovered evidence.

And while we are at it, since using a period at the end of a sentence is so rare, could someone please add the following to the list of my suspected sock puppets and cite Hipocrite’s evidence:

• Tarc
• a long term Australian vandal
• Short Brigade Harvester Boris (2 uses)
• Cortonin
• Silverback
• Arker
• unsigned from 2004
• Stephan Schulz (2 uses)
• Ling.Nut
• Poodleboy (3 uses)
• Theo Pardilla
• 114.77.203.166
• Animebop
• Ramsquire
• mbeychok (2 uses)
• J. Langton (PNSU)
• Grundle2600 (2 uses)
• UBeR
• 209.144.55.6
• Ramsquire
• Martin Hogbin
• Kim D. Petersen
• Mugwumpjism
• Count Iblis
• Africangenesis
• Jdcaust
• 71.164.195.26
• Unsigned from 2007
• Unsigned from 2005
• 70.152.25.58

These may all be my sock puppets based on the fact that they have used a period at the end of a section heading at some point in time.  A full investigation should look for other uses which Hipocrite may have missed in his haphazard approach and the statistical significance of each user’s edits should be determined.

Basically, this account has been accused of creating over 500+ accounts over the years to promote the skeptical point of view on the climate change articles, but what have been the results of his actions?

1. Massive IP rangeblocks to prevent new accounts – fresh blood is the bane of the climate cabal at wikipedia.

2. A convenient excuse to harass and ban new users with skeptical points of view – often driving them completely off of wikipedia.

3. A faceless enemy to point to as justification for their actions and to demonize the remaining skeptical editors.

Do results speak louder than stated goals?

And so we come to the title of this post with this statement of  Hipocrite’s:

I’m only willing to respond to people who doubt these are socks if they are willing to put their money where their mouth is – if they turn out to be wrong, they have to promise never to question me about sock judgements again – forever. If I turn out to be wrong and they are actually and truly new users, I’ll never report socks in this area to anything but SPI. Otherwise, it’s just disruption from people who support the goals of the socks – because that’s what ZP5 and ATren are engaging in – they are disrupting wikipedia by supporting obvious and transparent sockpuppetry. Hipocrite (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Strong words from Hipocrite, and he makes this challenge several times. Why is he so sure that they are socks? Personally, I only bet on sure things, and since Hipocrite reports Scibaby socks so much then I find it odd that he’d be willing to risk the power he now wields to ban people based on “the usual” as his only presented evidence.

Of course, if he was behind a certain % of these socks, or knew who was, then it’d be no risk at all – and such a bet would further his ability to ban his ideological opponents and keep their numbers in check.

Perhaps one day we’ll pull the scooby mask off of Scibaby, and then feign shock that the hypocrite underneath had been the Inquisitor General all along.

If you are a muslim, and a Pakistani, you will be getting those massively-forwarded chain emails about boycotting 20th of May as the day will be celebrated as the “Draw Prophet Muhammad Day”.

First, let me set the record straight by writing my ‘official’ statement:
I myself feel disgusted by the concept of this day. In my opinion, such an action is a deliberate act to defame a religion which already is feeling the burnt of worldwide criticism. but we brought this to ourselves and this is just the reaction to our past actions that is being blessed on us – Karma is the right word.

So, as I was saying that those chain mails are urging this lazy nation to boycott facebook on 20th of May as if it will be swarmed by orcs that will feast on the flesh of any mortal that wanders in the hallways of facebook.

So, they want us to boycott facebook… right, ok!

oh wait… WHAT??? DID SOMEBODY SAY FACEBOOK??

ARE YOU FCUKING KIDDING ME? BOYCOTT FACEBOOK? DO YOU EVER HAVE THE SLIGHTEST OF IDEA WHAT YOU HAVE JUST SAID IN THAT LOUSY EMAIL OF YOURS?

With all these emails spawning from each others and all these facebook status(es) and pages growing like mushrooms, i am getting worried that all of this pathetic nation will be shutting down routine business on facebook which might cause serious panic among the sysadmins of facebook and would cause severe financial loss to the online empire… hence causing it to go bankrupt and eventually shut down…… Victory for the pious, isn’t it?

Another thought that really scares the living hell out of me is that almost nine months later (around 20th Feb, 2011 plus/minus one week) lots of hospitals will be getting exceptionally high ratio of female patients ready to give birth… all thanks to one free day that people got from facebook.

But i believe that this event is a global event, so why facebook is getting the burnt of your ‘emotions’ ? what if people draw their versions of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and upload it via twitter? so are you gonna boycott it too? but since its a global event, what else would you boycott? the whole internet, your work, TV, radio, …. the life itself?
Why dont you all folks go to some main road or a ground and setup a protest sit-up. may be frog jump to the next destination so that the world sees how determined you are in boycotting facebook… and when you think you are doing good, you can proceed with burning tyres on the road, burning a few passenger buses… and perhaps any major market as well. Its all the part of the package, isn’t it?

So, it seems like facebook is gonna be a lonely place on 20th of May coz all of you f**ktards wont be around… ‘boycotting’ an essential part of your miserable lives… eh??? heyyyy!!! just wondering, who will feed your lousy pigs on farmville? and who is gonna be the superhero to kill all these gangstas on Mafia Wars?

As a second thought, whether it is draw Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) day or not, do yourself a favor and take a day off from facebook and see what the life has to offer you. Think with a cool head and start accepting the reality instead of participating in useless boycotts which would only result in your own loss.

Imposters Wife & kids...

A Boeing 757 and a fleet of armored cars for Michelle’s sight seeing!

Story By: J.C.Scuba 

 This is a vulgar display of, “Do as I say, NOT as I do…

 Don’t you just love the hypocrisy of Obama? He tells us we must all do with less, while he takes two planes to London, one for Michelle and the girls to stay a couple extra night to shop and eat in London. Is it possible the therm “Ugly American” came from how our leadership presents themselves while on foreign soil? I’m an angry American for having to foot the bill for the above excursion with my tax dollars. This is just one of many outrages to come. On the off chance that I’m incorrect about the payment, I’ll believe it when I see a certified stamped receipts for the trip from the CBO along with Obamas Kenyan Birth Certificate Random thoughts while observing the passing parade, J.C.
 

On Sunday, President Obama flew back to the United States on Air Force One. His wife, two daughters and her mother did a bit of shopping in Paris before taking their own Boeing 757 (C-32) over to London to do some sight seeing.

We all remember Obama’s admonishment to corporate CEO’s in February: “You can’t get corporate jets, you can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers dime.” Apparently that doesn’t apply to his wife.

Michelle spending YOUR MONEY!

The London Times opened it’s description of Michelle’s visit this way:

Motorcycle outriders, armoured Chevrolets and bullet-headed men in raincoats criss-crossed London yesterday as Michelle Obama and her daughters spent a second day on an unofficial visit to the capital.

The Times went on to describe that when Michelle and the girls arrived at Westminster Abbey, the building was closed to tourists with people already in told to “wait against the wall.” An American visiting the Abbey said “Right then I knew it was probably someone from our ‘royal family’.”

 Michelle’s motorcade shut down the London street above as the First Lady of the World and her children go for Fish and Chips at a pub in Mayfair . The entourage inside the restaurant was 15 people while dozens more wait outside. Include the dozens of Air Force personnel to fly and service the plane, embassy personnel and other staff and we are talking about a serious expenditure of tax payer dollars.

• As a grade-school kid, my “best friend” at church threw my bible in a puddle because he got mad at me for something.
• As a teenager, after sharing feelings of loneliness with a friend, he blatantly laughed at me when I was left out of a group of guys at a church function.
• In college, a ministry leader told me he didn’t think I really fit in and asked me why I didn’t just leave.
• In seminary, I was known as the “black sheep” because I wasn’t like the other guys around me.
• After seminary, a pastor flat out lied to me when he told me he was going to hire me for a position and then hired someone else a few weeks later.
• I’ve known pastors who poured 20+ years of their lives into incredibly fruitful ministry at a single church only to have it burn them out and they walk away.
• I walked a personal friend through the pain of losing his ministry to a moral failure, and going through a long process of restoration to a slightly less dynamic ministry.
• I’ve had mentors get so enamoured with a theological idea that they chase the single idea until it totally dries up their spiritual walk with God.
• I’ve had friends who hold a theological position that allows them to blame God for a moral failure and completely walk away from ministry, God, and the church.
• I’ve been spit on for my faith.
• I’ve had my faith questioned by supposed church leaders.
• I’ve dealt with people content with a Sunday Morning faith.
• I’ve had dry times when I wondered if God even existed.
• I’ve been frustrated when I sense a direction for my life that just doesn’t seem to ever pan out.
• I’ve had friends molested by church leaders, and had to help them deal with the pain years later.

In spite of all this I LOVE THE CHURCH.  There has only been 1 time in my life that I honestly wanted to leave the church.  I wanted to give up and just walk away.  That lasted for a total of about 30 minutes.  As I got thinking about all the things I could do just because I wasn’t going to be a Christian anymore, I realized I had no desire to do any of them . . . Which made me realize that God has really totally reshaped me to be in His church and to love His church.

You may think I’m crazy . . . But the Bible never tells us that the church would be perfect.  Nor does it tell us that we should expect God’s people to act perfectly all the time.  In fact, the Bible tells us that God is still working on the church and each of us.  The Bible teaches us that God is “sanctifying” the church to become a “pure spotless bride.” But we’re not there yet.  We shouldn’t expect to be.

Besides, as much as the church has “done to me” over the years . . . If I’m humble enough to admit it . . . I’ve been the one to hurt other peoples’ feelings off an on.  I’ve also been guilty of making someone feel out-of-place.  I’ve stretched or hidden the truth a couple of times to avoid hurting someone’s feelings.  I’m not any more perfect than anyone else.  That’s why I still need the church!  I need the church to help me continue to become a part of the pure spotless bride.

So, are you letting some other imperfect person from your past keep you from fully experiencing life in Christ through His Body, the Church?