WikiIslam - User contributions [en]

ইসলাম নবি মুহম্মদ এবং নারী

2018-09-03T15:22:08Z

AAA:

৬ বছরের শিশু আয়শা ও পুত্রবধূ সহ ১৩ টা বিয়ে ও ৪ টা যৌনদাসি রাকেছিল

[[Category:বাংলা (Bengali)]]
[[Category:ইসলাম এবং নারী]]

ইসলাম নবি মুহম্মদ এবং নারী

2018-09-03T15:20:05Z

AAA:

৬ বছরের শিশু আয়শা ও পুত্রবধূ সহ ১৩ টা বিয়ে ও ৪ টা যৌনদাসি রাকেছিল

[[Category:বাংলা (Bengali)]]

ইসলাম নবি মুহম্মদ এবং নারী

2018-09-03T15:15:41Z

AAA: Created page with "৬ বছরের শিশু আয়শা ও পুত্রবধূ সহ ১৩ টা বিয়ে ও ৪ টা যৌনদাসি রাকেছিল"

৬ বছরের শিশু আয়শা ও পুত্রবধূ সহ ১৩ টা বিয়ে ও ৪ টা যৌনদাসি রাকেছিল

WikiIslam:New Articles List

2018-09-03T15:15:17Z

AAA:

{{shortcut|[[WINA]]}}
This list, in general, does not include new [[:Category:Other Languages|translations]], [[:People_Who_Left_Islam|testimonies]], [[Islam in the News|news]], additions to [[:Category:In-Depth Studies|in-depth studies]], [[:Category:Stubs|stubs]] or shorter pages:

#[[Eid al-Adha]]
#[[Ghazwa-e-hind]]
#[[Dawah]]
#[[Muhammad's Commands in War Hoax]]
#[[Necrophilia in Islam]]
#[[99 names of Allah]]
#[[Muhammad and illiteracy]]
#[[Muhammad's aorta]]
#[[ইসলাম নবি মুহম্মদ এবং নারী]] (Islam prophet Muhammad and women)
#[[রমযানের মেরু প্যারাডক্স]] ([[The Ramadan Pole Paradox]])
#[[360 Joints Miracle]]
#[[Adhan]]
#[[List of Genocides, Cultural Genocides and Ethnic Cleansings under Islam]]
#[[Mary the sister of Aaron in the Quran|Mary, the sister of Aaron, in the Qur'an]] (Re-Written/Expanded)
#[[The Islamic Whale]]
#[[In Sha Allah]]
#[[Allah knows best]]
#[[Waswas]]
#[[Sahih Bukhari]]
#[[Arabic letters and diacritics]]
#[[Word Count Miracles in the Qur'an]] ''(Re-Written/Expanded)''
#[[Internet Jihad]]
#[[Claims of Evolution in the Qur'an]]
#[[Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Forbidden Things]]
#[[12 months miracle in the Quran]]
#[[Paradise and hell word count in the Qur'an]]
#[[Did Muhammad and the early Muslims know that the Earth is round|Did Muhammad and the Earliest Muslims Know the Earth is Round?]]
#[[365 days miracle in the Quran]]
#[[Embryology in the Quran]] ''(Re-written)''
#[[Geocentrism and the Quran]] ''(Re-written)''
#[[Zakat (Tax)]] ''(Re-Written/Expanded)''
#[[Taqiyya]]
#[[Lack of Detail in the Quran|Lack of Detail in the Qur'an]]
#[[Mamta Kulkarni - Conversion to Islam|Mamta Kulkarni (Conversion to Islam)]]
#[[Hans_Raj_Hans_-_Conversion_to_Islam|Hans Raj Hans (Conversion to Islam)]]
#[[Bill Warner]]
#[[Muhammads Marriages of Political Necessity|Muhammad's Marriages of Political Necessity]]
#[[Dhul-Qarnayn_and_the_Alexander_Romance_-_Sources|Dhul-Qarnayn and the Alexander Romance (Sources)]]
#[[Fatwa on Coke and Soft Drinks]]
#[[Quran and a Universe from Smoke|Qur'an and a Universe from Smoke]]
#[[Companions of the Cave]] {{hub3}}
#[[Muslim Statistics - Marriage|Muslim Statistics (Marriage)]]
#[[Dhul-Qarnayn and the Alexander Romance]]
#[[Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Honor Killing]]
#[[European Court of Human Rights on Shariah Law|European Court of Human Rights on Shari'ah Law]]
#[[Syria FSA Fatwa Prohibits Shaving Lice Infested Beards or Killing the Believer Lice Growing in Blessed Beards|Fatwa Prohibits Killing "Believer Lice Growing in Blessed Beards"]]
#[[Egyptian Group Forbids Eating Tomatoes Because Tomatoes are Christian|Egyptian Group Forbids Eating "Christian" Tomatoes]]
#[[Salah]] ''(Re-Written/Expanded)''
#[[Letter_to_America_-_Osama_bin_Laden|Letter to America (Osama bin Laden)]]
#[[Diseases and Cures in the Wings of Houseflies]]
#[[Islamic Hijabs and Nuns Habits]]
----

* [[Main Page| ← Back to Main Page]]
[[Category:WikiIslam]]

User talk:Lightyears

2018-02-16T04:34:18Z

AAA: /* Saggy */

Since you agreed with my take on constellations, how about going ahead with an article on that claim? Will you clear my edits in it when its ready? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 11:45, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

I do agree on it as a theological issue, so I'd have no issue with an article on that (I think it should mention that it is also a general problem like with continents, mountains taking a long time to form, plants that we eat to evolve etc.). But I've never actually created a new article on here (people have copied a couple of my articles onto here since I made them under the Creative Commons license) so I don't know how or what the protocols are for doing so. I'm sure someone who runs the site (Axius?) could help.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 11:53, 23 May 2014 (PDT)
:I asked because you check your own edits. First there's a sandbox , then when finished it will be a article and we will link it.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 13:05, 23 May 2014 (PDT)
::Just in case you mean to link to the new article from the scientific errors page, I don't think the link to the article should be put on there (as it's not a scientific error). I just meant that it's fine as a new article. Maybe there are more suitable places to link to it from. If you were to recreate a section on the scientific errors page to put your link to the new article, I'll leave it to others to decide whether to remove it, but I think you'd have to at least write in such a recreated section that this is not strictly a scientific error, but is a theological absurdity/difficulty.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 13:22, 23 May 2014 (PDT)
:::hi Lightyears, a new page can be made through the help page [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Help:Contents#How_to_Create_a_New_Page] although I believe the Constellation article is a lower priority. A higher priority for us should be to review the Scientific errors page so we can remove the under review template. Thanks for some of your edits in trying to fix some of these errors in that article.
:::In addition if you have any suggestions for the site of any kind, anything which you think should be done differently, anything you think would be beneficial for the site let me know. You have as much authority on this site as I do. I like for all of us to make decisions as a team. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:54, 23 May 2014 (PDT)
::::OK, thanks. I'll let you know if I think of anything [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 16:48, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

I have something I need to do as of today, so won't be able to do any more editing for the foreseeable future in case any one wonders. [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 02:17, 24 May 2014 (PDT)

== Geocentral Quran documents ==

Someone emailed us a zip file that contained documents relating to the Geocentral Quran. If you're interested in looking at them let me know through our [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Contact_Us email] and I can forward that link to you. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:25, 27 May 2014 (PDT)

== Your Dhul-Qarnayn article helped a former Muslim ==

Your article was linked [http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f15/a-friend-has-apostated-67731/index3.html here] (post #22). Starts from #16 [http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f15/a-friend-has-apostated-67731/index2.html here], saying:

{{Quote||I know a brother on the internet i speak to daily and he seems to have gotten into this kind of doubt as well and is on the edge of apostasy. If he already hasnt apostatized.

What can you advise me to do and help him?

He seems to have issues with certain verses and ahadith containing information that is completely in contrast with current scientific knowledge or even facts.

---
...

Next thing you know he sends me wikiislam articles, like this one [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Dhul-Qarnayn_and_the_Sun_Setting_in_a_Muddy_Spring_-_Part_One Dhul-Qarnayn and the Sun Setting in a Muddy Spring (Part One) - WikiIslam]
. Now i cant deal with the technicalities and the arabic to refute these issues. But now he claims that muslims are just trying to twist the meanings of the verses just to get away with the current facts. So it is going to be hard to refute all the issues as i know wikiislam has a whole list concerning the scientific issues.}}

Once again great job on the Dhul-Qarnayn articles. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 13:57, 4 August 2014 (PDT)

== Iconoclasm ==

Appparently, Wikiislam doesn't cover iconoclasm (especially Muhammad's) or say vandalism, in any dedicated page. Can you correct me if wrong? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 07:52, 18 September 2016 (EDT)
:I think you're right. It could make for an interesting and very topical page given events of recent years if there's a decent amount of material to be found in sahih hadiths, maybe also sirat, tafsirs etc. I've no idea how to approve pages or what the processes are for new pages. The best thing for you to do would be to contact the exmna, who I believe have taken over running the site. It looks like Axius and Sahab might have retired as they've been inactive for quite a while now after an immense effort for some years.

:You have another interesting sandbox page on claims of evolution that would be worthwhile if it's not already covered. In the first section you should probably also quote 24:45 as it implies that not just the earliest life, but 2 and 4 legged animals (such as birds or cattle) were created from water too, which has no resemblance to sciencific theories. The repeating creation verses are probably resurrection (Muhammad faced a lot of skepticism about resurrection, as the Qur'an records). Jalalayn and ibn Kathir tafsirs for these verses confirm this, though the flood stuff is still worth mentioning too. The article would also benefit from a brief section on the explicit mentions of special creation of Adam that foil attempts to fit human evolution into the Qur'an regardless of how other verses might seem compatible with it. But before going to much more effort it'd be a good idea to get in contact with whoever is running the site now as I don't really want to take on the committment of doing admin such as reviewing and approving stuff and I imagine they probably have a plan for resuming the performance of such tasks in future.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 15:58, 18 September 2016 (EDT)
::Most of them are busy with their other work. But you can approve changes right? Then we might take the evolution article further. @ Iconoclasm, i have expanded this topic with some hadith. @scientific errors: what do you think about the mountains created in 4 days error [https://wikiislam.net/wiki/User:Saggy/Sandbox_-_Issues_with_Quran_and_Hadith#Mountains_were_Created_in_Four_Days]? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 14:29, 22 September 2016 (EDT)
:::I approved the Iconoclasm hadiths (except one of them for brevity), good stuff. I don't think the mountains one is a strong enough error because the verse talks about a bunch of things, not just the mountains as happening in 4 days.
::::[http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=41&tAyahNo=10&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2] and [http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2128&Itemid=97] say he put the mountains and also the earth was prepared with crops, plants, food etc in 4 days Even this hasn't happened in 4 days in reality. Then there are hadith which specify that mountains were formed in 1 day. The minimum that we could phrase as an error is: "the author of the Quran is unaware of (or has simply ignored) how long mountains take to form," similar to many other paragraphs in that article. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 14:33, 24 September 2016 (EDT)
:::::I've added 41:9-10 to the Earth and Heavens created in six days section as the mountain stuff is too vague to merit its own section. The Qur'an itself isn't clear on whether the mountains are placed on day 3 or days 3&4 or 1-4. It weakens the page to rely on tafsirs or hadiths to make a specific error claim. I have however pointed out that mountains continue to rise and fall to this day. It now says as much as we can say on this topic for a Qur'an errors page. It already says that the Qur'an is wrong to say that the heavens and Earth were formed in such short time periods, but I've added some additional commentary on the Earth specifically.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 19:05, 24 September 2016 (EDT)

==Jordanian cartoonist killed just now for making an ISIS and Allah cartoon==
I think we should put this on our front page. With Links to news sites.

The second thing I am looking at currently is [[Umm Qirfa]], listed in our tasks. Where shall I prepare my response to the apologists? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 07:05, 25 September 2016 (EDT)
:I saw this awful story too, and I think it makes as all angry. But I think the old admin guys must have made a decision to stop the Islam in the news stuff on the front page (terrorist attacks etc). It was a never ending task, which is covered by other well known sites which people visit if they want to follow such things. I agree with the decision. I think it diversifies too much to make this a news site.

Regarding Umm Qirfa, I recommend putting such things in sandbox and when exmna eventually start doing admin they can look at it with you. If there's just a few more things you want to do I can potentially approve it, but I don't want to be regularly working on this site and reviewing stuff. I'm just doing a bit of a blitz of work here recently while I have a little time and motivation and then I want to forget about it.

There are only a few other things I intend to do in the foreseeable future: revamp the embryology page (I recently revamped geocentrism), some small improvements to flat earth, and possibly a new page providing evidence that the earliest Muslims believed the Earth was flat (which is useful for flat earth in the Qur'an and sun setting in a muddy spring debates where Muslims sometimes claim with weak evidence that they already knew the Earth was round). My interest in Islam is quite low these days so it's only occasionally I feel like doing stuff here and only on topics I'm interested in and knowledgable about (errors in the Qur'an in etc.). That's also why I'm happy to help with your claims of evolution in the Qur'an page if you finish it and want it approved. I also suggest you add these things from your sandbox: Mountains Stabilize the Earth's Rotation About its Axis & Mountains Absorb Some Waves During Earthquakes

to this page if you're finished with those and I'll approve it
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Quran_and_Mountains

[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 08:05, 25 September 2016 (EDT)

== [[WikiIslam:Sandbox/Mosques]] ==

I made this new location of interesting hadiths about mosques. do you think it is fit for a QHS?
One more topic i want to cover somewhere is torture/punishment in the grave. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 11:36, 10 October 2016 (EDT)
:The torture / punishment in the grave could be interesting and is a suitable topic. Looking at the index list [[https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars|here]], the topics seem all to be things that are useful in criticism of Islam. I'm not sure what use hadiths about Mosque building or travelling to mosques have for anyone who might visit this site. Someone clicking the page might wonder, "what point are you trying to make with this page?". Go ahead if you want though, but maybe consider whether the Mosque one is worthwhile.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 15:05, 10 October 2016 (EDT)
::I find [http://sunnah.com/ibnmajah/4/8 this] (relatively) the most important one in that case. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 15:30, 10 October 2016 (EDT)

==Shia quotes==
Hi, the previous admins said that adding Shia quotes in a Sunni/general article weakens the article because our online critics can quickly dismiss Shias as non-Muslims and thus laugh at us (lol). How about a separate article for Shia hadith, fiqh, scholar fatwas etc? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 16:07, 18 October 2016 (EDT)
:I think the old admins have a point when Shia quotes are used to make a point about Islam in general, because for Sunnis the Shia evidence may well be irrelevant. But for a page just cataloguing things for reference like the QHS pages, it might be worth making an exception (with some restructuring) for the very important subject of apostasy, simply so that it is easy to find the Shia rulings (both for ex-Shia Muslims (don't want them to feel forgotten either, and their apostasy laws are even more vicious) and waivering Shia Muslims, and also because it's such a common topic of interest for non-Muslims who often may want an overview of apostasy sources for Islam in general (for them Sunni and Shia may both be important). What I will do though is restructure the QHS page and the section in the main apostasy article slightly. I don't intend to dig out Shia hadiths too (I'm just fufilling requests from ex-Muslims at the moment after I told them on reddit about my recent work), but anyone can also then add a subsection under Shia on the QHS page for hadiths later if they wish (and the Qur'an and sirat quotes are useful for both sunni and shia).[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 17:11, 18 October 2016 (EDT)
::Umm Qirfa task completed, more or less. [https://wikiislam.net/wiki/User:Saggy/Sandbox_-_Issues_with_Quran_and_Hadith#The_Story_of_Umm_Qirfa] The major apologetic claims I have addressed now. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 09:43, 23 October 2016 (EDT)
:::You can add this to the page for approval, but I don't really want to spend time checking and reviewing things anymore (which requires me to familiarise myself with the topic if I'm to do it properly). I could do so for the evolution page too as an exception.
::::Where is the page for approval? Do you have any contacts, emails etc of the exmna guys? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 14:13, 23 October 2016 (EDT)
:::::I assumed you were going to incorporate it into this page [https://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Story_of_Umm_Qirfa] (I just googled wikiislam umm qirfa to see if anything was there already). I actually tried contacting exmna recently to let them know that the google analytics tracking ID needs to be changed to UA-2352016-1 somewhere in the folder http://wikiislam.net/extensions/googleAnalytics/ which I don't have access to (Google analytics hasn't been working since the site was moved to another server late last year because there's a Tracking Code Mismatch error). I tried emailing the President of EXMNA to ask who I could contact about this using his email address on the Staff page of their website, but he didn't reply. Earlier I'd tried their wikiislam@exmna.org email address, but it returns some error about google groups permissions. I guess wikiislam must be a low priority at the moment for them. At least for now they saved the site from disappearing which is the main thing![[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 15:34, 23 October 2016 (EDT)
::::::Victory will be ours. :P [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 15:27, 24 October 2016 (EDT)

== Jinns and Science ==

What are the exact views of apologists on jinns? Is it something like "they are creatures unknown to current science"? Do you have some good apologist sites claiming this about jinns? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 16:03, 26 October 2016 (EDT)
:It's not something I've ever taken interest in. There's a page here with some stuff on them https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Jinn. As for apologetics, I'd imagine there are countless pages of nonsense about them, and lots of exorcism / jinn videos on youtube.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 17:14, 26 October 2016 (EDT)
::On this, I am thinking of a section in the Scientific Errors article. Jinns were made out of fire, says the quran, which is in fact impossible. (Later I can think of a main article about jinns, or expand [[Jinn|this one]]) [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 05:32, 21 July 2017 (EDT)
:::Jinns, angels, magic etc, and all aspects of the "unseen" in general is of course pure nonsense. But none of it is seen by Muslims as following the laws of physics or as a scientific matter even in principle. Where they try to explain it they speculate that it means the jinn were made of the fire's energy or it was a magical fire or any fantasy they care to indulge. It's much as how they see miracles in general where anything goes. It's a different matter when it talks about tangible beings and objects like the falsifiable creation stories of humans and mountains now that we know about evolution, genetics, plate tectonics etc. [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 18:48, 22 July 2017 (EDT)
::::Something created out of fire ''has to follow'' science. How does the error get solved if a Muslim says the laws of physics don't extend to it? (He could have easily said the seven heavens also are imaginary or are some invisible dimensions. how does that make and sense?)
::::"Jinns were made out of fire" (15:27) is a scientific error. I guess you agree with it. Reason: To make it highly specific, fire is not a material as ancient people thought. Its a combustion process and has only a handful of well studied products (non-living). Now somebody will say they were made out of the gas etc. Sorry, living things are not gaseous. I am not quoting the hadith yet but they do teach that Muhammad saw every little detail of jinn: jinn are anthropomorphic or animal-like in their looks and behavior etc. This rules out any claims about an "unseen" creation. Maybe I will gather everything... [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 06:59, 23 July 2017 (EDT)

==Editor rights==

I lost my editor rights a few days ago and as a result all the pages have pending changes. Can you ask someone about this? I mean why it happened? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 10:18, 27 February 2017 (EST)
:On the user rights log I can see that you were automatically promoted to editor a few months ago due to your number of edits. In other words, no-one made a conscious decision to upgrade you.

:I had nothing to do with undoing your unintended promotion, but the reversal happened at the same time as they changed my rights so that I could fix the templates. I know that the new admin (exmna) were advised on what to do about my rights, so presumably at the same time they noticed your auto-promotion and agreed that your rights should revert back to the previous state and it was the new admin who actually implemented the changes. So what you have now is just a continuation of your previous rights as no-one intended for you to have editor rights.

:They give such rights very sparingly based on their trust in the person's decisions and consistent quality of their edits, their arguments, their judgement on whether something is significant enough to warrant lengthening a page etc. The reasons they were not comfortable with you having full editor rights to make changes without review would thus be apparent in any previous discussions or disagreements you'd had with admin in the past, even though many of your contributions were welcome following review. [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 11:41, 27 February 2017 (EST)

==Criticisms==

I still wonder where exactly do Muslims criticize this Wiki (in English at least). Their pages are not easily googleable, which itself makes them hard to spot. Can you add some links of those critics in a page here? so that I can see what scientific errors/other erors they are refuting and how. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 08:03, 21 April 2017 (EDT)
:I just happened to see a thread on the reddit Islam sub. I then did a search of their sub and looked through the comments of similar threads on the first page of results, so I soon had a small list of things to sort out. There's no doubt that there are lots of poor pieces of content here and they tend to point out the worst ones they find, so it's a good way to find high priority things that need fixing. As for scientific errors, the weak stuff is pretty much gone now. Hardly any valid, specific criticisms of the page are mentioned by Muslims, which are weaknesses I was aware of but hadn't bothered to change til now. Different people mention the same things after they seem to have scrolled a long way down the page, so these days it seems that they find it pretty hard to come up with significant criticisms of it. In one thread from a few months ago a guy decided not to convert because of that page.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 10:02, 21 April 2017 (EDT)
::You mean decided not to convert to Islam? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 10:28, 21 April 2017 (EDT)
:::Correct, he came close to converting, but saw on the page that there's no way the Qur'an could be divine.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 11:39, 21 April 2017 (EDT)
::::That reminds me, we should restart the apostate testimonies. still locked i guess. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 15:27, 21 April 2017 (EDT)

== Saggy ==

Hi,

I saw that you blocked Saggy.[https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Special:Contributions/Saggy] He is a major contributor of both useful and unuseful stuff. Wouldn't it be better to put put some kind of sanction with regards to topics or editing main articles, instead of fully blocking and revoking talkpage. At least let him edit talkpage to see if he's willing to comply. I believe losing a longtime editor like him would do more damage than betterment.

Thanks,--[[User:AAA|AAA]] ([[User talk:AAA|talk]]) 22:22, 9 February 2018 (EST)
:Hi, the first part of the block comment relates to a page Saggy was building which had some very inappropriate content and has since been deleted by someone else https://wikiislam.net/index.php?title=WikiIslam:Sandbox/50000_Reasons_for_Leaving_Islam&action=edit&redlink=1

:The main problem is that neither I nor currently anyone else has the time to check his edits, which were very numerous and frequent. Admins past and present very much agreed that his edits need approval because while some are helpful and appreciated, many are certainly not for a variety of reasons, while others take disproportionate reviewing time and/or page length for minimal if any benefit. You bear a burden of joint responsibility when approving edits, and all this reviewing (which sometimes requires lengthy investigation) takes a lot of time, and longer still is needed for his arguing about some rollbacks.

:The pending edits page only records the earliest 100 pending edits. Further ones do not appear there as the page is now full up (I may work through some of it at some point). So newer pending edits would not be reviewed even if someone has time eventually, except that when people with editing rights edit those pages in future, it is easy to not notice or perhaps care that you're approving a bunch of pending edits at the same time, especially given there was a rapidly growing backlog of pending edits scattered around the site (mainly Saggy's), and increasingly, multiple unreviewed edits to untangle for a page. As for sandbox pages, who knows what one of the many editors may approve and add to the site if asked by him when admins (there aren't any really active) and ExMNA aren't paying attention. I'm not sure if enabling his talk will allow him to make requests of other users and there are things he could change/hide that would hinder another admin from fairly judging whether and when to remove the block.

:My opinion, not least after seeing the page I linked to, is that the risks to the site outweigh the benefits of unblocking, at least when there is no ExMNA supervision. I leave it to ExMNA to review the situation when / if they ever get someone for supervising the site and clearing the pending edits backlog. They know about the block, and it seems they were already aware of him given that they had previously reverted Saggy's editor rights when he got them automatically for reaching a certain number of edits. Given the backlog, he must have realised that there was a risk he was wasting a vast amount of time unless he hoped he would find someone to one day give him editor rights again so that he can approve his own edits. That's something I and ExMNA would be unwilling to facilitate for the reasons above.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 13:09, 12 February 2018 (EST)

:ok--[[User:AAA|AAA]] ([[User talk:AAA|talk]]) 23:34, 15 February 2018 (EST)

User talk:Sumitroydipto

2018-02-16T04:26:28Z

AAA:

Hi, have you completed translating: [[WikiIslam:Sandbox/রমযানের মেরু প্যারাডক্স]] ? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 15:48, 7 July 2017 (EDT)

Yes, I did [[User:Sumitroydipto|Sumitroydipto]]
:Well done. It looks great. Keep it up! I am here everyday. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 12:19, 17 July 2017 (EDT)

::Hi, could you please help translate this page to Bengali: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Quran

Thank you very much!--[[User:AAA|AAA]] ([[User talk:AAA|talk]]) 23:26, 15 February 2018 (EST)

User talk:Lightyears

2018-02-10T03:23:31Z

AAA: /* Saggy */

User talk:Lightyears

2018-02-10T03:22:39Z

AAA: /* Saggy */ new section

Since you agreed with my take on constellations, how about going ahead with an article on that claim? Will you clear my edits in it when its ready? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 11:45, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

I do agree on it as a theological issue, so I'd have no issue with an article on that (I think it should mention that it is also a general problem like with continents, mountains taking a long time to form, plants that we eat to evolve etc.). But I've never actually created a new article on here (people have copied a couple of my articles onto here since I made them under the Creative Commons license) so I don't know how or what the protocols are for doing so. I'm sure someone who runs the site (Axius?) could help.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 11:53, 23 May 2014 (PDT)
:I asked because you check your own edits. First there's a sandbox , then when finished it will be a article and we will link it.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 13:05, 23 May 2014 (PDT)
::Just in case you mean to link to the new article from the scientific errors page, I don't think the link to the article should be put on there (as it's not a scientific error). I just meant that it's fine as a new article. Maybe there are more suitable places to link to it from. If you were to recreate a section on the scientific errors page to put your link to the new article, I'll leave it to others to decide whether to remove it, but I think you'd have to at least write in such a recreated section that this is not strictly a scientific error, but is a theological absurdity/difficulty.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 13:22, 23 May 2014 (PDT)
:::hi Lightyears, a new page can be made through the help page [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Help:Contents#How_to_Create_a_New_Page] although I believe the Constellation article is a lower priority. A higher priority for us should be to review the Scientific errors page so we can remove the under review template. Thanks for some of your edits in trying to fix some of these errors in that article.
:::In addition if you have any suggestions for the site of any kind, anything which you think should be done differently, anything you think would be beneficial for the site let me know. You have as much authority on this site as I do. I like for all of us to make decisions as a team. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:54, 23 May 2014 (PDT)
::::OK, thanks. I'll let you know if I think of anything [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 16:48, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

I have something I need to do as of today, so won't be able to do any more editing for the foreseeable future in case any one wonders. [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 02:17, 24 May 2014 (PDT)

== Geocentral Quran documents ==

Someone emailed us a zip file that contained documents relating to the Geocentral Quran. If you're interested in looking at them let me know through our [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Contact_Us email] and I can forward that link to you. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:25, 27 May 2014 (PDT)

== Your Dhul-Qarnayn article helped a former Muslim ==

Your article was linked [http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f15/a-friend-has-apostated-67731/index3.html here] (post #22). Starts from #16 [http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f15/a-friend-has-apostated-67731/index2.html here], saying:

{{Quote||I know a brother on the internet i speak to daily and he seems to have gotten into this kind of doubt as well and is on the edge of apostasy. If he already hasnt apostatized.

What can you advise me to do and help him?

He seems to have issues with certain verses and ahadith containing information that is completely in contrast with current scientific knowledge or even facts.

---
...

Next thing you know he sends me wikiislam articles, like this one [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Dhul-Qarnayn_and_the_Sun_Setting_in_a_Muddy_Spring_-_Part_One Dhul-Qarnayn and the Sun Setting in a Muddy Spring (Part One) - WikiIslam]
. Now i cant deal with the technicalities and the arabic to refute these issues. But now he claims that muslims are just trying to twist the meanings of the verses just to get away with the current facts. So it is going to be hard to refute all the issues as i know wikiislam has a whole list concerning the scientific issues.}}

Once again great job on the Dhul-Qarnayn articles. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 13:57, 4 August 2014 (PDT)

== Iconoclasm ==

Appparently, Wikiislam doesn't cover iconoclasm (especially Muhammad's) or say vandalism, in any dedicated page. Can you correct me if wrong? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 07:52, 18 September 2016 (EDT)
:I think you're right. It could make for an interesting and very topical page given events of recent years if there's a decent amount of material to be found in sahih hadiths, maybe also sirat, tafsirs etc. I've no idea how to approve pages or what the processes are for new pages. The best thing for you to do would be to contact the exmna, who I believe have taken over running the site. It looks like Axius and Sahab might have retired as they've been inactive for quite a while now after an immense effort for some years.

:You have another interesting sandbox page on claims of evolution that would be worthwhile if it's not already covered. In the first section you should probably also quote 24:45 as it implies that not just the earliest life, but 2 and 4 legged animals (such as birds or cattle) were created from water too, which has no resemblance to sciencific theories. The repeating creation verses are probably resurrection (Muhammad faced a lot of skepticism about resurrection, as the Qur'an records). Jalalayn and ibn Kathir tafsirs for these verses confirm this, though the flood stuff is still worth mentioning too. The article would also benefit from a brief section on the explicit mentions of special creation of Adam that foil attempts to fit human evolution into the Qur'an regardless of how other verses might seem compatible with it. But before going to much more effort it'd be a good idea to get in contact with whoever is running the site now as I don't really want to take on the committment of doing admin such as reviewing and approving stuff and I imagine they probably have a plan for resuming the performance of such tasks in future.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 15:58, 18 September 2016 (EDT)
::Most of them are busy with their other work. But you can approve changes right? Then we might take the evolution article further. @ Iconoclasm, i have expanded this topic with some hadith. @scientific errors: what do you think about the mountains created in 4 days error [https://wikiislam.net/wiki/User:Saggy/Sandbox_-_Issues_with_Quran_and_Hadith#Mountains_were_Created_in_Four_Days]? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 14:29, 22 September 2016 (EDT)
:::I approved the Iconoclasm hadiths (except one of them for brevity), good stuff. I don't think the mountains one is a strong enough error because the verse talks about a bunch of things, not just the mountains as happening in 4 days.
::::[http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=41&tAyahNo=10&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2] and [http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2128&Itemid=97] say he put the mountains and also the earth was prepared with crops, plants, food etc in 4 days Even this hasn't happened in 4 days in reality. Then there are hadith which specify that mountains were formed in 1 day. The minimum that we could phrase as an error is: "the author of the Quran is unaware of (or has simply ignored) how long mountains take to form," similar to many other paragraphs in that article. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 14:33, 24 September 2016 (EDT)
:::::I've added 41:9-10 to the Earth and Heavens created in six days section as the mountain stuff is too vague to merit its own section. The Qur'an itself isn't clear on whether the mountains are placed on day 3 or days 3&4 or 1-4. It weakens the page to rely on tafsirs or hadiths to make a specific error claim. I have however pointed out that mountains continue to rise and fall to this day. It now says as much as we can say on this topic for a Qur'an errors page. It already says that the Qur'an is wrong to say that the heavens and Earth were formed in such short time periods, but I've added some additional commentary on the Earth specifically.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 19:05, 24 September 2016 (EDT)

==Jordanian cartoonist killed just now for making an ISIS and Allah cartoon==
I think we should put this on our front page. With Links to news sites.

The second thing I am looking at currently is [[Umm Qirfa]], listed in our tasks. Where shall I prepare my response to the apologists? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 07:05, 25 September 2016 (EDT)
:I saw this awful story too, and I think it makes as all angry. But I think the old admin guys must have made a decision to stop the Islam in the news stuff on the front page (terrorist attacks etc). It was a never ending task, which is covered by other well known sites which people visit if they want to follow such things. I agree with the decision. I think it diversifies too much to make this a news site.

Regarding Umm Qirfa, I recommend putting such things in sandbox and when exmna eventually start doing admin they can look at it with you. If there's just a few more things you want to do I can potentially approve it, but I don't want to be regularly working on this site and reviewing stuff. I'm just doing a bit of a blitz of work here recently while I have a little time and motivation and then I want to forget about it.

There are only a few other things I intend to do in the foreseeable future: revamp the embryology page (I recently revamped geocentrism), some small improvements to flat earth, and possibly a new page providing evidence that the earliest Muslims believed the Earth was flat (which is useful for flat earth in the Qur'an and sun setting in a muddy spring debates where Muslims sometimes claim with weak evidence that they already knew the Earth was round). My interest in Islam is quite low these days so it's only occasionally I feel like doing stuff here and only on topics I'm interested in and knowledgable about (errors in the Qur'an in etc.). That's also why I'm happy to help with your claims of evolution in the Qur'an page if you finish it and want it approved. I also suggest you add these things from your sandbox: Mountains Stabilize the Earth's Rotation About its Axis & Mountains Absorb Some Waves During Earthquakes

to this page if you're finished with those and I'll approve it
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Quran_and_Mountains

[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 08:05, 25 September 2016 (EDT)

== [[WikiIslam:Sandbox/Mosques]] ==

I made this new location of interesting hadiths about mosques. do you think it is fit for a QHS?
One more topic i want to cover somewhere is torture/punishment in the grave. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 11:36, 10 October 2016 (EDT)
:The torture / punishment in the grave could be interesting and is a suitable topic. Looking at the index list [[https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars|here]], the topics seem all to be things that are useful in criticism of Islam. I'm not sure what use hadiths about Mosque building or travelling to mosques have for anyone who might visit this site. Someone clicking the page might wonder, "what point are you trying to make with this page?". Go ahead if you want though, but maybe consider whether the Mosque one is worthwhile.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 15:05, 10 October 2016 (EDT)
::I find [http://sunnah.com/ibnmajah/4/8 this] (relatively) the most important one in that case. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 15:30, 10 October 2016 (EDT)

==Shia quotes==
Hi, the previous admins said that adding Shia quotes in a Sunni/general article weakens the article because our online critics can quickly dismiss Shias as non-Muslims and thus laugh at us (lol). How about a separate article for Shia hadith, fiqh, scholar fatwas etc? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 16:07, 18 October 2016 (EDT)
:I think the old admins have a point when Shia quotes are used to make a point about Islam in general, because for Sunnis the Shia evidence may well be irrelevant. But for a page just cataloguing things for reference like the QHS pages, it might be worth making an exception (with some restructuring) for the very important subject of apostasy, simply so that it is easy to find the Shia rulings (both for ex-Shia Muslims (don't want them to feel forgotten either, and their apostasy laws are even more vicious) and waivering Shia Muslims, and also because it's such a common topic of interest for non-Muslims who often may want an overview of apostasy sources for Islam in general (for them Sunni and Shia may both be important). What I will do though is restructure the QHS page and the section in the main apostasy article slightly. I don't intend to dig out Shia hadiths too (I'm just fufilling requests from ex-Muslims at the moment after I told them on reddit about my recent work), but anyone can also then add a subsection under Shia on the QHS page for hadiths later if they wish (and the Qur'an and sirat quotes are useful for both sunni and shia).[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 17:11, 18 October 2016 (EDT)
::Umm Qirfa task completed, more or less. [https://wikiislam.net/wiki/User:Saggy/Sandbox_-_Issues_with_Quran_and_Hadith#The_Story_of_Umm_Qirfa] The major apologetic claims I have addressed now. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 09:43, 23 October 2016 (EDT)
:::You can add this to the page for approval, but I don't really want to spend time checking and reviewing things anymore (which requires me to familiarise myself with the topic if I'm to do it properly). I could do so for the evolution page too as an exception.
::::Where is the page for approval? Do you have any contacts, emails etc of the exmna guys? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 14:13, 23 October 2016 (EDT)
:::::I assumed you were going to incorporate it into this page [https://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Story_of_Umm_Qirfa] (I just googled wikiislam umm qirfa to see if anything was there already). I actually tried contacting exmna recently to let them know that the google analytics tracking ID needs to be changed to UA-2352016-1 somewhere in the folder http://wikiislam.net/extensions/googleAnalytics/ which I don't have access to (Google analytics hasn't been working since the site was moved to another server late last year because there's a Tracking Code Mismatch error). I tried emailing the President of EXMNA to ask who I could contact about this using his email address on the Staff page of their website, but he didn't reply. Earlier I'd tried their wikiislam@exmna.org email address, but it returns some error about google groups permissions. I guess wikiislam must be a low priority at the moment for them. At least for now they saved the site from disappearing which is the main thing![[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 15:34, 23 October 2016 (EDT)
::::::Victory will be ours. :P [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 15:27, 24 October 2016 (EDT)

== Jinns and Science ==

What are the exact views of apologists on jinns? Is it something like "they are creatures unknown to current science"? Do you have some good apologist sites claiming this about jinns? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 16:03, 26 October 2016 (EDT)
:It's not something I've ever taken interest in. There's a page here with some stuff on them https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Jinn. As for apologetics, I'd imagine there are countless pages of nonsense about them, and lots of exorcism / jinn videos on youtube.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 17:14, 26 October 2016 (EDT)
::On this, I am thinking of a section in the Scientific Errors article. Jinns were made out of fire, says the quran, which is in fact impossible. (Later I can think of a main article about jinns, or expand [[Jinn|this one]]) [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 05:32, 21 July 2017 (EDT)
:::Jinns, angels, magic etc, and all aspects of the "unseen" in general is of course pure nonsense. But none of it is seen by Muslims as following the laws of physics or as a scientific matter even in principle. Where they try to explain it they speculate that it means the jinn were made of the fire's energy or it was a magical fire or any fantasy they care to indulge. It's much as how they see miracles in general where anything goes. It's a different matter when it talks about tangible beings and objects like the falsifiable creation stories of humans and mountains now that we know about evolution, genetics, plate tectonics etc. [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 18:48, 22 July 2017 (EDT)
::::Something created out of fire ''has to follow'' science. How does the error get solved if a Muslim says the laws of physics don't extend to it? (He could have easily said the seven heavens also are imaginary or are some invisible dimensions. how does that make and sense?)
::::"Jinns were made out of fire" (15:27) is a scientific error. I guess you agree with it. Reason: To make it highly specific, fire is not a material as ancient people thought. Its a combustion process and has only a handful of well studied products (non-living). Now somebody will say they were made out of the gas etc. Sorry, living things are not gaseous. I am not quoting the hadith yet but they do teach that Muhammad saw every little detail of jinn: jinn are anthropomorphic or animal-like in their looks and behavior etc. This rules out any claims about an "unseen" creation. Maybe I will gather everything... [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 06:59, 23 July 2017 (EDT)

==Editor rights==

I lost my editor rights a few days ago and as a result all the pages have pending changes. Can you ask someone about this? I mean why it happened? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 10:18, 27 February 2017 (EST)
:On the user rights log I can see that you were automatically promoted to editor a few months ago due to your number of edits. In other words, no-one made a conscious decision to upgrade you.

:I had nothing to do with undoing your unintended promotion, but the reversal happened at the same time as they changed my rights so that I could fix the templates. I know that the new admin (exmna) were advised on what to do about my rights, so presumably at the same time they noticed your auto-promotion and agreed that your rights should revert back to the previous state and it was the new admin who actually implemented the changes. So what you have now is just a continuation of your previous rights as no-one intended for you to have editor rights.

:They give such rights very sparingly based on their trust in the person's decisions and consistent quality of their edits, their arguments, their judgement on whether something is significant enough to warrant lengthening a page etc. The reasons they were not comfortable with you having full editor rights to make changes without review would thus be apparent in any previous discussions or disagreements you'd had with admin in the past, even though many of your contributions were welcome following review. [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 11:41, 27 February 2017 (EST)

==Criticisms==

I still wonder where exactly do Muslims criticize this Wiki (in English at least). Their pages are not easily googleable, which itself makes them hard to spot. Can you add some links of those critics in a page here? so that I can see what scientific errors/other erors they are refuting and how. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 08:03, 21 April 2017 (EDT)
:I just happened to see a thread on the reddit Islam sub. I then did a search of their sub and looked through the comments of similar threads on the first page of results, so I soon had a small list of things to sort out. There's no doubt that there are lots of poor pieces of content here and they tend to point out the worst ones they find, so it's a good way to find high priority things that need fixing. As for scientific errors, the weak stuff is pretty much gone now. Hardly any valid, specific criticisms of the page are mentioned by Muslims, which are weaknesses I was aware of but hadn't bothered to change til now. Different people mention the same things after they seem to have scrolled a long way down the page, so these days it seems that they find it pretty hard to come up with significant criticisms of it. In one thread from a few months ago a guy decided not to convert because of that page.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 10:02, 21 April 2017 (EDT)
::You mean decided not to convert to Islam? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 10:28, 21 April 2017 (EDT)
:::Correct, he came close to converting, but saw on the page that there's no way the Qur'an could be divine.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 11:39, 21 April 2017 (EDT)
::::That reminds me, we should restart the apostate testimonies. still locked i guess. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 15:27, 21 April 2017 (EDT)

== Saggy ==

Hi,

I saw that you blocked Saggy.[https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Special:Contributions/Saggy] He is a major contributor of both useful and unuseful stuff. Wouldn't it be better to put put some kind of sanction with regards to topics or editing main article, instead of fully blocking and revoking talkpage. At least let him edit talkpage to see if he's willing to comply. I believe losing a longtime editor like him would do more damage than betterment.

Thanks,--[[User:AAA|AAA]] ([[User talk:AAA|talk]]) 22:22, 9 February 2018 (EST)

User talk:AAA

2017-09-24T02:27:31Z

AAA: /* Translations */

==Scientific Errors in Quran==
If you want, you can create a new sandbox page and start analyzing every error on that page. What we want ideally is carefully review each error, provide more detail, check the internet if there's any other information on the net that can be added about it and add responses for each error's 'rebuttal' from Muslims (if they exist). That would be the best way to strengthen this page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 02:42, 29 August 2015 (PDT)

== For the links you shared ==
Thanks. Are you from EXMNA? Need a helping hand here. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 17:47, 7 September 2017 (EDT)
:There are many articles on Women in islam, covering most of the stuff you noted, linked on hub pages. But i will check again if I have anything to add. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 13:48, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
:Have added the I’laam al-Muwaqqa’een source you gave me at [[Women in Islam - From Islam's Sources]]. So, now, everything you listed is covered. Can you approve the edits there? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 11:40, 15 September 2017 (EDT)

==Translations==
I dont know the Muslim languages. I will need more time to learn them. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 11:43, 15 September 2017 (EDT)

:Maybe Google Translate can help.--[[User:AAA|AAA]] ([[User talk:AAA|talk]]) 22:27, 23 September 2017 (EDT)

User talk:Saggy

2017-09-12T00:17:47Z

AAA: /* Discrimination against women in Islam new article */

==Scientific Errors==

Hi. That page uses title-case for capitalization of headings[http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Standardization#Section_headings]. And there should not be multiple Qur'an translations used to illustrate a single error (i.e choose only one translation from the USC site). Both those errors were in your first edit to the page but I fixed them[http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=102143&oldid=102140]. You have repeated those same errors in your second edit. You will have to fix them before your edits can be considered. Thanks. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 13:27, 5 January 2014 (PST)
:I've reverted your edit again. You are aware this talk page discussion has been initiated. If you do not understand something here, the answer is not to reinsert whatever was reverted with a summary saying "btw I don't understand". That's basically ignoring this talk page. If you don't understand something then ask. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 19:07, 9 January 2014 (PST)
::Not much time . ok , what am I to do to caps? If u revert instead of correcting (which is a loss to the readers), others dont mind? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 02:48, 10 January 2014 (PST)
:::No they don't mind. Quality standards are high on this wiki. If editors do not have the time to adhere to guidelines/stick to proper etiquette or take the care to format their contributions properly, we'd rather they not edit at all. Do you think it's fair if others have to waste their time cleaning up after someone else's edits? We don't. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 11:49, 10 January 2014 (PST)

Got it. Got mistake. Thanks. (Or u want me to stop doing anything until we complete discussing?)[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 02:53, 10 January 2014 (PST)
:No, that's fine. Thanks. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 11:42, 10 January 2014 (PST)
hi Saggy, this Science error/Quran page is popular and is often linked to by people so its important for this page to be as strong as possible. Some errors are more obvious than others. Some only appear in one translation and so on. For example the Golden Calf statue verse that you added was great. It obviously goes against science and is a glaring error while some others are not that obvious.

One idea I have is to keep the strongest errors at the top and the less obvious ones (or the ones that can be explained in some way by apologists) near the bottom in another section. I tried making some rules here: [[Talk:Scientific Errors in the Qur'an]] (draft). Let me know your thoughts. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 08:19, 1 February 2014 (PST)
:How can we judge weakness? Its is everyones POV. EG Every claim about the sky is weak on its own. But when put together its a huge blunder. We already have sections for the branchs of science. At most we'll put weak claims at bottom of each section. of course we mustnt say - xyz is a weaker claim , we can try to explian it or justifiy it as much as possible..[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 12:52, 1 February 2014 (PST)
::Hi, I moved your comment back to keep it in one place. Some errors are present in Arabic and the translations, while others are present only in the translations. For example Constellations. Apologetist might say the Quran just means "collections of light" and yes these were made by Allah for humans (for example) and he was just talking in a general sense. A more glaring error is the Golden statue or mathematics of inheritance. So some are more obvious, the others are a little iffy and have some conditions.
::You might have some good points, I'm myself unsure about this issue so I'm just talking about it to see if there's any concrete ideas. So thats one idea, to put weak claims at the bottom.
::Another suggestion is to look at other websites like Answering-Islam and expand on the evidence for these errors, for example with arabic or tafsir.
::Another thing. Verses should be checked against the 3 translators to make sure those are the only ones we're using. I saw an instance where there was another translation being used and it was corrected. I will try to go through all of them.
::Anyone else have anything about this? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 16:06, 1 February 2014 (PST)
:::3 translators is ok. but we cant cry about translation matters in the article itself or lose content bcoz of them. on the long run give Every claim its main article like we have lying forehead or sunset in a muddy spring. As for constellations, other translations are "towers" or "mansions"- Both are disgusting if we take them literaly. And the calf statue may be defended by just calling it a miracle. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 23:05, 1 February 2014 (PST)
::::Alright then fair enough unless anyone else has anything to add for improving the article. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 10:29, 2 February 2014 (PST)
:::::I moved the one for constellation here on your page [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=User:Saggy/Sandbox_-_Issues_with_Quran_and_Hadith&diff=107464&oldid=106860]. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:43, 15 May 2014 (PDT)

:::::: Hi Saggy, I found some more miracles of floating boats: 2:164, 16:14, 42:32. Perhaps it should be mentioned that at Muhammad's time Archimedes law describing buoyancy was more than 8 centuries old. Shall I put it in? Also I added a remark about the missing leap year on Axius talk page. --[[User:PW. Jansen|PW. Jansen]] ([[User talk:PW. Jansen|talk]]) 22:18, 24 August 2014 (PDT)

== Quran details ==

For [[WikiIslam:Sandbox/Qur%27anic_Claim_of_Having_Details]], how did you find these verses? For example the first two. Through your own study? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 18:16, 24 February 2014 (PST)
:Yea--[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 07:45, 25 February 2014 (PST)
::Thats great. I will try to work on this article. I had just added a few lines at the top. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 10:48, 25 February 2014 (PST)
:::Just a quick pointer for Saggy concerning that page; readers should not be directly addressed. So rather than say, ''"What will this beast be like? How come it will be able to talk to people?"'', it should say something like, ''"The Qur'an does not elaborate on the physical appearance of this beast or how it would communicate with humans"''. The Isra and Mi'raj section seems to have it right. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 13:51, 25 February 2014 (PST)
::::Yea, we'll have to work on that after the verses have been put in.
::::Saggy how are you finding these verses? Through search or by reading the verses yourself and searching for issues? Any plans of getting more?
::::Still not sure about the article or where it will go but I think its a good idea (needs more verses though). Its different than the usual "errors/contradictions" and so on. Its another kind of defect but we'll see how it goes. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 19:21, 25 February 2014 (PST)
:::::Some are old things i just recollect (like i heard- isra-mi'raj is incomplete without reading bukhari)--[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 09:19, 26 February 2014 (PST)
::::::Some of the [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam Five Pillars] could be included. They're covered [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an_Only_Islam_-_Why_it_is_Not_Possible#Five_Pillars_of_Islam here] (not a very well written article , but it provides the necessary info). There's also the [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Jizyah Jizyah]. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 06:09, 27 February 2014 (PST)

== Discussions link ==

To make it easy for us to track discussions among current editors, I moved the discussion about logical errors to the Discussions page [[WikiIslam:Forum|Discussions]] page (linked on the left). I'll reply there soon. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 04:35, 6 March 2014 (PST)
:Just letting you know that there's a new "Editing" section on the left that has all the links related to Editing (including Discussions). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 15:30, 6 March 2014 (PST)

== Contracted forms ==

Hi Saggy. I've corrected your use of contracted forms and the missing question mark [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Contradictions_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=105449&oldid=105391 here]. Please read the [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Article_Style_and_Content_Guide WikiIslam:Article Style and Content Guide]. Thanks. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 11:58, 8 March 2014 (PST)

== Inheritance Laws ==

I thought I'd ask you since you've been interested in the errors/contradictions topics. Inheritance laws ([[Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#Mathematical_Error_in_Hereditary_Laws]]) have had some responses like [http://www.khalidzaheer.com/qa/615] and [http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_inheritance_law__by_ansar_al__adl].

Do you know how to respond to these rebuttals and see if there's anything to investigate here? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:56, 12 March 2014 (PDT)

:Easy- site 1-"Out of the remaining (11 out of 24), the two daughters are going to get one-third each. " site 2- "And for the daughters 2/3 of '''what remains''' = 2/3 of 13/24=13/36 of the total amount" This ''remaining'' is assumed. Where is it mentioned? Nothing is mentioned so u have to divide whole (24 / 24) into two thirds. Other sites do the same thing.[http://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/1408/inheritance-shares-dont-add-up-to-1] theres in fact no consistency in whom to divide the remainder among. One site[http://www.kurandersleri.net/miras/en/Miras_Erkek_en.html] divides watever looks comfortable, whole or remains, only to ensure that fractions add upto 1 or a lesser value. [This http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/inh_01.htm] uses the contradictory shares of sisters to convert more than 1 to less than 1. Some use an old law of increasing denominator in the sum so that it is equal to numerator- but they violate all the stated fractions[http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/ma_addup.htm]. First, 4:11-12 have 10+ rules and and 4:176 has 4 rules contradicting some of them so lots of whims will show up. We are not even talking about gender injustice in this.--[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 04:21, 14 March 2014 (PDT)
::Ok. We should then think about making an article about this later on. Currently [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Inheritance_Laws this] exists but it may not be dealing with the rebuttals and its also an essay by another author, so we can make a new article about this later. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 09:46, 14 March 2014 (PDT)
:Ya start it.--[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 12:05, 14 March 2014 (PDT)
::For now I just added a link to this section to the tasks page. [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=WikiIslam:Tasks&diff=105798&oldid=105528]. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 14:59, 14 March 2014 (PDT)

== Comprehension of errors ==

Can you please explain how you interpreted [http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/052-sbt.php#004.052.051 Bukhari 4:52:51] to [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Hadith&curid=9085&diff=106685&oldid=106682 mean] "Orbit of the Sun is comparable to a Bow". From a cursory glance, it doesn't say anything of the sort. What it says is that having an area the size of a bow (not the bow itself) in heaven is better (not comparable) to having the entire earth (not sun). That same hadith continues by saying, "A single endeavor in Allah's Cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all that on which the sun rises and sets." If we apply your logic to the rest of the same narration, it would mean that the "Orbit of the Sun is comparable to a single endeavor in Allah's Cause" is also a valid interpretation, something which it is not. I find it hard to understand how you could misinterpret something so obvious, so please do explain it to us. Can you also stop rushing things (like you had previously agreed)? This way you would avoid making typos such as "comaprable". [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 16:03, 5 April 2014 (PDT)
:[http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/052-sbt.php#004.052.053 Bukhari 4:52:53] says, "A place in Paradise as small as the bow '''or lash''' of one of you is better than '''all the world''' and whatever is in it." So clearly the connection you made between the shape of a bow and the sun's orbit does not exist. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 16:26, 5 April 2014 (PDT)
::Saggy, I would also like to know how you made that deduction and add to this query. Recently you interpreted the Horseman thing and now this certain one as well. Its good that you're exploring new verses and hadiths but there is a problem in how you're interpreting text. If you dont understand a certain text, you can ask us on your talk or on the [[forum]] page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:34, 6 April 2014 (PDT)
::Suppose you wanted to say the same thing, no matter if it sounds good or mediocre: "A place as small as X is better than that on which Y happens." Of course "that" could refer to "place " better than to "X". But if X is not something typically ''small,'' what is the point in saying it? ''Bow'' must have the other meaning (which is backed up by that sun travelling-prostrating and permission verse) Come on, u could have said as small as... anything. Why bow? You can think of several adjectives on hearing the word bow, except "small." Whether this was narrated at war (single endeavor) or some other hadith sounds partly similar, does not matter. That could be a change of the simile made in the first place. Is a place anything like a bow? The sun rises and sets? Not at all. Only a person who thinks the sun runs on a semicircle over the other place(earth) would have said "bow." [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 10:53, 6 April 2014 (PDT)

:::'''"But if X is not something typically ''small,'' what is the point in saying it?"'''
:::A bow is small in comparison to the earth or in comparison to a lot of things.
:::'''"''Bow'' must have the other meaning"'''
:::You only assert that it must, but you haven't provided any convincing reasons why.
:::'''"Come on, u could have said as small as... anything. Why bow?"'''
:::Because they were warriors and Muhammad was describing where they would go when they die in battle. Is that really too much of a stretch? No, it makes perfect sense. In fact it's what most people would get from reading that verse. Your explanation just comes of as a stretch.
:::'''"You can think of several adjectives on hearing the word bow, except "small.""'''
:::Words such as "dying" and "in battle" spring to mind. And I don't agree with your "except small" comment. A bow is small in comparison to the world, so there is no valid reason why it could not be described as "small".
:::'''"Whether this was narrated at war (single endeavor) or some other hadith sounds partly similar, does not matter."'''
:::Of course it does. That is what we call "context". Context is what helps us understand the meanings behind text. It is what Muslim apologists usually ignore. And of course what "some other hadith sounds partly similar" says is important. It's important because it is describing the exact same event, but via a different narrator. Even the one hadith you are misinterpreting debunks your ideas when read fully (refer to my original post)'
:::'''"Is a place anything like a bow?"'''
:::The hadith does not claim any place is like a bow, it is referring to the size of the bow. You don't need that to be explained. It is written in plain English for everyone to see (i.e. "as ''small'' as a bow").
:::'''"Only a person who thinks the sun runs on a semicircle over the other place(earth) would have said "bow.""'''
:::You havn't shown that at all. Your reasoning is convoluted and ignores the obvious meaning. I would suggest sticking to hadiths that are clear errors rather than ones that need your interpretations. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 12:10, 6 April 2014 (PDT)
{{outdent|4}}
Saggy, so that we're clear this is the the hadith:
:Volume 4, Book 52, Number 51: Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "A place in Paradise as small as a bow is better than all that on which the sun rises and sets (i.e. all the world)." He also said, "A single endeavor in Allah's Cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all that on which the sun rises and sets."
Breaking it up, "X is better than Y".

X = "A place in Paradise as small as a bow." (a small sized object)

Y = "all that on which the sun rises and sets" (some kind of large space according to the Quran)

Your title was "Orbit of the Sun is comparable to a Bow". This is incorrect. The ''size'' of a bow is being compared to the size of the sun's place of rising and setting.

The hadith means "A tiny place in Islamic Heaven is better than a huge place which is not part of Heaven".

If you're talking about the arc of a bow (golden part [https://3dmagicmodels.com/wp-content/uploads/bow-and-arrow-3d-model1.jpg here] which is a semi circle) being compared to what an observer on Earth sees, this is not an error. We see that kind of semi-circle even today as we see the sun form an arc. A scientist can say "look how the Sun makes (or seems to make) a semi circle around the Earth". So these things can be explained. This is like the horseman hadith where there wasnt any interpretation like the one you were saying there was. As again if you come across a hadith and you're not sure of the meaning you can ask us. On the other hand, the hadith could be added to as supporting evidence ("the sun rises and sets"): [[Geocentrism_and_the_Quran#Muslims_around_the_time_of_Muhammad]] but I think its weak on its own on the Errors page: --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 12:46, 6 April 2014 (PDT)
:Sahab what do you think of the addition here? [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Geocentrism_and_the_Quran&diff=106736&oldid=103187] Since the hadith is saying the same thing about the sun. (sun rises and sets). If you dont agree its fine for it to be removed (its up to you). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 13:00, 6 April 2014 (PDT)
::Hi Ax. Yeah, I've removed it. Even with those surrounding hadith, this particular hadith is not making any reference whatsoever to the orbit of the sun. If I can see this and you can see this, then so can most other people. As you noted, the object being "compared" to the bow is something ''other'' than the sun itself. There is not "ifs" or "buts" about it. The second hadith down from that one confirms the meaning (which was obvious anyway.). It's like a Muslim saying a can of Pepsi is more refreshing than all that is inside a coffee cup, then us accusing him of saying a ceramic cup is more refreshing than a soft drink. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 13:20, 6 April 2014 (PDT)
:::Ok then, sounds good. Yea that analogy is similar. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 14:26, 6 April 2014 (PDT)

== Contradictions in the Qur'an and Hadith ==

Hi Saggy. I've deleted that page. A page like that is something that would interest "Quranists", not us. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 13:03, 10 April 2014 (PDT)
:I've moved the content to his personal sandbox for now: [[User:Saggy/Sandbox - Contradictions in the Qur'an and Hadith]]. I'll send an email about this. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:01, 10 April 2014 (PDT)
::We have an (old) article about the very same contradiction mentioned by Saggy ([[Muhammads Miracles|Muhammad's Miracles]]). If you read the section on Bukhari's criteria, you'll see that Muslims have contradictions between the Qur'an and Hadith covered. Thus it renders the article completely pointless. In fact, Muslims will probably think it's funny and talk about how we don't know anything about the "science of hadith". That's on top of the fact that such an article would only be used for Qur'anist propaganda. If the very idea is pointless, then I don't see any benefit from letting an editor waste their time working on it. That is why I deleted it rather than just leave it in a sandbox. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 15:39, 10 April 2014 (PDT)
:::I just dont have energy to debate about this at the moment so I deleted the Sandbox page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:36, 10 April 2014 (PDT)
::::What if I find more contradictions?[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:25, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
:::::Here I've made a page for you that gives you the freedom to do any kind of QHS work (since that is something you like doing). You can reorganize content there using section headings (logical error, hadith errors, contradictions, etc):
:::::[[User:Saggy/Sandbox - Issues with Quran and Hadith]] - use this for any new work or new ideas to keep it in the same place.
:::::Just keep in mind that we can have a democratic discussion together later on as to whether certain content will be approved or not for conversion from sandbox to main space. My view is that interesting QHS can be re-used in other places too in some way so if you have discovered verses or hadiths that are interesting, it is totally OK for them to go in a personal sandbox page of your own. Sandboxes are all excluded from Google search so no one can find them unless they come to recent changes/contributions and explore that way. Doing this does not harm the quality of the main content as sandbox content has to be carefully reviewed to make sure it complies with guidelines and the mission.
:::::You can keep adding content for existing pages as you are doing (Scientific errors in hadith, in the Quran, Contradictions in the Quran etc.) As before we will review those to see if they are ok as that is content in the main space.
:::::Doing a short reply for Sahab, if Quranists want to use content on our site for any purpose, its a good thing. It brings them to our site and they have effectively approved content on our site (I think its a plus for us). They're a minority so I would not worry about them. I can make many more points but my point is that all alternatives can be argued for equally. There are advantages and disadvantages for each alternative.
:::::''"you'll see that Muslims have contradictions between the Qur'an and Hadith covered."'' - those are only contradictions for miracles, not other topics. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:25, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

::::::To Saggy: My action was not based on the quality or length of the page (I was obviously aware that you would add to it). It was based on the fact that the actual idea behind the article was not suitable. Regardless, Axius has recreated the page so you can carry on working on it.

::::::To Axius: '''"those are only contradictions for miracles, not other topics"'''
::::::Did you read that section about Bukhari's criteria? Mat'n applies to ALL contradictions between the Qur'an and hadith.
::::::'''"if Quranists want to use content on our site for any purpose"'''
::::::Strawman. I never objected to them using this site. My point is that it ONLY benefits their propaganda, nothing else. If we allow something like this, why not also allow Atheistig to write an article about how unreliable the hadith are? [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 04:34, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
:::::::''"Let's go all the way and invalidate 95% of our material just to keep 1 editor happy."'' ---- :-) this is an imaginary situation that hasn't happened yet so lets not do that.
:::::::He knows its a Sandbox page that later may or may not be approved so whats the issue? I dont see any.
:::::::''"Mat'n applies to ALL contradictions between the Qur'an and hadith."'' - is Bukhari's criteria the golden absolute rule on deciding whats a contradiction? I would say no. To me a Sahih hadith is Sahih. I would say that Bukhari does not have the authority to invalidate the Hadiths of other Hadith collectors (like Muslim). Also if the criteria is to delete things that are in contradiction with each other, the Quran contradicts itself in various verses, so what does one do about that? To most people they are all valid Islamic sources (especially Sahih hadiths). All these points can be mentioned on a page about Quran/hadith contradictions. All of these things seen together expose more serious problems with Islam and create challenges for people reading them.
:::::::''"My point is that it ONLY benefits their propaganda"'' - Again they are a minority. The other side effect is letting the rest of the Muslims know that these contradictions exist. Most Muslims view hadiths as holy. I would say that they would have to deal with the contradiction when they see it and it creates a challenge for them.
::::::: My main point here again is that cases can be argued against equally. Its a Sandbox page and people have the right to work on a Sandbox which later may or may not be approved (as long its not an obvious content violation). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 05:13, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::::::::You have not dealt with anything I've actually said, so no they can't be argued against equally. I've mentioned several times why I deleted that page from the sandbox but you continue acting like I never explained. Your opinion on Bukhari's criteria is irrelevant. Mat'n is a well known thing. Hence, contradictions between the Qur'an and certain hadith will not effect mainstream Islam in the slightest. And wth, you're telling editors to stay away from me now? The discussion we're having now isn't even on my talk page, so maybe you should have considered a more appropriate time or place to mention this or considered how it would look to others? [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 05:09, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::Although you're right my comment could have been made at a better time (so ok, I apologize again for making it at the wrong time), I never asked anyone to stay away from you when I made the [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saggy&diff=106872&oldid=106871 comment]. You had removed some comments from your own talk page earlier if you recall [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sahab&diff=106769&oldid=106768] so I was stressing the point that others should use the forum page for general issues and not someone's talk page.
::::::::::I'm asking everyone to follow talk page guidelines and core [[WikiIslam:Core_Principles|community principles]] and assume good faith. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 12:12, 13 April 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::"Matn"'s definition on Wikipedia doesnt mention Bukhari or the contradiction issue, why is that? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_studies#Sanad_and_matn]. "text of the report" =matn is what I'm seeing, not a contradiction with the Quran issue. Are there are sources to support what Matn means? As I mentioned, the issue of deletion arises at the point of review when something is being considered for main space but not before that when it is in a temporary condition (in the Sandbox). Saggy knows it may or may not be approved. As for whether you're right or I'm right, I've shown that points can be made on both sides. Lets do that full debate when the time comes for a review of that piece. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 05:23, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::To hightlight it again our page [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muhammads_Miracles] that you pointed to in the begining and you refered to it again, claims ''"His third criteria is mat'n, i.e. the content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an."'', but there's no reference for that. According to other sources Matn means "text of the hadith", not "must not be in contradiction with the Quran". Bukhari's criteria of this contradiction cannot apply to other Hadith scholars (it is his own personal opinion). And even if we were to assume such a criteria, we are faced by the question: Is a Sahih hadith being declared invalid simply because of the contradiction? Why was it considered in the first place if it was actually invalid? The hadith was considered authentic because the events narrated actually happened.
::::::::::In any case a sourced definition of Matn would be one point. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 05:36, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
{{outdent}}
Visiting this again and stressing this point:
:''Mat'n applies to ALL contradictions between the Qur'an and hadith.''
This is not correct as Mat'n means "the text of the hadith" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_studies#Sanad_and_matn] and has nothing to do with "Contradictions between Quran and Hadith". The source article [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muhammads_Miracles#Bukhari.27s_criteria] you linked for Miracles should have the definition of Matn sourced correctly. I believe this is a page that an author made with the username starting with J (forgot the full name). So this line:
:''His third criteria is mat'n, i.e. the content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an.''
is incorrectly implying that Matn = the content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 10:57, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::Clarified [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muhammads_Miracles#Bukhari.27s_criteria] and changed from:
:::His third criteria is ''mat'n'', i.e. the content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an.
::To:
:::His third criteria is regarding ''mat'n'' (text), i.e. the text/content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an.
::So its clear that Matn means just "text" and not "no contradiction between Quran and hadith". --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:57, 12 April 2014 (PDT)
:::Pointing out contradictions between Quran and hadith is a criticism of Islam. Our site's mission is criticism of Islam (or to provide "an accurate and comprehensive resource on Islam" as currently mentioned in the [[WikiIslam:Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_is_the_purpose_of_WikiIslam.3F|FAQ]], which is even more inclusive), not whether certain criticism is seen as favorable to certain minority sects of Islam like Quran-only.
:::And as I mentioned (sorry if I'm repeating some points), this certain criticism is not seen as favorable to the majority of Muslims who do believe in the hadith. The Matn contradiction issue is Bukhari's opinion and cannot invalidate all problematic hadiths, (definitely not other hadiths like Muslim and neither his own) just because he said so. In short again that means we should not be excluding criticism of Islam because it is favoring a minority sect. And again, we will have a full picture of the situation when there is an actual article to review which there is none at this time. Its just text in a Sandbox. In an article like this Quran/hadith contradiction issue, we definitely want to point out clearly that people can not simply reject Sahih hadiths for whatever reason. There was a reason they were considered Sahih. Sometimes a certain issue is covered in multiple Hadiths which adds to the strength of what the Hadith is saying. If there are multiple Hadith collectors (Muslim and Bukhari for example) that is even more evidence that a Hadith's content actually happened and it is difficult to reject that hadith. So we should wait to see what an article looks like in the end to give a full opinion. The other issue again is, if Contradiction is the reason to reject a hadith, Quranic verses which contradict each other also have a problem. As for Atheistig's article, I dont know what that situation was and perhaps we missed a chance on making a valid article but I dont know enough details. Having an article that mentions Quran/hadith contradictions provides motivation for further strengthening the position that it is not possible to reject hadiths and definitely not Sahih hadiths, so it provides motivation for further improving the "Quran only - Why it is not possible" article or any other content like that. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:21, 12 April 2014 (PDT)
::::Saggy, whats your opinion about the fact that some Muslims may try to reject that contradict the Quran? We need to make sure that your hadith/Quran article also explains (using references) why it is not possible to reject Sahih hadiths that contradict the Quran. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:32, 12 April 2014 (PDT)

== 1000 years ==

Please note [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Contradictions_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=106878&oldid=106876] and see the edit summary. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 05:42, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
:But the verses are clear. 1 day = 1000 years or 1 day=50000 yrs. Human days are not mentioned. Have you read the speed of light hoax?[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 05:51, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

{{Quote||How long is Allah's day?

One thousand days
Yet they ask thee to hasten on the Punishment! But Allah will not fail in His Promise.
Verily a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning.
Qur'an 22:47

Fifty thousand days
The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty
thousand years:
}}

"Verily a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning"

It means one day for '''ALLAH''', is the same as 1000 years for '''HUMANS'''.

See that? "'''Your''' reckoning" = human's perspective. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 06:03, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
:U quote years and still insist on days? Reckoning means our "count" not days or years. Everywhere online the meaning is 1000/50000 years not days. Of course it is same perspective for everyone. Time flows the same for all ( we or anyone outside the solarsystem). The measurement and units differ. (This also debunks the Einsteins theory of relativity miracle claim for the above verses). A day for us is 24 hours. Nobody can change this. Day is defined by a planets rotation! His day is nothing to do with our 24 hrs in anyway! Why do i even need to say this when the equation is about years? Let me show one more : "He regulates the affair from the heaven to the earth; then shall it ascend to Him in a day the measure of which is a thousand years of what you count" 32:5. Clear length of a day is given. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 11:39, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::Well I'm sorry, you were right from the start - my mistake. I got confused somehow and didnt read the hadith carefully enough. It should have been easy to spot that but I missed it somehow (I probably was in a hurry at that time). It is indeed a 1000 years. I reverted it back now. [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Contradictions_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=106876&oldid=106861].
::Good catch on seeing this error and fixing it. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:02, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
:::''"Have you read the speed of light hoax"'' - I've heard of the speed of might miracle but know nothing more than that. There is an article here about that: [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Speed_of_Light_in_the_Quran]. Is this what you were thinking of? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:03, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::::Yeah, that miracle itself is based on a day=1000 years and many more reasons to be a hoax. I will laugh hours long if I read it again. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 02:29, 12 April 2014 (PDT)

== Rain/miraculous ==

This is another of those weaker errors [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#Rain_has_Miraculous_Effects].
: Remember He covered you with a sort of drowsiness, to give you calm as from Himself, and he caused rain to descend on you from heaven, to clean you therewith, to remove from you the stain of Satan, to strengthen your hearts, and to plant your feet firmly therewith.

What if the apologetic response is: "The rain was a special rain for the prophet, it was not ordinary rain. It was a miraculous rain." - its talking about the rain for the prophet right? Its a specific example. These kinds of errors should not be mixed with stronger errors. Something will have to be done about these kinds of errors. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:55, 17 April 2014 (PDT)
:"your hearts". Thus it is not for one person but plural. The earlier verses are not clear on who the audience is(a common goof). If there is a claim of a miracle with tafsirs or stuff to back up (Ibn kathir and Ibn abbas have nothing to say), we can post it under miracles. one site said there are two battles in the single verse (Uhud and Badr) but it is not entirely true to them. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 23:47, 17 April 2014 (PDT)
::Strong errors are long since covered so we have only these. We can rearange them within their section as I think i said. Another site "islamfrominside.com" says everything is about Badr but Wikipedia does not say so. Apologists have four effects of rain to explain infact. The last "feet" one differs in translations. Anyway, The whole miracle about Badr is wrong. The error began with "Allah caused the rain" itself. He cannot cause it, it just happens. If he caused it, what was he doing in much bigger battles in future? Testing believers? How long will he do this? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 00:05, 18 April 2014 (PDT)
:::Although you do great finding interesting verses/hadiths I have to say this:
:::''"Strong errors are long since covered so we have only these."'' - then I would rather not weaken the article with less stronger verses. The problem is when people post the article somewhere and someone points out the excuses like I showed, its discouraging for the person who posts the link. Then they have to work through the rebuttal and point out things like you did - many people are not as committed or may not know what to say. If the errors are strong they cannot be refuted in any way and it makes it easy for the other person who posts our link. This page is one of our most popular pages and its critical for it to be a good page. In fact, you see the under construction template at the top. The article needs to be reviewed and fixed so we can get rid of the template.
:::''We can rearange them within their section as I think i said.'' - sorry I forgot about what you said earlier. So what did you say, how should it be arranged? Lets see how we can do this and keep the stronger errors in one place and the weaker ones in some kind of "misc" section. Should each section have its own Miscellaneous section, or do we collect all of them at the bottom in one section? I'm thinking about the latter.
:::I made a link on your user page: [[User:Saggy]].
:::One of the most critical goals we have to take care of is to increase the quantity of good-quality editors. If you have any suggestions let me know. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:16, 18 April 2014 (PDT)
::::I donn't believe in strong or weak in case of refutation. If an error is refuted its not an error till we explain how we are correct. I will try to sort the sections on sc errors.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 07:42, 22 April 2014 (PDT)
:::::For some errors its hard to find any justification while others can have some. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:31, 22 April 2014 (PDT)

== Moon split (wikipedia) ==

That article is a joke now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_of_the_moon

Look at this talk page discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Splitting_of_the_moon#Good_article_nomination_on_hold
They were trying to make it into a good article a long time ago. Now the lead has this:
:In 2010 a NASA Lunar Science Institute (NLSI) staff scientist said "No current scientific evidence reports that the Moon was split into two (or more) parts and then reassembled at any point in the past."[7]

And the "NASA" section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_of_the_moon#NASA_mis-cited_as_proof

I bet now they would like to go the opposite direction and make sure no one sees that article. Anyway, I think its taken care of (for now). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 21:05, 20 May 2014 (PDT)

==Quran/evolution==
The new sandbox article you made on evolution is good. Here's a QHS page on it: [[Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Creation]] and this is a pro-Islamic page: [[Qur'an and the Theory of Evolution]].

If you're just gathering verses, you can add them to the existing QHS page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 21:02, 20 May 2014 (PDT)
:No this is about the apology claim on evolution. so i have to write that. I dont think a QHS can cover that thing.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 07:14, 22 May 2014 (PDT)
::Ok. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 13:32, 22 May 2014 (PDT)

== Scientific Errors #2 ==

I have asked you not to add any verses to the Scientific errors page and for now only add them to your sandbox page. The article is currently under review and new stuff should not be added there while it is under review. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:01, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

== Moon Position ==

Once again the addition you added [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&curid=9078&diff=107595&oldid=107587] is not an error in my opinion. Its just describing what things look like to humans (aesthetically). The verse literally does not mean "the moon is placed between the seven layers". It is talking about what it looks like to humans.

The seven layers is an error, that we know (and that error is present on the page I think) but the "moon is among them" just means what it appears to people on Earth. Lightyears if you see this, any thoughts on this addition? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:06, 23 May 2014 (PDT)
:No, it does not mean what the moon appears from earth. It directly places the moon somewhere. Moon and its reflected light is insignificant in the first heaven itself, let alone seven heavens. If it is about the how the moon "appears", why is appears not mentioned? How about this "The whole book appears like a war manual, a book full of hate for kafirs. but it only appears, it is not true and it was only about a 7th century power struggle. Muhammad only appears like a criminal from all the content but this is not true and all he did was right for his situation" ? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 23:45, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

:This is not a demonstrable error. Fee simply means in and feeinna means in that. In the constellations verse (25.61), it indicates that the stars are also said to be in (fee) the heavens and the sun and moon in it (feeha). Muslims will generally assume that the stars, sun and moon are in the nearest one, where other verses specify that the stars are. They believe the entirety of the visible universe is in this nearest heaven, and the other heavens are in some physical or metaphysical sense beyond it. No verse can disprove this. The only heaven ever explained is the lowest heaven.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 02:07, 24 May 2014 (PDT)
::Sorry, it can be disproven. 54:11 "Then opened We the gates of heaven with pouring water".[http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/054-qmt.php](the word is sama) Does this rainwater come from the universe? seven heaven = seven layers of atmosphere is wrong (because of the stars verse) and seven heavens = seven universes that we are yet to explore is wrong also beacause of this rain verse. The winged horse that goes to all seven heavens is another example of how awfully wrong things are. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 04:03, 24 May 2014 (PDT)
:::As if this is not enough, read [http://download.iranville.com/books/%DA%A9%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%A8%E2%80%8C%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C%20%D8%A7%D9%86%DA%AF%D9%84%DB%8C%D8%B3%DB%8C/Ali%20Sina%20-%20Understanding%20Muhammad.pdf here] p. 111 Last but one paragraph about stars. More proof that we are becoming appeasers.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 04:27, 24 May 2014 (PDT)
::::Saggy, the issue is the word "therein" (The Position of the Moon). As Lightyears said "This is not a demonstrable error."
::::You have been addressed by 3 people (me, Sahab and Lightyears) about the issues in your additions and you're still unwilling to understand what we're saying. As again you can do what you want in your sandbox.
::::''"More proof that we are becoming appeasers"'' - no this is not true. We are preventing the site from being mocked. I dont have to remind you of all the times the issues have been pointed out to you.
::::How much Arabic do you know? Are you looking at Lexicons like Lightyears is? I looked at the PDF and didnt see anything about this specific verse on p. 111 (of the PDF or as marked in the book).
::::''"It directly places the moon somewhere."'' - it does not. It simply says "among them". The placement described in Quran is vague. The position of the moon is being described as "therein / in their midst". --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:44, 24 May 2014 (PDT)
:::::And I see the paragraph on pg 111 of that book now (begins with "The Egyptian Muslim scholar..."). The original source if found, can be added to a relevant QHS about Astrology but the topic under discussion that I opened here is the Moon position and the use of the word Therein and again with regards to that, Lightyears agreed with me and said it is not an error and he used his knowledge of Arabic ("Fee simply means in and feeinna means in that"). The Science/Quran errors page is critical and needs urgent attention to delete any more non-errors. They should be moved to a Sandbox so they are not lost. I will try to see what can be done about that. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 09:21, 24 May 2014 (PDT)

== Forbidden things ==

Google search for [https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=islam%20forbidden%20things&safe=off islam forbidden things] can also help. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:01, 5 June 2014 (PDT)
:From the silliness page, [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Islamic_Silliness#Wicked_wigs], Wigs, One-shoe walks outlawed, Say no to green jars and white jars, Sinning with silverware, Allah likes sneezing but hates yawning, Fight polytheists by trimming moustache, Pus better than poetry, Allah curses tatooed women, Looking up during prayer may cause blindness.
:Blackgammon [http://www.muslimconverts.com/Munajjid-books/forbiden.htm#67], "Playing with dice"--[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:39, 11 July 2014 (PDT)
:: Search link for [http://sunnah.com/search/forbade "forbade"]. 1150 results. Other searches could be for words "haram", "outlawed", prohibited, "do not", "disallowed" etc--[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 20:01, 11 July 2014 (PDT)

== Scientific errors - response blog ==

Here's a blog that has some "refutations" of a small amount of errors. [http://quran-errors.blogspot.com/] These should be checked and used to further strengthen [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an our page] (without needing to specifically mention this blog). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:17, 14 June 2014 (PDT)

:*'''Universe contracting/Heaven is from Smoke:''' Why talk about galaxys and gas clouds? The verse says earth and heaven were coming together (and talking to Allah). Earth is as old as Galaxies? Nope.
:*'''Mountains:''' i think [http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Quran_and_Mountains this] is sufficient. They dont stabilize so they are not pegs.
:*'''Universe was made in 6 days:''' It was not made in 6 periods. There are no 6 periods. The best that guy could do was reject the backup hadith of Sahih Muslim.
:*'''Seven Planets''': rejecting a tafsir that does not support them. The seven planets have names, will add them soon.
:*'''Thunder is an Angel:''' Again rejecting a tafsir. I have added a similar hadith.
:*'''Moonlight:''' Nur never means reflected light. Poor guy wasted so much time. Ibn Kathir is also wrong (that moon light is different from the sun's).
:*Rest we have already covered: embryology, geocentric, flat earth.
:*'''Sun sets in a Muddy spring:''' We covered the word meanings. No use of the apologists dictionary, he cherrypicked meanings. Two or three scholars he quoted are utterly flimsy who make more errors defending one. Rest of scholars are tolerable, but still wrong as we have proven in the word analysis. The last part reminds me, do we have articles on hadith authenticity other than the list of fake hadiths?
:I will see how to add all the above, or it could be there already.
:[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 13:43, 14 June 2014 (PDT)
::Yes, best to somehow improve the existing information on our side (if needed) or add additional supporting evidence where possible. A small "Responses to Apologetics" section can made for each error below the verse.
::Yes I saw that the blog has rejected the Tafsir. When all else fails they resort to "The Tafsir/hadith is weak". I'm sure every single hadith can be considered weak if all the chain of narrators are examined. They just do the analysis for the hadiths they dont like. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 19:04, 14 June 2014 (PDT)
:::I'll try to work on this too. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:19, 15 June 2014 (PDT)
::::A responses section below every verse? It will look like a train wreck. Better say in the lead that there are responses and detailed analysis in the main articles of verses.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 10:56, 15 June 2014 (PDT)
::::Which are the other top 10 articles?[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 10:57, 15 June 2014 (PDT)
:::::You have a gmail account? I can add you to the statistics view and you can see the top 10.
:::::Many errors dont have a dedicated page. "Responses to apolgetics/Notes" - basically a few lines to repel criticism. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 13:39, 15 June 2014 (PDT)
::::::I go one by one; we have [[Qur'an and a Universe from Smoke]] for the first claim. i think it should be linked and then expanded, but iam not yet sure how to expand.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 09:15, 17 June 2014 (PDT)
:::::::I dont either. There are many good existing articles written on various other websites, try searching. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:37, 17 June 2014 (PDT)
::::::::By the way that blog link now has some kind of notice saying that the author is going to stop writing responses for now and write better responses later on. He says (the username is ' .. guy', so) that some of our error sections that he addressed were removed or edited in reaction to his content and I dont think thats true. If he's watching he's most welcome to create a user account and join this discussion.
::::::::As for revisions/deletions/additions, we have always improved our work and that's a good thing for any kind of work.
::::::::He also implies that we inserted the "under construction" notice recently or in reaction to his blog's content but we did it in [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=103064&oldid=103063 January] (6 months ago) before this blog was noticed and I think it has been on that page before as well. I doubt he'll make these corrections as he probably wants his readers to believe what he originally said (that makes his blog look better).
::::::::Here's another 'rebuttal' link [http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/faithfreedom-wikiislam] on another site/forum.
::::::::You can see why its critical to have this page in the best shape possible. In my opinion none of these rebuttals have really addressed the errors but they may still have content that can be used to improve our page(s). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:49, 29 June 2014 (PDT)

Hey Guys,

I think you have completely misunderstood my recent blog post regarding halting replies to articles written on this site. I will reply to some of the points made:

:"By the way that blog link now has some kind of notice saying that the author is going to stop writing responses for now and write better responses later on. He says (the username is ' .. guy', so) that some of our error sections that he addressed were removed or edited in reaction to his content and I dont think thats true. If he's watching he's most welcome to create a user account and join this discussion."

Over-time you have removed, rewritten alot of the page. Removing many sections that I wrote responses to. Im not claiming this is due to my work solely - I think it is more in relation to you guys realising how weak and lack luster many of the points were on that article.

:"By the way that blog link now has some kind of notice saying that the author is going to stop writing responses for now and write better responses later on. He says (the username is ' .. guy', so) that some of our error sections that he addressed were removed or edited in reaction to his content and I dont think thats true. If he's watching he's most welcome to create a user account and join this discussion."

Im really unsure where I implied this? After recieving traffic from this page. I realised your discussion regarding the blog. So I checked out the page and found it to have this editing title and noticed large changes to the page. Hence I paid a post detailing I wont be analysing the work until it is 100% finished.

Hope this clears up any misunderstanding guys.

Also forgive me. I dont know how to correctly post on this site. Feel free to clean it up if you guys can.

--[[User:ThatMuslimGuy|ThatMuslimGuy]] ([[User talk:ThatMuslimGuy|talk]]) 15:20, 1 July 2014 (PDT)
::Hi, welcome. You can use colons to indent lines. Indeed over time we have revised (that includes revision/removal/addition) this page a lot to improve it. Its an important page and its a work in progress like everything else on the site. Which sections were removed or edited that had been responded to on your blog?
:::''I think it is more in relation to you guys realising how weak and lack luster many of the points were on that article.''
::Again its a work in progress like any other page and we try to make all the content stronger with time and the reason for that revision can be scrutiny/afterthought that we have ourselves or that closer look may come from outside. Some errors are more obvious than others (this is expected). This dialogue can help us strengthen our page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 18:12, 1 July 2014 (PDT)

:::: No this is good. And I commend you for going through the articles and rewriting them.-- [[User:ThatMuslimGuy|ThatMuslimGuy]] ([[User talk:ThatMuslimGuy|talk]]) 18:42, 1 July 2014 (PDT)
:::::Ok and we look forward to seeing your new revised materials as well.
:::::Have you thought of contacting other Islamic rebuttal websites and starting an apologetics wiki to coordinate the rebuttals? I say this because from my perspective ultimately such an initiative will help our site (in the long run) and for your perspective this is something you would probably want.
:::::Originally I had the idea of having apologetics on our site (for example this article [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an_(Response)] which is linked at the bottom of the main Errors page) but that idea didnt take off fully and now I think its better to have those things off-site so the apologetics can manage their material any way they want and we can still exchange links. You probably need a good domain name first. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 01:35, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
::::::Who is on whose side? Lol. It begins with the lies that we made drastic changes in the scientific errors article and put the review notice because of that blog. Barely one or two sentences we added because of it. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 12:10, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
:::::::Competition doesnt scare me and it will motivate people on our side to do even better. We have it very easy already and we dont have the burden of defending Islam.
:::::::But indeed the blog's claims are misleading and they do suggest as I mentioned to ThatMuslimGuy before that they are written to make the reader believe we changed/removed stuff in reaction to the blog which is not true. In any case one of the claim made is:
::::::::"I recently noticed that WikiIslam has updated there "Scientific Errors Page" with the following:"
:::::::As mentioned we had that notice since a long time and he would have noticed that template even before because he has been writing some rebuttals since a long time (I believe some of his rebuttals are dated a while back). He only created that notice after I mentioned the blog link to you.
:::::::The other claim made on the blog is:
::::::::"So far they have removed various areas - some of which I addressed."
:::::::I have asked him twice to tell us what areas we removed or edited and he hasn't responded and until he does that and is specific about which areas/sections/errors he's talking about he cannot make the claim that the areas, some of which he addressed were removed or edited.
:::::::So ThatMuslimGuy, can you support your claim by telling us which sections that you addressed on your blog were removed? Here's a link to the [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&offset=&limit=250&action=history page history.] You can use the Diff links to go back in time to show you older versions of the page. You can give us Diff links and tell us which sections you're talking about. Here's one example of a Diff link. [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=107485&oldid=107473 Diff] link or you can just copy paste the URL(s) here. [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Adverse_Effects_of_Islamic_Fasting Happy Ramadan.] (a favorite article of mine) --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:18, 2 July 2014 (PDT)

::::::::: Hey guys, In the past yeah we have thought about doing that. Saggy - Removing multiple points on the site, rewriting sections, adding additions etc - I would say is big change to the article, In my post no where have I asserted you changed the article because of me or anything alike. I simply detailed that I recently checked out the page and that you had added that on the top of the page and removed some points, some of which I had written about, hence rendering those posts on my blog now void.

:::::::::I think you seriously reading to much into the post. I simply realised you were editing the page. Hence I thought id give you guys time to rewrite it - add additions etc- then later address it. Instead of addressing things which may be changed or removed later.

:::::::::You removed - Night Time Cold is Caused by the Moon [http://quran-errors.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/re-quran-scientific-error-night-time.html]] [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&oldid=90145#Night_time_cold_is_caused_by_the_Moon]

:::::::::You removed - the Universe contracting according to the Quran [http://quran-errors.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/is-universe-contracting-according-to.html] [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&oldid=90145#The_Universe_is_contracting]

:::::::::You reworded this - How Many Planets are in the solar system according to the Quran? [http://quran-errors.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/re-wikiislam-quran-scientific-error-how.html] [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&oldid=90145#How_many_planets_in_the_solar_system_according_to_the_Quran.3F] to Seven Planets in the Universe.

:::::::::etc

:::::::::Im never claiming you removed them because of my blog. Im simply stating you removed them - some of which I wrote articles on - hence rendering them void.
:::::::::--[[User:ThatMuslimGuy|ThatMuslimGuy]] ([[User talk:ThatMuslimGuy|talk]]) 18:36, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::''" In the past yeah we have thought about doing that. "'' - I say make it happen. Have you thought of a domain name?
::::::::::Alright thats what I was looking for, the blog post links and the diffs - thanks much. We'll look into them. Are there any more? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 19:23, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::::: I dont think so. I think the others wordings have just changed. People discussed it before: [http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,1024.msg4792.html#msg4792] But the idea died. --[[User:ThatMuslimGuy|ThatMuslimGuy]] ([[User talk:ThatMuslimGuy|talk]]) 19:42, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::::::I'm thinking at least some of the ones that were removed were added by Saggy (he has been asked by people not to add any errors that arent obvious, hence I made this set of [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Talk:Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#.5BSticky.5D_Instructions_for_editing_this_page guidelines] on the talk page). But thats ok, all editors make mistakes (including myself) or may have different perspectives. He's done some good work in finding hadiths and verses and he's passionate and interested about the topic. He made this page on the [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Hadith Scientific errors in Hadiths] (a sample error: [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Hadith#Black_cumin_cures_all_diseases "black cumin cures everything"]), and some other pages.
:::::::::::::You should follow up with the idea you were discussing with your friends. Sounds like some progress was being made. Take control of it, get advice and give it your best shot. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 20:01, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::::::Why dont you try to rebutt some of the more obvious errors such as [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#Stars_are_Located_in_the_Nearest_Heaven Stars are Located in the Nearest Heaven], [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#Earth_Created_before_Stars Earth Created before Stars], [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#Humans_Created_in_Paradise_and_then_Brought_to_Earth Humans Created in Paradise and then Brought to Earth] which is explored in detail at: [[Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Creation]] <---- This is a huge glaring Scientific error (evolution). etc. So start with the most difficult errors if you really believe Quran has no errors. Saying they're figures of speech is not a defense.
::::::::::::::We'll look at the ones you pointed out and I can assure you they were not removed in reaction to your blog but as we were reviewing them ourselves. There are some others that were removed/revised which are not on your blog. We have done such revisions all the time and not just recently. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:05, 3 July 2014 (PDT)

:::::::::::::::: Will do - Some of those are the most weakest ones. --[[User:ThatMuslimGuy|ThatMuslimGuy]] ([[User talk:ThatMuslimGuy|talk]]) 03:46, 3 July 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::::::::::I doubt the most obvious errors will ever be responded to (remember to deal with Creationism and Evolution as you know that is a major issue for science) and after that there will be a vast amount of [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Site_Map other content] to deal with. Good luck. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:05, 3 July 2014 (PDT)

== Reviews ==

I have to tell you that currently I do not have the time to review your additions. So if they're significant, please add them to your Sandbox pages so they can be reviewed at the same time later on. You can continue doing minor additions where a review doesn't take a long time. If its anything I have to analyze it has to go in the sandbox page. Sorry about that but I just do not currently have the time to review these things one at a time and check if they are accurate or if they have any problems.

Just create as many Sandbox pages as you like so you can organize all your additions. Add notes there where they should be added on the target page etc. Here's [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Science_and_the_Seven_Earths&diff=107921&oldid=103980 one] that you just added. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 19:54, 22 June 2014 (PDT)
::When will you get time? Besides you spent at least 10 minutes yesterday. How long does it take to review that an apologist is contradicting the quran itself (this is not even like my error claims)? If I gather all errors in my sandbox, one day you will have to spend an a lot more time than you get per day right now. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 11:23, 23 June 2014 (PDT)
:::Forgot to reply. At least for me its easier and more efficient mentally to deal with multiple similar issues at the same time instead of one at a time with long breaks in between them. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 09:51, 2 July 2014 (PDT)

== 72 Virgins ==

I'm still trying to figure out what the point of [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=72_Virgins&diff=prev&oldid=109201 this] edit was, and how it was supposed to be connected to [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Talk:72_Jungfrauen this] rant by a fly-by anonymous German. The German guy is only complaining about how he thinks the German ''language'' in that section is linguistically incorrect. In that case, the German translator should probably be asked to comment or the talk page should be deleted (if they have no intention of fixing the alleged problem, then their complaint is nothing more than a rant). Instead you make some linguistically incorrect additions of your own to the English version and claim "I corrected the English side"? Really? The point of that western dhimmi author is that the Bible does not claim that after death Christians will be issued with wings and a harp, and walk on clouds, just like how she wants us to believe the Qur'an does not claim that after death Muslims will be issued with virgins. Our point is her analogy is faulty because the Qur'an ''does'' state that after death Muslims will be issued with virgins. Since Revelation 14:2 does not state anywhere that Christians will be issued with wings and a harp, and walk on clouds, the addition was pointless and is counter-productive to the purpose of the article. The probable origin of ideas is irrelevant information and only serves to water-down and confuse the articulated and concise approach of the article. Your other edit to [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Revelational_Circumstances_of_the_Qur%27an%3A_Missing_Verses&diff=109206&oldid=109200 Revelational Circumstances of the Qur'an] was also faulty, in that Tabari is not a part of "the major Hadith collections" (all other sources such as tafsirs etc., were purposely excluded by Sani because they are not as authoritative as the major Hadith collections and tend to contain apologetic opinions). The fact that this series only quotes major Hadith collections is stated quite clearly on its main page, but you seem to be making additions without fully understanding why or what you are editing. Please can you explain your edits or at least try to be more careful in the future. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 02:27, 11 August 2014 (PDT)
:The woman overlooked that Quran makes the claim but Bible does not. The image of a heavener with a harp is at best a pop culture thing derived from that verse. The sentence is still too weird. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 06:48, 11 August 2014 (PDT)
::She did not overlook it. That was exactly her point. She is claiming Muslims view the idea of virgins in heaven much the same as Christians view wings and a harp i.e. it's a made-up thing that no practising Christian actually believes. Okay, so you think that sentence is "weird", but that does not explain why you think adding pointless trivia to the page is "fixing it", nor does it explain why you think your edit made it less "weird" (if it wasn't linguistically weird to begin with, it certainly was afterwards). We are not contesting her claim that the wings and harp thing is a myth because she is right, so there is nothing more needed to be said about that. What we are doing is pointing out ''how'' she is wrong.[[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 07:22, 11 August 2014 (PDT)

== QHS edits ==

Your edit here [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Animals&diff=prev&oldid=109252]. This is Ritual slaughter. It applies to all Abrahamic religions. I agree killing an animal with a knife like this is painful for the animal but the animal's meat is consumed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice#Abrahamic_traditions.

So tell me why those hadiths should stay here and how they fit with the other content of the page.

For the 2nd edit, [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Cosmology&diff=109253&oldid=109212]

This belongs in Creationism more than it does in Cosmology. Is there anything specific about cosmology mentioned in that quote? Plus this quote has round brackets '(' and you've used double triangular brackets '<'.

So can you explain? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 22:01, 14 August 2014 (PDT)
::He did it in large numbers. Thats all I want to show, whether it is for food or fun. There is also some kindness to a animals hadith that does not fit in.
::Some uterus is attached to that throne. It will react on Judgement Day and so on. Often this cosmology and creation are seen to have some things overlaping like creation of throne, sun, moon stars and heavens, (but not creation of Adam ). So you want it in creation? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 23:32, 14 August 2014 (PDT)
:::You are the boss. I am a nobody. So I will edit my sandbox. What am I going to do with a sandbox out of this site? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:26, 15 August 2014 (PDT)
::::I will also post it to the tasks. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:37, 15 August 2014 (PDT)

::::: The site's quality is the first priority and must be preserved (so it doesn't matter who the boss is - we are all bosses and it depends whose arguments makes sense). I am a nobody too just like you and I will consult with Sahab to decide on this. Looking at it rationally, the problem is that I don't have time to review a regular editor's edits every time and many of yours edits need to be seriously corrected and require a lot of time for correction. If all of someone's edits require serious evaluation it wouldnt be a problem unless there was someone willing to evaluate the edits who had the time to do it.
:::::''"He did it in large numbers."'' - what large numbers? The hadith only say "many camels". Many camels could be 6, 10, 15, 30 -- we dont know. So what do you mean by large numbers and how do you prove it? If there were a large number of people to feed, 20 camels could be slaughtered and that would be considered "many" or "large numbers".
:::::No as I said, the Tafsir quote has nothing specific to do with Cosmology; nothing about Stars, skies, universe etc. It leaves one wondering what it has to do with cosmology. ''"Often this cosmology and creation are seen to have some things"'' - this is your interpretation. If creationism is linked we can then copy all the Creation hadiths into Cosmology which doesnt make any sense. I will wait for Sahab's input before commenting further. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:51, 15 August 2014 (PDT)
::::::I know what he's likely to say. So I think you should add it to creation and forget the first one. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 06:34, 15 August 2014 (PDT)
:::::::I think the edit Saggy made to [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Animals&diff=prev&oldid=109252#Sacrifices Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Animals] is a very good addition to the page. Ritual slaughter is described in all Abrahamic texts, but there are several differences here in comparison to the other two big faiths:

:::::::1. Concerning Christians, they do not perform ritual slaughter, nor did Jesus ever perform a ritual slaughter.
:::::::2. Concerning Jews, yes they do perform ritual slaughter, but they do not go around telling people that Moses loved animals and that he is an excellent role-model for today's socially conscientious youth.
:::::::3. On the other hand, a lot of apologists do try to convert young people to Islam by trying to sell the idea that Muhammad was a progressive man who loved animals.

:::::::So, considering the above, it is very relevant in the QHS:Animals page to quote proof that Muhammad not only ordered the ritual slaughter of animals, but also partook in it himself.

:::::::I also agree with Saggy that the "kindness to animals" hadith do not fit in with that page. I certainly did not add them and I do not think they should remain. A section like that does not belong on a wiki critical of Islam. If it was added with the intention of making the wiki appear more "neutral" then I can safely say that it will ''never'' convince anyone that the wiki is neutral, but it does make the page look odd and will probably confuse people.

:::::::I think the edit Saggy made to [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Cosmology&diff=109253&oldid=109212 Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Cosmology] does not belong in the Creation page (it is too vague for that and the Creation page is very specific), but it can be squeezed in with cosmology because it describes Allah's "Throne" etc. In all honesty though, I would just remove that last edit by Saggy and move it to a temp page until somewhere more suited is found (I don't think it really talks about cosmology or creation in a very coherent way). Or at the very least, keep it on the cosmology page but trim it down to only include the relevant information (e.g., as Saggy noted, "Some uterus is attached to that throne. It will react on Judgement Day and so on.").

:::::::About the triangular brackets; I'm guessing they are there because Saggy copy/pasted text from Answering Islam. This is a concern to me. The last time we had an editor who got carried away with copy/pasting stuff from there, things didn't turn out so well (It was this by OsmanHassan that left us with those Errors pages in such a mess). If you are not going to bother removing the emphasis added by the Answering Islam team (such as brackets, underlining and caps) you really should not be using them.

:::::::Another concern is the fact that the tafsir is not being cited properly. ''Ibn Kathir, "Interpretation of Qur'an 47:22"'' is not a reference. If an online version of Tafsir Ibn Kathir is going to quoted, then it should be cited more like [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Creation#Ibn_Kathir_2 this] (Not exactly an up-to-date example of a reference because it does not use any CiteWeb templates. Nevertheless, notice the archived URL and the actual heading of each section provided in the tafsir being quoted).

:::::::At Saggy: What does "I know what he's likely to say" mean? Honestly, I would really like to know what you think you know, because I highly doubt you know what I'm going to say. I'll admit I usually think you edits should be removed. But that is because they are usually terrible. In this case, they are not wholly terrible (in the first case, it was actually a good addition and a good observation concerning the "Kindness" hadith). [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 03:51, 16 August 2014 (PDT)
::::::::Ok. I added back the Sacrifice hadiths and took out the kindness section. Maybe those reasons could be added to those sections (just a suggestion). Thanks for the analysis. I agree care should be taken if copying stuff from Answering-Islam.
::::::::Saggy, you can move the Cosmology stuff to the temp page as directed by Sahab or trim it down as suggested.
::::::::Well guys I dont know if I can keep up with the edit reviews but I'll try my best. I had suggested to Saggy that he should keep his edits in his Sandbox pages and maybe one day we can find someone willing who has the time to review them. I am operating in a minimum maintenance mode and even [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAxius&diff=109285&oldid=109250 that] is a challenge for me. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 10:31, 16 August 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::No probs. I don't think any additional text would be needed. As it is, it lets the readers know that Mo had no problems with animal slaughter without making judgements on it or bringing up other faiths. If we did bring up other faiths, then it would look like we're defending them (just think of Natassia and the problems her writings have caused on the wiki recently). With the exception of a few major tu quoque arguments which inhibit the criticism of Islam, that is something the wiki is not here to do. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 11:43, 16 August 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::Ok. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 09:02, 17 August 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::What is this Natassia tangle? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 11:48, 16 August 2014 (PDT)
:Saggy, please fix the reference style in this edit [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Cosmology&diff=prev&oldid=109291] as Sahab mentioned above.
:Sahab also said to you ''"I usually think you[r] edits should be removed. But that is because they are usually terrible."'' I agree with Sahab, adding that its too much work reviewing your edits and fixing them and currently no one is available to do that. So I'm sorry but from now please only edit Sandboxes in your userspace (no main space edits, or edits on Sandboxes for the site). You can edit your Sandboxes in any way you like and organize your content in whatever way you like and you can also make new pages in your Sandboxes.
:''"What am I going to do with a sandbox out of this site?"'' - what do you mean by this? You can work on the sandboxes and hopefully one day someone will come by and take your edits from there and merge them into main space articles where necessary. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 09:02, 17 August 2014 (PDT)
::Sahab I'm guessing you wouldn't have a problem with Saggy's edits to the mainspace being disallowed. I dont have enough time to review the edits of a regular editor who has problems with most of their edits (as you said above and I agreed with it). Unless you're willing to review them and I'm guessing you dont have enough time as well.
::To anyone else: I'm sorry but the top priority is to maintain the quality of the site and if anyone is willing to review Saggy's edits let me know and we can make that arrangement. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 13:29, 21 August 2014 (PDT)
:::No, I don't have the time to do that. Sorry Ax. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 19:02, 21 August 2014 (PDT)
::::Yea, I figured. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:13, 29 August 2014 (PDT)
Saggy, possible material for [[WikiIslam:Sandbox/Forgiveness]] - "Allah forgives all sins" but then "does not forgive shirk" etc. Take what you want and let me know when you're done and I'll delete that page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:13, 29 August 2014 (PDT)
:Why do you want to delete it? It is in a bad state. But it is an extension of [[Contradictions in the Qur'an]](1.13 Does Allah forgive everything? , 1.14 Does Allah forgive worshipping other gods/shirk?). Since there are hadith for shirk, it will also benefit from them. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:28, 29 August 2014 (PDT)
::Is there already another article for this "forgiveness" subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Saggy|contribs]]) {{#if:| |}} ([[WikiIslam:Signatures#Signing_Posts|Remember to sign your comments]]) 
:::That Sandbox is what we have. It was written in the early days when we didnt have any good content and its not a good article but you can take the "Will all sins be forgiven?" and make a section for Contradictions in the Quran (in your sandbox article for QHS issues) and take anything else whatever you think is useful.--[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:50, 29 August 2014 (PDT)
::::Is [[Contradictions in the Qur'an]] meant for detailed explanations?? Where will hadiths go? I think of trying to edit this old article itself. Wait for a while. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:58, 29 August 2014 (PDT)

== Disasters ==

What do you see in the history? [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Accidents_and_Natural_Disasters_in_the_Muslim_World&action=history]. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:35, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
:So quick? Anyway, Kashmir is a Muslim majority state and the Kashmir Valley is almost entirely Muslim. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 04:40, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
::The disaster also affected non-Muslim Indian-controlled areas so no. That does not fit in with the rest of the page. It doesnt matter if its Muslim majority. That is not the pattern already on the page. I have asked you not to edit main space so can you please remember not to? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:44, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
:::You did not even look at the final rendered version of your page edit [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Accidents_and_Natural_Disasters_in_the_Muslim_World&diff=109713&oldid=109710]. There is a huge red tag there. See it? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:47, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
::::Another thing is that you had to re-add the previous text. That means someone must have removed it. So you would have checked page history or Recent changes to see what was going on. How did you not notice that the text had been removed? Why did you re-add the text without seeing the page history or seeing who removed it, or contact them to ask about the removal? And you wonder why you are asked not to edit the main space. This means that you should not edit any page on this site unless it has these patterns: (Talk page, User talk page, Sandbox page). This means all your main space edits can be reverted in the future without any explanation. Do you understand this now? I would normally not approach an editor like this but I have asked you multiple times before not to edit main space and of course your quality of edits has been brought up before. The only way to get back mainspace editing is to demonstrate high quality editing/engagement in the 3 other types of pages you can edit.
::::Please provide a confirmation that you have understood what I have said here. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 06:08, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
:::::I clicked once, browser did did not load saved edit, internet was down, the page still remained. Minutes after that i added the next incident. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 07:32, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
::::::Ok. The first edit though shows the red ref tag [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Accidents_and_Natural_Disasters_in_the_Muslim_World&diff=109709&oldid=109610]. Did you see that? Use preview or view the page right away to make sure the output looks ok. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 07:36, 14 September 2014 (PDT)

== New editors ==

About your comment [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=WikiIslam:Forum/Visitor_Inquiries&diff=109960&oldid=109956 here], its easy for new editors to be able to directly edit main space [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Message_to_New_Users]: ''"Therefore (excluding minor edits and corrections), new users should not edit or create main space articles until they demonstrate good judgement and the ability to make positive contributions, upon which they will receive the Editor or Reviewer user right.".''. All they need to do is display good judgement in Sandbox pages. If they cannot do that that yes, they must wait for content to be reviewed and that of course is dependent on who is available to review.

The highest priority on the site is to maintain and increase its quality. It is not whether or not someone can edit the main space content directly or not. They also have a lot of options because they can edit Sandbox and userspace pages to any extent. The quality of work in those pages will decide if they can edit main space directly. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:38, 8 October 2014 (PDT)

== New addition on Scientific errors in Quran ==

* Investigate and add if suitable: [http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Qur%27anic_scientific_foreknowledge&oldid=1453448].
* Check for additions: http://www.islam-watch.org/SyedKamranMirza/Erroneous-Science-and-Contradictions-in-Quran.htm ([https://web.archive.org/web/20160809202919/http://www.islam-watch.org/SyedKamranMirza/Erroneous-Science-and-Contradictions-in-Quran.htm Archive])
::Thanks. Are you from EXMNA? Need a helping hand here. Posting to your talks as well. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 17:47, 7 September 2017 (EDT)

:::No I'm not from EXMNA. Scientific errors in Quran article needs to be translated into Arabic, Bengali (they form the second largest Muslim group in the world after Arab muslims), Urdu (Pakistani language), Turkish and Indonesian. Also link to the Scientific errors in Quran article needs to be spread around in the web. For example Bengali clerics post videos of their talks in Bengali on Youtube to attract followers, link to Scientific errors in Quran English article, or even better Bengali translated one, should be posted on the comments section. These videos get 100s of thousands of views. --[[User:AAA|AAA]] ([[User talk:AAA|talk]]) 19:59, 11 September 2017 (EDT)

== Discrimination against women in Islam new article ==

Men can have 4 wives + sex slaves, women can't have more than one husband

With regard to inheritance, a son's share is double that of a daughter's.[Quran 4:11]

Women forced to cover head, men not

Wife beating allowed

The testimony of a woman is deemed in Islam to be worth half that of a man (I'laam al-Muwaqqa'een, part 1, p. 75)

and many more......--[[User:AAA|AAA]] ([[User talk:AAA|talk]]) 20:15, 11 September 2017 (EDT)

User talk:Saggy

2017-09-12T00:15:45Z

AAA: /* Discrimination against women in Islam new article */ new section

==Scientific Errors==

Hi. That page uses title-case for capitalization of headings[http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Standardization#Section_headings]. And there should not be multiple Qur'an translations used to illustrate a single error (i.e choose only one translation from the USC site). Both those errors were in your first edit to the page but I fixed them[http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=102143&oldid=102140]. You have repeated those same errors in your second edit. You will have to fix them before your edits can be considered. Thanks. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 13:27, 5 January 2014 (PST)
:I've reverted your edit again. You are aware this talk page discussion has been initiated. If you do not understand something here, the answer is not to reinsert whatever was reverted with a summary saying "btw I don't understand". That's basically ignoring this talk page. If you don't understand something then ask. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 19:07, 9 January 2014 (PST)
::Not much time . ok , what am I to do to caps? If u revert instead of correcting (which is a loss to the readers), others dont mind? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 02:48, 10 January 2014 (PST)
:::No they don't mind. Quality standards are high on this wiki. If editors do not have the time to adhere to guidelines/stick to proper etiquette or take the care to format their contributions properly, we'd rather they not edit at all. Do you think it's fair if others have to waste their time cleaning up after someone else's edits? We don't. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 11:49, 10 January 2014 (PST)

Got it. Got mistake. Thanks. (Or u want me to stop doing anything until we complete discussing?)[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 02:53, 10 January 2014 (PST)
:No, that's fine. Thanks. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 11:42, 10 January 2014 (PST)
hi Saggy, this Science error/Quran page is popular and is often linked to by people so its important for this page to be as strong as possible. Some errors are more obvious than others. Some only appear in one translation and so on. For example the Golden Calf statue verse that you added was great. It obviously goes against science and is a glaring error while some others are not that obvious.

One idea I have is to keep the strongest errors at the top and the less obvious ones (or the ones that can be explained in some way by apologists) near the bottom in another section. I tried making some rules here: [[Talk:Scientific Errors in the Qur'an]] (draft). Let me know your thoughts. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 08:19, 1 February 2014 (PST)
:How can we judge weakness? Its is everyones POV. EG Every claim about the sky is weak on its own. But when put together its a huge blunder. We already have sections for the branchs of science. At most we'll put weak claims at bottom of each section. of course we mustnt say - xyz is a weaker claim , we can try to explian it or justifiy it as much as possible..[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 12:52, 1 February 2014 (PST)
::Hi, I moved your comment back to keep it in one place. Some errors are present in Arabic and the translations, while others are present only in the translations. For example Constellations. Apologetist might say the Quran just means "collections of light" and yes these were made by Allah for humans (for example) and he was just talking in a general sense. A more glaring error is the Golden statue or mathematics of inheritance. So some are more obvious, the others are a little iffy and have some conditions.
::You might have some good points, I'm myself unsure about this issue so I'm just talking about it to see if there's any concrete ideas. So thats one idea, to put weak claims at the bottom.
::Another suggestion is to look at other websites like Answering-Islam and expand on the evidence for these errors, for example with arabic or tafsir.
::Another thing. Verses should be checked against the 3 translators to make sure those are the only ones we're using. I saw an instance where there was another translation being used and it was corrected. I will try to go through all of them.
::Anyone else have anything about this? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 16:06, 1 February 2014 (PST)
:::3 translators is ok. but we cant cry about translation matters in the article itself or lose content bcoz of them. on the long run give Every claim its main article like we have lying forehead or sunset in a muddy spring. As for constellations, other translations are "towers" or "mansions"- Both are disgusting if we take them literaly. And the calf statue may be defended by just calling it a miracle. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 23:05, 1 February 2014 (PST)
::::Alright then fair enough unless anyone else has anything to add for improving the article. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 10:29, 2 February 2014 (PST)
:::::I moved the one for constellation here on your page [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=User:Saggy/Sandbox_-_Issues_with_Quran_and_Hadith&diff=107464&oldid=106860]. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:43, 15 May 2014 (PDT)

:::::: Hi Saggy, I found some more miracles of floating boats: 2:164, 16:14, 42:32. Perhaps it should be mentioned that at Muhammad's time Archimedes law describing buoyancy was more than 8 centuries old. Shall I put it in? Also I added a remark about the missing leap year on Axius talk page. --[[User:PW. Jansen|PW. Jansen]] ([[User talk:PW. Jansen|talk]]) 22:18, 24 August 2014 (PDT)

== Quran details ==

For [[WikiIslam:Sandbox/Qur%27anic_Claim_of_Having_Details]], how did you find these verses? For example the first two. Through your own study? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 18:16, 24 February 2014 (PST)
:Yea--[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 07:45, 25 February 2014 (PST)
::Thats great. I will try to work on this article. I had just added a few lines at the top. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 10:48, 25 February 2014 (PST)
:::Just a quick pointer for Saggy concerning that page; readers should not be directly addressed. So rather than say, ''"What will this beast be like? How come it will be able to talk to people?"'', it should say something like, ''"The Qur'an does not elaborate on the physical appearance of this beast or how it would communicate with humans"''. The Isra and Mi'raj section seems to have it right. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 13:51, 25 February 2014 (PST)
::::Yea, we'll have to work on that after the verses have been put in.
::::Saggy how are you finding these verses? Through search or by reading the verses yourself and searching for issues? Any plans of getting more?
::::Still not sure about the article or where it will go but I think its a good idea (needs more verses though). Its different than the usual "errors/contradictions" and so on. Its another kind of defect but we'll see how it goes. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 19:21, 25 February 2014 (PST)
:::::Some are old things i just recollect (like i heard- isra-mi'raj is incomplete without reading bukhari)--[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 09:19, 26 February 2014 (PST)
::::::Some of the [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam Five Pillars] could be included. They're covered [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an_Only_Islam_-_Why_it_is_Not_Possible#Five_Pillars_of_Islam here] (not a very well written article , but it provides the necessary info). There's also the [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Jizyah Jizyah]. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 06:09, 27 February 2014 (PST)

== Discussions link ==

To make it easy for us to track discussions among current editors, I moved the discussion about logical errors to the Discussions page [[WikiIslam:Forum|Discussions]] page (linked on the left). I'll reply there soon. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 04:35, 6 March 2014 (PST)
:Just letting you know that there's a new "Editing" section on the left that has all the links related to Editing (including Discussions). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 15:30, 6 March 2014 (PST)

== Contracted forms ==

Hi Saggy. I've corrected your use of contracted forms and the missing question mark [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Contradictions_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=105449&oldid=105391 here]. Please read the [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Article_Style_and_Content_Guide WikiIslam:Article Style and Content Guide]. Thanks. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 11:58, 8 March 2014 (PST)

== Inheritance Laws ==

I thought I'd ask you since you've been interested in the errors/contradictions topics. Inheritance laws ([[Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#Mathematical_Error_in_Hereditary_Laws]]) have had some responses like [http://www.khalidzaheer.com/qa/615] and [http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_inheritance_law__by_ansar_al__adl].

Do you know how to respond to these rebuttals and see if there's anything to investigate here? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:56, 12 March 2014 (PDT)

:Easy- site 1-"Out of the remaining (11 out of 24), the two daughters are going to get one-third each. " site 2- "And for the daughters 2/3 of '''what remains''' = 2/3 of 13/24=13/36 of the total amount" This ''remaining'' is assumed. Where is it mentioned? Nothing is mentioned so u have to divide whole (24 / 24) into two thirds. Other sites do the same thing.[http://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/1408/inheritance-shares-dont-add-up-to-1] theres in fact no consistency in whom to divide the remainder among. One site[http://www.kurandersleri.net/miras/en/Miras_Erkek_en.html] divides watever looks comfortable, whole or remains, only to ensure that fractions add upto 1 or a lesser value. [This http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/inh_01.htm] uses the contradictory shares of sisters to convert more than 1 to less than 1. Some use an old law of increasing denominator in the sum so that it is equal to numerator- but they violate all the stated fractions[http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/ma_addup.htm]. First, 4:11-12 have 10+ rules and and 4:176 has 4 rules contradicting some of them so lots of whims will show up. We are not even talking about gender injustice in this.--[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 04:21, 14 March 2014 (PDT)
::Ok. We should then think about making an article about this later on. Currently [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Inheritance_Laws this] exists but it may not be dealing with the rebuttals and its also an essay by another author, so we can make a new article about this later. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 09:46, 14 March 2014 (PDT)
:Ya start it.--[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 12:05, 14 March 2014 (PDT)
::For now I just added a link to this section to the tasks page. [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=WikiIslam:Tasks&diff=105798&oldid=105528]. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 14:59, 14 March 2014 (PDT)

== Comprehension of errors ==

Can you please explain how you interpreted [http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/052-sbt.php#004.052.051 Bukhari 4:52:51] to [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Hadith&curid=9085&diff=106685&oldid=106682 mean] "Orbit of the Sun is comparable to a Bow". From a cursory glance, it doesn't say anything of the sort. What it says is that having an area the size of a bow (not the bow itself) in heaven is better (not comparable) to having the entire earth (not sun). That same hadith continues by saying, "A single endeavor in Allah's Cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all that on which the sun rises and sets." If we apply your logic to the rest of the same narration, it would mean that the "Orbit of the Sun is comparable to a single endeavor in Allah's Cause" is also a valid interpretation, something which it is not. I find it hard to understand how you could misinterpret something so obvious, so please do explain it to us. Can you also stop rushing things (like you had previously agreed)? This way you would avoid making typos such as "comaprable". [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 16:03, 5 April 2014 (PDT)
:[http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/052-sbt.php#004.052.053 Bukhari 4:52:53] says, "A place in Paradise as small as the bow '''or lash''' of one of you is better than '''all the world''' and whatever is in it." So clearly the connection you made between the shape of a bow and the sun's orbit does not exist. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 16:26, 5 April 2014 (PDT)
::Saggy, I would also like to know how you made that deduction and add to this query. Recently you interpreted the Horseman thing and now this certain one as well. Its good that you're exploring new verses and hadiths but there is a problem in how you're interpreting text. If you dont understand a certain text, you can ask us on your talk or on the [[forum]] page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:34, 6 April 2014 (PDT)
::Suppose you wanted to say the same thing, no matter if it sounds good or mediocre: "A place as small as X is better than that on which Y happens." Of course "that" could refer to "place " better than to "X". But if X is not something typically ''small,'' what is the point in saying it? ''Bow'' must have the other meaning (which is backed up by that sun travelling-prostrating and permission verse) Come on, u could have said as small as... anything. Why bow? You can think of several adjectives on hearing the word bow, except "small." Whether this was narrated at war (single endeavor) or some other hadith sounds partly similar, does not matter. That could be a change of the simile made in the first place. Is a place anything like a bow? The sun rises and sets? Not at all. Only a person who thinks the sun runs on a semicircle over the other place(earth) would have said "bow." [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 10:53, 6 April 2014 (PDT)

:::'''"But if X is not something typically ''small,'' what is the point in saying it?"'''
:::A bow is small in comparison to the earth or in comparison to a lot of things.
:::'''"''Bow'' must have the other meaning"'''
:::You only assert that it must, but you haven't provided any convincing reasons why.
:::'''"Come on, u could have said as small as... anything. Why bow?"'''
:::Because they were warriors and Muhammad was describing where they would go when they die in battle. Is that really too much of a stretch? No, it makes perfect sense. In fact it's what most people would get from reading that verse. Your explanation just comes of as a stretch.
:::'''"You can think of several adjectives on hearing the word bow, except "small.""'''
:::Words such as "dying" and "in battle" spring to mind. And I don't agree with your "except small" comment. A bow is small in comparison to the world, so there is no valid reason why it could not be described as "small".
:::'''"Whether this was narrated at war (single endeavor) or some other hadith sounds partly similar, does not matter."'''
:::Of course it does. That is what we call "context". Context is what helps us understand the meanings behind text. It is what Muslim apologists usually ignore. And of course what "some other hadith sounds partly similar" says is important. It's important because it is describing the exact same event, but via a different narrator. Even the one hadith you are misinterpreting debunks your ideas when read fully (refer to my original post)'
:::'''"Is a place anything like a bow?"'''
:::The hadith does not claim any place is like a bow, it is referring to the size of the bow. You don't need that to be explained. It is written in plain English for everyone to see (i.e. "as ''small'' as a bow").
:::'''"Only a person who thinks the sun runs on a semicircle over the other place(earth) would have said "bow.""'''
:::You havn't shown that at all. Your reasoning is convoluted and ignores the obvious meaning. I would suggest sticking to hadiths that are clear errors rather than ones that need your interpretations. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 12:10, 6 April 2014 (PDT)
{{outdent|4}}
Saggy, so that we're clear this is the the hadith:
:Volume 4, Book 52, Number 51: Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "A place in Paradise as small as a bow is better than all that on which the sun rises and sets (i.e. all the world)." He also said, "A single endeavor in Allah's Cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all that on which the sun rises and sets."
Breaking it up, "X is better than Y".

X = "A place in Paradise as small as a bow." (a small sized object)

Y = "all that on which the sun rises and sets" (some kind of large space according to the Quran)

Your title was "Orbit of the Sun is comparable to a Bow". This is incorrect. The ''size'' of a bow is being compared to the size of the sun's place of rising and setting.

The hadith means "A tiny place in Islamic Heaven is better than a huge place which is not part of Heaven".

If you're talking about the arc of a bow (golden part [https://3dmagicmodels.com/wp-content/uploads/bow-and-arrow-3d-model1.jpg here] which is a semi circle) being compared to what an observer on Earth sees, this is not an error. We see that kind of semi-circle even today as we see the sun form an arc. A scientist can say "look how the Sun makes (or seems to make) a semi circle around the Earth". So these things can be explained. This is like the horseman hadith where there wasnt any interpretation like the one you were saying there was. As again if you come across a hadith and you're not sure of the meaning you can ask us. On the other hand, the hadith could be added to as supporting evidence ("the sun rises and sets"): [[Geocentrism_and_the_Quran#Muslims_around_the_time_of_Muhammad]] but I think its weak on its own on the Errors page: --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 12:46, 6 April 2014 (PDT)
:Sahab what do you think of the addition here? [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Geocentrism_and_the_Quran&diff=106736&oldid=103187] Since the hadith is saying the same thing about the sun. (sun rises and sets). If you dont agree its fine for it to be removed (its up to you). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 13:00, 6 April 2014 (PDT)
::Hi Ax. Yeah, I've removed it. Even with those surrounding hadith, this particular hadith is not making any reference whatsoever to the orbit of the sun. If I can see this and you can see this, then so can most other people. As you noted, the object being "compared" to the bow is something ''other'' than the sun itself. There is not "ifs" or "buts" about it. The second hadith down from that one confirms the meaning (which was obvious anyway.). It's like a Muslim saying a can of Pepsi is more refreshing than all that is inside a coffee cup, then us accusing him of saying a ceramic cup is more refreshing than a soft drink. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 13:20, 6 April 2014 (PDT)
:::Ok then, sounds good. Yea that analogy is similar. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 14:26, 6 April 2014 (PDT)

== Contradictions in the Qur'an and Hadith ==

Hi Saggy. I've deleted that page. A page like that is something that would interest "Quranists", not us. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 13:03, 10 April 2014 (PDT)
:I've moved the content to his personal sandbox for now: [[User:Saggy/Sandbox - Contradictions in the Qur'an and Hadith]]. I'll send an email about this. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:01, 10 April 2014 (PDT)
::We have an (old) article about the very same contradiction mentioned by Saggy ([[Muhammads Miracles|Muhammad's Miracles]]). If you read the section on Bukhari's criteria, you'll see that Muslims have contradictions between the Qur'an and Hadith covered. Thus it renders the article completely pointless. In fact, Muslims will probably think it's funny and talk about how we don't know anything about the "science of hadith". That's on top of the fact that such an article would only be used for Qur'anist propaganda. If the very idea is pointless, then I don't see any benefit from letting an editor waste their time working on it. That is why I deleted it rather than just leave it in a sandbox. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 15:39, 10 April 2014 (PDT)
:::I just dont have energy to debate about this at the moment so I deleted the Sandbox page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:36, 10 April 2014 (PDT)
::::What if I find more contradictions?[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:25, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
:::::Here I've made a page for you that gives you the freedom to do any kind of QHS work (since that is something you like doing). You can reorganize content there using section headings (logical error, hadith errors, contradictions, etc):
:::::[[User:Saggy/Sandbox - Issues with Quran and Hadith]] - use this for any new work or new ideas to keep it in the same place.
:::::Just keep in mind that we can have a democratic discussion together later on as to whether certain content will be approved or not for conversion from sandbox to main space. My view is that interesting QHS can be re-used in other places too in some way so if you have discovered verses or hadiths that are interesting, it is totally OK for them to go in a personal sandbox page of your own. Sandboxes are all excluded from Google search so no one can find them unless they come to recent changes/contributions and explore that way. Doing this does not harm the quality of the main content as sandbox content has to be carefully reviewed to make sure it complies with guidelines and the mission.
:::::You can keep adding content for existing pages as you are doing (Scientific errors in hadith, in the Quran, Contradictions in the Quran etc.) As before we will review those to see if they are ok as that is content in the main space.
:::::Doing a short reply for Sahab, if Quranists want to use content on our site for any purpose, its a good thing. It brings them to our site and they have effectively approved content on our site (I think its a plus for us). They're a minority so I would not worry about them. I can make many more points but my point is that all alternatives can be argued for equally. There are advantages and disadvantages for each alternative.
:::::''"you'll see that Muslims have contradictions between the Qur'an and Hadith covered."'' - those are only contradictions for miracles, not other topics. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:25, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

::::::To Saggy: My action was not based on the quality or length of the page (I was obviously aware that you would add to it). It was based on the fact that the actual idea behind the article was not suitable. Regardless, Axius has recreated the page so you can carry on working on it.

::::::To Axius: '''"those are only contradictions for miracles, not other topics"'''
::::::Did you read that section about Bukhari's criteria? Mat'n applies to ALL contradictions between the Qur'an and hadith.
::::::'''"if Quranists want to use content on our site for any purpose"'''
::::::Strawman. I never objected to them using this site. My point is that it ONLY benefits their propaganda, nothing else. If we allow something like this, why not also allow Atheistig to write an article about how unreliable the hadith are? [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 04:34, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
:::::::''"Let's go all the way and invalidate 95% of our material just to keep 1 editor happy."'' ---- :-) this is an imaginary situation that hasn't happened yet so lets not do that.
:::::::He knows its a Sandbox page that later may or may not be approved so whats the issue? I dont see any.
:::::::''"Mat'n applies to ALL contradictions between the Qur'an and hadith."'' - is Bukhari's criteria the golden absolute rule on deciding whats a contradiction? I would say no. To me a Sahih hadith is Sahih. I would say that Bukhari does not have the authority to invalidate the Hadiths of other Hadith collectors (like Muslim). Also if the criteria is to delete things that are in contradiction with each other, the Quran contradicts itself in various verses, so what does one do about that? To most people they are all valid Islamic sources (especially Sahih hadiths). All these points can be mentioned on a page about Quran/hadith contradictions. All of these things seen together expose more serious problems with Islam and create challenges for people reading them.
:::::::''"My point is that it ONLY benefits their propaganda"'' - Again they are a minority. The other side effect is letting the rest of the Muslims know that these contradictions exist. Most Muslims view hadiths as holy. I would say that they would have to deal with the contradiction when they see it and it creates a challenge for them.
::::::: My main point here again is that cases can be argued against equally. Its a Sandbox page and people have the right to work on a Sandbox which later may or may not be approved (as long its not an obvious content violation). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 05:13, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::::::::You have not dealt with anything I've actually said, so no they can't be argued against equally. I've mentioned several times why I deleted that page from the sandbox but you continue acting like I never explained. Your opinion on Bukhari's criteria is irrelevant. Mat'n is a well known thing. Hence, contradictions between the Qur'an and certain hadith will not effect mainstream Islam in the slightest. And wth, you're telling editors to stay away from me now? The discussion we're having now isn't even on my talk page, so maybe you should have considered a more appropriate time or place to mention this or considered how it would look to others? [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 05:09, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::Although you're right my comment could have been made at a better time (so ok, I apologize again for making it at the wrong time), I never asked anyone to stay away from you when I made the [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saggy&diff=106872&oldid=106871 comment]. You had removed some comments from your own talk page earlier if you recall [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sahab&diff=106769&oldid=106768] so I was stressing the point that others should use the forum page for general issues and not someone's talk page.
::::::::::I'm asking everyone to follow talk page guidelines and core [[WikiIslam:Core_Principles|community principles]] and assume good faith. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 12:12, 13 April 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::"Matn"'s definition on Wikipedia doesnt mention Bukhari or the contradiction issue, why is that? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_studies#Sanad_and_matn]. "text of the report" =matn is what I'm seeing, not a contradiction with the Quran issue. Are there are sources to support what Matn means? As I mentioned, the issue of deletion arises at the point of review when something is being considered for main space but not before that when it is in a temporary condition (in the Sandbox). Saggy knows it may or may not be approved. As for whether you're right or I'm right, I've shown that points can be made on both sides. Lets do that full debate when the time comes for a review of that piece. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 05:23, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::To hightlight it again our page [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muhammads_Miracles] that you pointed to in the begining and you refered to it again, claims ''"His third criteria is mat'n, i.e. the content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an."'', but there's no reference for that. According to other sources Matn means "text of the hadith", not "must not be in contradiction with the Quran". Bukhari's criteria of this contradiction cannot apply to other Hadith scholars (it is his own personal opinion). And even if we were to assume such a criteria, we are faced by the question: Is a Sahih hadith being declared invalid simply because of the contradiction? Why was it considered in the first place if it was actually invalid? The hadith was considered authentic because the events narrated actually happened.
::::::::::In any case a sourced definition of Matn would be one point. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 05:36, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
{{outdent}}
Visiting this again and stressing this point:
:''Mat'n applies to ALL contradictions between the Qur'an and hadith.''
This is not correct as Mat'n means "the text of the hadith" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_studies#Sanad_and_matn] and has nothing to do with "Contradictions between Quran and Hadith". The source article [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muhammads_Miracles#Bukhari.27s_criteria] you linked for Miracles should have the definition of Matn sourced correctly. I believe this is a page that an author made with the username starting with J (forgot the full name). So this line:
:''His third criteria is mat'n, i.e. the content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an.''
is incorrectly implying that Matn = the content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 10:57, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::Clarified [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muhammads_Miracles#Bukhari.27s_criteria] and changed from:
:::His third criteria is ''mat'n'', i.e. the content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an.
::To:
:::His third criteria is regarding ''mat'n'' (text), i.e. the text/content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an.
::So its clear that Matn means just "text" and not "no contradiction between Quran and hadith". --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:57, 12 April 2014 (PDT)
:::Pointing out contradictions between Quran and hadith is a criticism of Islam. Our site's mission is criticism of Islam (or to provide "an accurate and comprehensive resource on Islam" as currently mentioned in the [[WikiIslam:Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_is_the_purpose_of_WikiIslam.3F|FAQ]], which is even more inclusive), not whether certain criticism is seen as favorable to certain minority sects of Islam like Quran-only.
:::And as I mentioned (sorry if I'm repeating some points), this certain criticism is not seen as favorable to the majority of Muslims who do believe in the hadith. The Matn contradiction issue is Bukhari's opinion and cannot invalidate all problematic hadiths, (definitely not other hadiths like Muslim and neither his own) just because he said so. In short again that means we should not be excluding criticism of Islam because it is favoring a minority sect. And again, we will have a full picture of the situation when there is an actual article to review which there is none at this time. Its just text in a Sandbox. In an article like this Quran/hadith contradiction issue, we definitely want to point out clearly that people can not simply reject Sahih hadiths for whatever reason. There was a reason they were considered Sahih. Sometimes a certain issue is covered in multiple Hadiths which adds to the strength of what the Hadith is saying. If there are multiple Hadith collectors (Muslim and Bukhari for example) that is even more evidence that a Hadith's content actually happened and it is difficult to reject that hadith. So we should wait to see what an article looks like in the end to give a full opinion. The other issue again is, if Contradiction is the reason to reject a hadith, Quranic verses which contradict each other also have a problem. As for Atheistig's article, I dont know what that situation was and perhaps we missed a chance on making a valid article but I dont know enough details. Having an article that mentions Quran/hadith contradictions provides motivation for further strengthening the position that it is not possible to reject hadiths and definitely not Sahih hadiths, so it provides motivation for further improving the "Quran only - Why it is not possible" article or any other content like that. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:21, 12 April 2014 (PDT)
::::Saggy, whats your opinion about the fact that some Muslims may try to reject that contradict the Quran? We need to make sure that your hadith/Quran article also explains (using references) why it is not possible to reject Sahih hadiths that contradict the Quran. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:32, 12 April 2014 (PDT)

== 1000 years ==

Please note [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Contradictions_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=106878&oldid=106876] and see the edit summary. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 05:42, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
:But the verses are clear. 1 day = 1000 years or 1 day=50000 yrs. Human days are not mentioned. Have you read the speed of light hoax?[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 05:51, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

{{Quote||How long is Allah's day?

One thousand days
Yet they ask thee to hasten on the Punishment! But Allah will not fail in His Promise.
Verily a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning.
Qur'an 22:47

Fifty thousand days
The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty
thousand years:
}}

"Verily a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning"

It means one day for '''ALLAH''', is the same as 1000 years for '''HUMANS'''.

See that? "'''Your''' reckoning" = human's perspective. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 06:03, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
:U quote years and still insist on days? Reckoning means our "count" not days or years. Everywhere online the meaning is 1000/50000 years not days. Of course it is same perspective for everyone. Time flows the same for all ( we or anyone outside the solarsystem). The measurement and units differ. (This also debunks the Einsteins theory of relativity miracle claim for the above verses). A day for us is 24 hours. Nobody can change this. Day is defined by a planets rotation! His day is nothing to do with our 24 hrs in anyway! Why do i even need to say this when the equation is about years? Let me show one more : "He regulates the affair from the heaven to the earth; then shall it ascend to Him in a day the measure of which is a thousand years of what you count" 32:5. Clear length of a day is given. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 11:39, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::Well I'm sorry, you were right from the start - my mistake. I got confused somehow and didnt read the hadith carefully enough. It should have been easy to spot that but I missed it somehow (I probably was in a hurry at that time). It is indeed a 1000 years. I reverted it back now. [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Contradictions_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=106876&oldid=106861].
::Good catch on seeing this error and fixing it. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:02, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
:::''"Have you read the speed of light hoax"'' - I've heard of the speed of might miracle but know nothing more than that. There is an article here about that: [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Speed_of_Light_in_the_Quran]. Is this what you were thinking of? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:03, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::::Yeah, that miracle itself is based on a day=1000 years and many more reasons to be a hoax. I will laugh hours long if I read it again. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 02:29, 12 April 2014 (PDT)

== Rain/miraculous ==

This is another of those weaker errors [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#Rain_has_Miraculous_Effects].
: Remember He covered you with a sort of drowsiness, to give you calm as from Himself, and he caused rain to descend on you from heaven, to clean you therewith, to remove from you the stain of Satan, to strengthen your hearts, and to plant your feet firmly therewith.

What if the apologetic response is: "The rain was a special rain for the prophet, it was not ordinary rain. It was a miraculous rain." - its talking about the rain for the prophet right? Its a specific example. These kinds of errors should not be mixed with stronger errors. Something will have to be done about these kinds of errors. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:55, 17 April 2014 (PDT)
:"your hearts". Thus it is not for one person but plural. The earlier verses are not clear on who the audience is(a common goof). If there is a claim of a miracle with tafsirs or stuff to back up (Ibn kathir and Ibn abbas have nothing to say), we can post it under miracles. one site said there are two battles in the single verse (Uhud and Badr) but it is not entirely true to them. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 23:47, 17 April 2014 (PDT)
::Strong errors are long since covered so we have only these. We can rearange them within their section as I think i said. Another site "islamfrominside.com" says everything is about Badr but Wikipedia does not say so. Apologists have four effects of rain to explain infact. The last "feet" one differs in translations. Anyway, The whole miracle about Badr is wrong. The error began with "Allah caused the rain" itself. He cannot cause it, it just happens. If he caused it, what was he doing in much bigger battles in future? Testing believers? How long will he do this? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 00:05, 18 April 2014 (PDT)
:::Although you do great finding interesting verses/hadiths I have to say this:
:::''"Strong errors are long since covered so we have only these."'' - then I would rather not weaken the article with less stronger verses. The problem is when people post the article somewhere and someone points out the excuses like I showed, its discouraging for the person who posts the link. Then they have to work through the rebuttal and point out things like you did - many people are not as committed or may not know what to say. If the errors are strong they cannot be refuted in any way and it makes it easy for the other person who posts our link. This page is one of our most popular pages and its critical for it to be a good page. In fact, you see the under construction template at the top. The article needs to be reviewed and fixed so we can get rid of the template.
:::''We can rearange them within their section as I think i said.'' - sorry I forgot about what you said earlier. So what did you say, how should it be arranged? Lets see how we can do this and keep the stronger errors in one place and the weaker ones in some kind of "misc" section. Should each section have its own Miscellaneous section, or do we collect all of them at the bottom in one section? I'm thinking about the latter.
:::I made a link on your user page: [[User:Saggy]].
:::One of the most critical goals we have to take care of is to increase the quantity of good-quality editors. If you have any suggestions let me know. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:16, 18 April 2014 (PDT)
::::I donn't believe in strong or weak in case of refutation. If an error is refuted its not an error till we explain how we are correct. I will try to sort the sections on sc errors.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 07:42, 22 April 2014 (PDT)
:::::For some errors its hard to find any justification while others can have some. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:31, 22 April 2014 (PDT)

== Moon split (wikipedia) ==

That article is a joke now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_of_the_moon

Look at this talk page discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Splitting_of_the_moon#Good_article_nomination_on_hold
They were trying to make it into a good article a long time ago. Now the lead has this:
:In 2010 a NASA Lunar Science Institute (NLSI) staff scientist said "No current scientific evidence reports that the Moon was split into two (or more) parts and then reassembled at any point in the past."[7]

And the "NASA" section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_of_the_moon#NASA_mis-cited_as_proof

I bet now they would like to go the opposite direction and make sure no one sees that article. Anyway, I think its taken care of (for now). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 21:05, 20 May 2014 (PDT)

==Quran/evolution==
The new sandbox article you made on evolution is good. Here's a QHS page on it: [[Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Creation]] and this is a pro-Islamic page: [[Qur'an and the Theory of Evolution]].

If you're just gathering verses, you can add them to the existing QHS page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 21:02, 20 May 2014 (PDT)
:No this is about the apology claim on evolution. so i have to write that. I dont think a QHS can cover that thing.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 07:14, 22 May 2014 (PDT)
::Ok. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 13:32, 22 May 2014 (PDT)

== Scientific Errors #2 ==

I have asked you not to add any verses to the Scientific errors page and for now only add them to your sandbox page. The article is currently under review and new stuff should not be added there while it is under review. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:01, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

== Moon Position ==

Once again the addition you added [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&curid=9078&diff=107595&oldid=107587] is not an error in my opinion. Its just describing what things look like to humans (aesthetically). The verse literally does not mean "the moon is placed between the seven layers". It is talking about what it looks like to humans.

The seven layers is an error, that we know (and that error is present on the page I think) but the "moon is among them" just means what it appears to people on Earth. Lightyears if you see this, any thoughts on this addition? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:06, 23 May 2014 (PDT)
:No, it does not mean what the moon appears from earth. It directly places the moon somewhere. Moon and its reflected light is insignificant in the first heaven itself, let alone seven heavens. If it is about the how the moon "appears", why is appears not mentioned? How about this "The whole book appears like a war manual, a book full of hate for kafirs. but it only appears, it is not true and it was only about a 7th century power struggle. Muhammad only appears like a criminal from all the content but this is not true and all he did was right for his situation" ? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 23:45, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

:This is not a demonstrable error. Fee simply means in and feeinna means in that. In the constellations verse (25.61), it indicates that the stars are also said to be in (fee) the heavens and the sun and moon in it (feeha). Muslims will generally assume that the stars, sun and moon are in the nearest one, where other verses specify that the stars are. They believe the entirety of the visible universe is in this nearest heaven, and the other heavens are in some physical or metaphysical sense beyond it. No verse can disprove this. The only heaven ever explained is the lowest heaven.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 02:07, 24 May 2014 (PDT)
::Sorry, it can be disproven. 54:11 "Then opened We the gates of heaven with pouring water".[http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/054-qmt.php](the word is sama) Does this rainwater come from the universe? seven heaven = seven layers of atmosphere is wrong (because of the stars verse) and seven heavens = seven universes that we are yet to explore is wrong also beacause of this rain verse. The winged horse that goes to all seven heavens is another example of how awfully wrong things are. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 04:03, 24 May 2014 (PDT)
:::As if this is not enough, read [http://download.iranville.com/books/%DA%A9%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%A8%E2%80%8C%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C%20%D8%A7%D9%86%DA%AF%D9%84%DB%8C%D8%B3%DB%8C/Ali%20Sina%20-%20Understanding%20Muhammad.pdf here] p. 111 Last but one paragraph about stars. More proof that we are becoming appeasers.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 04:27, 24 May 2014 (PDT)
::::Saggy, the issue is the word "therein" (The Position of the Moon). As Lightyears said "This is not a demonstrable error."
::::You have been addressed by 3 people (me, Sahab and Lightyears) about the issues in your additions and you're still unwilling to understand what we're saying. As again you can do what you want in your sandbox.
::::''"More proof that we are becoming appeasers"'' - no this is not true. We are preventing the site from being mocked. I dont have to remind you of all the times the issues have been pointed out to you.
::::How much Arabic do you know? Are you looking at Lexicons like Lightyears is? I looked at the PDF and didnt see anything about this specific verse on p. 111 (of the PDF or as marked in the book).
::::''"It directly places the moon somewhere."'' - it does not. It simply says "among them". The placement described in Quran is vague. The position of the moon is being described as "therein / in their midst". --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:44, 24 May 2014 (PDT)
:::::And I see the paragraph on pg 111 of that book now (begins with "The Egyptian Muslim scholar..."). The original source if found, can be added to a relevant QHS about Astrology but the topic under discussion that I opened here is the Moon position and the use of the word Therein and again with regards to that, Lightyears agreed with me and said it is not an error and he used his knowledge of Arabic ("Fee simply means in and feeinna means in that"). The Science/Quran errors page is critical and needs urgent attention to delete any more non-errors. They should be moved to a Sandbox so they are not lost. I will try to see what can be done about that. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 09:21, 24 May 2014 (PDT)

== Forbidden things ==

Google search for [https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=islam%20forbidden%20things&safe=off islam forbidden things] can also help. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:01, 5 June 2014 (PDT)
:From the silliness page, [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Islamic_Silliness#Wicked_wigs], Wigs, One-shoe walks outlawed, Say no to green jars and white jars, Sinning with silverware, Allah likes sneezing but hates yawning, Fight polytheists by trimming moustache, Pus better than poetry, Allah curses tatooed women, Looking up during prayer may cause blindness.
:Blackgammon [http://www.muslimconverts.com/Munajjid-books/forbiden.htm#67], "Playing with dice"--[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:39, 11 July 2014 (PDT)
:: Search link for [http://sunnah.com/search/forbade "forbade"]. 1150 results. Other searches could be for words "haram", "outlawed", prohibited, "do not", "disallowed" etc--[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 20:01, 11 July 2014 (PDT)

== Scientific errors - response blog ==

Here's a blog that has some "refutations" of a small amount of errors. [http://quran-errors.blogspot.com/] These should be checked and used to further strengthen [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an our page] (without needing to specifically mention this blog). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:17, 14 June 2014 (PDT)

:*'''Universe contracting/Heaven is from Smoke:''' Why talk about galaxys and gas clouds? The verse says earth and heaven were coming together (and talking to Allah). Earth is as old as Galaxies? Nope.
:*'''Mountains:''' i think [http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Quran_and_Mountains this] is sufficient. They dont stabilize so they are not pegs.
:*'''Universe was made in 6 days:''' It was not made in 6 periods. There are no 6 periods. The best that guy could do was reject the backup hadith of Sahih Muslim.
:*'''Seven Planets''': rejecting a tafsir that does not support them. The seven planets have names, will add them soon.
:*'''Thunder is an Angel:''' Again rejecting a tafsir. I have added a similar hadith.
:*'''Moonlight:''' Nur never means reflected light. Poor guy wasted so much time. Ibn Kathir is also wrong (that moon light is different from the sun's).
:*Rest we have already covered: embryology, geocentric, flat earth.
:*'''Sun sets in a Muddy spring:''' We covered the word meanings. No use of the apologists dictionary, he cherrypicked meanings. Two or three scholars he quoted are utterly flimsy who make more errors defending one. Rest of scholars are tolerable, but still wrong as we have proven in the word analysis. The last part reminds me, do we have articles on hadith authenticity other than the list of fake hadiths?
:I will see how to add all the above, or it could be there already.
:[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 13:43, 14 June 2014 (PDT)
::Yes, best to somehow improve the existing information on our side (if needed) or add additional supporting evidence where possible. A small "Responses to Apologetics" section can made for each error below the verse.
::Yes I saw that the blog has rejected the Tafsir. When all else fails they resort to "The Tafsir/hadith is weak". I'm sure every single hadith can be considered weak if all the chain of narrators are examined. They just do the analysis for the hadiths they dont like. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 19:04, 14 June 2014 (PDT)
:::I'll try to work on this too. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:19, 15 June 2014 (PDT)
::::A responses section below every verse? It will look like a train wreck. Better say in the lead that there are responses and detailed analysis in the main articles of verses.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 10:56, 15 June 2014 (PDT)
::::Which are the other top 10 articles?[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 10:57, 15 June 2014 (PDT)
:::::You have a gmail account? I can add you to the statistics view and you can see the top 10.
:::::Many errors dont have a dedicated page. "Responses to apolgetics/Notes" - basically a few lines to repel criticism. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 13:39, 15 June 2014 (PDT)
::::::I go one by one; we have [[Qur'an and a Universe from Smoke]] for the first claim. i think it should be linked and then expanded, but iam not yet sure how to expand.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 09:15, 17 June 2014 (PDT)
:::::::I dont either. There are many good existing articles written on various other websites, try searching. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:37, 17 June 2014 (PDT)
::::::::By the way that blog link now has some kind of notice saying that the author is going to stop writing responses for now and write better responses later on. He says (the username is ' .. guy', so) that some of our error sections that he addressed were removed or edited in reaction to his content and I dont think thats true. If he's watching he's most welcome to create a user account and join this discussion.
::::::::As for revisions/deletions/additions, we have always improved our work and that's a good thing for any kind of work.
::::::::He also implies that we inserted the "under construction" notice recently or in reaction to his blog's content but we did it in [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=103064&oldid=103063 January] (6 months ago) before this blog was noticed and I think it has been on that page before as well. I doubt he'll make these corrections as he probably wants his readers to believe what he originally said (that makes his blog look better).
::::::::Here's another 'rebuttal' link [http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/faithfreedom-wikiislam] on another site/forum.
::::::::You can see why its critical to have this page in the best shape possible. In my opinion none of these rebuttals have really addressed the errors but they may still have content that can be used to improve our page(s). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:49, 29 June 2014 (PDT)

Hey Guys,

I think you have completely misunderstood my recent blog post regarding halting replies to articles written on this site. I will reply to some of the points made:

:"By the way that blog link now has some kind of notice saying that the author is going to stop writing responses for now and write better responses later on. He says (the username is ' .. guy', so) that some of our error sections that he addressed were removed or edited in reaction to his content and I dont think thats true. If he's watching he's most welcome to create a user account and join this discussion."

Over-time you have removed, rewritten alot of the page. Removing many sections that I wrote responses to. Im not claiming this is due to my work solely - I think it is more in relation to you guys realising how weak and lack luster many of the points were on that article.

:"By the way that blog link now has some kind of notice saying that the author is going to stop writing responses for now and write better responses later on. He says (the username is ' .. guy', so) that some of our error sections that he addressed were removed or edited in reaction to his content and I dont think thats true. If he's watching he's most welcome to create a user account and join this discussion."

Im really unsure where I implied this? After recieving traffic from this page. I realised your discussion regarding the blog. So I checked out the page and found it to have this editing title and noticed large changes to the page. Hence I paid a post detailing I wont be analysing the work until it is 100% finished.

Hope this clears up any misunderstanding guys.

Also forgive me. I dont know how to correctly post on this site. Feel free to clean it up if you guys can.

--[[User:ThatMuslimGuy|ThatMuslimGuy]] ([[User talk:ThatMuslimGuy|talk]]) 15:20, 1 July 2014 (PDT)
::Hi, welcome. You can use colons to indent lines. Indeed over time we have revised (that includes revision/removal/addition) this page a lot to improve it. Its an important page and its a work in progress like everything else on the site. Which sections were removed or edited that had been responded to on your blog?
:::''I think it is more in relation to you guys realising how weak and lack luster many of the points were on that article.''
::Again its a work in progress like any other page and we try to make all the content stronger with time and the reason for that revision can be scrutiny/afterthought that we have ourselves or that closer look may come from outside. Some errors are more obvious than others (this is expected). This dialogue can help us strengthen our page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 18:12, 1 July 2014 (PDT)

:::: No this is good. And I commend you for going through the articles and rewriting them.-- [[User:ThatMuslimGuy|ThatMuslimGuy]] ([[User talk:ThatMuslimGuy|talk]]) 18:42, 1 July 2014 (PDT)
:::::Ok and we look forward to seeing your new revised materials as well.
:::::Have you thought of contacting other Islamic rebuttal websites and starting an apologetics wiki to coordinate the rebuttals? I say this because from my perspective ultimately such an initiative will help our site (in the long run) and for your perspective this is something you would probably want.
:::::Originally I had the idea of having apologetics on our site (for example this article [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an_(Response)] which is linked at the bottom of the main Errors page) but that idea didnt take off fully and now I think its better to have those things off-site so the apologetics can manage their material any way they want and we can still exchange links. You probably need a good domain name first. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 01:35, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
::::::Who is on whose side? Lol. It begins with the lies that we made drastic changes in the scientific errors article and put the review notice because of that blog. Barely one or two sentences we added because of it. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 12:10, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
:::::::Competition doesnt scare me and it will motivate people on our side to do even better. We have it very easy already and we dont have the burden of defending Islam.
:::::::But indeed the blog's claims are misleading and they do suggest as I mentioned to ThatMuslimGuy before that they are written to make the reader believe we changed/removed stuff in reaction to the blog which is not true. In any case one of the claim made is:
::::::::"I recently noticed that WikiIslam has updated there "Scientific Errors Page" with the following:"
:::::::As mentioned we had that notice since a long time and he would have noticed that template even before because he has been writing some rebuttals since a long time (I believe some of his rebuttals are dated a while back). He only created that notice after I mentioned the blog link to you.
:::::::The other claim made on the blog is:
::::::::"So far they have removed various areas - some of which I addressed."
:::::::I have asked him twice to tell us what areas we removed or edited and he hasn't responded and until he does that and is specific about which areas/sections/errors he's talking about he cannot make the claim that the areas, some of which he addressed were removed or edited.
:::::::So ThatMuslimGuy, can you support your claim by telling us which sections that you addressed on your blog were removed? Here's a link to the [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&offset=&limit=250&action=history page history.] You can use the Diff links to go back in time to show you older versions of the page. You can give us Diff links and tell us which sections you're talking about. Here's one example of a Diff link. [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=107485&oldid=107473 Diff] link or you can just copy paste the URL(s) here. [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Adverse_Effects_of_Islamic_Fasting Happy Ramadan.] (a favorite article of mine) --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:18, 2 July 2014 (PDT)

::::::::: Hey guys, In the past yeah we have thought about doing that. Saggy - Removing multiple points on the site, rewriting sections, adding additions etc - I would say is big change to the article, In my post no where have I asserted you changed the article because of me or anything alike. I simply detailed that I recently checked out the page and that you had added that on the top of the page and removed some points, some of which I had written about, hence rendering those posts on my blog now void.

:::::::::I think you seriously reading to much into the post. I simply realised you were editing the page. Hence I thought id give you guys time to rewrite it - add additions etc- then later address it. Instead of addressing things which may be changed or removed later.

:::::::::You removed - Night Time Cold is Caused by the Moon [http://quran-errors.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/re-quran-scientific-error-night-time.html]] [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&oldid=90145#Night_time_cold_is_caused_by_the_Moon]

:::::::::You removed - the Universe contracting according to the Quran [http://quran-errors.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/is-universe-contracting-according-to.html] [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&oldid=90145#The_Universe_is_contracting]

:::::::::You reworded this - How Many Planets are in the solar system according to the Quran? [http://quran-errors.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/re-wikiislam-quran-scientific-error-how.html] [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&oldid=90145#How_many_planets_in_the_solar_system_according_to_the_Quran.3F] to Seven Planets in the Universe.

:::::::::etc

:::::::::Im never claiming you removed them because of my blog. Im simply stating you removed them - some of which I wrote articles on - hence rendering them void.
:::::::::--[[User:ThatMuslimGuy|ThatMuslimGuy]] ([[User talk:ThatMuslimGuy|talk]]) 18:36, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::''" In the past yeah we have thought about doing that. "'' - I say make it happen. Have you thought of a domain name?
::::::::::Alright thats what I was looking for, the blog post links and the diffs - thanks much. We'll look into them. Are there any more? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 19:23, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::::: I dont think so. I think the others wordings have just changed. People discussed it before: [http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,1024.msg4792.html#msg4792] But the idea died. --[[User:ThatMuslimGuy|ThatMuslimGuy]] ([[User talk:ThatMuslimGuy|talk]]) 19:42, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::::::I'm thinking at least some of the ones that were removed were added by Saggy (he has been asked by people not to add any errors that arent obvious, hence I made this set of [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Talk:Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#.5BSticky.5D_Instructions_for_editing_this_page guidelines] on the talk page). But thats ok, all editors make mistakes (including myself) or may have different perspectives. He's done some good work in finding hadiths and verses and he's passionate and interested about the topic. He made this page on the [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Hadith Scientific errors in Hadiths] (a sample error: [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Hadith#Black_cumin_cures_all_diseases "black cumin cures everything"]), and some other pages.
:::::::::::::You should follow up with the idea you were discussing with your friends. Sounds like some progress was being made. Take control of it, get advice and give it your best shot. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 20:01, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::::::Why dont you try to rebutt some of the more obvious errors such as [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#Stars_are_Located_in_the_Nearest_Heaven Stars are Located in the Nearest Heaven], [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#Earth_Created_before_Stars Earth Created before Stars], [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#Humans_Created_in_Paradise_and_then_Brought_to_Earth Humans Created in Paradise and then Brought to Earth] which is explored in detail at: [[Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Creation]] <---- This is a huge glaring Scientific error (evolution). etc. So start with the most difficult errors if you really believe Quran has no errors. Saying they're figures of speech is not a defense.
::::::::::::::We'll look at the ones you pointed out and I can assure you they were not removed in reaction to your blog but as we were reviewing them ourselves. There are some others that were removed/revised which are not on your blog. We have done such revisions all the time and not just recently. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:05, 3 July 2014 (PDT)

:::::::::::::::: Will do - Some of those are the most weakest ones. --[[User:ThatMuslimGuy|ThatMuslimGuy]] ([[User talk:ThatMuslimGuy|talk]]) 03:46, 3 July 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::::::::::I doubt the most obvious errors will ever be responded to (remember to deal with Creationism and Evolution as you know that is a major issue for science) and after that there will be a vast amount of [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Site_Map other content] to deal with. Good luck. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:05, 3 July 2014 (PDT)

== Reviews ==

I have to tell you that currently I do not have the time to review your additions. So if they're significant, please add them to your Sandbox pages so they can be reviewed at the same time later on. You can continue doing minor additions where a review doesn't take a long time. If its anything I have to analyze it has to go in the sandbox page. Sorry about that but I just do not currently have the time to review these things one at a time and check if they are accurate or if they have any problems.

Just create as many Sandbox pages as you like so you can organize all your additions. Add notes there where they should be added on the target page etc. Here's [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Science_and_the_Seven_Earths&diff=107921&oldid=103980 one] that you just added. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 19:54, 22 June 2014 (PDT)
::When will you get time? Besides you spent at least 10 minutes yesterday. How long does it take to review that an apologist is contradicting the quran itself (this is not even like my error claims)? If I gather all errors in my sandbox, one day you will have to spend an a lot more time than you get per day right now. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 11:23, 23 June 2014 (PDT)
:::Forgot to reply. At least for me its easier and more efficient mentally to deal with multiple similar issues at the same time instead of one at a time with long breaks in between them. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 09:51, 2 July 2014 (PDT)

== 72 Virgins ==

I'm still trying to figure out what the point of [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=72_Virgins&diff=prev&oldid=109201 this] edit was, and how it was supposed to be connected to [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Talk:72_Jungfrauen this] rant by a fly-by anonymous German. The German guy is only complaining about how he thinks the German ''language'' in that section is linguistically incorrect. In that case, the German translator should probably be asked to comment or the talk page should be deleted (if they have no intention of fixing the alleged problem, then their complaint is nothing more than a rant). Instead you make some linguistically incorrect additions of your own to the English version and claim "I corrected the English side"? Really? The point of that western dhimmi author is that the Bible does not claim that after death Christians will be issued with wings and a harp, and walk on clouds, just like how she wants us to believe the Qur'an does not claim that after death Muslims will be issued with virgins. Our point is her analogy is faulty because the Qur'an ''does'' state that after death Muslims will be issued with virgins. Since Revelation 14:2 does not state anywhere that Christians will be issued with wings and a harp, and walk on clouds, the addition was pointless and is counter-productive to the purpose of the article. The probable origin of ideas is irrelevant information and only serves to water-down and confuse the articulated and concise approach of the article. Your other edit to [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Revelational_Circumstances_of_the_Qur%27an%3A_Missing_Verses&diff=109206&oldid=109200 Revelational Circumstances of the Qur'an] was also faulty, in that Tabari is not a part of "the major Hadith collections" (all other sources such as tafsirs etc., were purposely excluded by Sani because they are not as authoritative as the major Hadith collections and tend to contain apologetic opinions). The fact that this series only quotes major Hadith collections is stated quite clearly on its main page, but you seem to be making additions without fully understanding why or what you are editing. Please can you explain your edits or at least try to be more careful in the future. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 02:27, 11 August 2014 (PDT)
:The woman overlooked that Quran makes the claim but Bible does not. The image of a heavener with a harp is at best a pop culture thing derived from that verse. The sentence is still too weird. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 06:48, 11 August 2014 (PDT)
::She did not overlook it. That was exactly her point. She is claiming Muslims view the idea of virgins in heaven much the same as Christians view wings and a harp i.e. it's a made-up thing that no practising Christian actually believes. Okay, so you think that sentence is "weird", but that does not explain why you think adding pointless trivia to the page is "fixing it", nor does it explain why you think your edit made it less "weird" (if it wasn't linguistically weird to begin with, it certainly was afterwards). We are not contesting her claim that the wings and harp thing is a myth because she is right, so there is nothing more needed to be said about that. What we are doing is pointing out ''how'' she is wrong.[[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 07:22, 11 August 2014 (PDT)

== QHS edits ==

Your edit here [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Animals&diff=prev&oldid=109252]. This is Ritual slaughter. It applies to all Abrahamic religions. I agree killing an animal with a knife like this is painful for the animal but the animal's meat is consumed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice#Abrahamic_traditions.

So tell me why those hadiths should stay here and how they fit with the other content of the page.

For the 2nd edit, [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Cosmology&diff=109253&oldid=109212]

This belongs in Creationism more than it does in Cosmology. Is there anything specific about cosmology mentioned in that quote? Plus this quote has round brackets '(' and you've used double triangular brackets '<'.

So can you explain? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 22:01, 14 August 2014 (PDT)
::He did it in large numbers. Thats all I want to show, whether it is for food or fun. There is also some kindness to a animals hadith that does not fit in.
::Some uterus is attached to that throne. It will react on Judgement Day and so on. Often this cosmology and creation are seen to have some things overlaping like creation of throne, sun, moon stars and heavens, (but not creation of Adam ). So you want it in creation? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 23:32, 14 August 2014 (PDT)
:::You are the boss. I am a nobody. So I will edit my sandbox. What am I going to do with a sandbox out of this site? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:26, 15 August 2014 (PDT)
::::I will also post it to the tasks. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:37, 15 August 2014 (PDT)

::::: The site's quality is the first priority and must be preserved (so it doesn't matter who the boss is - we are all bosses and it depends whose arguments makes sense). I am a nobody too just like you and I will consult with Sahab to decide on this. Looking at it rationally, the problem is that I don't have time to review a regular editor's edits every time and many of yours edits need to be seriously corrected and require a lot of time for correction. If all of someone's edits require serious evaluation it wouldnt be a problem unless there was someone willing to evaluate the edits who had the time to do it.
:::::''"He did it in large numbers."'' - what large numbers? The hadith only say "many camels". Many camels could be 6, 10, 15, 30 -- we dont know. So what do you mean by large numbers and how do you prove it? If there were a large number of people to feed, 20 camels could be slaughtered and that would be considered "many" or "large numbers".
:::::No as I said, the Tafsir quote has nothing specific to do with Cosmology; nothing about Stars, skies, universe etc. It leaves one wondering what it has to do with cosmology. ''"Often this cosmology and creation are seen to have some things"'' - this is your interpretation. If creationism is linked we can then copy all the Creation hadiths into Cosmology which doesnt make any sense. I will wait for Sahab's input before commenting further. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:51, 15 August 2014 (PDT)
::::::I know what he's likely to say. So I think you should add it to creation and forget the first one. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 06:34, 15 August 2014 (PDT)
:::::::I think the edit Saggy made to [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Animals&diff=prev&oldid=109252#Sacrifices Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Animals] is a very good addition to the page. Ritual slaughter is described in all Abrahamic texts, but there are several differences here in comparison to the other two big faiths:

:::::::1. Concerning Christians, they do not perform ritual slaughter, nor did Jesus ever perform a ritual slaughter.
:::::::2. Concerning Jews, yes they do perform ritual slaughter, but they do not go around telling people that Moses loved animals and that he is an excellent role-model for today's socially conscientious youth.
:::::::3. On the other hand, a lot of apologists do try to convert young people to Islam by trying to sell the idea that Muhammad was a progressive man who loved animals.

:::::::So, considering the above, it is very relevant in the QHS:Animals page to quote proof that Muhammad not only ordered the ritual slaughter of animals, but also partook in it himself.

:::::::I also agree with Saggy that the "kindness to animals" hadith do not fit in with that page. I certainly did not add them and I do not think they should remain. A section like that does not belong on a wiki critical of Islam. If it was added with the intention of making the wiki appear more "neutral" then I can safely say that it will ''never'' convince anyone that the wiki is neutral, but it does make the page look odd and will probably confuse people.

:::::::I think the edit Saggy made to [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Cosmology&diff=109253&oldid=109212 Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Cosmology] does not belong in the Creation page (it is too vague for that and the Creation page is very specific), but it can be squeezed in with cosmology because it describes Allah's "Throne" etc. In all honesty though, I would just remove that last edit by Saggy and move it to a temp page until somewhere more suited is found (I don't think it really talks about cosmology or creation in a very coherent way). Or at the very least, keep it on the cosmology page but trim it down to only include the relevant information (e.g., as Saggy noted, "Some uterus is attached to that throne. It will react on Judgement Day and so on.").

:::::::About the triangular brackets; I'm guessing they are there because Saggy copy/pasted text from Answering Islam. This is a concern to me. The last time we had an editor who got carried away with copy/pasting stuff from there, things didn't turn out so well (It was this by OsmanHassan that left us with those Errors pages in such a mess). If you are not going to bother removing the emphasis added by the Answering Islam team (such as brackets, underlining and caps) you really should not be using them.

:::::::Another concern is the fact that the tafsir is not being cited properly. ''Ibn Kathir, "Interpretation of Qur'an 47:22"'' is not a reference. If an online version of Tafsir Ibn Kathir is going to quoted, then it should be cited more like [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Creation#Ibn_Kathir_2 this] (Not exactly an up-to-date example of a reference because it does not use any CiteWeb templates. Nevertheless, notice the archived URL and the actual heading of each section provided in the tafsir being quoted).

:::::::At Saggy: What does "I know what he's likely to say" mean? Honestly, I would really like to know what you think you know, because I highly doubt you know what I'm going to say. I'll admit I usually think you edits should be removed. But that is because they are usually terrible. In this case, they are not wholly terrible (in the first case, it was actually a good addition and a good observation concerning the "Kindness" hadith). [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 03:51, 16 August 2014 (PDT)
::::::::Ok. I added back the Sacrifice hadiths and took out the kindness section. Maybe those reasons could be added to those sections (just a suggestion). Thanks for the analysis. I agree care should be taken if copying stuff from Answering-Islam.
::::::::Saggy, you can move the Cosmology stuff to the temp page as directed by Sahab or trim it down as suggested.
::::::::Well guys I dont know if I can keep up with the edit reviews but I'll try my best. I had suggested to Saggy that he should keep his edits in his Sandbox pages and maybe one day we can find someone willing who has the time to review them. I am operating in a minimum maintenance mode and even [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAxius&diff=109285&oldid=109250 that] is a challenge for me. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 10:31, 16 August 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::No probs. I don't think any additional text would be needed. As it is, it lets the readers know that Mo had no problems with animal slaughter without making judgements on it or bringing up other faiths. If we did bring up other faiths, then it would look like we're defending them (just think of Natassia and the problems her writings have caused on the wiki recently). With the exception of a few major tu quoque arguments which inhibit the criticism of Islam, that is something the wiki is not here to do. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 11:43, 16 August 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::Ok. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 09:02, 17 August 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::What is this Natassia tangle? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 11:48, 16 August 2014 (PDT)
:Saggy, please fix the reference style in this edit [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Cosmology&diff=prev&oldid=109291] as Sahab mentioned above.
:Sahab also said to you ''"I usually think you[r] edits should be removed. But that is because they are usually terrible."'' I agree with Sahab, adding that its too much work reviewing your edits and fixing them and currently no one is available to do that. So I'm sorry but from now please only edit Sandboxes in your userspace (no main space edits, or edits on Sandboxes for the site). You can edit your Sandboxes in any way you like and organize your content in whatever way you like and you can also make new pages in your Sandboxes.
:''"What am I going to do with a sandbox out of this site?"'' - what do you mean by this? You can work on the sandboxes and hopefully one day someone will come by and take your edits from there and merge them into main space articles where necessary. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 09:02, 17 August 2014 (PDT)
::Sahab I'm guessing you wouldn't have a problem with Saggy's edits to the mainspace being disallowed. I dont have enough time to review the edits of a regular editor who has problems with most of their edits (as you said above and I agreed with it). Unless you're willing to review them and I'm guessing you dont have enough time as well.
::To anyone else: I'm sorry but the top priority is to maintain the quality of the site and if anyone is willing to review Saggy's edits let me know and we can make that arrangement. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 13:29, 21 August 2014 (PDT)
:::No, I don't have the time to do that. Sorry Ax. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 19:02, 21 August 2014 (PDT)
::::Yea, I figured. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:13, 29 August 2014 (PDT)
Saggy, possible material for [[WikiIslam:Sandbox/Forgiveness]] - "Allah forgives all sins" but then "does not forgive shirk" etc. Take what you want and let me know when you're done and I'll delete that page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:13, 29 August 2014 (PDT)
:Why do you want to delete it? It is in a bad state. But it is an extension of [[Contradictions in the Qur'an]](1.13 Does Allah forgive everything? , 1.14 Does Allah forgive worshipping other gods/shirk?). Since there are hadith for shirk, it will also benefit from them. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:28, 29 August 2014 (PDT)
::Is there already another article for this "forgiveness" subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Saggy|contribs]]) {{#if:| |}} ([[WikiIslam:Signatures#Signing_Posts|Remember to sign your comments]]) 
:::That Sandbox is what we have. It was written in the early days when we didnt have any good content and its not a good article but you can take the "Will all sins be forgiven?" and make a section for Contradictions in the Quran (in your sandbox article for QHS issues) and take anything else whatever you think is useful.--[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:50, 29 August 2014 (PDT)
::::Is [[Contradictions in the Qur'an]] meant for detailed explanations?? Where will hadiths go? I think of trying to edit this old article itself. Wait for a while. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:58, 29 August 2014 (PDT)

== Disasters ==

What do you see in the history? [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Accidents_and_Natural_Disasters_in_the_Muslim_World&action=history]. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:35, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
:So quick? Anyway, Kashmir is a Muslim majority state and the Kashmir Valley is almost entirely Muslim. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 04:40, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
::The disaster also affected non-Muslim Indian-controlled areas so no. That does not fit in with the rest of the page. It doesnt matter if its Muslim majority. That is not the pattern already on the page. I have asked you not to edit main space so can you please remember not to? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:44, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
:::You did not even look at the final rendered version of your page edit [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Accidents_and_Natural_Disasters_in_the_Muslim_World&diff=109713&oldid=109710]. There is a huge red tag there. See it? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:47, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
::::Another thing is that you had to re-add the previous text. That means someone must have removed it. So you would have checked page history or Recent changes to see what was going on. How did you not notice that the text had been removed? Why did you re-add the text without seeing the page history or seeing who removed it, or contact them to ask about the removal? And you wonder why you are asked not to edit the main space. This means that you should not edit any page on this site unless it has these patterns: (Talk page, User talk page, Sandbox page). This means all your main space edits can be reverted in the future without any explanation. Do you understand this now? I would normally not approach an editor like this but I have asked you multiple times before not to edit main space and of course your quality of edits has been brought up before. The only way to get back mainspace editing is to demonstrate high quality editing/engagement in the 3 other types of pages you can edit.
::::Please provide a confirmation that you have understood what I have said here. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 06:08, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
:::::I clicked once, browser did did not load saved edit, internet was down, the page still remained. Minutes after that i added the next incident. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 07:32, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
::::::Ok. The first edit though shows the red ref tag [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Accidents_and_Natural_Disasters_in_the_Muslim_World&diff=109709&oldid=109610]. Did you see that? Use preview or view the page right away to make sure the output looks ok. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 07:36, 14 September 2014 (PDT)

== New editors ==

About your comment [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=WikiIslam:Forum/Visitor_Inquiries&diff=109960&oldid=109956 here], its easy for new editors to be able to directly edit main space [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Message_to_New_Users]: ''"Therefore (excluding minor edits and corrections), new users should not edit or create main space articles until they demonstrate good judgement and the ability to make positive contributions, upon which they will receive the Editor or Reviewer user right.".''. All they need to do is display good judgement in Sandbox pages. If they cannot do that that yes, they must wait for content to be reviewed and that of course is dependent on who is available to review.

The highest priority on the site is to maintain and increase its quality. It is not whether or not someone can edit the main space content directly or not. They also have a lot of options because they can edit Sandbox and userspace pages to any extent. The quality of work in those pages will decide if they can edit main space directly. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:38, 8 October 2014 (PDT)

== New addition on Scientific errors in Quran ==

* Investigate and add if suitable: [http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Qur%27anic_scientific_foreknowledge&oldid=1453448].
* Check for additions: http://www.islam-watch.org/SyedKamranMirza/Erroneous-Science-and-Contradictions-in-Quran.htm ([https://web.archive.org/web/20160809202919/http://www.islam-watch.org/SyedKamranMirza/Erroneous-Science-and-Contradictions-in-Quran.htm Archive])
::Thanks. Are you from EXMNA? Need a helping hand here. Posting to your talks as well. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 17:47, 7 September 2017 (EDT)

:::No I'm not from EXMNA. Scientific errors in Quran article needs to be translated into Arabic, Bengali (they form the second largest Muslim group in the world after Arab muslims), Urdu (Pakistani language), Turkish and Indonesian. Also link to the Scientific errors in Quran article needs to be spread around in the web. For example Bengali clerics post videos of their talks in Bengali on Youtube to attract followers, link to Scientific errors in Quran English article, or even better Bengali translated one, should be posted on the comments section. These videos get 100s of thousands of views. --[[User:AAA|AAA]] ([[User talk:AAA|talk]]) 19:59, 11 September 2017 (EDT)

== Discrimination against women in Islam new article ==

Men can have 4 wives + sex slaves, women can't have more than one husband

With regard to inheritance, a son's share is double that of a daughter's.[Quran 4:11]

Women forced to cover head, men not

Wife beating allowed

and many more......--[[User:AAA|AAA]] ([[User talk:AAA|talk]]) 20:15, 11 September 2017 (EDT)

User talk:Saggy

2017-09-11T23:59:43Z

AAA: /* New addition on Scientific errors in Quran */

Talk:Main Page

2017-09-11T23:52:17Z

AAA: /* Add */

'''''This page is intended for use only to discuss issues directly related to the WikiIslam main page. Please use the relevant [[WikiIslam:Discussions|Discussions]] for discussions.'''''



== News ==

Islam in the news hasn't been updated for a couple of months. Would you like me to make some suggestions? —The preceding [[WikiIslam:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:LawrenceGilmore|LawrenceGilmore]] ([[User talk:LawrenceGilmore|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/LawrenceGilmore|contribs]]) {{#if:13:23, 21 February 2014| on 13:23, 21 February 2014|}} 

: Hi Lawrence. Yeah, it hasn't been updated in a while. Another admin (Al-Qaum) is usually in charge of that section but has taken a break. He's told me that he'll be back very soon and will update it fully. But what ideas do you have? [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 15:45, 21 February 2014 (PST)
:: I think we should remove the news section until its updated again because its all from December and its not making the main page look good. We can remove the section, switch to auto somehow or update it manually. Another easy option: Just use links and dont put the text of the news website in. Any of these are better than having old news. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 16:18, 21 February 2014 (PST)
:::Okay, I'll update it weekly with a few news stories until Al returns. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 16:43, 21 February 2014 (PST)
::::Alright sounds good. I hope you just add external links because its easy. I really dont think there's a lot to gain if the extract/text archiving is done too but I think you said that it keeps the visitor on the site (they can always press 'back'). Its up to you. I wanted to find a feature that allows us to open links in a new window if we ask it to but I couldn't find it. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 16:47, 21 February 2014 (PST)
There are several benefits gained from the format we are currently using (in addition to keeping visitors on the site):

#It's like our very own news site/blog (like how Wikipedia's news section links to WikiNews).
#We want WikiIslam to be an all-in-one resource. This helps us achieve that. When it was updated regularly, many readers commented positively on it, mentioning how WikiIslam is the only site they need.
#When Al adds news about LGBT issues, converts, apostates, statistics etc., he usually adds it to our relevant articles ("Persecution of...", "Converts to Islam" etc.). If he was no longer quoting these news pages, then those other pages would never be updated. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 17:48, 21 February 2014 (PST)
::Well yea it does have its benefits - good points. Its just a lot to keep up with on a regular basis. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 18:08, 21 February 2014 (PST)

== "Did you know" portal ==
How about a "did you know" portal? Then along with new articles, lets put recently improved articles. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 12:30, 3 April 2014 (PDT)
:"Did you know" is a good idea but there's a similar pictorial Islam section at the bottom. I know Main page could be improved but we just dont have enough people at this time to do all the [[tasks|stuff]] that needs to be done. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:30, 3 April 2014 (PDT)
::As Axius noted, we already have a section on the front page that generates random interesting articles. If we did have such a section, what would be in it? Things like "Did you know... Muhammad Married and had intercourse with a nine-year-old" would look a lot less professional than simply having it the way we have it know (i.e. a heading, "Muhammad and Aisha", followed by a description). Then there is the issue of maintenance. There is no point in adding to our already long to-do list with things that require a lot of work and/or need constant updating. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 00:36, 4 April 2014 (PDT)

== Adding content to the Main page ==

I have a suggestion. I have found many interesting articles that i cannot see on the main page, and therefore we cannot fastly reach them.
Examples:
~The article about Scientific errors and contradictions in the quran and the hadith.
An article about the miraculous nature of Vigils georgias
--[[User:Einstein reason|Einstein reason]] ([[User talk:Einstein reason|talk]]) 17:13, 7 October 2014 (PDT)
:Thanks for the suggestions. Contradictions in the Quran is a very important article but it has been under review for a long time and because of that I would think it would not be an article we would like to link on the main page. The other one (Miracles in Vigils..) is probably not that important (but still interesting). People can get to it through various other means (Site map, Quran page etc). Thats my input in any case. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:20, 7 October 2014 (PDT)
::There is only so many articles you can add to the main page. There are 2,790 of them in total and most of them are great, but they obviously can't all go there. So we've limited them to the best/most relevant.

::The place to go to when looking for an article on any site like this one (Wikipedia, etc.), is never the front page. It's the search function or the [[site map]]. That is how you can easily find any page. Even without that, this website goes one better than Wikipedia by linking every single hub page at the bottom of the main page (the errors and contradictions page is also linked there).

::Finally, as Axius has already noted, pages that are tagged for quality etc., are not front page material, and the Georgics articles you have suggested for the main page is already there. It is on the right hand side, under "Humor and Satire". [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 19:06, 7 October 2014 (PDT)

==Add==
Add [[Scientific Errors in the Qur'an]] to main page, under "Science and Miracles."--[[User:AAA|AAA]] ([[User talk:AAA|talk]]) 16:26, 11 December 2015 (EST)

==Add==
Add [[Wife Beating in Islam]] to main page, under "Women."--[[User:AAA|AAA]] ([[User talk:AAA|talk]]) 19:52, 11 September 2017 (EDT)

User talk:Saggy

2017-09-11T23:42:53Z

AAA: /* New addition on Scientific errors in Quran */

==Scientific Errors==

Hi. That page uses title-case for capitalization of headings[http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Standardization#Section_headings]. And there should not be multiple Qur'an translations used to illustrate a single error (i.e choose only one translation from the USC site). Both those errors were in your first edit to the page but I fixed them[http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=102143&oldid=102140]. You have repeated those same errors in your second edit. You will have to fix them before your edits can be considered. Thanks. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 13:27, 5 January 2014 (PST)
:I've reverted your edit again. You are aware this talk page discussion has been initiated. If you do not understand something here, the answer is not to reinsert whatever was reverted with a summary saying "btw I don't understand". That's basically ignoring this talk page. If you don't understand something then ask. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 19:07, 9 January 2014 (PST)
::Not much time . ok , what am I to do to caps? If u revert instead of correcting (which is a loss to the readers), others dont mind? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 02:48, 10 January 2014 (PST)
:::No they don't mind. Quality standards are high on this wiki. If editors do not have the time to adhere to guidelines/stick to proper etiquette or take the care to format their contributions properly, we'd rather they not edit at all. Do you think it's fair if others have to waste their time cleaning up after someone else's edits? We don't. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 11:49, 10 January 2014 (PST)

Got it. Got mistake. Thanks. (Or u want me to stop doing anything until we complete discussing?)[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 02:53, 10 January 2014 (PST)
:No, that's fine. Thanks. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 11:42, 10 January 2014 (PST)
hi Saggy, this Science error/Quran page is popular and is often linked to by people so its important for this page to be as strong as possible. Some errors are more obvious than others. Some only appear in one translation and so on. For example the Golden Calf statue verse that you added was great. It obviously goes against science and is a glaring error while some others are not that obvious.

One idea I have is to keep the strongest errors at the top and the less obvious ones (or the ones that can be explained in some way by apologists) near the bottom in another section. I tried making some rules here: [[Talk:Scientific Errors in the Qur'an]] (draft). Let me know your thoughts. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 08:19, 1 February 2014 (PST)
:How can we judge weakness? Its is everyones POV. EG Every claim about the sky is weak on its own. But when put together its a huge blunder. We already have sections for the branchs of science. At most we'll put weak claims at bottom of each section. of course we mustnt say - xyz is a weaker claim , we can try to explian it or justifiy it as much as possible..[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 12:52, 1 February 2014 (PST)
::Hi, I moved your comment back to keep it in one place. Some errors are present in Arabic and the translations, while others are present only in the translations. For example Constellations. Apologetist might say the Quran just means "collections of light" and yes these were made by Allah for humans (for example) and he was just talking in a general sense. A more glaring error is the Golden statue or mathematics of inheritance. So some are more obvious, the others are a little iffy and have some conditions.
::You might have some good points, I'm myself unsure about this issue so I'm just talking about it to see if there's any concrete ideas. So thats one idea, to put weak claims at the bottom.
::Another suggestion is to look at other websites like Answering-Islam and expand on the evidence for these errors, for example with arabic or tafsir.
::Another thing. Verses should be checked against the 3 translators to make sure those are the only ones we're using. I saw an instance where there was another translation being used and it was corrected. I will try to go through all of them.
::Anyone else have anything about this? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 16:06, 1 February 2014 (PST)
:::3 translators is ok. but we cant cry about translation matters in the article itself or lose content bcoz of them. on the long run give Every claim its main article like we have lying forehead or sunset in a muddy spring. As for constellations, other translations are "towers" or "mansions"- Both are disgusting if we take them literaly. And the calf statue may be defended by just calling it a miracle. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 23:05, 1 February 2014 (PST)
::::Alright then fair enough unless anyone else has anything to add for improving the article. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 10:29, 2 February 2014 (PST)
:::::I moved the one for constellation here on your page [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=User:Saggy/Sandbox_-_Issues_with_Quran_and_Hadith&diff=107464&oldid=106860]. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:43, 15 May 2014 (PDT)

:::::: Hi Saggy, I found some more miracles of floating boats: 2:164, 16:14, 42:32. Perhaps it should be mentioned that at Muhammad's time Archimedes law describing buoyancy was more than 8 centuries old. Shall I put it in? Also I added a remark about the missing leap year on Axius talk page. --[[User:PW. Jansen|PW. Jansen]] ([[User talk:PW. Jansen|talk]]) 22:18, 24 August 2014 (PDT)

== Quran details ==

For [[WikiIslam:Sandbox/Qur%27anic_Claim_of_Having_Details]], how did you find these verses? For example the first two. Through your own study? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 18:16, 24 February 2014 (PST)
:Yea--[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 07:45, 25 February 2014 (PST)
::Thats great. I will try to work on this article. I had just added a few lines at the top. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 10:48, 25 February 2014 (PST)
:::Just a quick pointer for Saggy concerning that page; readers should not be directly addressed. So rather than say, ''"What will this beast be like? How come it will be able to talk to people?"'', it should say something like, ''"The Qur'an does not elaborate on the physical appearance of this beast or how it would communicate with humans"''. The Isra and Mi'raj section seems to have it right. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 13:51, 25 February 2014 (PST)
::::Yea, we'll have to work on that after the verses have been put in.
::::Saggy how are you finding these verses? Through search or by reading the verses yourself and searching for issues? Any plans of getting more?
::::Still not sure about the article or where it will go but I think its a good idea (needs more verses though). Its different than the usual "errors/contradictions" and so on. Its another kind of defect but we'll see how it goes. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 19:21, 25 February 2014 (PST)
:::::Some are old things i just recollect (like i heard- isra-mi'raj is incomplete without reading bukhari)--[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 09:19, 26 February 2014 (PST)
::::::Some of the [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam Five Pillars] could be included. They're covered [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an_Only_Islam_-_Why_it_is_Not_Possible#Five_Pillars_of_Islam here] (not a very well written article , but it provides the necessary info). There's also the [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Jizyah Jizyah]. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 06:09, 27 February 2014 (PST)

== Discussions link ==

To make it easy for us to track discussions among current editors, I moved the discussion about logical errors to the Discussions page [[WikiIslam:Forum|Discussions]] page (linked on the left). I'll reply there soon. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 04:35, 6 March 2014 (PST)
:Just letting you know that there's a new "Editing" section on the left that has all the links related to Editing (including Discussions). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 15:30, 6 March 2014 (PST)

== Contracted forms ==

Hi Saggy. I've corrected your use of contracted forms and the missing question mark [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Contradictions_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=105449&oldid=105391 here]. Please read the [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Article_Style_and_Content_Guide WikiIslam:Article Style and Content Guide]. Thanks. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 11:58, 8 March 2014 (PST)

== Inheritance Laws ==

I thought I'd ask you since you've been interested in the errors/contradictions topics. Inheritance laws ([[Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#Mathematical_Error_in_Hereditary_Laws]]) have had some responses like [http://www.khalidzaheer.com/qa/615] and [http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_inheritance_law__by_ansar_al__adl].

Do you know how to respond to these rebuttals and see if there's anything to investigate here? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:56, 12 March 2014 (PDT)

:Easy- site 1-"Out of the remaining (11 out of 24), the two daughters are going to get one-third each. " site 2- "And for the daughters 2/3 of '''what remains''' = 2/3 of 13/24=13/36 of the total amount" This ''remaining'' is assumed. Where is it mentioned? Nothing is mentioned so u have to divide whole (24 / 24) into two thirds. Other sites do the same thing.[http://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/1408/inheritance-shares-dont-add-up-to-1] theres in fact no consistency in whom to divide the remainder among. One site[http://www.kurandersleri.net/miras/en/Miras_Erkek_en.html] divides watever looks comfortable, whole or remains, only to ensure that fractions add upto 1 or a lesser value. [This http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/inh_01.htm] uses the contradictory shares of sisters to convert more than 1 to less than 1. Some use an old law of increasing denominator in the sum so that it is equal to numerator- but they violate all the stated fractions[http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/ma_addup.htm]. First, 4:11-12 have 10+ rules and and 4:176 has 4 rules contradicting some of them so lots of whims will show up. We are not even talking about gender injustice in this.--[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 04:21, 14 March 2014 (PDT)
::Ok. We should then think about making an article about this later on. Currently [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Inheritance_Laws this] exists but it may not be dealing with the rebuttals and its also an essay by another author, so we can make a new article about this later. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 09:46, 14 March 2014 (PDT)
:Ya start it.--[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 12:05, 14 March 2014 (PDT)
::For now I just added a link to this section to the tasks page. [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=WikiIslam:Tasks&diff=105798&oldid=105528]. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 14:59, 14 March 2014 (PDT)

== Comprehension of errors ==

Can you please explain how you interpreted [http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/052-sbt.php#004.052.051 Bukhari 4:52:51] to [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Hadith&curid=9085&diff=106685&oldid=106682 mean] "Orbit of the Sun is comparable to a Bow". From a cursory glance, it doesn't say anything of the sort. What it says is that having an area the size of a bow (not the bow itself) in heaven is better (not comparable) to having the entire earth (not sun). That same hadith continues by saying, "A single endeavor in Allah's Cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all that on which the sun rises and sets." If we apply your logic to the rest of the same narration, it would mean that the "Orbit of the Sun is comparable to a single endeavor in Allah's Cause" is also a valid interpretation, something which it is not. I find it hard to understand how you could misinterpret something so obvious, so please do explain it to us. Can you also stop rushing things (like you had previously agreed)? This way you would avoid making typos such as "comaprable". [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 16:03, 5 April 2014 (PDT)
:[http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/052-sbt.php#004.052.053 Bukhari 4:52:53] says, "A place in Paradise as small as the bow '''or lash''' of one of you is better than '''all the world''' and whatever is in it." So clearly the connection you made between the shape of a bow and the sun's orbit does not exist. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 16:26, 5 April 2014 (PDT)
::Saggy, I would also like to know how you made that deduction and add to this query. Recently you interpreted the Horseman thing and now this certain one as well. Its good that you're exploring new verses and hadiths but there is a problem in how you're interpreting text. If you dont understand a certain text, you can ask us on your talk or on the [[forum]] page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:34, 6 April 2014 (PDT)
::Suppose you wanted to say the same thing, no matter if it sounds good or mediocre: "A place as small as X is better than that on which Y happens." Of course "that" could refer to "place " better than to "X". But if X is not something typically ''small,'' what is the point in saying it? ''Bow'' must have the other meaning (which is backed up by that sun travelling-prostrating and permission verse) Come on, u could have said as small as... anything. Why bow? You can think of several adjectives on hearing the word bow, except "small." Whether this was narrated at war (single endeavor) or some other hadith sounds partly similar, does not matter. That could be a change of the simile made in the first place. Is a place anything like a bow? The sun rises and sets? Not at all. Only a person who thinks the sun runs on a semicircle over the other place(earth) would have said "bow." [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 10:53, 6 April 2014 (PDT)

:::'''"But if X is not something typically ''small,'' what is the point in saying it?"'''
:::A bow is small in comparison to the earth or in comparison to a lot of things.
:::'''"''Bow'' must have the other meaning"'''
:::You only assert that it must, but you haven't provided any convincing reasons why.
:::'''"Come on, u could have said as small as... anything. Why bow?"'''
:::Because they were warriors and Muhammad was describing where they would go when they die in battle. Is that really too much of a stretch? No, it makes perfect sense. In fact it's what most people would get from reading that verse. Your explanation just comes of as a stretch.
:::'''"You can think of several adjectives on hearing the word bow, except "small.""'''
:::Words such as "dying" and "in battle" spring to mind. And I don't agree with your "except small" comment. A bow is small in comparison to the world, so there is no valid reason why it could not be described as "small".
:::'''"Whether this was narrated at war (single endeavor) or some other hadith sounds partly similar, does not matter."'''
:::Of course it does. That is what we call "context". Context is what helps us understand the meanings behind text. It is what Muslim apologists usually ignore. And of course what "some other hadith sounds partly similar" says is important. It's important because it is describing the exact same event, but via a different narrator. Even the one hadith you are misinterpreting debunks your ideas when read fully (refer to my original post)'
:::'''"Is a place anything like a bow?"'''
:::The hadith does not claim any place is like a bow, it is referring to the size of the bow. You don't need that to be explained. It is written in plain English for everyone to see (i.e. "as ''small'' as a bow").
:::'''"Only a person who thinks the sun runs on a semicircle over the other place(earth) would have said "bow.""'''
:::You havn't shown that at all. Your reasoning is convoluted and ignores the obvious meaning. I would suggest sticking to hadiths that are clear errors rather than ones that need your interpretations. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 12:10, 6 April 2014 (PDT)
{{outdent|4}}
Saggy, so that we're clear this is the the hadith:
:Volume 4, Book 52, Number 51: Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "A place in Paradise as small as a bow is better than all that on which the sun rises and sets (i.e. all the world)." He also said, "A single endeavor in Allah's Cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all that on which the sun rises and sets."
Breaking it up, "X is better than Y".

X = "A place in Paradise as small as a bow." (a small sized object)

Y = "all that on which the sun rises and sets" (some kind of large space according to the Quran)

Your title was "Orbit of the Sun is comparable to a Bow". This is incorrect. The ''size'' of a bow is being compared to the size of the sun's place of rising and setting.

The hadith means "A tiny place in Islamic Heaven is better than a huge place which is not part of Heaven".

If you're talking about the arc of a bow (golden part [https://3dmagicmodels.com/wp-content/uploads/bow-and-arrow-3d-model1.jpg here] which is a semi circle) being compared to what an observer on Earth sees, this is not an error. We see that kind of semi-circle even today as we see the sun form an arc. A scientist can say "look how the Sun makes (or seems to make) a semi circle around the Earth". So these things can be explained. This is like the horseman hadith where there wasnt any interpretation like the one you were saying there was. As again if you come across a hadith and you're not sure of the meaning you can ask us. On the other hand, the hadith could be added to as supporting evidence ("the sun rises and sets"): [[Geocentrism_and_the_Quran#Muslims_around_the_time_of_Muhammad]] but I think its weak on its own on the Errors page: --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 12:46, 6 April 2014 (PDT)
:Sahab what do you think of the addition here? [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Geocentrism_and_the_Quran&diff=106736&oldid=103187] Since the hadith is saying the same thing about the sun. (sun rises and sets). If you dont agree its fine for it to be removed (its up to you). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 13:00, 6 April 2014 (PDT)
::Hi Ax. Yeah, I've removed it. Even with those surrounding hadith, this particular hadith is not making any reference whatsoever to the orbit of the sun. If I can see this and you can see this, then so can most other people. As you noted, the object being "compared" to the bow is something ''other'' than the sun itself. There is not "ifs" or "buts" about it. The second hadith down from that one confirms the meaning (which was obvious anyway.). It's like a Muslim saying a can of Pepsi is more refreshing than all that is inside a coffee cup, then us accusing him of saying a ceramic cup is more refreshing than a soft drink. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 13:20, 6 April 2014 (PDT)
:::Ok then, sounds good. Yea that analogy is similar. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 14:26, 6 April 2014 (PDT)

== Contradictions in the Qur'an and Hadith ==

Hi Saggy. I've deleted that page. A page like that is something that would interest "Quranists", not us. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 13:03, 10 April 2014 (PDT)
:I've moved the content to his personal sandbox for now: [[User:Saggy/Sandbox - Contradictions in the Qur'an and Hadith]]. I'll send an email about this. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:01, 10 April 2014 (PDT)
::We have an (old) article about the very same contradiction mentioned by Saggy ([[Muhammads Miracles|Muhammad's Miracles]]). If you read the section on Bukhari's criteria, you'll see that Muslims have contradictions between the Qur'an and Hadith covered. Thus it renders the article completely pointless. In fact, Muslims will probably think it's funny and talk about how we don't know anything about the "science of hadith". That's on top of the fact that such an article would only be used for Qur'anist propaganda. If the very idea is pointless, then I don't see any benefit from letting an editor waste their time working on it. That is why I deleted it rather than just leave it in a sandbox. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 15:39, 10 April 2014 (PDT)
:::I just dont have energy to debate about this at the moment so I deleted the Sandbox page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:36, 10 April 2014 (PDT)
::::What if I find more contradictions?[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:25, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
:::::Here I've made a page for you that gives you the freedom to do any kind of QHS work (since that is something you like doing). You can reorganize content there using section headings (logical error, hadith errors, contradictions, etc):
:::::[[User:Saggy/Sandbox - Issues with Quran and Hadith]] - use this for any new work or new ideas to keep it in the same place.
:::::Just keep in mind that we can have a democratic discussion together later on as to whether certain content will be approved or not for conversion from sandbox to main space. My view is that interesting QHS can be re-used in other places too in some way so if you have discovered verses or hadiths that are interesting, it is totally OK for them to go in a personal sandbox page of your own. Sandboxes are all excluded from Google search so no one can find them unless they come to recent changes/contributions and explore that way. Doing this does not harm the quality of the main content as sandbox content has to be carefully reviewed to make sure it complies with guidelines and the mission.
:::::You can keep adding content for existing pages as you are doing (Scientific errors in hadith, in the Quran, Contradictions in the Quran etc.) As before we will review those to see if they are ok as that is content in the main space.
:::::Doing a short reply for Sahab, if Quranists want to use content on our site for any purpose, its a good thing. It brings them to our site and they have effectively approved content on our site (I think its a plus for us). They're a minority so I would not worry about them. I can make many more points but my point is that all alternatives can be argued for equally. There are advantages and disadvantages for each alternative.
:::::''"you'll see that Muslims have contradictions between the Qur'an and Hadith covered."'' - those are only contradictions for miracles, not other topics. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:25, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

::::::To Saggy: My action was not based on the quality or length of the page (I was obviously aware that you would add to it). It was based on the fact that the actual idea behind the article was not suitable. Regardless, Axius has recreated the page so you can carry on working on it.

::::::To Axius: '''"those are only contradictions for miracles, not other topics"'''
::::::Did you read that section about Bukhari's criteria? Mat'n applies to ALL contradictions between the Qur'an and hadith.
::::::'''"if Quranists want to use content on our site for any purpose"'''
::::::Strawman. I never objected to them using this site. My point is that it ONLY benefits their propaganda, nothing else. If we allow something like this, why not also allow Atheistig to write an article about how unreliable the hadith are? [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 04:34, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
:::::::''"Let's go all the way and invalidate 95% of our material just to keep 1 editor happy."'' ---- :-) this is an imaginary situation that hasn't happened yet so lets not do that.
:::::::He knows its a Sandbox page that later may or may not be approved so whats the issue? I dont see any.
:::::::''"Mat'n applies to ALL contradictions between the Qur'an and hadith."'' - is Bukhari's criteria the golden absolute rule on deciding whats a contradiction? I would say no. To me a Sahih hadith is Sahih. I would say that Bukhari does not have the authority to invalidate the Hadiths of other Hadith collectors (like Muslim). Also if the criteria is to delete things that are in contradiction with each other, the Quran contradicts itself in various verses, so what does one do about that? To most people they are all valid Islamic sources (especially Sahih hadiths). All these points can be mentioned on a page about Quran/hadith contradictions. All of these things seen together expose more serious problems with Islam and create challenges for people reading them.
:::::::''"My point is that it ONLY benefits their propaganda"'' - Again they are a minority. The other side effect is letting the rest of the Muslims know that these contradictions exist. Most Muslims view hadiths as holy. I would say that they would have to deal with the contradiction when they see it and it creates a challenge for them.
::::::: My main point here again is that cases can be argued against equally. Its a Sandbox page and people have the right to work on a Sandbox which later may or may not be approved (as long its not an obvious content violation). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 05:13, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::::::::You have not dealt with anything I've actually said, so no they can't be argued against equally. I've mentioned several times why I deleted that page from the sandbox but you continue acting like I never explained. Your opinion on Bukhari's criteria is irrelevant. Mat'n is a well known thing. Hence, contradictions between the Qur'an and certain hadith will not effect mainstream Islam in the slightest. And wth, you're telling editors to stay away from me now? The discussion we're having now isn't even on my talk page, so maybe you should have considered a more appropriate time or place to mention this or considered how it would look to others? [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 05:09, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::Although you're right my comment could have been made at a better time (so ok, I apologize again for making it at the wrong time), I never asked anyone to stay away from you when I made the [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saggy&diff=106872&oldid=106871 comment]. You had removed some comments from your own talk page earlier if you recall [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sahab&diff=106769&oldid=106768] so I was stressing the point that others should use the forum page for general issues and not someone's talk page.
::::::::::I'm asking everyone to follow talk page guidelines and core [[WikiIslam:Core_Principles|community principles]] and assume good faith. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 12:12, 13 April 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::"Matn"'s definition on Wikipedia doesnt mention Bukhari or the contradiction issue, why is that? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_studies#Sanad_and_matn]. "text of the report" =matn is what I'm seeing, not a contradiction with the Quran issue. Are there are sources to support what Matn means? As I mentioned, the issue of deletion arises at the point of review when something is being considered for main space but not before that when it is in a temporary condition (in the Sandbox). Saggy knows it may or may not be approved. As for whether you're right or I'm right, I've shown that points can be made on both sides. Lets do that full debate when the time comes for a review of that piece. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 05:23, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::To hightlight it again our page [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muhammads_Miracles] that you pointed to in the begining and you refered to it again, claims ''"His third criteria is mat'n, i.e. the content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an."'', but there's no reference for that. According to other sources Matn means "text of the hadith", not "must not be in contradiction with the Quran". Bukhari's criteria of this contradiction cannot apply to other Hadith scholars (it is his own personal opinion). And even if we were to assume such a criteria, we are faced by the question: Is a Sahih hadith being declared invalid simply because of the contradiction? Why was it considered in the first place if it was actually invalid? The hadith was considered authentic because the events narrated actually happened.
::::::::::In any case a sourced definition of Matn would be one point. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 05:36, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
{{outdent}}
Visiting this again and stressing this point:
:''Mat'n applies to ALL contradictions between the Qur'an and hadith.''
This is not correct as Mat'n means "the text of the hadith" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_studies#Sanad_and_matn] and has nothing to do with "Contradictions between Quran and Hadith". The source article [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muhammads_Miracles#Bukhari.27s_criteria] you linked for Miracles should have the definition of Matn sourced correctly. I believe this is a page that an author made with the username starting with J (forgot the full name). So this line:
:''His third criteria is mat'n, i.e. the content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an.''
is incorrectly implying that Matn = the content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 10:57, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::Clarified [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muhammads_Miracles#Bukhari.27s_criteria] and changed from:
:::His third criteria is ''mat'n'', i.e. the content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an.
::To:
:::His third criteria is regarding ''mat'n'' (text), i.e. the text/content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an.
::So its clear that Matn means just "text" and not "no contradiction between Quran and hadith". --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:57, 12 April 2014 (PDT)
:::Pointing out contradictions between Quran and hadith is a criticism of Islam. Our site's mission is criticism of Islam (or to provide "an accurate and comprehensive resource on Islam" as currently mentioned in the [[WikiIslam:Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_is_the_purpose_of_WikiIslam.3F|FAQ]], which is even more inclusive), not whether certain criticism is seen as favorable to certain minority sects of Islam like Quran-only.
:::And as I mentioned (sorry if I'm repeating some points), this certain criticism is not seen as favorable to the majority of Muslims who do believe in the hadith. The Matn contradiction issue is Bukhari's opinion and cannot invalidate all problematic hadiths, (definitely not other hadiths like Muslim and neither his own) just because he said so. In short again that means we should not be excluding criticism of Islam because it is favoring a minority sect. And again, we will have a full picture of the situation when there is an actual article to review which there is none at this time. Its just text in a Sandbox. In an article like this Quran/hadith contradiction issue, we definitely want to point out clearly that people can not simply reject Sahih hadiths for whatever reason. There was a reason they were considered Sahih. Sometimes a certain issue is covered in multiple Hadiths which adds to the strength of what the Hadith is saying. If there are multiple Hadith collectors (Muslim and Bukhari for example) that is even more evidence that a Hadith's content actually happened and it is difficult to reject that hadith. So we should wait to see what an article looks like in the end to give a full opinion. The other issue again is, if Contradiction is the reason to reject a hadith, Quranic verses which contradict each other also have a problem. As for Atheistig's article, I dont know what that situation was and perhaps we missed a chance on making a valid article but I dont know enough details. Having an article that mentions Quran/hadith contradictions provides motivation for further strengthening the position that it is not possible to reject hadiths and definitely not Sahih hadiths, so it provides motivation for further improving the "Quran only - Why it is not possible" article or any other content like that. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:21, 12 April 2014 (PDT)
::::Saggy, whats your opinion about the fact that some Muslims may try to reject that contradict the Quran? We need to make sure that your hadith/Quran article also explains (using references) why it is not possible to reject Sahih hadiths that contradict the Quran. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:32, 12 April 2014 (PDT)

== 1000 years ==

Please note [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Contradictions_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=106878&oldid=106876] and see the edit summary. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 05:42, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
:But the verses are clear. 1 day = 1000 years or 1 day=50000 yrs. Human days are not mentioned. Have you read the speed of light hoax?[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 05:51, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

{{Quote||How long is Allah's day?

One thousand days
Yet they ask thee to hasten on the Punishment! But Allah will not fail in His Promise.
Verily a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning.
Qur'an 22:47

Fifty thousand days
The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty
thousand years:
}}

"Verily a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning"

It means one day for '''ALLAH''', is the same as 1000 years for '''HUMANS'''.

See that? "'''Your''' reckoning" = human's perspective. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 06:03, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
:U quote years and still insist on days? Reckoning means our "count" not days or years. Everywhere online the meaning is 1000/50000 years not days. Of course it is same perspective for everyone. Time flows the same for all ( we or anyone outside the solarsystem). The measurement and units differ. (This also debunks the Einsteins theory of relativity miracle claim for the above verses). A day for us is 24 hours. Nobody can change this. Day is defined by a planets rotation! His day is nothing to do with our 24 hrs in anyway! Why do i even need to say this when the equation is about years? Let me show one more : "He regulates the affair from the heaven to the earth; then shall it ascend to Him in a day the measure of which is a thousand years of what you count" 32:5. Clear length of a day is given. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 11:39, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::Well I'm sorry, you were right from the start - my mistake. I got confused somehow and didnt read the hadith carefully enough. It should have been easy to spot that but I missed it somehow (I probably was in a hurry at that time). It is indeed a 1000 years. I reverted it back now. [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Contradictions_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=106876&oldid=106861].
::Good catch on seeing this error and fixing it. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:02, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
:::''"Have you read the speed of light hoax"'' - I've heard of the speed of might miracle but know nothing more than that. There is an article here about that: [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Speed_of_Light_in_the_Quran]. Is this what you were thinking of? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:03, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::::Yeah, that miracle itself is based on a day=1000 years and many more reasons to be a hoax. I will laugh hours long if I read it again. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 02:29, 12 April 2014 (PDT)

== Rain/miraculous ==

This is another of those weaker errors [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#Rain_has_Miraculous_Effects].
: Remember He covered you with a sort of drowsiness, to give you calm as from Himself, and he caused rain to descend on you from heaven, to clean you therewith, to remove from you the stain of Satan, to strengthen your hearts, and to plant your feet firmly therewith.

What if the apologetic response is: "The rain was a special rain for the prophet, it was not ordinary rain. It was a miraculous rain." - its talking about the rain for the prophet right? Its a specific example. These kinds of errors should not be mixed with stronger errors. Something will have to be done about these kinds of errors. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:55, 17 April 2014 (PDT)
:"your hearts". Thus it is not for one person but plural. The earlier verses are not clear on who the audience is(a common goof). If there is a claim of a miracle with tafsirs or stuff to back up (Ibn kathir and Ibn abbas have nothing to say), we can post it under miracles. one site said there are two battles in the single verse (Uhud and Badr) but it is not entirely true to them. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 23:47, 17 April 2014 (PDT)
::Strong errors are long since covered so we have only these. We can rearange them within their section as I think i said. Another site "islamfrominside.com" says everything is about Badr but Wikipedia does not say so. Apologists have four effects of rain to explain infact. The last "feet" one differs in translations. Anyway, The whole miracle about Badr is wrong. The error began with "Allah caused the rain" itself. He cannot cause it, it just happens. If he caused it, what was he doing in much bigger battles in future? Testing believers? How long will he do this? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 00:05, 18 April 2014 (PDT)
:::Although you do great finding interesting verses/hadiths I have to say this:
:::''"Strong errors are long since covered so we have only these."'' - then I would rather not weaken the article with less stronger verses. The problem is when people post the article somewhere and someone points out the excuses like I showed, its discouraging for the person who posts the link. Then they have to work through the rebuttal and point out things like you did - many people are not as committed or may not know what to say. If the errors are strong they cannot be refuted in any way and it makes it easy for the other person who posts our link. This page is one of our most popular pages and its critical for it to be a good page. In fact, you see the under construction template at the top. The article needs to be reviewed and fixed so we can get rid of the template.
:::''We can rearange them within their section as I think i said.'' - sorry I forgot about what you said earlier. So what did you say, how should it be arranged? Lets see how we can do this and keep the stronger errors in one place and the weaker ones in some kind of "misc" section. Should each section have its own Miscellaneous section, or do we collect all of them at the bottom in one section? I'm thinking about the latter.
:::I made a link on your user page: [[User:Saggy]].
:::One of the most critical goals we have to take care of is to increase the quantity of good-quality editors. If you have any suggestions let me know. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:16, 18 April 2014 (PDT)
::::I donn't believe in strong or weak in case of refutation. If an error is refuted its not an error till we explain how we are correct. I will try to sort the sections on sc errors.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 07:42, 22 April 2014 (PDT)
:::::For some errors its hard to find any justification while others can have some. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:31, 22 April 2014 (PDT)

== Moon split (wikipedia) ==

That article is a joke now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_of_the_moon

Look at this talk page discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Splitting_of_the_moon#Good_article_nomination_on_hold
They were trying to make it into a good article a long time ago. Now the lead has this:
:In 2010 a NASA Lunar Science Institute (NLSI) staff scientist said "No current scientific evidence reports that the Moon was split into two (or more) parts and then reassembled at any point in the past."[7]

And the "NASA" section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_of_the_moon#NASA_mis-cited_as_proof

I bet now they would like to go the opposite direction and make sure no one sees that article. Anyway, I think its taken care of (for now). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 21:05, 20 May 2014 (PDT)

==Quran/evolution==
The new sandbox article you made on evolution is good. Here's a QHS page on it: [[Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Creation]] and this is a pro-Islamic page: [[Qur'an and the Theory of Evolution]].

If you're just gathering verses, you can add them to the existing QHS page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 21:02, 20 May 2014 (PDT)
:No this is about the apology claim on evolution. so i have to write that. I dont think a QHS can cover that thing.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 07:14, 22 May 2014 (PDT)
::Ok. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 13:32, 22 May 2014 (PDT)

== Scientific Errors #2 ==

I have asked you not to add any verses to the Scientific errors page and for now only add them to your sandbox page. The article is currently under review and new stuff should not be added there while it is under review. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:01, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

== Moon Position ==

Once again the addition you added [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&curid=9078&diff=107595&oldid=107587] is not an error in my opinion. Its just describing what things look like to humans (aesthetically). The verse literally does not mean "the moon is placed between the seven layers". It is talking about what it looks like to humans.

The seven layers is an error, that we know (and that error is present on the page I think) but the "moon is among them" just means what it appears to people on Earth. Lightyears if you see this, any thoughts on this addition? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:06, 23 May 2014 (PDT)
:No, it does not mean what the moon appears from earth. It directly places the moon somewhere. Moon and its reflected light is insignificant in the first heaven itself, let alone seven heavens. If it is about the how the moon "appears", why is appears not mentioned? How about this "The whole book appears like a war manual, a book full of hate for kafirs. but it only appears, it is not true and it was only about a 7th century power struggle. Muhammad only appears like a criminal from all the content but this is not true and all he did was right for his situation" ? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 23:45, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

:This is not a demonstrable error. Fee simply means in and feeinna means in that. In the constellations verse (25.61), it indicates that the stars are also said to be in (fee) the heavens and the sun and moon in it (feeha). Muslims will generally assume that the stars, sun and moon are in the nearest one, where other verses specify that the stars are. They believe the entirety of the visible universe is in this nearest heaven, and the other heavens are in some physical or metaphysical sense beyond it. No verse can disprove this. The only heaven ever explained is the lowest heaven.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 02:07, 24 May 2014 (PDT)
::Sorry, it can be disproven. 54:11 "Then opened We the gates of heaven with pouring water".[http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/054-qmt.php](the word is sama) Does this rainwater come from the universe? seven heaven = seven layers of atmosphere is wrong (because of the stars verse) and seven heavens = seven universes that we are yet to explore is wrong also beacause of this rain verse. The winged horse that goes to all seven heavens is another example of how awfully wrong things are. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 04:03, 24 May 2014 (PDT)
:::As if this is not enough, read [http://download.iranville.com/books/%DA%A9%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%A8%E2%80%8C%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C%20%D8%A7%D9%86%DA%AF%D9%84%DB%8C%D8%B3%DB%8C/Ali%20Sina%20-%20Understanding%20Muhammad.pdf here] p. 111 Last but one paragraph about stars. More proof that we are becoming appeasers.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 04:27, 24 May 2014 (PDT)
::::Saggy, the issue is the word "therein" (The Position of the Moon). As Lightyears said "This is not a demonstrable error."
::::You have been addressed by 3 people (me, Sahab and Lightyears) about the issues in your additions and you're still unwilling to understand what we're saying. As again you can do what you want in your sandbox.
::::''"More proof that we are becoming appeasers"'' - no this is not true. We are preventing the site from being mocked. I dont have to remind you of all the times the issues have been pointed out to you.
::::How much Arabic do you know? Are you looking at Lexicons like Lightyears is? I looked at the PDF and didnt see anything about this specific verse on p. 111 (of the PDF or as marked in the book).
::::''"It directly places the moon somewhere."'' - it does not. It simply says "among them". The placement described in Quran is vague. The position of the moon is being described as "therein / in their midst". --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:44, 24 May 2014 (PDT)
:::::And I see the paragraph on pg 111 of that book now (begins with "The Egyptian Muslim scholar..."). The original source if found, can be added to a relevant QHS about Astrology but the topic under discussion that I opened here is the Moon position and the use of the word Therein and again with regards to that, Lightyears agreed with me and said it is not an error and he used his knowledge of Arabic ("Fee simply means in and feeinna means in that"). The Science/Quran errors page is critical and needs urgent attention to delete any more non-errors. They should be moved to a Sandbox so they are not lost. I will try to see what can be done about that. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 09:21, 24 May 2014 (PDT)

== Forbidden things ==

Google search for [https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=islam%20forbidden%20things&safe=off islam forbidden things] can also help. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:01, 5 June 2014 (PDT)
:From the silliness page, [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Islamic_Silliness#Wicked_wigs], Wigs, One-shoe walks outlawed, Say no to green jars and white jars, Sinning with silverware, Allah likes sneezing but hates yawning, Fight polytheists by trimming moustache, Pus better than poetry, Allah curses tatooed women, Looking up during prayer may cause blindness.
:Blackgammon [http://www.muslimconverts.com/Munajjid-books/forbiden.htm#67], "Playing with dice"--[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:39, 11 July 2014 (PDT)
:: Search link for [http://sunnah.com/search/forbade "forbade"]. 1150 results. Other searches could be for words "haram", "outlawed", prohibited, "do not", "disallowed" etc--[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 20:01, 11 July 2014 (PDT)

== Scientific errors - response blog ==

Here's a blog that has some "refutations" of a small amount of errors. [http://quran-errors.blogspot.com/] These should be checked and used to further strengthen [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an our page] (without needing to specifically mention this blog). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:17, 14 June 2014 (PDT)

:*'''Universe contracting/Heaven is from Smoke:''' Why talk about galaxys and gas clouds? The verse says earth and heaven were coming together (and talking to Allah). Earth is as old as Galaxies? Nope.
:*'''Mountains:''' i think [http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Quran_and_Mountains this] is sufficient. They dont stabilize so they are not pegs.
:*'''Universe was made in 6 days:''' It was not made in 6 periods. There are no 6 periods. The best that guy could do was reject the backup hadith of Sahih Muslim.
:*'''Seven Planets''': rejecting a tafsir that does not support them. The seven planets have names, will add them soon.
:*'''Thunder is an Angel:''' Again rejecting a tafsir. I have added a similar hadith.
:*'''Moonlight:''' Nur never means reflected light. Poor guy wasted so much time. Ibn Kathir is also wrong (that moon light is different from the sun's).
:*Rest we have already covered: embryology, geocentric, flat earth.
:*'''Sun sets in a Muddy spring:''' We covered the word meanings. No use of the apologists dictionary, he cherrypicked meanings. Two or three scholars he quoted are utterly flimsy who make more errors defending one. Rest of scholars are tolerable, but still wrong as we have proven in the word analysis. The last part reminds me, do we have articles on hadith authenticity other than the list of fake hadiths?
:I will see how to add all the above, or it could be there already.
:[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 13:43, 14 June 2014 (PDT)
::Yes, best to somehow improve the existing information on our side (if needed) or add additional supporting evidence where possible. A small "Responses to Apologetics" section can made for each error below the verse.
::Yes I saw that the blog has rejected the Tafsir. When all else fails they resort to "The Tafsir/hadith is weak". I'm sure every single hadith can be considered weak if all the chain of narrators are examined. They just do the analysis for the hadiths they dont like. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 19:04, 14 June 2014 (PDT)
:::I'll try to work on this too. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:19, 15 June 2014 (PDT)
::::A responses section below every verse? It will look like a train wreck. Better say in the lead that there are responses and detailed analysis in the main articles of verses.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 10:56, 15 June 2014 (PDT)
::::Which are the other top 10 articles?[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 10:57, 15 June 2014 (PDT)
:::::You have a gmail account? I can add you to the statistics view and you can see the top 10.
:::::Many errors dont have a dedicated page. "Responses to apolgetics/Notes" - basically a few lines to repel criticism. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 13:39, 15 June 2014 (PDT)
::::::I go one by one; we have [[Qur'an and a Universe from Smoke]] for the first claim. i think it should be linked and then expanded, but iam not yet sure how to expand.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 09:15, 17 June 2014 (PDT)
:::::::I dont either. There are many good existing articles written on various other websites, try searching. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:37, 17 June 2014 (PDT)
::::::::By the way that blog link now has some kind of notice saying that the author is going to stop writing responses for now and write better responses later on. He says (the username is ' .. guy', so) that some of our error sections that he addressed were removed or edited in reaction to his content and I dont think thats true. If he's watching he's most welcome to create a user account and join this discussion.
::::::::As for revisions/deletions/additions, we have always improved our work and that's a good thing for any kind of work.
::::::::He also implies that we inserted the "under construction" notice recently or in reaction to his blog's content but we did it in [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=103064&oldid=103063 January] (6 months ago) before this blog was noticed and I think it has been on that page before as well. I doubt he'll make these corrections as he probably wants his readers to believe what he originally said (that makes his blog look better).
::::::::Here's another 'rebuttal' link [http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/faithfreedom-wikiislam] on another site/forum.
::::::::You can see why its critical to have this page in the best shape possible. In my opinion none of these rebuttals have really addressed the errors but they may still have content that can be used to improve our page(s). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:49, 29 June 2014 (PDT)

Hey Guys,

I think you have completely misunderstood my recent blog post regarding halting replies to articles written on this site. I will reply to some of the points made:

:"By the way that blog link now has some kind of notice saying that the author is going to stop writing responses for now and write better responses later on. He says (the username is ' .. guy', so) that some of our error sections that he addressed were removed or edited in reaction to his content and I dont think thats true. If he's watching he's most welcome to create a user account and join this discussion."

Over-time you have removed, rewritten alot of the page. Removing many sections that I wrote responses to. Im not claiming this is due to my work solely - I think it is more in relation to you guys realising how weak and lack luster many of the points were on that article.

:"By the way that blog link now has some kind of notice saying that the author is going to stop writing responses for now and write better responses later on. He says (the username is ' .. guy', so) that some of our error sections that he addressed were removed or edited in reaction to his content and I dont think thats true. If he's watching he's most welcome to create a user account and join this discussion."

Im really unsure where I implied this? After recieving traffic from this page. I realised your discussion regarding the blog. So I checked out the page and found it to have this editing title and noticed large changes to the page. Hence I paid a post detailing I wont be analysing the work until it is 100% finished.

Hope this clears up any misunderstanding guys.

Also forgive me. I dont know how to correctly post on this site. Feel free to clean it up if you guys can.

--[[User:ThatMuslimGuy|ThatMuslimGuy]] ([[User talk:ThatMuslimGuy|talk]]) 15:20, 1 July 2014 (PDT)
::Hi, welcome. You can use colons to indent lines. Indeed over time we have revised (that includes revision/removal/addition) this page a lot to improve it. Its an important page and its a work in progress like everything else on the site. Which sections were removed or edited that had been responded to on your blog?
:::''I think it is more in relation to you guys realising how weak and lack luster many of the points were on that article.''
::Again its a work in progress like any other page and we try to make all the content stronger with time and the reason for that revision can be scrutiny/afterthought that we have ourselves or that closer look may come from outside. Some errors are more obvious than others (this is expected). This dialogue can help us strengthen our page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 18:12, 1 July 2014 (PDT)

:::: No this is good. And I commend you for going through the articles and rewriting them.-- [[User:ThatMuslimGuy|ThatMuslimGuy]] ([[User talk:ThatMuslimGuy|talk]]) 18:42, 1 July 2014 (PDT)
:::::Ok and we look forward to seeing your new revised materials as well.
:::::Have you thought of contacting other Islamic rebuttal websites and starting an apologetics wiki to coordinate the rebuttals? I say this because from my perspective ultimately such an initiative will help our site (in the long run) and for your perspective this is something you would probably want.
:::::Originally I had the idea of having apologetics on our site (for example this article [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an_(Response)] which is linked at the bottom of the main Errors page) but that idea didnt take off fully and now I think its better to have those things off-site so the apologetics can manage their material any way they want and we can still exchange links. You probably need a good domain name first. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 01:35, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
::::::Who is on whose side? Lol. It begins with the lies that we made drastic changes in the scientific errors article and put the review notice because of that blog. Barely one or two sentences we added because of it. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 12:10, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
:::::::Competition doesnt scare me and it will motivate people on our side to do even better. We have it very easy already and we dont have the burden of defending Islam.
:::::::But indeed the blog's claims are misleading and they do suggest as I mentioned to ThatMuslimGuy before that they are written to make the reader believe we changed/removed stuff in reaction to the blog which is not true. In any case one of the claim made is:
::::::::"I recently noticed that WikiIslam has updated there "Scientific Errors Page" with the following:"
:::::::As mentioned we had that notice since a long time and he would have noticed that template even before because he has been writing some rebuttals since a long time (I believe some of his rebuttals are dated a while back). He only created that notice after I mentioned the blog link to you.
:::::::The other claim made on the blog is:
::::::::"So far they have removed various areas - some of which I addressed."
:::::::I have asked him twice to tell us what areas we removed or edited and he hasn't responded and until he does that and is specific about which areas/sections/errors he's talking about he cannot make the claim that the areas, some of which he addressed were removed or edited.
:::::::So ThatMuslimGuy, can you support your claim by telling us which sections that you addressed on your blog were removed? Here's a link to the [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&offset=&limit=250&action=history page history.] You can use the Diff links to go back in time to show you older versions of the page. You can give us Diff links and tell us which sections you're talking about. Here's one example of a Diff link. [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=107485&oldid=107473 Diff] link or you can just copy paste the URL(s) here. [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Adverse_Effects_of_Islamic_Fasting Happy Ramadan.] (a favorite article of mine) --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:18, 2 July 2014 (PDT)

::::::::: Hey guys, In the past yeah we have thought about doing that. Saggy - Removing multiple points on the site, rewriting sections, adding additions etc - I would say is big change to the article, In my post no where have I asserted you changed the article because of me or anything alike. I simply detailed that I recently checked out the page and that you had added that on the top of the page and removed some points, some of which I had written about, hence rendering those posts on my blog now void.

:::::::::I think you seriously reading to much into the post. I simply realised you were editing the page. Hence I thought id give you guys time to rewrite it - add additions etc- then later address it. Instead of addressing things which may be changed or removed later.

:::::::::You removed - Night Time Cold is Caused by the Moon [http://quran-errors.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/re-quran-scientific-error-night-time.html]] [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&oldid=90145#Night_time_cold_is_caused_by_the_Moon]

:::::::::You removed - the Universe contracting according to the Quran [http://quran-errors.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/is-universe-contracting-according-to.html] [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&oldid=90145#The_Universe_is_contracting]

:::::::::You reworded this - How Many Planets are in the solar system according to the Quran? [http://quran-errors.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/re-wikiislam-quran-scientific-error-how.html] [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&oldid=90145#How_many_planets_in_the_solar_system_according_to_the_Quran.3F] to Seven Planets in the Universe.

:::::::::etc

:::::::::Im never claiming you removed them because of my blog. Im simply stating you removed them - some of which I wrote articles on - hence rendering them void.
:::::::::--[[User:ThatMuslimGuy|ThatMuslimGuy]] ([[User talk:ThatMuslimGuy|talk]]) 18:36, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::''" In the past yeah we have thought about doing that. "'' - I say make it happen. Have you thought of a domain name?
::::::::::Alright thats what I was looking for, the blog post links and the diffs - thanks much. We'll look into them. Are there any more? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 19:23, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::::: I dont think so. I think the others wordings have just changed. People discussed it before: [http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,1024.msg4792.html#msg4792] But the idea died. --[[User:ThatMuslimGuy|ThatMuslimGuy]] ([[User talk:ThatMuslimGuy|talk]]) 19:42, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::::::I'm thinking at least some of the ones that were removed were added by Saggy (he has been asked by people not to add any errors that arent obvious, hence I made this set of [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Talk:Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#.5BSticky.5D_Instructions_for_editing_this_page guidelines] on the talk page). But thats ok, all editors make mistakes (including myself) or may have different perspectives. He's done some good work in finding hadiths and verses and he's passionate and interested about the topic. He made this page on the [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Hadith Scientific errors in Hadiths] (a sample error: [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Hadith#Black_cumin_cures_all_diseases "black cumin cures everything"]), and some other pages.
:::::::::::::You should follow up with the idea you were discussing with your friends. Sounds like some progress was being made. Take control of it, get advice and give it your best shot. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 20:01, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::::::Why dont you try to rebutt some of the more obvious errors such as [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#Stars_are_Located_in_the_Nearest_Heaven Stars are Located in the Nearest Heaven], [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#Earth_Created_before_Stars Earth Created before Stars], [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#Humans_Created_in_Paradise_and_then_Brought_to_Earth Humans Created in Paradise and then Brought to Earth] which is explored in detail at: [[Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Creation]] <---- This is a huge glaring Scientific error (evolution). etc. So start with the most difficult errors if you really believe Quran has no errors. Saying they're figures of speech is not a defense.
::::::::::::::We'll look at the ones you pointed out and I can assure you they were not removed in reaction to your blog but as we were reviewing them ourselves. There are some others that were removed/revised which are not on your blog. We have done such revisions all the time and not just recently. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:05, 3 July 2014 (PDT)

:::::::::::::::: Will do - Some of those are the most weakest ones. --[[User:ThatMuslimGuy|ThatMuslimGuy]] ([[User talk:ThatMuslimGuy|talk]]) 03:46, 3 July 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::::::::::I doubt the most obvious errors will ever be responded to (remember to deal with Creationism and Evolution as you know that is a major issue for science) and after that there will be a vast amount of [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Site_Map other content] to deal with. Good luck. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:05, 3 July 2014 (PDT)

== Reviews ==

I have to tell you that currently I do not have the time to review your additions. So if they're significant, please add them to your Sandbox pages so they can be reviewed at the same time later on. You can continue doing minor additions where a review doesn't take a long time. If its anything I have to analyze it has to go in the sandbox page. Sorry about that but I just do not currently have the time to review these things one at a time and check if they are accurate or if they have any problems.

Just create as many Sandbox pages as you like so you can organize all your additions. Add notes there where they should be added on the target page etc. Here's [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Science_and_the_Seven_Earths&diff=107921&oldid=103980 one] that you just added. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 19:54, 22 June 2014 (PDT)
::When will you get time? Besides you spent at least 10 minutes yesterday. How long does it take to review that an apologist is contradicting the quran itself (this is not even like my error claims)? If I gather all errors in my sandbox, one day you will have to spend an a lot more time than you get per day right now. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 11:23, 23 June 2014 (PDT)
:::Forgot to reply. At least for me its easier and more efficient mentally to deal with multiple similar issues at the same time instead of one at a time with long breaks in between them. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 09:51, 2 July 2014 (PDT)

== 72 Virgins ==

I'm still trying to figure out what the point of [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=72_Virgins&diff=prev&oldid=109201 this] edit was, and how it was supposed to be connected to [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Talk:72_Jungfrauen this] rant by a fly-by anonymous German. The German guy is only complaining about how he thinks the German ''language'' in that section is linguistically incorrect. In that case, the German translator should probably be asked to comment or the talk page should be deleted (if they have no intention of fixing the alleged problem, then their complaint is nothing more than a rant). Instead you make some linguistically incorrect additions of your own to the English version and claim "I corrected the English side"? Really? The point of that western dhimmi author is that the Bible does not claim that after death Christians will be issued with wings and a harp, and walk on clouds, just like how she wants us to believe the Qur'an does not claim that after death Muslims will be issued with virgins. Our point is her analogy is faulty because the Qur'an ''does'' state that after death Muslims will be issued with virgins. Since Revelation 14:2 does not state anywhere that Christians will be issued with wings and a harp, and walk on clouds, the addition was pointless and is counter-productive to the purpose of the article. The probable origin of ideas is irrelevant information and only serves to water-down and confuse the articulated and concise approach of the article. Your other edit to [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Revelational_Circumstances_of_the_Qur%27an%3A_Missing_Verses&diff=109206&oldid=109200 Revelational Circumstances of the Qur'an] was also faulty, in that Tabari is not a part of "the major Hadith collections" (all other sources such as tafsirs etc., were purposely excluded by Sani because they are not as authoritative as the major Hadith collections and tend to contain apologetic opinions). The fact that this series only quotes major Hadith collections is stated quite clearly on its main page, but you seem to be making additions without fully understanding why or what you are editing. Please can you explain your edits or at least try to be more careful in the future. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 02:27, 11 August 2014 (PDT)
:The woman overlooked that Quran makes the claim but Bible does not. The image of a heavener with a harp is at best a pop culture thing derived from that verse. The sentence is still too weird. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 06:48, 11 August 2014 (PDT)
::She did not overlook it. That was exactly her point. She is claiming Muslims view the idea of virgins in heaven much the same as Christians view wings and a harp i.e. it's a made-up thing that no practising Christian actually believes. Okay, so you think that sentence is "weird", but that does not explain why you think adding pointless trivia to the page is "fixing it", nor does it explain why you think your edit made it less "weird" (if it wasn't linguistically weird to begin with, it certainly was afterwards). We are not contesting her claim that the wings and harp thing is a myth because she is right, so there is nothing more needed to be said about that. What we are doing is pointing out ''how'' she is wrong.[[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 07:22, 11 August 2014 (PDT)

== QHS edits ==

Your edit here [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Animals&diff=prev&oldid=109252]. This is Ritual slaughter. It applies to all Abrahamic religions. I agree killing an animal with a knife like this is painful for the animal but the animal's meat is consumed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice#Abrahamic_traditions.

So tell me why those hadiths should stay here and how they fit with the other content of the page.

For the 2nd edit, [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Cosmology&diff=109253&oldid=109212]

This belongs in Creationism more than it does in Cosmology. Is there anything specific about cosmology mentioned in that quote? Plus this quote has round brackets '(' and you've used double triangular brackets '<'.

So can you explain? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 22:01, 14 August 2014 (PDT)
::He did it in large numbers. Thats all I want to show, whether it is for food or fun. There is also some kindness to a animals hadith that does not fit in.
::Some uterus is attached to that throne. It will react on Judgement Day and so on. Often this cosmology and creation are seen to have some things overlaping like creation of throne, sun, moon stars and heavens, (but not creation of Adam ). So you want it in creation? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 23:32, 14 August 2014 (PDT)
:::You are the boss. I am a nobody. So I will edit my sandbox. What am I going to do with a sandbox out of this site? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:26, 15 August 2014 (PDT)
::::I will also post it to the tasks. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:37, 15 August 2014 (PDT)

::::: The site's quality is the first priority and must be preserved (so it doesn't matter who the boss is - we are all bosses and it depends whose arguments makes sense). I am a nobody too just like you and I will consult with Sahab to decide on this. Looking at it rationally, the problem is that I don't have time to review a regular editor's edits every time and many of yours edits need to be seriously corrected and require a lot of time for correction. If all of someone's edits require serious evaluation it wouldnt be a problem unless there was someone willing to evaluate the edits who had the time to do it.
:::::''"He did it in large numbers."'' - what large numbers? The hadith only say "many camels". Many camels could be 6, 10, 15, 30 -- we dont know. So what do you mean by large numbers and how do you prove it? If there were a large number of people to feed, 20 camels could be slaughtered and that would be considered "many" or "large numbers".
:::::No as I said, the Tafsir quote has nothing specific to do with Cosmology; nothing about Stars, skies, universe etc. It leaves one wondering what it has to do with cosmology. ''"Often this cosmology and creation are seen to have some things"'' - this is your interpretation. If creationism is linked we can then copy all the Creation hadiths into Cosmology which doesnt make any sense. I will wait for Sahab's input before commenting further. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:51, 15 August 2014 (PDT)
::::::I know what he's likely to say. So I think you should add it to creation and forget the first one. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 06:34, 15 August 2014 (PDT)
:::::::I think the edit Saggy made to [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Animals&diff=prev&oldid=109252#Sacrifices Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Animals] is a very good addition to the page. Ritual slaughter is described in all Abrahamic texts, but there are several differences here in comparison to the other two big faiths:

:::::::1. Concerning Christians, they do not perform ritual slaughter, nor did Jesus ever perform a ritual slaughter.
:::::::2. Concerning Jews, yes they do perform ritual slaughter, but they do not go around telling people that Moses loved animals and that he is an excellent role-model for today's socially conscientious youth.
:::::::3. On the other hand, a lot of apologists do try to convert young people to Islam by trying to sell the idea that Muhammad was a progressive man who loved animals.

:::::::So, considering the above, it is very relevant in the QHS:Animals page to quote proof that Muhammad not only ordered the ritual slaughter of animals, but also partook in it himself.

:::::::I also agree with Saggy that the "kindness to animals" hadith do not fit in with that page. I certainly did not add them and I do not think they should remain. A section like that does not belong on a wiki critical of Islam. If it was added with the intention of making the wiki appear more "neutral" then I can safely say that it will ''never'' convince anyone that the wiki is neutral, but it does make the page look odd and will probably confuse people.

:::::::I think the edit Saggy made to [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Cosmology&diff=109253&oldid=109212 Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Cosmology] does not belong in the Creation page (it is too vague for that and the Creation page is very specific), but it can be squeezed in with cosmology because it describes Allah's "Throne" etc. In all honesty though, I would just remove that last edit by Saggy and move it to a temp page until somewhere more suited is found (I don't think it really talks about cosmology or creation in a very coherent way). Or at the very least, keep it on the cosmology page but trim it down to only include the relevant information (e.g., as Saggy noted, "Some uterus is attached to that throne. It will react on Judgement Day and so on.").

:::::::About the triangular brackets; I'm guessing they are there because Saggy copy/pasted text from Answering Islam. This is a concern to me. The last time we had an editor who got carried away with copy/pasting stuff from there, things didn't turn out so well (It was this by OsmanHassan that left us with those Errors pages in such a mess). If you are not going to bother removing the emphasis added by the Answering Islam team (such as brackets, underlining and caps) you really should not be using them.

:::::::Another concern is the fact that the tafsir is not being cited properly. ''Ibn Kathir, "Interpretation of Qur'an 47:22"'' is not a reference. If an online version of Tafsir Ibn Kathir is going to quoted, then it should be cited more like [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Creation#Ibn_Kathir_2 this] (Not exactly an up-to-date example of a reference because it does not use any CiteWeb templates. Nevertheless, notice the archived URL and the actual heading of each section provided in the tafsir being quoted).

:::::::At Saggy: What does "I know what he's likely to say" mean? Honestly, I would really like to know what you think you know, because I highly doubt you know what I'm going to say. I'll admit I usually think you edits should be removed. But that is because they are usually terrible. In this case, they are not wholly terrible (in the first case, it was actually a good addition and a good observation concerning the "Kindness" hadith). [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 03:51, 16 August 2014 (PDT)
::::::::Ok. I added back the Sacrifice hadiths and took out the kindness section. Maybe those reasons could be added to those sections (just a suggestion). Thanks for the analysis. I agree care should be taken if copying stuff from Answering-Islam.
::::::::Saggy, you can move the Cosmology stuff to the temp page as directed by Sahab or trim it down as suggested.
::::::::Well guys I dont know if I can keep up with the edit reviews but I'll try my best. I had suggested to Saggy that he should keep his edits in his Sandbox pages and maybe one day we can find someone willing who has the time to review them. I am operating in a minimum maintenance mode and even [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAxius&diff=109285&oldid=109250 that] is a challenge for me. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 10:31, 16 August 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::No probs. I don't think any additional text would be needed. As it is, it lets the readers know that Mo had no problems with animal slaughter without making judgements on it or bringing up other faiths. If we did bring up other faiths, then it would look like we're defending them (just think of Natassia and the problems her writings have caused on the wiki recently). With the exception of a few major tu quoque arguments which inhibit the criticism of Islam, that is something the wiki is not here to do. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 11:43, 16 August 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::Ok. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 09:02, 17 August 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::What is this Natassia tangle? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 11:48, 16 August 2014 (PDT)
:Saggy, please fix the reference style in this edit [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Cosmology&diff=prev&oldid=109291] as Sahab mentioned above.
:Sahab also said to you ''"I usually think you[r] edits should be removed. But that is because they are usually terrible."'' I agree with Sahab, adding that its too much work reviewing your edits and fixing them and currently no one is available to do that. So I'm sorry but from now please only edit Sandboxes in your userspace (no main space edits, or edits on Sandboxes for the site). You can edit your Sandboxes in any way you like and organize your content in whatever way you like and you can also make new pages in your Sandboxes.
:''"What am I going to do with a sandbox out of this site?"'' - what do you mean by this? You can work on the sandboxes and hopefully one day someone will come by and take your edits from there and merge them into main space articles where necessary. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 09:02, 17 August 2014 (PDT)
::Sahab I'm guessing you wouldn't have a problem with Saggy's edits to the mainspace being disallowed. I dont have enough time to review the edits of a regular editor who has problems with most of their edits (as you said above and I agreed with it). Unless you're willing to review them and I'm guessing you dont have enough time as well.
::To anyone else: I'm sorry but the top priority is to maintain the quality of the site and if anyone is willing to review Saggy's edits let me know and we can make that arrangement. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 13:29, 21 August 2014 (PDT)
:::No, I don't have the time to do that. Sorry Ax. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 19:02, 21 August 2014 (PDT)
::::Yea, I figured. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:13, 29 August 2014 (PDT)
Saggy, possible material for [[WikiIslam:Sandbox/Forgiveness]] - "Allah forgives all sins" but then "does not forgive shirk" etc. Take what you want and let me know when you're done and I'll delete that page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:13, 29 August 2014 (PDT)
:Why do you want to delete it? It is in a bad state. But it is an extension of [[Contradictions in the Qur'an]](1.13 Does Allah forgive everything? , 1.14 Does Allah forgive worshipping other gods/shirk?). Since there are hadith for shirk, it will also benefit from them. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:28, 29 August 2014 (PDT)
::Is there already another article for this "forgiveness" subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Saggy|contribs]]) {{#if:| |}} ([[WikiIslam:Signatures#Signing_Posts|Remember to sign your comments]]) 
:::That Sandbox is what we have. It was written in the early days when we didnt have any good content and its not a good article but you can take the "Will all sins be forgiven?" and make a section for Contradictions in the Quran (in your sandbox article for QHS issues) and take anything else whatever you think is useful.--[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:50, 29 August 2014 (PDT)
::::Is [[Contradictions in the Qur'an]] meant for detailed explanations?? Where will hadiths go? I think of trying to edit this old article itself. Wait for a while. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:58, 29 August 2014 (PDT)

== Disasters ==

What do you see in the history? [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Accidents_and_Natural_Disasters_in_the_Muslim_World&action=history]. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:35, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
:So quick? Anyway, Kashmir is a Muslim majority state and the Kashmir Valley is almost entirely Muslim. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 04:40, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
::The disaster also affected non-Muslim Indian-controlled areas so no. That does not fit in with the rest of the page. It doesnt matter if its Muslim majority. That is not the pattern already on the page. I have asked you not to edit main space so can you please remember not to? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:44, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
:::You did not even look at the final rendered version of your page edit [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Accidents_and_Natural_Disasters_in_the_Muslim_World&diff=109713&oldid=109710]. There is a huge red tag there. See it? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:47, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
::::Another thing is that you had to re-add the previous text. That means someone must have removed it. So you would have checked page history or Recent changes to see what was going on. How did you not notice that the text had been removed? Why did you re-add the text without seeing the page history or seeing who removed it, or contact them to ask about the removal? And you wonder why you are asked not to edit the main space. This means that you should not edit any page on this site unless it has these patterns: (Talk page, User talk page, Sandbox page). This means all your main space edits can be reverted in the future without any explanation. Do you understand this now? I would normally not approach an editor like this but I have asked you multiple times before not to edit main space and of course your quality of edits has been brought up before. The only way to get back mainspace editing is to demonstrate high quality editing/engagement in the 3 other types of pages you can edit.
::::Please provide a confirmation that you have understood what I have said here. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 06:08, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
:::::I clicked once, browser did did not load saved edit, internet was down, the page still remained. Minutes after that i added the next incident. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 07:32, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
::::::Ok. The first edit though shows the red ref tag [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Accidents_and_Natural_Disasters_in_the_Muslim_World&diff=109709&oldid=109610]. Did you see that? Use preview or view the page right away to make sure the output looks ok. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 07:36, 14 September 2014 (PDT)

== New editors ==

About your comment [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=WikiIslam:Forum/Visitor_Inquiries&diff=109960&oldid=109956 here], its easy for new editors to be able to directly edit main space [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Message_to_New_Users]: ''"Therefore (excluding minor edits and corrections), new users should not edit or create main space articles until they demonstrate good judgement and the ability to make positive contributions, upon which they will receive the Editor or Reviewer user right.".''. All they need to do is display good judgement in Sandbox pages. If they cannot do that that yes, they must wait for content to be reviewed and that of course is dependent on who is available to review.

The highest priority on the site is to maintain and increase its quality. It is not whether or not someone can edit the main space content directly or not. They also have a lot of options because they can edit Sandbox and userspace pages to any extent. The quality of work in those pages will decide if they can edit main space directly. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:38, 8 October 2014 (PDT)

== New addition on Scientific errors in Quran ==

* Investigate and add if suitable: [http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Qur%27anic_scientific_foreknowledge&oldid=1453448].
* Check for additions: http://www.islam-watch.org/SyedKamranMirza/Erroneous-Science-and-Contradictions-in-Quran.htm ([https://web.archive.org/web/20160809202919/http://www.islam-watch.org/SyedKamranMirza/Erroneous-Science-and-Contradictions-in-Quran.htm Archive])
::Thanks. Are you from EXMNA? Need a helping hand here. Posting to your talks as well. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 17:47, 7 September 2017 (EDT)

:::No I'm not from EXMNA. Scientific errors in Quran article needs to be translated into Arabic, Bengali (they form the second largest Muslim group in the world after Arab muslims), Urdu (Pakistani language), Turkish and Indonesian. Also link to the Scientific errors in Quran article needs to be spread around in the web. For example Bengali clerics post videos of their talks in Bengali on Youtube to attract followers, link to Scientific errors in Quran English article, or even better Bengali translated one, should be posted on the comments section. These videos get 100s of thousands of views.

At least 80% of the Muslims today are Muslims by born, they don't pray 5 times a day, many never pray at all.

User talk:Saggy

2017-09-11T23:42:33Z

AAA: /* New addition on Scientific errors in Quran */

==Scientific Errors==

Hi. That page uses title-case for capitalization of headings[http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Standardization#Section_headings]. And there should not be multiple Qur'an translations used to illustrate a single error (i.e choose only one translation from the USC site). Both those errors were in your first edit to the page but I fixed them[http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=102143&oldid=102140]. You have repeated those same errors in your second edit. You will have to fix them before your edits can be considered. Thanks. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 13:27, 5 January 2014 (PST)
:I've reverted your edit again. You are aware this talk page discussion has been initiated. If you do not understand something here, the answer is not to reinsert whatever was reverted with a summary saying "btw I don't understand". That's basically ignoring this talk page. If you don't understand something then ask. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 19:07, 9 January 2014 (PST)
::Not much time . ok , what am I to do to caps? If u revert instead of correcting (which is a loss to the readers), others dont mind? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 02:48, 10 January 2014 (PST)
:::No they don't mind. Quality standards are high on this wiki. If editors do not have the time to adhere to guidelines/stick to proper etiquette or take the care to format their contributions properly, we'd rather they not edit at all. Do you think it's fair if others have to waste their time cleaning up after someone else's edits? We don't. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 11:49, 10 January 2014 (PST)

Got it. Got mistake. Thanks. (Or u want me to stop doing anything until we complete discussing?)[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 02:53, 10 January 2014 (PST)
:No, that's fine. Thanks. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 11:42, 10 January 2014 (PST)
hi Saggy, this Science error/Quran page is popular and is often linked to by people so its important for this page to be as strong as possible. Some errors are more obvious than others. Some only appear in one translation and so on. For example the Golden Calf statue verse that you added was great. It obviously goes against science and is a glaring error while some others are not that obvious.

One idea I have is to keep the strongest errors at the top and the less obvious ones (or the ones that can be explained in some way by apologists) near the bottom in another section. I tried making some rules here: [[Talk:Scientific Errors in the Qur'an]] (draft). Let me know your thoughts. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 08:19, 1 February 2014 (PST)
:How can we judge weakness? Its is everyones POV. EG Every claim about the sky is weak on its own. But when put together its a huge blunder. We already have sections for the branchs of science. At most we'll put weak claims at bottom of each section. of course we mustnt say - xyz is a weaker claim , we can try to explian it or justifiy it as much as possible..[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 12:52, 1 February 2014 (PST)
::Hi, I moved your comment back to keep it in one place. Some errors are present in Arabic and the translations, while others are present only in the translations. For example Constellations. Apologetist might say the Quran just means "collections of light" and yes these were made by Allah for humans (for example) and he was just talking in a general sense. A more glaring error is the Golden statue or mathematics of inheritance. So some are more obvious, the others are a little iffy and have some conditions.
::You might have some good points, I'm myself unsure about this issue so I'm just talking about it to see if there's any concrete ideas. So thats one idea, to put weak claims at the bottom.
::Another suggestion is to look at other websites like Answering-Islam and expand on the evidence for these errors, for example with arabic or tafsir.
::Another thing. Verses should be checked against the 3 translators to make sure those are the only ones we're using. I saw an instance where there was another translation being used and it was corrected. I will try to go through all of them.
::Anyone else have anything about this? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 16:06, 1 February 2014 (PST)
:::3 translators is ok. but we cant cry about translation matters in the article itself or lose content bcoz of them. on the long run give Every claim its main article like we have lying forehead or sunset in a muddy spring. As for constellations, other translations are "towers" or "mansions"- Both are disgusting if we take them literaly. And the calf statue may be defended by just calling it a miracle. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 23:05, 1 February 2014 (PST)
::::Alright then fair enough unless anyone else has anything to add for improving the article. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 10:29, 2 February 2014 (PST)
:::::I moved the one for constellation here on your page [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=User:Saggy/Sandbox_-_Issues_with_Quran_and_Hadith&diff=107464&oldid=106860]. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:43, 15 May 2014 (PDT)

:::::: Hi Saggy, I found some more miracles of floating boats: 2:164, 16:14, 42:32. Perhaps it should be mentioned that at Muhammad's time Archimedes law describing buoyancy was more than 8 centuries old. Shall I put it in? Also I added a remark about the missing leap year on Axius talk page. --[[User:PW. Jansen|PW. Jansen]] ([[User talk:PW. Jansen|talk]]) 22:18, 24 August 2014 (PDT)

== Quran details ==

For [[WikiIslam:Sandbox/Qur%27anic_Claim_of_Having_Details]], how did you find these verses? For example the first two. Through your own study? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 18:16, 24 February 2014 (PST)
:Yea--[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 07:45, 25 February 2014 (PST)
::Thats great. I will try to work on this article. I had just added a few lines at the top. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 10:48, 25 February 2014 (PST)
:::Just a quick pointer for Saggy concerning that page; readers should not be directly addressed. So rather than say, ''"What will this beast be like? How come it will be able to talk to people?"'', it should say something like, ''"The Qur'an does not elaborate on the physical appearance of this beast or how it would communicate with humans"''. The Isra and Mi'raj section seems to have it right. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 13:51, 25 February 2014 (PST)
::::Yea, we'll have to work on that after the verses have been put in.
::::Saggy how are you finding these verses? Through search or by reading the verses yourself and searching for issues? Any plans of getting more?
::::Still not sure about the article or where it will go but I think its a good idea (needs more verses though). Its different than the usual "errors/contradictions" and so on. Its another kind of defect but we'll see how it goes. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 19:21, 25 February 2014 (PST)
:::::Some are old things i just recollect (like i heard- isra-mi'raj is incomplete without reading bukhari)--[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 09:19, 26 February 2014 (PST)
::::::Some of the [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam Five Pillars] could be included. They're covered [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an_Only_Islam_-_Why_it_is_Not_Possible#Five_Pillars_of_Islam here] (not a very well written article , but it provides the necessary info). There's also the [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Jizyah Jizyah]. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 06:09, 27 February 2014 (PST)

== Discussions link ==

To make it easy for us to track discussions among current editors, I moved the discussion about logical errors to the Discussions page [[WikiIslam:Forum|Discussions]] page (linked on the left). I'll reply there soon. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 04:35, 6 March 2014 (PST)
:Just letting you know that there's a new "Editing" section on the left that has all the links related to Editing (including Discussions). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 15:30, 6 March 2014 (PST)

== Contracted forms ==

Hi Saggy. I've corrected your use of contracted forms and the missing question mark [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Contradictions_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=105449&oldid=105391 here]. Please read the [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Article_Style_and_Content_Guide WikiIslam:Article Style and Content Guide]. Thanks. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 11:58, 8 March 2014 (PST)

== Inheritance Laws ==

I thought I'd ask you since you've been interested in the errors/contradictions topics. Inheritance laws ([[Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#Mathematical_Error_in_Hereditary_Laws]]) have had some responses like [http://www.khalidzaheer.com/qa/615] and [http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_inheritance_law__by_ansar_al__adl].

Do you know how to respond to these rebuttals and see if there's anything to investigate here? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:56, 12 March 2014 (PDT)

:Easy- site 1-"Out of the remaining (11 out of 24), the two daughters are going to get one-third each. " site 2- "And for the daughters 2/3 of '''what remains''' = 2/3 of 13/24=13/36 of the total amount" This ''remaining'' is assumed. Where is it mentioned? Nothing is mentioned so u have to divide whole (24 / 24) into two thirds. Other sites do the same thing.[http://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/1408/inheritance-shares-dont-add-up-to-1] theres in fact no consistency in whom to divide the remainder among. One site[http://www.kurandersleri.net/miras/en/Miras_Erkek_en.html] divides watever looks comfortable, whole or remains, only to ensure that fractions add upto 1 or a lesser value. [This http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/inh_01.htm] uses the contradictory shares of sisters to convert more than 1 to less than 1. Some use an old law of increasing denominator in the sum so that it is equal to numerator- but they violate all the stated fractions[http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/ma_addup.htm]. First, 4:11-12 have 10+ rules and and 4:176 has 4 rules contradicting some of them so lots of whims will show up. We are not even talking about gender injustice in this.--[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 04:21, 14 March 2014 (PDT)
::Ok. We should then think about making an article about this later on. Currently [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Inheritance_Laws this] exists but it may not be dealing with the rebuttals and its also an essay by another author, so we can make a new article about this later. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 09:46, 14 March 2014 (PDT)
:Ya start it.--[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 12:05, 14 March 2014 (PDT)
::For now I just added a link to this section to the tasks page. [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=WikiIslam:Tasks&diff=105798&oldid=105528]. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 14:59, 14 March 2014 (PDT)

== Comprehension of errors ==

Can you please explain how you interpreted [http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/052-sbt.php#004.052.051 Bukhari 4:52:51] to [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Hadith&curid=9085&diff=106685&oldid=106682 mean] "Orbit of the Sun is comparable to a Bow". From a cursory glance, it doesn't say anything of the sort. What it says is that having an area the size of a bow (not the bow itself) in heaven is better (not comparable) to having the entire earth (not sun). That same hadith continues by saying, "A single endeavor in Allah's Cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all that on which the sun rises and sets." If we apply your logic to the rest of the same narration, it would mean that the "Orbit of the Sun is comparable to a single endeavor in Allah's Cause" is also a valid interpretation, something which it is not. I find it hard to understand how you could misinterpret something so obvious, so please do explain it to us. Can you also stop rushing things (like you had previously agreed)? This way you would avoid making typos such as "comaprable". [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 16:03, 5 April 2014 (PDT)
:[http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/052-sbt.php#004.052.053 Bukhari 4:52:53] says, "A place in Paradise as small as the bow '''or lash''' of one of you is better than '''all the world''' and whatever is in it." So clearly the connection you made between the shape of a bow and the sun's orbit does not exist. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 16:26, 5 April 2014 (PDT)
::Saggy, I would also like to know how you made that deduction and add to this query. Recently you interpreted the Horseman thing and now this certain one as well. Its good that you're exploring new verses and hadiths but there is a problem in how you're interpreting text. If you dont understand a certain text, you can ask us on your talk or on the [[forum]] page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:34, 6 April 2014 (PDT)
::Suppose you wanted to say the same thing, no matter if it sounds good or mediocre: "A place as small as X is better than that on which Y happens." Of course "that" could refer to "place " better than to "X". But if X is not something typically ''small,'' what is the point in saying it? ''Bow'' must have the other meaning (which is backed up by that sun travelling-prostrating and permission verse) Come on, u could have said as small as... anything. Why bow? You can think of several adjectives on hearing the word bow, except "small." Whether this was narrated at war (single endeavor) or some other hadith sounds partly similar, does not matter. That could be a change of the simile made in the first place. Is a place anything like a bow? The sun rises and sets? Not at all. Only a person who thinks the sun runs on a semicircle over the other place(earth) would have said "bow." [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 10:53, 6 April 2014 (PDT)

:::'''"But if X is not something typically ''small,'' what is the point in saying it?"'''
:::A bow is small in comparison to the earth or in comparison to a lot of things.
:::'''"''Bow'' must have the other meaning"'''
:::You only assert that it must, but you haven't provided any convincing reasons why.
:::'''"Come on, u could have said as small as... anything. Why bow?"'''
:::Because they were warriors and Muhammad was describing where they would go when they die in battle. Is that really too much of a stretch? No, it makes perfect sense. In fact it's what most people would get from reading that verse. Your explanation just comes of as a stretch.
:::'''"You can think of several adjectives on hearing the word bow, except "small.""'''
:::Words such as "dying" and "in battle" spring to mind. And I don't agree with your "except small" comment. A bow is small in comparison to the world, so there is no valid reason why it could not be described as "small".
:::'''"Whether this was narrated at war (single endeavor) or some other hadith sounds partly similar, does not matter."'''
:::Of course it does. That is what we call "context". Context is what helps us understand the meanings behind text. It is what Muslim apologists usually ignore. And of course what "some other hadith sounds partly similar" says is important. It's important because it is describing the exact same event, but via a different narrator. Even the one hadith you are misinterpreting debunks your ideas when read fully (refer to my original post)'
:::'''"Is a place anything like a bow?"'''
:::The hadith does not claim any place is like a bow, it is referring to the size of the bow. You don't need that to be explained. It is written in plain English for everyone to see (i.e. "as ''small'' as a bow").
:::'''"Only a person who thinks the sun runs on a semicircle over the other place(earth) would have said "bow.""'''
:::You havn't shown that at all. Your reasoning is convoluted and ignores the obvious meaning. I would suggest sticking to hadiths that are clear errors rather than ones that need your interpretations. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 12:10, 6 April 2014 (PDT)
{{outdent|4}}
Saggy, so that we're clear this is the the hadith:
:Volume 4, Book 52, Number 51: Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "A place in Paradise as small as a bow is better than all that on which the sun rises and sets (i.e. all the world)." He also said, "A single endeavor in Allah's Cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all that on which the sun rises and sets."
Breaking it up, "X is better than Y".

X = "A place in Paradise as small as a bow." (a small sized object)

Y = "all that on which the sun rises and sets" (some kind of large space according to the Quran)

Your title was "Orbit of the Sun is comparable to a Bow". This is incorrect. The ''size'' of a bow is being compared to the size of the sun's place of rising and setting.

The hadith means "A tiny place in Islamic Heaven is better than a huge place which is not part of Heaven".

If you're talking about the arc of a bow (golden part [https://3dmagicmodels.com/wp-content/uploads/bow-and-arrow-3d-model1.jpg here] which is a semi circle) being compared to what an observer on Earth sees, this is not an error. We see that kind of semi-circle even today as we see the sun form an arc. A scientist can say "look how the Sun makes (or seems to make) a semi circle around the Earth". So these things can be explained. This is like the horseman hadith where there wasnt any interpretation like the one you were saying there was. As again if you come across a hadith and you're not sure of the meaning you can ask us. On the other hand, the hadith could be added to as supporting evidence ("the sun rises and sets"): [[Geocentrism_and_the_Quran#Muslims_around_the_time_of_Muhammad]] but I think its weak on its own on the Errors page: --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 12:46, 6 April 2014 (PDT)
:Sahab what do you think of the addition here? [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Geocentrism_and_the_Quran&diff=106736&oldid=103187] Since the hadith is saying the same thing about the sun. (sun rises and sets). If you dont agree its fine for it to be removed (its up to you). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 13:00, 6 April 2014 (PDT)
::Hi Ax. Yeah, I've removed it. Even with those surrounding hadith, this particular hadith is not making any reference whatsoever to the orbit of the sun. If I can see this and you can see this, then so can most other people. As you noted, the object being "compared" to the bow is something ''other'' than the sun itself. There is not "ifs" or "buts" about it. The second hadith down from that one confirms the meaning (which was obvious anyway.). It's like a Muslim saying a can of Pepsi is more refreshing than all that is inside a coffee cup, then us accusing him of saying a ceramic cup is more refreshing than a soft drink. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 13:20, 6 April 2014 (PDT)
:::Ok then, sounds good. Yea that analogy is similar. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 14:26, 6 April 2014 (PDT)

== Contradictions in the Qur'an and Hadith ==

Hi Saggy. I've deleted that page. A page like that is something that would interest "Quranists", not us. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 13:03, 10 April 2014 (PDT)
:I've moved the content to his personal sandbox for now: [[User:Saggy/Sandbox - Contradictions in the Qur'an and Hadith]]. I'll send an email about this. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:01, 10 April 2014 (PDT)
::We have an (old) article about the very same contradiction mentioned by Saggy ([[Muhammads Miracles|Muhammad's Miracles]]). If you read the section on Bukhari's criteria, you'll see that Muslims have contradictions between the Qur'an and Hadith covered. Thus it renders the article completely pointless. In fact, Muslims will probably think it's funny and talk about how we don't know anything about the "science of hadith". That's on top of the fact that such an article would only be used for Qur'anist propaganda. If the very idea is pointless, then I don't see any benefit from letting an editor waste their time working on it. That is why I deleted it rather than just leave it in a sandbox. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 15:39, 10 April 2014 (PDT)
:::I just dont have energy to debate about this at the moment so I deleted the Sandbox page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:36, 10 April 2014 (PDT)
::::What if I find more contradictions?[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:25, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
:::::Here I've made a page for you that gives you the freedom to do any kind of QHS work (since that is something you like doing). You can reorganize content there using section headings (logical error, hadith errors, contradictions, etc):
:::::[[User:Saggy/Sandbox - Issues with Quran and Hadith]] - use this for any new work or new ideas to keep it in the same place.
:::::Just keep in mind that we can have a democratic discussion together later on as to whether certain content will be approved or not for conversion from sandbox to main space. My view is that interesting QHS can be re-used in other places too in some way so if you have discovered verses or hadiths that are interesting, it is totally OK for them to go in a personal sandbox page of your own. Sandboxes are all excluded from Google search so no one can find them unless they come to recent changes/contributions and explore that way. Doing this does not harm the quality of the main content as sandbox content has to be carefully reviewed to make sure it complies with guidelines and the mission.
:::::You can keep adding content for existing pages as you are doing (Scientific errors in hadith, in the Quran, Contradictions in the Quran etc.) As before we will review those to see if they are ok as that is content in the main space.
:::::Doing a short reply for Sahab, if Quranists want to use content on our site for any purpose, its a good thing. It brings them to our site and they have effectively approved content on our site (I think its a plus for us). They're a minority so I would not worry about them. I can make many more points but my point is that all alternatives can be argued for equally. There are advantages and disadvantages for each alternative.
:::::''"you'll see that Muslims have contradictions between the Qur'an and Hadith covered."'' - those are only contradictions for miracles, not other topics. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:25, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

::::::To Saggy: My action was not based on the quality or length of the page (I was obviously aware that you would add to it). It was based on the fact that the actual idea behind the article was not suitable. Regardless, Axius has recreated the page so you can carry on working on it.

::::::To Axius: '''"those are only contradictions for miracles, not other topics"'''
::::::Did you read that section about Bukhari's criteria? Mat'n applies to ALL contradictions between the Qur'an and hadith.
::::::'''"if Quranists want to use content on our site for any purpose"'''
::::::Strawman. I never objected to them using this site. My point is that it ONLY benefits their propaganda, nothing else. If we allow something like this, why not also allow Atheistig to write an article about how unreliable the hadith are? [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 04:34, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
:::::::''"Let's go all the way and invalidate 95% of our material just to keep 1 editor happy."'' ---- :-) this is an imaginary situation that hasn't happened yet so lets not do that.
:::::::He knows its a Sandbox page that later may or may not be approved so whats the issue? I dont see any.
:::::::''"Mat'n applies to ALL contradictions between the Qur'an and hadith."'' - is Bukhari's criteria the golden absolute rule on deciding whats a contradiction? I would say no. To me a Sahih hadith is Sahih. I would say that Bukhari does not have the authority to invalidate the Hadiths of other Hadith collectors (like Muslim). Also if the criteria is to delete things that are in contradiction with each other, the Quran contradicts itself in various verses, so what does one do about that? To most people they are all valid Islamic sources (especially Sahih hadiths). All these points can be mentioned on a page about Quran/hadith contradictions. All of these things seen together expose more serious problems with Islam and create challenges for people reading them.
:::::::''"My point is that it ONLY benefits their propaganda"'' - Again they are a minority. The other side effect is letting the rest of the Muslims know that these contradictions exist. Most Muslims view hadiths as holy. I would say that they would have to deal with the contradiction when they see it and it creates a challenge for them.
::::::: My main point here again is that cases can be argued against equally. Its a Sandbox page and people have the right to work on a Sandbox which later may or may not be approved (as long its not an obvious content violation). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 05:13, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::::::::You have not dealt with anything I've actually said, so no they can't be argued against equally. I've mentioned several times why I deleted that page from the sandbox but you continue acting like I never explained. Your opinion on Bukhari's criteria is irrelevant. Mat'n is a well known thing. Hence, contradictions between the Qur'an and certain hadith will not effect mainstream Islam in the slightest. And wth, you're telling editors to stay away from me now? The discussion we're having now isn't even on my talk page, so maybe you should have considered a more appropriate time or place to mention this or considered how it would look to others? [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 05:09, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::Although you're right my comment could have been made at a better time (so ok, I apologize again for making it at the wrong time), I never asked anyone to stay away from you when I made the [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saggy&diff=106872&oldid=106871 comment]. You had removed some comments from your own talk page earlier if you recall [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sahab&diff=106769&oldid=106768] so I was stressing the point that others should use the forum page for general issues and not someone's talk page.
::::::::::I'm asking everyone to follow talk page guidelines and core [[WikiIslam:Core_Principles|community principles]] and assume good faith. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 12:12, 13 April 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::"Matn"'s definition on Wikipedia doesnt mention Bukhari or the contradiction issue, why is that? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_studies#Sanad_and_matn]. "text of the report" =matn is what I'm seeing, not a contradiction with the Quran issue. Are there are sources to support what Matn means? As I mentioned, the issue of deletion arises at the point of review when something is being considered for main space but not before that when it is in a temporary condition (in the Sandbox). Saggy knows it may or may not be approved. As for whether you're right or I'm right, I've shown that points can be made on both sides. Lets do that full debate when the time comes for a review of that piece. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 05:23, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::To hightlight it again our page [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muhammads_Miracles] that you pointed to in the begining and you refered to it again, claims ''"His third criteria is mat'n, i.e. the content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an."'', but there's no reference for that. According to other sources Matn means "text of the hadith", not "must not be in contradiction with the Quran". Bukhari's criteria of this contradiction cannot apply to other Hadith scholars (it is his own personal opinion). And even if we were to assume such a criteria, we are faced by the question: Is a Sahih hadith being declared invalid simply because of the contradiction? Why was it considered in the first place if it was actually invalid? The hadith was considered authentic because the events narrated actually happened.
::::::::::In any case a sourced definition of Matn would be one point. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 05:36, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
{{outdent}}
Visiting this again and stressing this point:
:''Mat'n applies to ALL contradictions between the Qur'an and hadith.''
This is not correct as Mat'n means "the text of the hadith" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_studies#Sanad_and_matn] and has nothing to do with "Contradictions between Quran and Hadith". The source article [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muhammads_Miracles#Bukhari.27s_criteria] you linked for Miracles should have the definition of Matn sourced correctly. I believe this is a page that an author made with the username starting with J (forgot the full name). So this line:
:''His third criteria is mat'n, i.e. the content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an.''
is incorrectly implying that Matn = the content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 10:57, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::Clarified [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muhammads_Miracles#Bukhari.27s_criteria] and changed from:
:::His third criteria is ''mat'n'', i.e. the content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an.
::To:
:::His third criteria is regarding ''mat'n'' (text), i.e. the text/content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an.
::So its clear that Matn means just "text" and not "no contradiction between Quran and hadith". --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:57, 12 April 2014 (PDT)
:::Pointing out contradictions between Quran and hadith is a criticism of Islam. Our site's mission is criticism of Islam (or to provide "an accurate and comprehensive resource on Islam" as currently mentioned in the [[WikiIslam:Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_is_the_purpose_of_WikiIslam.3F|FAQ]], which is even more inclusive), not whether certain criticism is seen as favorable to certain minority sects of Islam like Quran-only.
:::And as I mentioned (sorry if I'm repeating some points), this certain criticism is not seen as favorable to the majority of Muslims who do believe in the hadith. The Matn contradiction issue is Bukhari's opinion and cannot invalidate all problematic hadiths, (definitely not other hadiths like Muslim and neither his own) just because he said so. In short again that means we should not be excluding criticism of Islam because it is favoring a minority sect. And again, we will have a full picture of the situation when there is an actual article to review which there is none at this time. Its just text in a Sandbox. In an article like this Quran/hadith contradiction issue, we definitely want to point out clearly that people can not simply reject Sahih hadiths for whatever reason. There was a reason they were considered Sahih. Sometimes a certain issue is covered in multiple Hadiths which adds to the strength of what the Hadith is saying. If there are multiple Hadith collectors (Muslim and Bukhari for example) that is even more evidence that a Hadith's content actually happened and it is difficult to reject that hadith. So we should wait to see what an article looks like in the end to give a full opinion. The other issue again is, if Contradiction is the reason to reject a hadith, Quranic verses which contradict each other also have a problem. As for Atheistig's article, I dont know what that situation was and perhaps we missed a chance on making a valid article but I dont know enough details. Having an article that mentions Quran/hadith contradictions provides motivation for further strengthening the position that it is not possible to reject hadiths and definitely not Sahih hadiths, so it provides motivation for further improving the "Quran only - Why it is not possible" article or any other content like that. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:21, 12 April 2014 (PDT)
::::Saggy, whats your opinion about the fact that some Muslims may try to reject that contradict the Quran? We need to make sure that your hadith/Quran article also explains (using references) why it is not possible to reject Sahih hadiths that contradict the Quran. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:32, 12 April 2014 (PDT)

== 1000 years ==

Please note [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Contradictions_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=106878&oldid=106876] and see the edit summary. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 05:42, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
:But the verses are clear. 1 day = 1000 years or 1 day=50000 yrs. Human days are not mentioned. Have you read the speed of light hoax?[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 05:51, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

{{Quote||How long is Allah's day?

One thousand days
Yet they ask thee to hasten on the Punishment! But Allah will not fail in His Promise.
Verily a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning.
Qur'an 22:47

Fifty thousand days
The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty
thousand years:
}}

"Verily a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning"

It means one day for '''ALLAH''', is the same as 1000 years for '''HUMANS'''.

See that? "'''Your''' reckoning" = human's perspective. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 06:03, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
:U quote years and still insist on days? Reckoning means our "count" not days or years. Everywhere online the meaning is 1000/50000 years not days. Of course it is same perspective for everyone. Time flows the same for all ( we or anyone outside the solarsystem). The measurement and units differ. (This also debunks the Einsteins theory of relativity miracle claim for the above verses). A day for us is 24 hours. Nobody can change this. Day is defined by a planets rotation! His day is nothing to do with our 24 hrs in anyway! Why do i even need to say this when the equation is about years? Let me show one more : "He regulates the affair from the heaven to the earth; then shall it ascend to Him in a day the measure of which is a thousand years of what you count" 32:5. Clear length of a day is given. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 11:39, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::Well I'm sorry, you were right from the start - my mistake. I got confused somehow and didnt read the hadith carefully enough. It should have been easy to spot that but I missed it somehow (I probably was in a hurry at that time). It is indeed a 1000 years. I reverted it back now. [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Contradictions_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=106876&oldid=106861].
::Good catch on seeing this error and fixing it. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:02, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
:::''"Have you read the speed of light hoax"'' - I've heard of the speed of might miracle but know nothing more than that. There is an article here about that: [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Speed_of_Light_in_the_Quran]. Is this what you were thinking of? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:03, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::::Yeah, that miracle itself is based on a day=1000 years and many more reasons to be a hoax. I will laugh hours long if I read it again. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 02:29, 12 April 2014 (PDT)

== Rain/miraculous ==

This is another of those weaker errors [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#Rain_has_Miraculous_Effects].
: Remember He covered you with a sort of drowsiness, to give you calm as from Himself, and he caused rain to descend on you from heaven, to clean you therewith, to remove from you the stain of Satan, to strengthen your hearts, and to plant your feet firmly therewith.

What if the apologetic response is: "The rain was a special rain for the prophet, it was not ordinary rain. It was a miraculous rain." - its talking about the rain for the prophet right? Its a specific example. These kinds of errors should not be mixed with stronger errors. Something will have to be done about these kinds of errors. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:55, 17 April 2014 (PDT)
:"your hearts". Thus it is not for one person but plural. The earlier verses are not clear on who the audience is(a common goof). If there is a claim of a miracle with tafsirs or stuff to back up (Ibn kathir and Ibn abbas have nothing to say), we can post it under miracles. one site said there are two battles in the single verse (Uhud and Badr) but it is not entirely true to them. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 23:47, 17 April 2014 (PDT)
::Strong errors are long since covered so we have only these. We can rearange them within their section as I think i said. Another site "islamfrominside.com" says everything is about Badr but Wikipedia does not say so. Apologists have four effects of rain to explain infact. The last "feet" one differs in translations. Anyway, The whole miracle about Badr is wrong. The error began with "Allah caused the rain" itself. He cannot cause it, it just happens. If he caused it, what was he doing in much bigger battles in future? Testing believers? How long will he do this? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 00:05, 18 April 2014 (PDT)
:::Although you do great finding interesting verses/hadiths I have to say this:
:::''"Strong errors are long since covered so we have only these."'' - then I would rather not weaken the article with less stronger verses. The problem is when people post the article somewhere and someone points out the excuses like I showed, its discouraging for the person who posts the link. Then they have to work through the rebuttal and point out things like you did - many people are not as committed or may not know what to say. If the errors are strong they cannot be refuted in any way and it makes it easy for the other person who posts our link. This page is one of our most popular pages and its critical for it to be a good page. In fact, you see the under construction template at the top. The article needs to be reviewed and fixed so we can get rid of the template.
:::''We can rearange them within their section as I think i said.'' - sorry I forgot about what you said earlier. So what did you say, how should it be arranged? Lets see how we can do this and keep the stronger errors in one place and the weaker ones in some kind of "misc" section. Should each section have its own Miscellaneous section, or do we collect all of them at the bottom in one section? I'm thinking about the latter.
:::I made a link on your user page: [[User:Saggy]].
:::One of the most critical goals we have to take care of is to increase the quantity of good-quality editors. If you have any suggestions let me know. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:16, 18 April 2014 (PDT)
::::I donn't believe in strong or weak in case of refutation. If an error is refuted its not an error till we explain how we are correct. I will try to sort the sections on sc errors.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 07:42, 22 April 2014 (PDT)
:::::For some errors its hard to find any justification while others can have some. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:31, 22 April 2014 (PDT)

== Moon split (wikipedia) ==

That article is a joke now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_of_the_moon

Look at this talk page discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Splitting_of_the_moon#Good_article_nomination_on_hold
They were trying to make it into a good article a long time ago. Now the lead has this:
:In 2010 a NASA Lunar Science Institute (NLSI) staff scientist said "No current scientific evidence reports that the Moon was split into two (or more) parts and then reassembled at any point in the past."[7]

And the "NASA" section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_of_the_moon#NASA_mis-cited_as_proof

I bet now they would like to go the opposite direction and make sure no one sees that article. Anyway, I think its taken care of (for now). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 21:05, 20 May 2014 (PDT)

==Quran/evolution==
The new sandbox article you made on evolution is good. Here's a QHS page on it: [[Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Creation]] and this is a pro-Islamic page: [[Qur'an and the Theory of Evolution]].

If you're just gathering verses, you can add them to the existing QHS page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 21:02, 20 May 2014 (PDT)
:No this is about the apology claim on evolution. so i have to write that. I dont think a QHS can cover that thing.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 07:14, 22 May 2014 (PDT)
::Ok. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 13:32, 22 May 2014 (PDT)

== Scientific Errors #2 ==

I have asked you not to add any verses to the Scientific errors page and for now only add them to your sandbox page. The article is currently under review and new stuff should not be added there while it is under review. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:01, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

== Moon Position ==

Once again the addition you added [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&curid=9078&diff=107595&oldid=107587] is not an error in my opinion. Its just describing what things look like to humans (aesthetically). The verse literally does not mean "the moon is placed between the seven layers". It is talking about what it looks like to humans.

The seven layers is an error, that we know (and that error is present on the page I think) but the "moon is among them" just means what it appears to people on Earth. Lightyears if you see this, any thoughts on this addition? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:06, 23 May 2014 (PDT)
:No, it does not mean what the moon appears from earth. It directly places the moon somewhere. Moon and its reflected light is insignificant in the first heaven itself, let alone seven heavens. If it is about the how the moon "appears", why is appears not mentioned? How about this "The whole book appears like a war manual, a book full of hate for kafirs. but it only appears, it is not true and it was only about a 7th century power struggle. Muhammad only appears like a criminal from all the content but this is not true and all he did was right for his situation" ? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 23:45, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

:This is not a demonstrable error. Fee simply means in and feeinna means in that. In the constellations verse (25.61), it indicates that the stars are also said to be in (fee) the heavens and the sun and moon in it (feeha). Muslims will generally assume that the stars, sun and moon are in the nearest one, where other verses specify that the stars are. They believe the entirety of the visible universe is in this nearest heaven, and the other heavens are in some physical or metaphysical sense beyond it. No verse can disprove this. The only heaven ever explained is the lowest heaven.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 02:07, 24 May 2014 (PDT)
::Sorry, it can be disproven. 54:11 "Then opened We the gates of heaven with pouring water".[http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/054-qmt.php](the word is sama) Does this rainwater come from the universe? seven heaven = seven layers of atmosphere is wrong (because of the stars verse) and seven heavens = seven universes that we are yet to explore is wrong also beacause of this rain verse. The winged horse that goes to all seven heavens is another example of how awfully wrong things are. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 04:03, 24 May 2014 (PDT)
:::As if this is not enough, read [http://download.iranville.com/books/%DA%A9%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%A8%E2%80%8C%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C%20%D8%A7%D9%86%DA%AF%D9%84%DB%8C%D8%B3%DB%8C/Ali%20Sina%20-%20Understanding%20Muhammad.pdf here] p. 111 Last but one paragraph about stars. More proof that we are becoming appeasers.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 04:27, 24 May 2014 (PDT)
::::Saggy, the issue is the word "therein" (The Position of the Moon). As Lightyears said "This is not a demonstrable error."
::::You have been addressed by 3 people (me, Sahab and Lightyears) about the issues in your additions and you're still unwilling to understand what we're saying. As again you can do what you want in your sandbox.
::::''"More proof that we are becoming appeasers"'' - no this is not true. We are preventing the site from being mocked. I dont have to remind you of all the times the issues have been pointed out to you.
::::How much Arabic do you know? Are you looking at Lexicons like Lightyears is? I looked at the PDF and didnt see anything about this specific verse on p. 111 (of the PDF or as marked in the book).
::::''"It directly places the moon somewhere."'' - it does not. It simply says "among them". The placement described in Quran is vague. The position of the moon is being described as "therein / in their midst". --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:44, 24 May 2014 (PDT)
:::::And I see the paragraph on pg 111 of that book now (begins with "The Egyptian Muslim scholar..."). The original source if found, can be added to a relevant QHS about Astrology but the topic under discussion that I opened here is the Moon position and the use of the word Therein and again with regards to that, Lightyears agreed with me and said it is not an error and he used his knowledge of Arabic ("Fee simply means in and feeinna means in that"). The Science/Quran errors page is critical and needs urgent attention to delete any more non-errors. They should be moved to a Sandbox so they are not lost. I will try to see what can be done about that. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 09:21, 24 May 2014 (PDT)

== Forbidden things ==

Google search for [https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=islam%20forbidden%20things&safe=off islam forbidden things] can also help. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:01, 5 June 2014 (PDT)
:From the silliness page, [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Islamic_Silliness#Wicked_wigs], Wigs, One-shoe walks outlawed, Say no to green jars and white jars, Sinning with silverware, Allah likes sneezing but hates yawning, Fight polytheists by trimming moustache, Pus better than poetry, Allah curses tatooed women, Looking up during prayer may cause blindness.
:Blackgammon [http://www.muslimconverts.com/Munajjid-books/forbiden.htm#67], "Playing with dice"--[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:39, 11 July 2014 (PDT)
:: Search link for [http://sunnah.com/search/forbade "forbade"]. 1150 results. Other searches could be for words "haram", "outlawed", prohibited, "do not", "disallowed" etc--[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 20:01, 11 July 2014 (PDT)

== Scientific errors - response blog ==

Here's a blog that has some "refutations" of a small amount of errors. [http://quran-errors.blogspot.com/] These should be checked and used to further strengthen [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an our page] (without needing to specifically mention this blog). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:17, 14 June 2014 (PDT)

:*'''Universe contracting/Heaven is from Smoke:''' Why talk about galaxys and gas clouds? The verse says earth and heaven were coming together (and talking to Allah). Earth is as old as Galaxies? Nope.
:*'''Mountains:''' i think [http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Quran_and_Mountains this] is sufficient. They dont stabilize so they are not pegs.
:*'''Universe was made in 6 days:''' It was not made in 6 periods. There are no 6 periods. The best that guy could do was reject the backup hadith of Sahih Muslim.
:*'''Seven Planets''': rejecting a tafsir that does not support them. The seven planets have names, will add them soon.
:*'''Thunder is an Angel:''' Again rejecting a tafsir. I have added a similar hadith.
:*'''Moonlight:''' Nur never means reflected light. Poor guy wasted so much time. Ibn Kathir is also wrong (that moon light is different from the sun's).
:*Rest we have already covered: embryology, geocentric, flat earth.
:*'''Sun sets in a Muddy spring:''' We covered the word meanings. No use of the apologists dictionary, he cherrypicked meanings. Two or three scholars he quoted are utterly flimsy who make more errors defending one. Rest of scholars are tolerable, but still wrong as we have proven in the word analysis. The last part reminds me, do we have articles on hadith authenticity other than the list of fake hadiths?
:I will see how to add all the above, or it could be there already.
:[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 13:43, 14 June 2014 (PDT)
::Yes, best to somehow improve the existing information on our side (if needed) or add additional supporting evidence where possible. A small "Responses to Apologetics" section can made for each error below the verse.
::Yes I saw that the blog has rejected the Tafsir. When all else fails they resort to "The Tafsir/hadith is weak". I'm sure every single hadith can be considered weak if all the chain of narrators are examined. They just do the analysis for the hadiths they dont like. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 19:04, 14 June 2014 (PDT)
:::I'll try to work on this too. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:19, 15 June 2014 (PDT)
::::A responses section below every verse? It will look like a train wreck. Better say in the lead that there are responses and detailed analysis in the main articles of verses.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 10:56, 15 June 2014 (PDT)
::::Which are the other top 10 articles?[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 10:57, 15 June 2014 (PDT)
:::::You have a gmail account? I can add you to the statistics view and you can see the top 10.
:::::Many errors dont have a dedicated page. "Responses to apolgetics/Notes" - basically a few lines to repel criticism. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 13:39, 15 June 2014 (PDT)
::::::I go one by one; we have [[Qur'an and a Universe from Smoke]] for the first claim. i think it should be linked and then expanded, but iam not yet sure how to expand.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 09:15, 17 June 2014 (PDT)
:::::::I dont either. There are many good existing articles written on various other websites, try searching. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:37, 17 June 2014 (PDT)
::::::::By the way that blog link now has some kind of notice saying that the author is going to stop writing responses for now and write better responses later on. He says (the username is ' .. guy', so) that some of our error sections that he addressed were removed or edited in reaction to his content and I dont think thats true. If he's watching he's most welcome to create a user account and join this discussion.
::::::::As for revisions/deletions/additions, we have always improved our work and that's a good thing for any kind of work.
::::::::He also implies that we inserted the "under construction" notice recently or in reaction to his blog's content but we did it in [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=103064&oldid=103063 January] (6 months ago) before this blog was noticed and I think it has been on that page before as well. I doubt he'll make these corrections as he probably wants his readers to believe what he originally said (that makes his blog look better).
::::::::Here's another 'rebuttal' link [http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/faithfreedom-wikiislam] on another site/forum.
::::::::You can see why its critical to have this page in the best shape possible. In my opinion none of these rebuttals have really addressed the errors but they may still have content that can be used to improve our page(s). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:49, 29 June 2014 (PDT)

Hey Guys,

I think you have completely misunderstood my recent blog post regarding halting replies to articles written on this site. I will reply to some of the points made:

:"By the way that blog link now has some kind of notice saying that the author is going to stop writing responses for now and write better responses later on. He says (the username is ' .. guy', so) that some of our error sections that he addressed were removed or edited in reaction to his content and I dont think thats true. If he's watching he's most welcome to create a user account and join this discussion."

Over-time you have removed, rewritten alot of the page. Removing many sections that I wrote responses to. Im not claiming this is due to my work solely - I think it is more in relation to you guys realising how weak and lack luster many of the points were on that article.

:"By the way that blog link now has some kind of notice saying that the author is going to stop writing responses for now and write better responses later on. He says (the username is ' .. guy', so) that some of our error sections that he addressed were removed or edited in reaction to his content and I dont think thats true. If he's watching he's most welcome to create a user account and join this discussion."

Im really unsure where I implied this? After recieving traffic from this page. I realised your discussion regarding the blog. So I checked out the page and found it to have this editing title and noticed large changes to the page. Hence I paid a post detailing I wont be analysing the work until it is 100% finished.

Hope this clears up any misunderstanding guys.

Also forgive me. I dont know how to correctly post on this site. Feel free to clean it up if you guys can.

--[[User:ThatMuslimGuy|ThatMuslimGuy]] ([[User talk:ThatMuslimGuy|talk]]) 15:20, 1 July 2014 (PDT)
::Hi, welcome. You can use colons to indent lines. Indeed over time we have revised (that includes revision/removal/addition) this page a lot to improve it. Its an important page and its a work in progress like everything else on the site. Which sections were removed or edited that had been responded to on your blog?
:::''I think it is more in relation to you guys realising how weak and lack luster many of the points were on that article.''
::Again its a work in progress like any other page and we try to make all the content stronger with time and the reason for that revision can be scrutiny/afterthought that we have ourselves or that closer look may come from outside. Some errors are more obvious than others (this is expected). This dialogue can help us strengthen our page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 18:12, 1 July 2014 (PDT)

:::: No this is good. And I commend you for going through the articles and rewriting them.-- [[User:ThatMuslimGuy|ThatMuslimGuy]] ([[User talk:ThatMuslimGuy|talk]]) 18:42, 1 July 2014 (PDT)
:::::Ok and we look forward to seeing your new revised materials as well.
:::::Have you thought of contacting other Islamic rebuttal websites and starting an apologetics wiki to coordinate the rebuttals? I say this because from my perspective ultimately such an initiative will help our site (in the long run) and for your perspective this is something you would probably want.
:::::Originally I had the idea of having apologetics on our site (for example this article [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an_(Response)] which is linked at the bottom of the main Errors page) but that idea didnt take off fully and now I think its better to have those things off-site so the apologetics can manage their material any way they want and we can still exchange links. You probably need a good domain name first. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 01:35, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
::::::Who is on whose side? Lol. It begins with the lies that we made drastic changes in the scientific errors article and put the review notice because of that blog. Barely one or two sentences we added because of it. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 12:10, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
:::::::Competition doesnt scare me and it will motivate people on our side to do even better. We have it very easy already and we dont have the burden of defending Islam.
:::::::But indeed the blog's claims are misleading and they do suggest as I mentioned to ThatMuslimGuy before that they are written to make the reader believe we changed/removed stuff in reaction to the blog which is not true. In any case one of the claim made is:
::::::::"I recently noticed that WikiIslam has updated there "Scientific Errors Page" with the following:"
:::::::As mentioned we had that notice since a long time and he would have noticed that template even before because he has been writing some rebuttals since a long time (I believe some of his rebuttals are dated a while back). He only created that notice after I mentioned the blog link to you.
:::::::The other claim made on the blog is:
::::::::"So far they have removed various areas - some of which I addressed."
:::::::I have asked him twice to tell us what areas we removed or edited and he hasn't responded and until he does that and is specific about which areas/sections/errors he's talking about he cannot make the claim that the areas, some of which he addressed were removed or edited.
:::::::So ThatMuslimGuy, can you support your claim by telling us which sections that you addressed on your blog were removed? Here's a link to the [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&offset=&limit=250&action=history page history.] You can use the Diff links to go back in time to show you older versions of the page. You can give us Diff links and tell us which sections you're talking about. Here's one example of a Diff link. [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=107485&oldid=107473 Diff] link or you can just copy paste the URL(s) here. [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Adverse_Effects_of_Islamic_Fasting Happy Ramadan.] (a favorite article of mine) --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:18, 2 July 2014 (PDT)

::::::::: Hey guys, In the past yeah we have thought about doing that. Saggy - Removing multiple points on the site, rewriting sections, adding additions etc - I would say is big change to the article, In my post no where have I asserted you changed the article because of me or anything alike. I simply detailed that I recently checked out the page and that you had added that on the top of the page and removed some points, some of which I had written about, hence rendering those posts on my blog now void.

:::::::::I think you seriously reading to much into the post. I simply realised you were editing the page. Hence I thought id give you guys time to rewrite it - add additions etc- then later address it. Instead of addressing things which may be changed or removed later.

:::::::::You removed - Night Time Cold is Caused by the Moon [http://quran-errors.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/re-quran-scientific-error-night-time.html]] [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&oldid=90145#Night_time_cold_is_caused_by_the_Moon]

:::::::::You removed - the Universe contracting according to the Quran [http://quran-errors.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/is-universe-contracting-according-to.html] [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&oldid=90145#The_Universe_is_contracting]

:::::::::You reworded this - How Many Planets are in the solar system according to the Quran? [http://quran-errors.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/re-wikiislam-quran-scientific-error-how.html] [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&oldid=90145#How_many_planets_in_the_solar_system_according_to_the_Quran.3F] to Seven Planets in the Universe.

:::::::::etc

:::::::::Im never claiming you removed them because of my blog. Im simply stating you removed them - some of which I wrote articles on - hence rendering them void.
:::::::::--[[User:ThatMuslimGuy|ThatMuslimGuy]] ([[User talk:ThatMuslimGuy|talk]]) 18:36, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::''" In the past yeah we have thought about doing that. "'' - I say make it happen. Have you thought of a domain name?
::::::::::Alright thats what I was looking for, the blog post links and the diffs - thanks much. We'll look into them. Are there any more? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 19:23, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::::: I dont think so. I think the others wordings have just changed. People discussed it before: [http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,1024.msg4792.html#msg4792] But the idea died. --[[User:ThatMuslimGuy|ThatMuslimGuy]] ([[User talk:ThatMuslimGuy|talk]]) 19:42, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::::::I'm thinking at least some of the ones that were removed were added by Saggy (he has been asked by people not to add any errors that arent obvious, hence I made this set of [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Talk:Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#.5BSticky.5D_Instructions_for_editing_this_page guidelines] on the talk page). But thats ok, all editors make mistakes (including myself) or may have different perspectives. He's done some good work in finding hadiths and verses and he's passionate and interested about the topic. He made this page on the [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Hadith Scientific errors in Hadiths] (a sample error: [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Hadith#Black_cumin_cures_all_diseases "black cumin cures everything"]), and some other pages.
:::::::::::::You should follow up with the idea you were discussing with your friends. Sounds like some progress was being made. Take control of it, get advice and give it your best shot. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 20:01, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::::::Why dont you try to rebutt some of the more obvious errors such as [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#Stars_are_Located_in_the_Nearest_Heaven Stars are Located in the Nearest Heaven], [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#Earth_Created_before_Stars Earth Created before Stars], [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#Humans_Created_in_Paradise_and_then_Brought_to_Earth Humans Created in Paradise and then Brought to Earth] which is explored in detail at: [[Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Creation]] <---- This is a huge glaring Scientific error (evolution). etc. So start with the most difficult errors if you really believe Quran has no errors. Saying they're figures of speech is not a defense.
::::::::::::::We'll look at the ones you pointed out and I can assure you they were not removed in reaction to your blog but as we were reviewing them ourselves. There are some others that were removed/revised which are not on your blog. We have done such revisions all the time and not just recently. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:05, 3 July 2014 (PDT)

:::::::::::::::: Will do - Some of those are the most weakest ones. --[[User:ThatMuslimGuy|ThatMuslimGuy]] ([[User talk:ThatMuslimGuy|talk]]) 03:46, 3 July 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::::::::::I doubt the most obvious errors will ever be responded to (remember to deal with Creationism and Evolution as you know that is a major issue for science) and after that there will be a vast amount of [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Site_Map other content] to deal with. Good luck. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:05, 3 July 2014 (PDT)

== Reviews ==

I have to tell you that currently I do not have the time to review your additions. So if they're significant, please add them to your Sandbox pages so they can be reviewed at the same time later on. You can continue doing minor additions where a review doesn't take a long time. If its anything I have to analyze it has to go in the sandbox page. Sorry about that but I just do not currently have the time to review these things one at a time and check if they are accurate or if they have any problems.

Just create as many Sandbox pages as you like so you can organize all your additions. Add notes there where they should be added on the target page etc. Here's [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Science_and_the_Seven_Earths&diff=107921&oldid=103980 one] that you just added. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 19:54, 22 June 2014 (PDT)
::When will you get time? Besides you spent at least 10 minutes yesterday. How long does it take to review that an apologist is contradicting the quran itself (this is not even like my error claims)? If I gather all errors in my sandbox, one day you will have to spend an a lot more time than you get per day right now. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 11:23, 23 June 2014 (PDT)
:::Forgot to reply. At least for me its easier and more efficient mentally to deal with multiple similar issues at the same time instead of one at a time with long breaks in between them. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 09:51, 2 July 2014 (PDT)

== 72 Virgins ==

I'm still trying to figure out what the point of [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=72_Virgins&diff=prev&oldid=109201 this] edit was, and how it was supposed to be connected to [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Talk:72_Jungfrauen this] rant by a fly-by anonymous German. The German guy is only complaining about how he thinks the German ''language'' in that section is linguistically incorrect. In that case, the German translator should probably be asked to comment or the talk page should be deleted (if they have no intention of fixing the alleged problem, then their complaint is nothing more than a rant). Instead you make some linguistically incorrect additions of your own to the English version and claim "I corrected the English side"? Really? The point of that western dhimmi author is that the Bible does not claim that after death Christians will be issued with wings and a harp, and walk on clouds, just like how she wants us to believe the Qur'an does not claim that after death Muslims will be issued with virgins. Our point is her analogy is faulty because the Qur'an ''does'' state that after death Muslims will be issued with virgins. Since Revelation 14:2 does not state anywhere that Christians will be issued with wings and a harp, and walk on clouds, the addition was pointless and is counter-productive to the purpose of the article. The probable origin of ideas is irrelevant information and only serves to water-down and confuse the articulated and concise approach of the article. Your other edit to [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Revelational_Circumstances_of_the_Qur%27an%3A_Missing_Verses&diff=109206&oldid=109200 Revelational Circumstances of the Qur'an] was also faulty, in that Tabari is not a part of "the major Hadith collections" (all other sources such as tafsirs etc., were purposely excluded by Sani because they are not as authoritative as the major Hadith collections and tend to contain apologetic opinions). The fact that this series only quotes major Hadith collections is stated quite clearly on its main page, but you seem to be making additions without fully understanding why or what you are editing. Please can you explain your edits or at least try to be more careful in the future. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 02:27, 11 August 2014 (PDT)
:The woman overlooked that Quran makes the claim but Bible does not. The image of a heavener with a harp is at best a pop culture thing derived from that verse. The sentence is still too weird. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 06:48, 11 August 2014 (PDT)
::She did not overlook it. That was exactly her point. She is claiming Muslims view the idea of virgins in heaven much the same as Christians view wings and a harp i.e. it's a made-up thing that no practising Christian actually believes. Okay, so you think that sentence is "weird", but that does not explain why you think adding pointless trivia to the page is "fixing it", nor does it explain why you think your edit made it less "weird" (if it wasn't linguistically weird to begin with, it certainly was afterwards). We are not contesting her claim that the wings and harp thing is a myth because she is right, so there is nothing more needed to be said about that. What we are doing is pointing out ''how'' she is wrong.[[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 07:22, 11 August 2014 (PDT)

== QHS edits ==

Your edit here [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Animals&diff=prev&oldid=109252]. This is Ritual slaughter. It applies to all Abrahamic religions. I agree killing an animal with a knife like this is painful for the animal but the animal's meat is consumed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice#Abrahamic_traditions.

So tell me why those hadiths should stay here and how they fit with the other content of the page.

For the 2nd edit, [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Cosmology&diff=109253&oldid=109212]

This belongs in Creationism more than it does in Cosmology. Is there anything specific about cosmology mentioned in that quote? Plus this quote has round brackets '(' and you've used double triangular brackets '<'.

So can you explain? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 22:01, 14 August 2014 (PDT)
::He did it in large numbers. Thats all I want to show, whether it is for food or fun. There is also some kindness to a animals hadith that does not fit in.
::Some uterus is attached to that throne. It will react on Judgement Day and so on. Often this cosmology and creation are seen to have some things overlaping like creation of throne, sun, moon stars and heavens, (but not creation of Adam ). So you want it in creation? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 23:32, 14 August 2014 (PDT)
:::You are the boss. I am a nobody. So I will edit my sandbox. What am I going to do with a sandbox out of this site? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:26, 15 August 2014 (PDT)
::::I will also post it to the tasks. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:37, 15 August 2014 (PDT)

::::: The site's quality is the first priority and must be preserved (so it doesn't matter who the boss is - we are all bosses and it depends whose arguments makes sense). I am a nobody too just like you and I will consult with Sahab to decide on this. Looking at it rationally, the problem is that I don't have time to review a regular editor's edits every time and many of yours edits need to be seriously corrected and require a lot of time for correction. If all of someone's edits require serious evaluation it wouldnt be a problem unless there was someone willing to evaluate the edits who had the time to do it.
:::::''"He did it in large numbers."'' - what large numbers? The hadith only say "many camels". Many camels could be 6, 10, 15, 30 -- we dont know. So what do you mean by large numbers and how do you prove it? If there were a large number of people to feed, 20 camels could be slaughtered and that would be considered "many" or "large numbers".
:::::No as I said, the Tafsir quote has nothing specific to do with Cosmology; nothing about Stars, skies, universe etc. It leaves one wondering what it has to do with cosmology. ''"Often this cosmology and creation are seen to have some things"'' - this is your interpretation. If creationism is linked we can then copy all the Creation hadiths into Cosmology which doesnt make any sense. I will wait for Sahab's input before commenting further. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:51, 15 August 2014 (PDT)
::::::I know what he's likely to say. So I think you should add it to creation and forget the first one. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 06:34, 15 August 2014 (PDT)
:::::::I think the edit Saggy made to [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Animals&diff=prev&oldid=109252#Sacrifices Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Animals] is a very good addition to the page. Ritual slaughter is described in all Abrahamic texts, but there are several differences here in comparison to the other two big faiths:

:::::::1. Concerning Christians, they do not perform ritual slaughter, nor did Jesus ever perform a ritual slaughter.
:::::::2. Concerning Jews, yes they do perform ritual slaughter, but they do not go around telling people that Moses loved animals and that he is an excellent role-model for today's socially conscientious youth.
:::::::3. On the other hand, a lot of apologists do try to convert young people to Islam by trying to sell the idea that Muhammad was a progressive man who loved animals.

:::::::So, considering the above, it is very relevant in the QHS:Animals page to quote proof that Muhammad not only ordered the ritual slaughter of animals, but also partook in it himself.

:::::::I also agree with Saggy that the "kindness to animals" hadith do not fit in with that page. I certainly did not add them and I do not think they should remain. A section like that does not belong on a wiki critical of Islam. If it was added with the intention of making the wiki appear more "neutral" then I can safely say that it will ''never'' convince anyone that the wiki is neutral, but it does make the page look odd and will probably confuse people.

:::::::I think the edit Saggy made to [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Cosmology&diff=109253&oldid=109212 Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Cosmology] does not belong in the Creation page (it is too vague for that and the Creation page is very specific), but it can be squeezed in with cosmology because it describes Allah's "Throne" etc. In all honesty though, I would just remove that last edit by Saggy and move it to a temp page until somewhere more suited is found (I don't think it really talks about cosmology or creation in a very coherent way). Or at the very least, keep it on the cosmology page but trim it down to only include the relevant information (e.g., as Saggy noted, "Some uterus is attached to that throne. It will react on Judgement Day and so on.").

:::::::About the triangular brackets; I'm guessing they are there because Saggy copy/pasted text from Answering Islam. This is a concern to me. The last time we had an editor who got carried away with copy/pasting stuff from there, things didn't turn out so well (It was this by OsmanHassan that left us with those Errors pages in such a mess). If you are not going to bother removing the emphasis added by the Answering Islam team (such as brackets, underlining and caps) you really should not be using them.

:::::::Another concern is the fact that the tafsir is not being cited properly. ''Ibn Kathir, "Interpretation of Qur'an 47:22"'' is not a reference. If an online version of Tafsir Ibn Kathir is going to quoted, then it should be cited more like [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Creation#Ibn_Kathir_2 this] (Not exactly an up-to-date example of a reference because it does not use any CiteWeb templates. Nevertheless, notice the archived URL and the actual heading of each section provided in the tafsir being quoted).

:::::::At Saggy: What does "I know what he's likely to say" mean? Honestly, I would really like to know what you think you know, because I highly doubt you know what I'm going to say. I'll admit I usually think you edits should be removed. But that is because they are usually terrible. In this case, they are not wholly terrible (in the first case, it was actually a good addition and a good observation concerning the "Kindness" hadith). [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 03:51, 16 August 2014 (PDT)
::::::::Ok. I added back the Sacrifice hadiths and took out the kindness section. Maybe those reasons could be added to those sections (just a suggestion). Thanks for the analysis. I agree care should be taken if copying stuff from Answering-Islam.
::::::::Saggy, you can move the Cosmology stuff to the temp page as directed by Sahab or trim it down as suggested.
::::::::Well guys I dont know if I can keep up with the edit reviews but I'll try my best. I had suggested to Saggy that he should keep his edits in his Sandbox pages and maybe one day we can find someone willing who has the time to review them. I am operating in a minimum maintenance mode and even [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAxius&diff=109285&oldid=109250 that] is a challenge for me. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 10:31, 16 August 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::No probs. I don't think any additional text would be needed. As it is, it lets the readers know that Mo had no problems with animal slaughter without making judgements on it or bringing up other faiths. If we did bring up other faiths, then it would look like we're defending them (just think of Natassia and the problems her writings have caused on the wiki recently). With the exception of a few major tu quoque arguments which inhibit the criticism of Islam, that is something the wiki is not here to do. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 11:43, 16 August 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::Ok. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 09:02, 17 August 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::What is this Natassia tangle? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 11:48, 16 August 2014 (PDT)
:Saggy, please fix the reference style in this edit [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Cosmology&diff=prev&oldid=109291] as Sahab mentioned above.
:Sahab also said to you ''"I usually think you[r] edits should be removed. But that is because they are usually terrible."'' I agree with Sahab, adding that its too much work reviewing your edits and fixing them and currently no one is available to do that. So I'm sorry but from now please only edit Sandboxes in your userspace (no main space edits, or edits on Sandboxes for the site). You can edit your Sandboxes in any way you like and organize your content in whatever way you like and you can also make new pages in your Sandboxes.
:''"What am I going to do with a sandbox out of this site?"'' - what do you mean by this? You can work on the sandboxes and hopefully one day someone will come by and take your edits from there and merge them into main space articles where necessary. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 09:02, 17 August 2014 (PDT)
::Sahab I'm guessing you wouldn't have a problem with Saggy's edits to the mainspace being disallowed. I dont have enough time to review the edits of a regular editor who has problems with most of their edits (as you said above and I agreed with it). Unless you're willing to review them and I'm guessing you dont have enough time as well.
::To anyone else: I'm sorry but the top priority is to maintain the quality of the site and if anyone is willing to review Saggy's edits let me know and we can make that arrangement. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 13:29, 21 August 2014 (PDT)
:::No, I don't have the time to do that. Sorry Ax. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 19:02, 21 August 2014 (PDT)
::::Yea, I figured. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:13, 29 August 2014 (PDT)
Saggy, possible material for [[WikiIslam:Sandbox/Forgiveness]] - "Allah forgives all sins" but then "does not forgive shirk" etc. Take what you want and let me know when you're done and I'll delete that page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:13, 29 August 2014 (PDT)
:Why do you want to delete it? It is in a bad state. But it is an extension of [[Contradictions in the Qur'an]](1.13 Does Allah forgive everything? , 1.14 Does Allah forgive worshipping other gods/shirk?). Since there are hadith for shirk, it will also benefit from them. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:28, 29 August 2014 (PDT)
::Is there already another article for this "forgiveness" subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Saggy|contribs]]) {{#if:| |}} ([[WikiIslam:Signatures#Signing_Posts|Remember to sign your comments]]) 
:::That Sandbox is what we have. It was written in the early days when we didnt have any good content and its not a good article but you can take the "Will all sins be forgiven?" and make a section for Contradictions in the Quran (in your sandbox article for QHS issues) and take anything else whatever you think is useful.--[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:50, 29 August 2014 (PDT)
::::Is [[Contradictions in the Qur'an]] meant for detailed explanations?? Where will hadiths go? I think of trying to edit this old article itself. Wait for a while. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:58, 29 August 2014 (PDT)

== Disasters ==

What do you see in the history? [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Accidents_and_Natural_Disasters_in_the_Muslim_World&action=history]. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:35, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
:So quick? Anyway, Kashmir is a Muslim majority state and the Kashmir Valley is almost entirely Muslim. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 04:40, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
::The disaster also affected non-Muslim Indian-controlled areas so no. That does not fit in with the rest of the page. It doesnt matter if its Muslim majority. That is not the pattern already on the page. I have asked you not to edit main space so can you please remember not to? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:44, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
:::You did not even look at the final rendered version of your page edit [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Accidents_and_Natural_Disasters_in_the_Muslim_World&diff=109713&oldid=109710]. There is a huge red tag there. See it? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:47, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
::::Another thing is that you had to re-add the previous text. That means someone must have removed it. So you would have checked page history or Recent changes to see what was going on. How did you not notice that the text had been removed? Why did you re-add the text without seeing the page history or seeing who removed it, or contact them to ask about the removal? And you wonder why you are asked not to edit the main space. This means that you should not edit any page on this site unless it has these patterns: (Talk page, User talk page, Sandbox page). This means all your main space edits can be reverted in the future without any explanation. Do you understand this now? I would normally not approach an editor like this but I have asked you multiple times before not to edit main space and of course your quality of edits has been brought up before. The only way to get back mainspace editing is to demonstrate high quality editing/engagement in the 3 other types of pages you can edit.
::::Please provide a confirmation that you have understood what I have said here. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 06:08, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
:::::I clicked once, browser did did not load saved edit, internet was down, the page still remained. Minutes after that i added the next incident. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 07:32, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
::::::Ok. The first edit though shows the red ref tag [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Accidents_and_Natural_Disasters_in_the_Muslim_World&diff=109709&oldid=109610]. Did you see that? Use preview or view the page right away to make sure the output looks ok. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 07:36, 14 September 2014 (PDT)

== New editors ==

About your comment [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=WikiIslam:Forum/Visitor_Inquiries&diff=109960&oldid=109956 here], its easy for new editors to be able to directly edit main space [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Message_to_New_Users]: ''"Therefore (excluding minor edits and corrections), new users should not edit or create main space articles until they demonstrate good judgement and the ability to make positive contributions, upon which they will receive the Editor or Reviewer user right.".''. All they need to do is display good judgement in Sandbox pages. If they cannot do that that yes, they must wait for content to be reviewed and that of course is dependent on who is available to review.

The highest priority on the site is to maintain and increase its quality. It is not whether or not someone can edit the main space content directly or not. They also have a lot of options because they can edit Sandbox and userspace pages to any extent. The quality of work in those pages will decide if they can edit main space directly. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:38, 8 October 2014 (PDT)

== New addition on Scientific errors in Quran ==

* Investigate and add if suitable: [http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Qur%27anic_scientific_foreknowledge&oldid=1453448].
* Check for additions: http://www.islam-watch.org/SyedKamranMirza/Erroneous-Science-and-Contradictions-in-Quran.htm ([https://web.archive.org/web/20160809202919/http://www.islam-watch.org/SyedKamranMirza/Erroneous-Science-and-Contradictions-in-Quran.htm Archive])
::Thanks. Are you from EXMNA? Need a helping hand here. Posting to your talks as well. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 17:47, 7 September 2017 (EDT)

:::No I'm not from EXMNA. Scientific errors in Quran article needs to be translated into Arabic, Bengali (they form the second largest Muslim group in the world after Arab muslims), Urdu (Pakistani language), Turkish and Indonesian. Also link to the Scientific errors in Quran article needs to be spread around in the web. For example Bengali clerics post videos of their talks in Bengali on Youtube to attract followers, link to Scientific errors in Quran English article, or even better Bengali translated one, should be posted on the comments section. These videos get 100s of thousands of views.

At least 80% of the Muslims today are Muslims by born, they don't pray 5 times a day, many never pay at all.

User talk:Saggy

2017-09-11T23:39:41Z

AAA: /* New addition on Scientific errors in Quran */

User talk:Saggy

2017-09-11T23:32:36Z

AAA: /* New addition on Scientific errors in Quran */

User talk:Saggy

2017-09-07T20:39:34Z

AAA: /* New addition on Scientific errors in Quran */

Talk:Scientific Errors in the Quran

2017-09-07T20:38:45Z

AAA: /* Tasks */

==[Sticky] Instructions for editing this page==
: ''Under construction''
This page is linked often from other websites and should be edited with care.

An error should be included only if it cannot be justified or explained in any way. In other words the error should be obvious. The following points should be noted:
* The error should not be attributable to a translation issue and must be valid for the verse in Arabic (when necessary, Arabic speakers should be consulted)
* The error should be shown in at least 2 translations (Shakir, Yusuf or Pickthall)
* These are the only translations that can be used
* Use the translation which is the most easy to understand.
* The error is obvious and cannot be attributed to "figure of speech". An example is "We will blow up the sky" (this is just an example and may not be a real verse). This should not be listed as an error. A counter-claim may be that they may have been talking about the sun expanding and engulfing the Earth (this will eventually happen). Errors that can be explained by apologists in this way should not be listed.
* If there is a plausible way that the verse could be interpreted that doesn't indicate an error (from an Islamic worldview where Allah exists), then it is not a demonstrable error unless evidence against the alternative explanation is given.
* The error should contradict what we know from science, history etc. rather than these facts simply causing a theological difficulty. For example, the Quran says that the moon was created for our benefit to reckon time, but we know that the moon existed long before humans. It is more of a theological difficulty why Allah would create it before it was needed.
* Weaker errors can be listed in a separate section at the bottom called "Other Quranic verses" with a note "The following are Quranic verses which may contain figures of speech but are still questionable". For this section, the verses should be listed without any section headings. The reason is that a record of such verses should still be kept but these verses should not be presented as obvious errors. These weaker verses are not as strong as others but they could still be seen as adding to the evidence against the Quran.

==Tasks==
See [[WikiIslam:Tasks/Scientific Errors in the Qur'an]] for tasks for this page.
* Investigate and add if suitable: [http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Qur%27anic_scientific_foreknowledge&oldid=1453448].
* Check for additions: http://www.islam-watch.org/SyedKamranMirza/Erroneous-Science-and-Contradictions-in-Quran.htm

==Removed errors / candidates for removal==
A record of the reasons errors were removed in case future editors unknowingly reinstate them.
===Where is allah===
It's the first contradiction and people to whom i gave the link thought the site was stupid because this first one isn't a contradiction. The quran says allah is everywhere metaphorically it means that he is on his throne but since he can see/hear/act everywhere we can say that he is everywhere. I think we should only have the clear contradictions here and there is many of them. There is no point in putting alot of contradictions that actually aren't that just takes down the credibility of the site.--[[User:Einstein reason|ArabSagan]] ([[User talk:Einstein reason|talk]]) 14:20, 8 October 2014 (PDT)
:How do you know it is metaphorical? I think we shouldn't delete contradictions only because some apologetic made some excuse for it. This way we can say that every shitty quote from Muhammad is a metaphor and therefore everything is ok. Also I think that if we deleted it, then they would do the same thing, find excuse for the first one and dismiss the whole site.--[[User:Prekladator|Prekladator]] ([[User talk:Prekladator|talk]]) 14:09, 27 February 2016 (EST)

===Constellations===
For my edit here [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&curid=9078&diff=107462&oldid=107458]
: Blessed is He Who made constellations in the skies, and placed therein a Lamp and a Moon giving light; [http://quranx.com/25.61]
Basically its just saying "However the stars are made, we made them and we arranged them like that", so I agree with {{user|Lightyears}} unless Saggy you have any additional stuff to say. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:13, 15 May 2014 (PDT)
: "We arranged them like that" is the mistake. Same as the errors pointed out above it (sun, moon and its phases are made for our timekeeping and stars created for navigation). I wrote the light years to show stars are not where they appear (it may not be needed). Hence constellations are imaginations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Saggy|contribs]]) {{#if:| |}} ([[WikiIslam:Signatures#Signing_Posts|Remember to sign your comments]]) 
::To humans stars have a certain arrangement. Yes that arrangement would change if we were looking it from another place for example the center of the galaxy buy they have an arrangement for people on Earth.
::But good job on finding that other verse for the Stars in the lower heaven. Did you find that error verse yourself or you saw it somewhere else? If you saw it yourself, are you going through the Quran systematically chapter by chapter? Thats good. What are you using to browse the Quran, what website? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:34, 16 May 2014 (PDT)
:::there are not many errors to find, i have not gone chapter by chapter recently (only for details article). decoration verse was already present.
:::You didnt yet decide on constel. What I am thinking upon recently is that we look for errors dont we? Then if something is removed, it has to be absolutely correct. Think like that. Is "Allah made constellations" or "mansions" correct? Any one of the two translations can be quoted and then the other explained. Also in [http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/36/39/default.htm 36:39], Moon has mansions (though the word is manzil and not burooj). one more question , if this constelation thing is refutable, doesnt it mean all mythology is true or zodiacs are true? I read this q somewhere. Then Why Islam rejects zodiacs as far as I know? This verse must soon go somewhere: here or the lack of details page or the questions to ask a muslim page. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 07:30, 17 May 2014 (PDT)
::::So what website do you use for looking at the Quran? Islam awakened?
:::: "we made constellations" = we arranged the stars like that. If it can be explained its not good to have it on the page. I dont know what the connection is for zodiacs. The verse is only talking about the stars arrangement, not zodiacs. I dont know what Islam says about zodiacs.
::::The moon verse [http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/36/39/default.htm] is just talking about the appearance of the moon. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 08:50, 17 May 2014 (PDT)
:::::Some stray translation includes zodiacs. "we arranged the stars" - as i said before, it cannot be explained. In 36:39 what i wanted to show is that moon has mansions. So its another case of faulty cosmology, same is with constellations being called mansions.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:38, 18 May 2014 (PDT)
:::::::''"The error should not be attributable to a translation issue"''
::::::We cannot have the approach that we have to find the translation that includes the 'error' we want to point out. Looking at the all the translations as a whole its clear its talking about the arrangement of the stars, nothing more. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:52, 18 May 2014 (PDT)
:::::::Can you do one thing - just add the Scientific Quran errors to your Sandbox page for now: [[User:Saggy/Sandbox_-_Issues_with_Quran_and_Hadith]]. These can be reviewed and added to the main article in the end when you're done. Its more mental work to review them one at a time. It will also be easier for you as you can do what you like in your Sandbox without feeling restricted. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 20:09, 18 May 2014 (PDT)
::::::::I see what Saggy means - what Saggy added when putting constellations back (and was originally missing) was that because stars are varying distances and a long way away, we are looking back in time when we see them - and a different amount of time for each star. So if a constellation consists of a star 50 light years away and another 1000 light years away, then their relative positions that we see today when their ancient light reaches our eyes does not reflect their actual relative positions. It's a clever and interesting point, but there are a couple of reasons why Muslims would still be very unmoved by the claim that there is an error here. Firstly, the stars that we can see in the constellations are all fairly close - a few hundred to about a thousand light years away. So what we see isn't significantly different to how they are ([http://news.discovery.com/space/history-of-space/changing-constellations-50000-years.htm this] indicates how much they move in 50000 years, but we're talking about hundreds). The other thing is that any Muslim who believes that Allah designed the constellations will have no trouble believing that he took the light travel time into account and was only concerned with how they look from earth.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 09:13, 23 May 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::Your claims mean this: a Muslim must agree constellations have been made for us? Since constellations hardly change for hundred or thousand years and the age of those stars is certainly millions to billions of years, he must agree that Allah planted those stars with their perceived design on earth so long ago? We humans got separated from the chimps only some 1 or 2 million years ago? (for whoever is stuborn on Adam: he is dated as even more recent than evolution.) We started using those constellations for guidance or fun much later? All of this was planned for "us" billions of years ago? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 10:57, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

::::::::::Exactly that. They would say the same for the position of the continents today or any number of things. Clearly Muslims have no problem with multi-million or billion year processes being set in motion with today's world as the end result in mind. Otherwise endless things about the world today would seem a problem for them. What originally triggered me to question the quality of this entry was when I saw a Muslim saying they laughed when they saw this one. It shouldn't be easy for anyone to pick what they see as a weak example to dismiss the whole page.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 11:16, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

:::::::::No, we are not Allah's reality TV. Such things were not pre-planned and anybody who still believes in the contrary is either ignorant or he's straight on the way to his 72 virgins which are obviously planned according to him :):):). Your approach is that somebody will cry out he has refuted an error and then we will have to cleanup. What about him digesting a hundred absurdities when trying to refute one? It always happens on answeringchristianity.org and all blogs where errors are discussed. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 11:19, 23 May 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::Oh you replied. So let me add, some people even try to refute the sun takes permission froh Allah to rise hadith. We cant have a standard for who will believe in nonsense and to what extent and how we will cater him, but we must not lose content thereby. Btw, what did that guy think about the rest of the article? How come he rejected everything? Doesnt that show how ignorant he is?[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 11:25, 23 May 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::::What i always have in mind and i suggested before is keeping the claim and gradually giving it a main article (then we dont have to worry whether it looks strong or weak claim at first sight). Look at the massive 2-part article on sun sets in muddy spring. I dont think anybody still wants to rescue that poor verse, does he? That must be the eventual aim.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 11:37, 23 May 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::::You're right, some Muslims will laugh at any error claim so I take that back, though he thought this particularly bad. Re your previous point, yes it is absurd (as theology generally is), but it doesn't belong on the scientific errors page since it is a question of theology, how Allah behaves. It's not a statement about the world that can be proven false. No-one could prove scientifically that Allah wouldn't set things in motion at an early stage with today in mind. If there was something in the verse suggesting a time scale that would be potential for a scientific error. Rather, the verse implies a theological absurdity (given that we know the stars have been moving a long time), and one that would apply to all sorts of things like continental drift, not just consellations. It is good content as a theological point, so maybe there is / someone will make a page on this subject. Anyway, maybe we'll just have to disagree on this one. It's for someone else to decide whether the entry is put back on the scientific errors page or not. And the 2 part sun muddy spring article is mine (copied across by someone who runs this site from the quranspotlight blog I used to maintain) - I'm glad you like it :) [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 11:54, 23 May 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::::::How Allah behaves will easily go into the new article whose scope is not limited to errors.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 13:08, 23 May 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::hi Lightyears, I agree with you when you say: ''"but there are a couple of reasons why Muslims would still be very unmoved by the claim that there is an error here''".
:::::::::This is the problem with some of Saggy's additions to this page. Some of the additions can be justified and it creates a problem for whoever links this page. Sometimes he has problems understanding what a verse or hadith is saying ([http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Forum#Womb_sentence another example] where there was no issue but he thought there was).
:::::::::The word "constellation" is a translation issue. Some translations use "big stars". The Quran is just saying "See how we arranged the stars" - which is what it looks like to humans. So I think it includes the meaning 'constellation' but is not limited to it (''"The word "burooj" in the first verse is translated to constellations, stars, and Zodiacal signs."'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Burooj])
:::::::::Here is something that you said and I agree with it 100% but Saggy refuses to understand this and keeps adding "non errors" or weak errors (at one point he said ''"there is no such thing as a weak error"'', not true) to this page and weakening it:
::::::::::''What originally triggered me to question the quality of this entry was when I saw a Muslim saying they laughed when they saw this one. '''It shouldn't be easy for anyone to pick what they see as a weak example to dismiss the whole page'''.''
:::::::::(bold is mine) I myself have seen another location where Saggy's addition was being mocked and things like that concern me greatly. One bad addition can lead to someone mocking the whole website. The fact that this Scientific errors page is one of the top 10 most visited pages on the site, makes the issue even more critical and it is therefore even more important for this page to be of high quality. I have discussed various issues like this with him and finally I have asked him not to add any verses to this page until the review template is gone. I have told him to do what he wants in his own Sandbox page where he has more freedom to do what he wants.
:::::::::Some of his additions may be issues of some kind but could be displayed on another page in another manner. At this point I'm not sure how that could be done but for now we can try to keep the Scientific errors page as strong as possible. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:25, 23 May 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::Hi Axius, I very much agree. Any new errors need to be very strong, having carefully considered counter arguments and where necessary how the key words are used in lexicons, other verses. Most people won't read the whole of an already long list of errors (not that lots of errors isn't a good thing in one sense!), so that's another reason to keep weak ones out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Lightyears|contribs]]) {{#if:| |}} ([[WikiIslam:Signatures#Signing_Posts|Remember to sign your comments]]) 
:::::::::::Thanks I agree. Its good to have a short strong page rather than a long weak/mediocre page.
:::::::::::Saggy, please also note what Lightyears said, in particular: ''"Any new errors need to be very strong, '''having carefully considered counter arguments'''"''. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:22, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

===Only Allah Knows the Gender of a Fetus (31:34)===
I removed this since it doesn't say "alone" in the Arabic (though it is generally assumed). After it says he knows what is in the wombs it says "and not" rather than "nor". It also doesn't specify anything about gender. Hadiths suggest that it refers to a bunch of things ("his life span, his deeds, and whether he will be among the wretched or the blessed").
Shakir's translation is most accurate here: "Surely Allah is He with Whom is the knowledge of the hour, and He sends down the rain and He knows what is in the wombs; and no one knows what he shall earn on the morrow; and no one knows in what land he shall die; surely Allah is Knowing, Aware."[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 05:58, 27 May 2014 (PDT)

===Earth fixed in place===
I removed the stuff on this from the geocentrism entry a few days ago since it's unclear from the Arabic (irrelevant that we know that the author of the Qur'an was a 7th century bedoin who almost certainly had such a view). It's still there using a different verse under the section The Earth does not rotate.

40:64 was already commented out (they probably saw that it only says fixed place in one translation). The Arabic word basically means a stable abode http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume7/00000029.pdf. The question is whether qararan here means a settled thing / place, or a place for settling (by humans). The womb is elsewhere described with this word (fee qararin - in a resting place), but a pregnant woman moves around, though the fetus is settled there. Also 27:61 uses the same word while talking about mountains, rivers, so it is perhaps saying that it's a good place for us to settle (rather than that the earth is settled). See also 2:36 where Satan is sent down and given in Earth a dwelling/place of settlement (using the same word as a participle). I'll leave it to an Arabic expert to decide what to do. The stuff about Allah casting down mountains "lest it (the earth) shake with you" could be useful.

As for 35:41, the word deviate in the quoted translation (cease, be removed etc in others) is زول which means (Lane Lexicon) to go away, depart, remove, shift, make remote, absense, cease to be. Most translations use these other meanings. I don't think we can say Earth's orbit/spin meets this definition. The word translated grasp/hold مسك means (Lane's Lexicon) retain, withold, maintain, hold fast, grasp, restrain, confine. Just as these definitions could be used to read an error here, the verse can plausibly be interpreted to mean (if you believe in Allah) that he confines the heavens and earth lest they veer off their unmentioned orbits.

Perhaps it could be eventually added under the other errors section. I think it's enough that there is no mention of the orbit or spin of the Earth which gives rise to day & night, seasons (so very important to humans), given that it does mentions the orbits of the moon and sun (the latter having no relevence to humans if it meant around the galaxy).--[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 09:19, 27 May 2014 (PDT)
:Thanks for analyzing this. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:10, 27 May 2014 (PDT)

===Sun is a flat disc===
That arabic word in 81:1 is kuwwirat which means the sun is wrapped. Same word as 39.5 about the night wrapping the day and vice versa. It could be wrapped in anything in the Islamic worldview, or somehow wrapping itself. Can't prove this kind of thing false and it weakens the page, especially as it stands based on a particular translation using the word 'folded', so I removed it.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 21:10, 12 September 2016 (EDT)

===Night is a veil===
This section used the Yusuf Ali translation which takes the opposite view compared to nearly all others. This is how Pickthall translates it ('cover' is the most accurate translation for the verb too):

{{Quote|{{Quran|7|54}}|Lo! your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days, then mounted He the Throne. He covereth the night with the day, which is in haste to follow it}}

The Arabic in this verse is somewhat ambiguous whether the day covers the night or the night covers the day. Most translators choose the former, and tafsirs take the view that it means both. Now it is still nonsense that day covers the night, but for now it needs a complete redesign if is to be added back, and may be too complex for this page. See the Counter-arguments section here [[Geocentrism and the Quran]] where 7:54 and related verses are discussed.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 21:48, 12 September 2016 (EDT)

===Corn has Seven Ears, Each with a Hundred Grains===
Verse 2.261 is obviously a parable about bountiful rewards. No-one thought grain had 7 ears. It fits with the parable of Joseph in 12.43 etc where he has a vision of 7 ears of green grain representing 7 good years. [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 06:33, 20 September 2016 (EDT)

===classification of creatures===
Removed as it is obviously not supposed to be an exhaustive list (creeping on bellies, some with 2, some with 4 legs). It misses out 6 legged things which would include the obvious like ants too, not just millipedes.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 07:58, 20 September 2016 (EDT)

===Humans created in paradise and then brought to earth===
Removed as this is too weak, and we already have the stuff about Adam specially created from clay. 2:35-26 just refers to the garden and that there is in the earth an abode for them and provision for a time. It probably does mean the garden is not on earth, but too unclear. Ibn Kathir says the majority of scholars assert that the garden was in heaven, but I don't think that's enough as the Qur'an itself is too vague here.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 07:58, 20 September 2016 (EDT)

===Space Flight is Impossible===
Deleted as 55:33 doesn't say it's impossible. Rather, if spaceflight even falls into this category, it says that it can only happen with Allah's authority.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 07:58, 20 September 2016 (EDT)

===Bees eat fruit===
Removed because it is incorrect and easily debunked as an error. Bees will in fact eat from ripe fruits (thamarati ٱلثَّمَرَٰتِ - fruits from trees), particularly if their skins have a break in them, such as dates and grapes, as well as eating pollen. Possibly they won't eat from ''all'' types of fruit, but I don't know where that could be proven if true. [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 08:17, 20 September 2016 (EDT)

===Stars are lower than the moon===
This one was removed ages ago because 'in their midst' in 71:16 is feehinna which literally means simply, 'in them'. It doesn't indicate which of the seven heavens the moon is in, whether it be in the lowest heaven like the stars or not.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 21:37, 3 October 2016 (EDT)

==Removed the Under Review flag==
I have now removed the Under Review flag. I've gone through the whole page, making lots of corrections, removals and improvements (see also the discussion tab). Always room for improvement, and future changes might require the flag to be reapplied, but I think it's a good enough standard currently to be without the review flag.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 07:58, 20 September 2016 (EDT)

== Adding hadith on shooting stars ==

To show that it isn't justa "false reading of the quran", you should give proofs that it was common mythology like what you said in the intro.
For example concerning th shooting stars you should add this hadith
http://www.yanabi.com/Hadith.aspx?HadithID=139555
:done - good idea, thanks

== Possible Additions ==

These are possible additions that need review/revision before being added to the page.

===No Evaporation in Water Cycle ===
:''(add in the 3.11 water Cycle' section)
There is no Evaporation or Condensation in the Quran.
Both processes are clearly described in Aristotle's Physics, Book 2, Section 8,
"A difficulty presents itself: why should not nature work, not for
the sake of something, nor because it is better so, but just as the
sky rains, not in order to make the corn grow, but of necessity?

What is drawn up must cool, and what has been cooled must become water
and descend, the result of this being that the corn grows.”

http://classics.mit.edu//Aristotle/physics.html

All the Quran mentions, is that winds blow clouds which bring rain, hardly a miracle.

[[User:Turner chris1|Turner chris1]] ([[User talk:Turner chris1|talk]]) 08:16, 12 February 2016 (EST)

===Crucifixions===
:''(add in the main 'History' section)''

There are no references from any culture anywhere in the world to crucifixion as a method of execution before 500BCE, and it is not clear that their crucifixions where the same as what we know(the Roman crucifixion)/they are the same type. Ancient Egypt has been extensively studied as well. However, the Qur’an tells of crucifixions in the time of Joseph(approximately 2000BCE) and Moses(approximately 1500BCE).

Not only that but they are often used in a very casual way in the qu'ran suggesting the practice was widespread and understood by the majority of people, as common people are being addressed in these surahs yet the practice only appears much, much later (over a 1000 years).

{{Quote|{{Quran|12|36}}|
Now with him there came into the prison two young men. Said one of them: "I see myself (in a dream) pressing wine." said the other: "I see myself (in a dream) carrying bread on my head, and birds are eating, thereof." "Tell us" (they said) "The truth and meaning thereof: for we see thou art one that doth good (to all)." }}

{{Quote|{{Quran|12|37}}|
He said: "Before any food comes (in due course) to feed either of you, I will surely reveal to you the truth and meaning of this ere it befall you: that is part of the (duty) which my Lord hath taught me. I have (I assure you) abandoned the ways of a people that believe not in Allah and that (even) deny the Hereafter. }}

{{Quote|{{Quran|12|38}}|
"And I follow the ways of my fathers,- Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and never could we attribute any partners whatever to Allah. that (comes) of the grace of Allah to us and to mankind: yet most men are not grateful. }}

{{Quote|{{Quran|12|39}}|
"O my two companions of the prison! (I ask you): are many lords differing among themselves better, or the One Allah, Supreme and Irresistible? }}

{{Quote|{{Quran|12|40}}|
"If not Him, ye worship nothing but names which ye have named,- ye and your fathers,- for which Allah hath sent down no authority: the command is for none but Allah. He hath commanded that ye worship none but Him: that is the right religion, but most men understand not }}

{{Quote|{{Quran|12|41}}|
O two companions of prison, as for one of you, he will give drink to his master of wine; but as for the other, he will be crucified, and the birds will eat from his head. The matter has been decreed about which you both inquire." }}

{{Quote|{{Quran|7|123}}|
Said Pharaoh: "Believe ye in Him before I give you permission? Surely this is a trick which ye have planned in the city to drive out its people: but soon shall ye know (the consequences). }}

{{Quote|{{Quran|7|124}}|
I will surely cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides; then I will surely crucify you all." }}

{{Quote|{{Quran|7|125}}|
They said: "For us, We are but sent back unto our Lord: }}

{{Quote|{{Quran|7|126}}|
T`And you find no fault in us but that we have believed in the signs of our Lord when they came to us (and we pray to Him), "Our Lord! pour forth upon us patience and perseverance and grant that we die in a state of complete submission (to You)".' }}

User talk:Saggy

2017-09-07T20:37:17Z

AAA: /* New addition on Scientific errors in Quran */

==Scientific Errors==

Hi. That page uses title-case for capitalization of headings[http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Standardization#Section_headings]. And there should not be multiple Qur'an translations used to illustrate a single error (i.e choose only one translation from the USC site). Both those errors were in your first edit to the page but I fixed them[http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=102143&oldid=102140]. You have repeated those same errors in your second edit. You will have to fix them before your edits can be considered. Thanks. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 13:27, 5 January 2014 (PST)
:I've reverted your edit again. You are aware this talk page discussion has been initiated. If you do not understand something here, the answer is not to reinsert whatever was reverted with a summary saying "btw I don't understand". That's basically ignoring this talk page. If you don't understand something then ask. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 19:07, 9 January 2014 (PST)
::Not much time . ok , what am I to do to caps? If u revert instead of correcting (which is a loss to the readers), others dont mind? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 02:48, 10 January 2014 (PST)
:::No they don't mind. Quality standards are high on this wiki. If editors do not have the time to adhere to guidelines/stick to proper etiquette or take the care to format their contributions properly, we'd rather they not edit at all. Do you think it's fair if others have to waste their time cleaning up after someone else's edits? We don't. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 11:49, 10 January 2014 (PST)

Got it. Got mistake. Thanks. (Or u want me to stop doing anything until we complete discussing?)[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 02:53, 10 January 2014 (PST)
:No, that's fine. Thanks. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 11:42, 10 January 2014 (PST)
hi Saggy, this Science error/Quran page is popular and is often linked to by people so its important for this page to be as strong as possible. Some errors are more obvious than others. Some only appear in one translation and so on. For example the Golden Calf statue verse that you added was great. It obviously goes against science and is a glaring error while some others are not that obvious.

One idea I have is to keep the strongest errors at the top and the less obvious ones (or the ones that can be explained in some way by apologists) near the bottom in another section. I tried making some rules here: [[Talk:Scientific Errors in the Qur'an]] (draft). Let me know your thoughts. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 08:19, 1 February 2014 (PST)
:How can we judge weakness? Its is everyones POV. EG Every claim about the sky is weak on its own. But when put together its a huge blunder. We already have sections for the branchs of science. At most we'll put weak claims at bottom of each section. of course we mustnt say - xyz is a weaker claim , we can try to explian it or justifiy it as much as possible..[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 12:52, 1 February 2014 (PST)
::Hi, I moved your comment back to keep it in one place. Some errors are present in Arabic and the translations, while others are present only in the translations. For example Constellations. Apologetist might say the Quran just means "collections of light" and yes these were made by Allah for humans (for example) and he was just talking in a general sense. A more glaring error is the Golden statue or mathematics of inheritance. So some are more obvious, the others are a little iffy and have some conditions.
::You might have some good points, I'm myself unsure about this issue so I'm just talking about it to see if there's any concrete ideas. So thats one idea, to put weak claims at the bottom.
::Another suggestion is to look at other websites like Answering-Islam and expand on the evidence for these errors, for example with arabic or tafsir.
::Another thing. Verses should be checked against the 3 translators to make sure those are the only ones we're using. I saw an instance where there was another translation being used and it was corrected. I will try to go through all of them.
::Anyone else have anything about this? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 16:06, 1 February 2014 (PST)
:::3 translators is ok. but we cant cry about translation matters in the article itself or lose content bcoz of them. on the long run give Every claim its main article like we have lying forehead or sunset in a muddy spring. As for constellations, other translations are "towers" or "mansions"- Both are disgusting if we take them literaly. And the calf statue may be defended by just calling it a miracle. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 23:05, 1 February 2014 (PST)
::::Alright then fair enough unless anyone else has anything to add for improving the article. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 10:29, 2 February 2014 (PST)
:::::I moved the one for constellation here on your page [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=User:Saggy/Sandbox_-_Issues_with_Quran_and_Hadith&diff=107464&oldid=106860]. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:43, 15 May 2014 (PDT)

:::::: Hi Saggy, I found some more miracles of floating boats: 2:164, 16:14, 42:32. Perhaps it should be mentioned that at Muhammad's time Archimedes law describing buoyancy was more than 8 centuries old. Shall I put it in? Also I added a remark about the missing leap year on Axius talk page. --[[User:PW. Jansen|PW. Jansen]] ([[User talk:PW. Jansen|talk]]) 22:18, 24 August 2014 (PDT)

== Quran details ==

For [[WikiIslam:Sandbox/Qur%27anic_Claim_of_Having_Details]], how did you find these verses? For example the first two. Through your own study? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 18:16, 24 February 2014 (PST)
:Yea--[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 07:45, 25 February 2014 (PST)
::Thats great. I will try to work on this article. I had just added a few lines at the top. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 10:48, 25 February 2014 (PST)
:::Just a quick pointer for Saggy concerning that page; readers should not be directly addressed. So rather than say, ''"What will this beast be like? How come it will be able to talk to people?"'', it should say something like, ''"The Qur'an does not elaborate on the physical appearance of this beast or how it would communicate with humans"''. The Isra and Mi'raj section seems to have it right. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 13:51, 25 February 2014 (PST)
::::Yea, we'll have to work on that after the verses have been put in.
::::Saggy how are you finding these verses? Through search or by reading the verses yourself and searching for issues? Any plans of getting more?
::::Still not sure about the article or where it will go but I think its a good idea (needs more verses though). Its different than the usual "errors/contradictions" and so on. Its another kind of defect but we'll see how it goes. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 19:21, 25 February 2014 (PST)
:::::Some are old things i just recollect (like i heard- isra-mi'raj is incomplete without reading bukhari)--[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 09:19, 26 February 2014 (PST)
::::::Some of the [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam Five Pillars] could be included. They're covered [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an_Only_Islam_-_Why_it_is_Not_Possible#Five_Pillars_of_Islam here] (not a very well written article , but it provides the necessary info). There's also the [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Jizyah Jizyah]. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 06:09, 27 February 2014 (PST)

== Discussions link ==

To make it easy for us to track discussions among current editors, I moved the discussion about logical errors to the Discussions page [[WikiIslam:Forum|Discussions]] page (linked on the left). I'll reply there soon. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 04:35, 6 March 2014 (PST)
:Just letting you know that there's a new "Editing" section on the left that has all the links related to Editing (including Discussions). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 15:30, 6 March 2014 (PST)

== Contracted forms ==

Hi Saggy. I've corrected your use of contracted forms and the missing question mark [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Contradictions_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=105449&oldid=105391 here]. Please read the [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Article_Style_and_Content_Guide WikiIslam:Article Style and Content Guide]. Thanks. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 11:58, 8 March 2014 (PST)

== Inheritance Laws ==

I thought I'd ask you since you've been interested in the errors/contradictions topics. Inheritance laws ([[Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#Mathematical_Error_in_Hereditary_Laws]]) have had some responses like [http://www.khalidzaheer.com/qa/615] and [http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_inheritance_law__by_ansar_al__adl].

Do you know how to respond to these rebuttals and see if there's anything to investigate here? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:56, 12 March 2014 (PDT)

:Easy- site 1-"Out of the remaining (11 out of 24), the two daughters are going to get one-third each. " site 2- "And for the daughters 2/3 of '''what remains''' = 2/3 of 13/24=13/36 of the total amount" This ''remaining'' is assumed. Where is it mentioned? Nothing is mentioned so u have to divide whole (24 / 24) into two thirds. Other sites do the same thing.[http://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/1408/inheritance-shares-dont-add-up-to-1] theres in fact no consistency in whom to divide the remainder among. One site[http://www.kurandersleri.net/miras/en/Miras_Erkek_en.html] divides watever looks comfortable, whole or remains, only to ensure that fractions add upto 1 or a lesser value. [This http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/inh_01.htm] uses the contradictory shares of sisters to convert more than 1 to less than 1. Some use an old law of increasing denominator in the sum so that it is equal to numerator- but they violate all the stated fractions[http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/ma_addup.htm]. First, 4:11-12 have 10+ rules and and 4:176 has 4 rules contradicting some of them so lots of whims will show up. We are not even talking about gender injustice in this.--[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 04:21, 14 March 2014 (PDT)
::Ok. We should then think about making an article about this later on. Currently [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Inheritance_Laws this] exists but it may not be dealing with the rebuttals and its also an essay by another author, so we can make a new article about this later. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 09:46, 14 March 2014 (PDT)
:Ya start it.--[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 12:05, 14 March 2014 (PDT)
::For now I just added a link to this section to the tasks page. [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=WikiIslam:Tasks&diff=105798&oldid=105528]. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 14:59, 14 March 2014 (PDT)

== Comprehension of errors ==

Can you please explain how you interpreted [http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/052-sbt.php#004.052.051 Bukhari 4:52:51] to [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Hadith&curid=9085&diff=106685&oldid=106682 mean] "Orbit of the Sun is comparable to a Bow". From a cursory glance, it doesn't say anything of the sort. What it says is that having an area the size of a bow (not the bow itself) in heaven is better (not comparable) to having the entire earth (not sun). That same hadith continues by saying, "A single endeavor in Allah's Cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all that on which the sun rises and sets." If we apply your logic to the rest of the same narration, it would mean that the "Orbit of the Sun is comparable to a single endeavor in Allah's Cause" is also a valid interpretation, something which it is not. I find it hard to understand how you could misinterpret something so obvious, so please do explain it to us. Can you also stop rushing things (like you had previously agreed)? This way you would avoid making typos such as "comaprable". [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 16:03, 5 April 2014 (PDT)
:[http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/052-sbt.php#004.052.053 Bukhari 4:52:53] says, "A place in Paradise as small as the bow '''or lash''' of one of you is better than '''all the world''' and whatever is in it." So clearly the connection you made between the shape of a bow and the sun's orbit does not exist. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 16:26, 5 April 2014 (PDT)
::Saggy, I would also like to know how you made that deduction and add to this query. Recently you interpreted the Horseman thing and now this certain one as well. Its good that you're exploring new verses and hadiths but there is a problem in how you're interpreting text. If you dont understand a certain text, you can ask us on your talk or on the [[forum]] page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:34, 6 April 2014 (PDT)
::Suppose you wanted to say the same thing, no matter if it sounds good or mediocre: "A place as small as X is better than that on which Y happens." Of course "that" could refer to "place " better than to "X". But if X is not something typically ''small,'' what is the point in saying it? ''Bow'' must have the other meaning (which is backed up by that sun travelling-prostrating and permission verse) Come on, u could have said as small as... anything. Why bow? You can think of several adjectives on hearing the word bow, except "small." Whether this was narrated at war (single endeavor) or some other hadith sounds partly similar, does not matter. That could be a change of the simile made in the first place. Is a place anything like a bow? The sun rises and sets? Not at all. Only a person who thinks the sun runs on a semicircle over the other place(earth) would have said "bow." [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 10:53, 6 April 2014 (PDT)

:::'''"But if X is not something typically ''small,'' what is the point in saying it?"'''
:::A bow is small in comparison to the earth or in comparison to a lot of things.
:::'''"''Bow'' must have the other meaning"'''
:::You only assert that it must, but you haven't provided any convincing reasons why.
:::'''"Come on, u could have said as small as... anything. Why bow?"'''
:::Because they were warriors and Muhammad was describing where they would go when they die in battle. Is that really too much of a stretch? No, it makes perfect sense. In fact it's what most people would get from reading that verse. Your explanation just comes of as a stretch.
:::'''"You can think of several adjectives on hearing the word bow, except "small.""'''
:::Words such as "dying" and "in battle" spring to mind. And I don't agree with your "except small" comment. A bow is small in comparison to the world, so there is no valid reason why it could not be described as "small".
:::'''"Whether this was narrated at war (single endeavor) or some other hadith sounds partly similar, does not matter."'''
:::Of course it does. That is what we call "context". Context is what helps us understand the meanings behind text. It is what Muslim apologists usually ignore. And of course what "some other hadith sounds partly similar" says is important. It's important because it is describing the exact same event, but via a different narrator. Even the one hadith you are misinterpreting debunks your ideas when read fully (refer to my original post)'
:::'''"Is a place anything like a bow?"'''
:::The hadith does not claim any place is like a bow, it is referring to the size of the bow. You don't need that to be explained. It is written in plain English for everyone to see (i.e. "as ''small'' as a bow").
:::'''"Only a person who thinks the sun runs on a semicircle over the other place(earth) would have said "bow.""'''
:::You havn't shown that at all. Your reasoning is convoluted and ignores the obvious meaning. I would suggest sticking to hadiths that are clear errors rather than ones that need your interpretations. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 12:10, 6 April 2014 (PDT)
{{outdent|4}}
Saggy, so that we're clear this is the the hadith:
:Volume 4, Book 52, Number 51: Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "A place in Paradise as small as a bow is better than all that on which the sun rises and sets (i.e. all the world)." He also said, "A single endeavor in Allah's Cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all that on which the sun rises and sets."
Breaking it up, "X is better than Y".

X = "A place in Paradise as small as a bow." (a small sized object)

Y = "all that on which the sun rises and sets" (some kind of large space according to the Quran)

Your title was "Orbit of the Sun is comparable to a Bow". This is incorrect. The ''size'' of a bow is being compared to the size of the sun's place of rising and setting.

The hadith means "A tiny place in Islamic Heaven is better than a huge place which is not part of Heaven".

If you're talking about the arc of a bow (golden part [https://3dmagicmodels.com/wp-content/uploads/bow-and-arrow-3d-model1.jpg here] which is a semi circle) being compared to what an observer on Earth sees, this is not an error. We see that kind of semi-circle even today as we see the sun form an arc. A scientist can say "look how the Sun makes (or seems to make) a semi circle around the Earth". So these things can be explained. This is like the horseman hadith where there wasnt any interpretation like the one you were saying there was. As again if you come across a hadith and you're not sure of the meaning you can ask us. On the other hand, the hadith could be added to as supporting evidence ("the sun rises and sets"): [[Geocentrism_and_the_Quran#Muslims_around_the_time_of_Muhammad]] but I think its weak on its own on the Errors page: --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 12:46, 6 April 2014 (PDT)
:Sahab what do you think of the addition here? [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Geocentrism_and_the_Quran&diff=106736&oldid=103187] Since the hadith is saying the same thing about the sun. (sun rises and sets). If you dont agree its fine for it to be removed (its up to you). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 13:00, 6 April 2014 (PDT)
::Hi Ax. Yeah, I've removed it. Even with those surrounding hadith, this particular hadith is not making any reference whatsoever to the orbit of the sun. If I can see this and you can see this, then so can most other people. As you noted, the object being "compared" to the bow is something ''other'' than the sun itself. There is not "ifs" or "buts" about it. The second hadith down from that one confirms the meaning (which was obvious anyway.). It's like a Muslim saying a can of Pepsi is more refreshing than all that is inside a coffee cup, then us accusing him of saying a ceramic cup is more refreshing than a soft drink. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 13:20, 6 April 2014 (PDT)
:::Ok then, sounds good. Yea that analogy is similar. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 14:26, 6 April 2014 (PDT)

== Contradictions in the Qur'an and Hadith ==

Hi Saggy. I've deleted that page. A page like that is something that would interest "Quranists", not us. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 13:03, 10 April 2014 (PDT)
:I've moved the content to his personal sandbox for now: [[User:Saggy/Sandbox - Contradictions in the Qur'an and Hadith]]. I'll send an email about this. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:01, 10 April 2014 (PDT)
::We have an (old) article about the very same contradiction mentioned by Saggy ([[Muhammads Miracles|Muhammad's Miracles]]). If you read the section on Bukhari's criteria, you'll see that Muslims have contradictions between the Qur'an and Hadith covered. Thus it renders the article completely pointless. In fact, Muslims will probably think it's funny and talk about how we don't know anything about the "science of hadith". That's on top of the fact that such an article would only be used for Qur'anist propaganda. If the very idea is pointless, then I don't see any benefit from letting an editor waste their time working on it. That is why I deleted it rather than just leave it in a sandbox. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 15:39, 10 April 2014 (PDT)
:::I just dont have energy to debate about this at the moment so I deleted the Sandbox page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:36, 10 April 2014 (PDT)
::::What if I find more contradictions?[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:25, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
:::::Here I've made a page for you that gives you the freedom to do any kind of QHS work (since that is something you like doing). You can reorganize content there using section headings (logical error, hadith errors, contradictions, etc):
:::::[[User:Saggy/Sandbox - Issues with Quran and Hadith]] - use this for any new work or new ideas to keep it in the same place.
:::::Just keep in mind that we can have a democratic discussion together later on as to whether certain content will be approved or not for conversion from sandbox to main space. My view is that interesting QHS can be re-used in other places too in some way so if you have discovered verses or hadiths that are interesting, it is totally OK for them to go in a personal sandbox page of your own. Sandboxes are all excluded from Google search so no one can find them unless they come to recent changes/contributions and explore that way. Doing this does not harm the quality of the main content as sandbox content has to be carefully reviewed to make sure it complies with guidelines and the mission.
:::::You can keep adding content for existing pages as you are doing (Scientific errors in hadith, in the Quran, Contradictions in the Quran etc.) As before we will review those to see if they are ok as that is content in the main space.
:::::Doing a short reply for Sahab, if Quranists want to use content on our site for any purpose, its a good thing. It brings them to our site and they have effectively approved content on our site (I think its a plus for us). They're a minority so I would not worry about them. I can make many more points but my point is that all alternatives can be argued for equally. There are advantages and disadvantages for each alternative.
:::::''"you'll see that Muslims have contradictions between the Qur'an and Hadith covered."'' - those are only contradictions for miracles, not other topics. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:25, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

::::::To Saggy: My action was not based on the quality or length of the page (I was obviously aware that you would add to it). It was based on the fact that the actual idea behind the article was not suitable. Regardless, Axius has recreated the page so you can carry on working on it.

::::::To Axius: '''"those are only contradictions for miracles, not other topics"'''
::::::Did you read that section about Bukhari's criteria? Mat'n applies to ALL contradictions between the Qur'an and hadith.
::::::'''"if Quranists want to use content on our site for any purpose"'''
::::::Strawman. I never objected to them using this site. My point is that it ONLY benefits their propaganda, nothing else. If we allow something like this, why not also allow Atheistig to write an article about how unreliable the hadith are? [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 04:34, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
:::::::''"Let's go all the way and invalidate 95% of our material just to keep 1 editor happy."'' ---- :-) this is an imaginary situation that hasn't happened yet so lets not do that.
:::::::He knows its a Sandbox page that later may or may not be approved so whats the issue? I dont see any.
:::::::''"Mat'n applies to ALL contradictions between the Qur'an and hadith."'' - is Bukhari's criteria the golden absolute rule on deciding whats a contradiction? I would say no. To me a Sahih hadith is Sahih. I would say that Bukhari does not have the authority to invalidate the Hadiths of other Hadith collectors (like Muslim). Also if the criteria is to delete things that are in contradiction with each other, the Quran contradicts itself in various verses, so what does one do about that? To most people they are all valid Islamic sources (especially Sahih hadiths). All these points can be mentioned on a page about Quran/hadith contradictions. All of these things seen together expose more serious problems with Islam and create challenges for people reading them.
:::::::''"My point is that it ONLY benefits their propaganda"'' - Again they are a minority. The other side effect is letting the rest of the Muslims know that these contradictions exist. Most Muslims view hadiths as holy. I would say that they would have to deal with the contradiction when they see it and it creates a challenge for them.
::::::: My main point here again is that cases can be argued against equally. Its a Sandbox page and people have the right to work on a Sandbox which later may or may not be approved (as long its not an obvious content violation). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 05:13, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::::::::You have not dealt with anything I've actually said, so no they can't be argued against equally. I've mentioned several times why I deleted that page from the sandbox but you continue acting like I never explained. Your opinion on Bukhari's criteria is irrelevant. Mat'n is a well known thing. Hence, contradictions between the Qur'an and certain hadith will not effect mainstream Islam in the slightest. And wth, you're telling editors to stay away from me now? The discussion we're having now isn't even on my talk page, so maybe you should have considered a more appropriate time or place to mention this or considered how it would look to others? [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 05:09, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::Although you're right my comment could have been made at a better time (so ok, I apologize again for making it at the wrong time), I never asked anyone to stay away from you when I made the [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saggy&diff=106872&oldid=106871 comment]. You had removed some comments from your own talk page earlier if you recall [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sahab&diff=106769&oldid=106768] so I was stressing the point that others should use the forum page for general issues and not someone's talk page.
::::::::::I'm asking everyone to follow talk page guidelines and core [[WikiIslam:Core_Principles|community principles]] and assume good faith. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 12:12, 13 April 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::"Matn"'s definition on Wikipedia doesnt mention Bukhari or the contradiction issue, why is that? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_studies#Sanad_and_matn]. "text of the report" =matn is what I'm seeing, not a contradiction with the Quran issue. Are there are sources to support what Matn means? As I mentioned, the issue of deletion arises at the point of review when something is being considered for main space but not before that when it is in a temporary condition (in the Sandbox). Saggy knows it may or may not be approved. As for whether you're right or I'm right, I've shown that points can be made on both sides. Lets do that full debate when the time comes for a review of that piece. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 05:23, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::To hightlight it again our page [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muhammads_Miracles] that you pointed to in the begining and you refered to it again, claims ''"His third criteria is mat'n, i.e. the content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an."'', but there's no reference for that. According to other sources Matn means "text of the hadith", not "must not be in contradiction with the Quran". Bukhari's criteria of this contradiction cannot apply to other Hadith scholars (it is his own personal opinion). And even if we were to assume such a criteria, we are faced by the question: Is a Sahih hadith being declared invalid simply because of the contradiction? Why was it considered in the first place if it was actually invalid? The hadith was considered authentic because the events narrated actually happened.
::::::::::In any case a sourced definition of Matn would be one point. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 05:36, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
{{outdent}}
Visiting this again and stressing this point:
:''Mat'n applies to ALL contradictions between the Qur'an and hadith.''
This is not correct as Mat'n means "the text of the hadith" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_studies#Sanad_and_matn] and has nothing to do with "Contradictions between Quran and Hadith". The source article [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muhammads_Miracles#Bukhari.27s_criteria] you linked for Miracles should have the definition of Matn sourced correctly. I believe this is a page that an author made with the username starting with J (forgot the full name). So this line:
:''His third criteria is mat'n, i.e. the content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an.''
is incorrectly implying that Matn = the content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 10:57, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::Clarified [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muhammads_Miracles#Bukhari.27s_criteria] and changed from:
:::His third criteria is ''mat'n'', i.e. the content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an.
::To:
:::His third criteria is regarding ''mat'n'' (text), i.e. the text/content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an.
::So its clear that Matn means just "text" and not "no contradiction between Quran and hadith". --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:57, 12 April 2014 (PDT)
:::Pointing out contradictions between Quran and hadith is a criticism of Islam. Our site's mission is criticism of Islam (or to provide "an accurate and comprehensive resource on Islam" as currently mentioned in the [[WikiIslam:Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_is_the_purpose_of_WikiIslam.3F|FAQ]], which is even more inclusive), not whether certain criticism is seen as favorable to certain minority sects of Islam like Quran-only.
:::And as I mentioned (sorry if I'm repeating some points), this certain criticism is not seen as favorable to the majority of Muslims who do believe in the hadith. The Matn contradiction issue is Bukhari's opinion and cannot invalidate all problematic hadiths, (definitely not other hadiths like Muslim and neither his own) just because he said so. In short again that means we should not be excluding criticism of Islam because it is favoring a minority sect. And again, we will have a full picture of the situation when there is an actual article to review which there is none at this time. Its just text in a Sandbox. In an article like this Quran/hadith contradiction issue, we definitely want to point out clearly that people can not simply reject Sahih hadiths for whatever reason. There was a reason they were considered Sahih. Sometimes a certain issue is covered in multiple Hadiths which adds to the strength of what the Hadith is saying. If there are multiple Hadith collectors (Muslim and Bukhari for example) that is even more evidence that a Hadith's content actually happened and it is difficult to reject that hadith. So we should wait to see what an article looks like in the end to give a full opinion. The other issue again is, if Contradiction is the reason to reject a hadith, Quranic verses which contradict each other also have a problem. As for Atheistig's article, I dont know what that situation was and perhaps we missed a chance on making a valid article but I dont know enough details. Having an article that mentions Quran/hadith contradictions provides motivation for further strengthening the position that it is not possible to reject hadiths and definitely not Sahih hadiths, so it provides motivation for further improving the "Quran only - Why it is not possible" article or any other content like that. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:21, 12 April 2014 (PDT)
::::Saggy, whats your opinion about the fact that some Muslims may try to reject that contradict the Quran? We need to make sure that your hadith/Quran article also explains (using references) why it is not possible to reject Sahih hadiths that contradict the Quran. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:32, 12 April 2014 (PDT)

== 1000 years ==

Please note [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Contradictions_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=106878&oldid=106876] and see the edit summary. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 05:42, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
:But the verses are clear. 1 day = 1000 years or 1 day=50000 yrs. Human days are not mentioned. Have you read the speed of light hoax?[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 05:51, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

{{Quote||How long is Allah's day?

One thousand days
Yet they ask thee to hasten on the Punishment! But Allah will not fail in His Promise.
Verily a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning.
Qur'an 22:47

Fifty thousand days
The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty
thousand years:
}}

"Verily a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning"

It means one day for '''ALLAH''', is the same as 1000 years for '''HUMANS'''.

See that? "'''Your''' reckoning" = human's perspective. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 06:03, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
:U quote years and still insist on days? Reckoning means our "count" not days or years. Everywhere online the meaning is 1000/50000 years not days. Of course it is same perspective for everyone. Time flows the same for all ( we or anyone outside the solarsystem). The measurement and units differ. (This also debunks the Einsteins theory of relativity miracle claim for the above verses). A day for us is 24 hours. Nobody can change this. Day is defined by a planets rotation! His day is nothing to do with our 24 hrs in anyway! Why do i even need to say this when the equation is about years? Let me show one more : "He regulates the affair from the heaven to the earth; then shall it ascend to Him in a day the measure of which is a thousand years of what you count" 32:5. Clear length of a day is given. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 11:39, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::Well I'm sorry, you were right from the start - my mistake. I got confused somehow and didnt read the hadith carefully enough. It should have been easy to spot that but I missed it somehow (I probably was in a hurry at that time). It is indeed a 1000 years. I reverted it back now. [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Contradictions_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=106876&oldid=106861].
::Good catch on seeing this error and fixing it. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:02, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
:::''"Have you read the speed of light hoax"'' - I've heard of the speed of might miracle but know nothing more than that. There is an article here about that: [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Speed_of_Light_in_the_Quran]. Is this what you were thinking of? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:03, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::::Yeah, that miracle itself is based on a day=1000 years and many more reasons to be a hoax. I will laugh hours long if I read it again. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 02:29, 12 April 2014 (PDT)

== Rain/miraculous ==

This is another of those weaker errors [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#Rain_has_Miraculous_Effects].
: Remember He covered you with a sort of drowsiness, to give you calm as from Himself, and he caused rain to descend on you from heaven, to clean you therewith, to remove from you the stain of Satan, to strengthen your hearts, and to plant your feet firmly therewith.

What if the apologetic response is: "The rain was a special rain for the prophet, it was not ordinary rain. It was a miraculous rain." - its talking about the rain for the prophet right? Its a specific example. These kinds of errors should not be mixed with stronger errors. Something will have to be done about these kinds of errors. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:55, 17 April 2014 (PDT)
:"your hearts". Thus it is not for one person but plural. The earlier verses are not clear on who the audience is(a common goof). If there is a claim of a miracle with tafsirs or stuff to back up (Ibn kathir and Ibn abbas have nothing to say), we can post it under miracles. one site said there are two battles in the single verse (Uhud and Badr) but it is not entirely true to them. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 23:47, 17 April 2014 (PDT)
::Strong errors are long since covered so we have only these. We can rearange them within their section as I think i said. Another site "islamfrominside.com" says everything is about Badr but Wikipedia does not say so. Apologists have four effects of rain to explain infact. The last "feet" one differs in translations. Anyway, The whole miracle about Badr is wrong. The error began with "Allah caused the rain" itself. He cannot cause it, it just happens. If he caused it, what was he doing in much bigger battles in future? Testing believers? How long will he do this? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 00:05, 18 April 2014 (PDT)
:::Although you do great finding interesting verses/hadiths I have to say this:
:::''"Strong errors are long since covered so we have only these."'' - then I would rather not weaken the article with less stronger verses. The problem is when people post the article somewhere and someone points out the excuses like I showed, its discouraging for the person who posts the link. Then they have to work through the rebuttal and point out things like you did - many people are not as committed or may not know what to say. If the errors are strong they cannot be refuted in any way and it makes it easy for the other person who posts our link. This page is one of our most popular pages and its critical for it to be a good page. In fact, you see the under construction template at the top. The article needs to be reviewed and fixed so we can get rid of the template.
:::''We can rearange them within their section as I think i said.'' - sorry I forgot about what you said earlier. So what did you say, how should it be arranged? Lets see how we can do this and keep the stronger errors in one place and the weaker ones in some kind of "misc" section. Should each section have its own Miscellaneous section, or do we collect all of them at the bottom in one section? I'm thinking about the latter.
:::I made a link on your user page: [[User:Saggy]].
:::One of the most critical goals we have to take care of is to increase the quantity of good-quality editors. If you have any suggestions let me know. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:16, 18 April 2014 (PDT)
::::I donn't believe in strong or weak in case of refutation. If an error is refuted its not an error till we explain how we are correct. I will try to sort the sections on sc errors.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 07:42, 22 April 2014 (PDT)
:::::For some errors its hard to find any justification while others can have some. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:31, 22 April 2014 (PDT)

== Moon split (wikipedia) ==

That article is a joke now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_of_the_moon

Look at this talk page discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Splitting_of_the_moon#Good_article_nomination_on_hold
They were trying to make it into a good article a long time ago. Now the lead has this:
:In 2010 a NASA Lunar Science Institute (NLSI) staff scientist said "No current scientific evidence reports that the Moon was split into two (or more) parts and then reassembled at any point in the past."[7]

And the "NASA" section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_of_the_moon#NASA_mis-cited_as_proof

I bet now they would like to go the opposite direction and make sure no one sees that article. Anyway, I think its taken care of (for now). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 21:05, 20 May 2014 (PDT)

==Quran/evolution==
The new sandbox article you made on evolution is good. Here's a QHS page on it: [[Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Creation]] and this is a pro-Islamic page: [[Qur'an and the Theory of Evolution]].

If you're just gathering verses, you can add them to the existing QHS page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 21:02, 20 May 2014 (PDT)
:No this is about the apology claim on evolution. so i have to write that. I dont think a QHS can cover that thing.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 07:14, 22 May 2014 (PDT)
::Ok. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 13:32, 22 May 2014 (PDT)

== Scientific Errors #2 ==

I have asked you not to add any verses to the Scientific errors page and for now only add them to your sandbox page. The article is currently under review and new stuff should not be added there while it is under review. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:01, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

== Moon Position ==

Once again the addition you added [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&curid=9078&diff=107595&oldid=107587] is not an error in my opinion. Its just describing what things look like to humans (aesthetically). The verse literally does not mean "the moon is placed between the seven layers". It is talking about what it looks like to humans.

The seven layers is an error, that we know (and that error is present on the page I think) but the "moon is among them" just means what it appears to people on Earth. Lightyears if you see this, any thoughts on this addition? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:06, 23 May 2014 (PDT)
:No, it does not mean what the moon appears from earth. It directly places the moon somewhere. Moon and its reflected light is insignificant in the first heaven itself, let alone seven heavens. If it is about the how the moon "appears", why is appears not mentioned? How about this "The whole book appears like a war manual, a book full of hate for kafirs. but it only appears, it is not true and it was only about a 7th century power struggle. Muhammad only appears like a criminal from all the content but this is not true and all he did was right for his situation" ? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 23:45, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

:This is not a demonstrable error. Fee simply means in and feeinna means in that. In the constellations verse (25.61), it indicates that the stars are also said to be in (fee) the heavens and the sun and moon in it (feeha). Muslims will generally assume that the stars, sun and moon are in the nearest one, where other verses specify that the stars are. They believe the entirety of the visible universe is in this nearest heaven, and the other heavens are in some physical or metaphysical sense beyond it. No verse can disprove this. The only heaven ever explained is the lowest heaven.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 02:07, 24 May 2014 (PDT)
::Sorry, it can be disproven. 54:11 "Then opened We the gates of heaven with pouring water".[http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/054-qmt.php](the word is sama) Does this rainwater come from the universe? seven heaven = seven layers of atmosphere is wrong (because of the stars verse) and seven heavens = seven universes that we are yet to explore is wrong also beacause of this rain verse. The winged horse that goes to all seven heavens is another example of how awfully wrong things are. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 04:03, 24 May 2014 (PDT)
:::As if this is not enough, read [http://download.iranville.com/books/%DA%A9%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%A8%E2%80%8C%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C%20%D8%A7%D9%86%DA%AF%D9%84%DB%8C%D8%B3%DB%8C/Ali%20Sina%20-%20Understanding%20Muhammad.pdf here] p. 111 Last but one paragraph about stars. More proof that we are becoming appeasers.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 04:27, 24 May 2014 (PDT)
::::Saggy, the issue is the word "therein" (The Position of the Moon). As Lightyears said "This is not a demonstrable error."
::::You have been addressed by 3 people (me, Sahab and Lightyears) about the issues in your additions and you're still unwilling to understand what we're saying. As again you can do what you want in your sandbox.
::::''"More proof that we are becoming appeasers"'' - no this is not true. We are preventing the site from being mocked. I dont have to remind you of all the times the issues have been pointed out to you.
::::How much Arabic do you know? Are you looking at Lexicons like Lightyears is? I looked at the PDF and didnt see anything about this specific verse on p. 111 (of the PDF or as marked in the book).
::::''"It directly places the moon somewhere."'' - it does not. It simply says "among them". The placement described in Quran is vague. The position of the moon is being described as "therein / in their midst". --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:44, 24 May 2014 (PDT)
:::::And I see the paragraph on pg 111 of that book now (begins with "The Egyptian Muslim scholar..."). The original source if found, can be added to a relevant QHS about Astrology but the topic under discussion that I opened here is the Moon position and the use of the word Therein and again with regards to that, Lightyears agreed with me and said it is not an error and he used his knowledge of Arabic ("Fee simply means in and feeinna means in that"). The Science/Quran errors page is critical and needs urgent attention to delete any more non-errors. They should be moved to a Sandbox so they are not lost. I will try to see what can be done about that. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 09:21, 24 May 2014 (PDT)

== Forbidden things ==

Google search for [https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=islam%20forbidden%20things&safe=off islam forbidden things] can also help. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:01, 5 June 2014 (PDT)
:From the silliness page, [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Islamic_Silliness#Wicked_wigs], Wigs, One-shoe walks outlawed, Say no to green jars and white jars, Sinning with silverware, Allah likes sneezing but hates yawning, Fight polytheists by trimming moustache, Pus better than poetry, Allah curses tatooed women, Looking up during prayer may cause blindness.
:Blackgammon [http://www.muslimconverts.com/Munajjid-books/forbiden.htm#67], "Playing with dice"--[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:39, 11 July 2014 (PDT)
:: Search link for [http://sunnah.com/search/forbade "forbade"]. 1150 results. Other searches could be for words "haram", "outlawed", prohibited, "do not", "disallowed" etc--[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 20:01, 11 July 2014 (PDT)

== Scientific errors - response blog ==

Here's a blog that has some "refutations" of a small amount of errors. [http://quran-errors.blogspot.com/] These should be checked and used to further strengthen [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an our page] (without needing to specifically mention this blog). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:17, 14 June 2014 (PDT)

:*'''Universe contracting/Heaven is from Smoke:''' Why talk about galaxys and gas clouds? The verse says earth and heaven were coming together (and talking to Allah). Earth is as old as Galaxies? Nope.
:*'''Mountains:''' i think [http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Quran_and_Mountains this] is sufficient. They dont stabilize so they are not pegs.
:*'''Universe was made in 6 days:''' It was not made in 6 periods. There are no 6 periods. The best that guy could do was reject the backup hadith of Sahih Muslim.
:*'''Seven Planets''': rejecting a tafsir that does not support them. The seven planets have names, will add them soon.
:*'''Thunder is an Angel:''' Again rejecting a tafsir. I have added a similar hadith.
:*'''Moonlight:''' Nur never means reflected light. Poor guy wasted so much time. Ibn Kathir is also wrong (that moon light is different from the sun's).
:*Rest we have already covered: embryology, geocentric, flat earth.
:*'''Sun sets in a Muddy spring:''' We covered the word meanings. No use of the apologists dictionary, he cherrypicked meanings. Two or three scholars he quoted are utterly flimsy who make more errors defending one. Rest of scholars are tolerable, but still wrong as we have proven in the word analysis. The last part reminds me, do we have articles on hadith authenticity other than the list of fake hadiths?
:I will see how to add all the above, or it could be there already.
:[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 13:43, 14 June 2014 (PDT)
::Yes, best to somehow improve the existing information on our side (if needed) or add additional supporting evidence where possible. A small "Responses to Apologetics" section can made for each error below the verse.
::Yes I saw that the blog has rejected the Tafsir. When all else fails they resort to "The Tafsir/hadith is weak". I'm sure every single hadith can be considered weak if all the chain of narrators are examined. They just do the analysis for the hadiths they dont like. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 19:04, 14 June 2014 (PDT)
:::I'll try to work on this too. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:19, 15 June 2014 (PDT)
::::A responses section below every verse? It will look like a train wreck. Better say in the lead that there are responses and detailed analysis in the main articles of verses.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 10:56, 15 June 2014 (PDT)
::::Which are the other top 10 articles?[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 10:57, 15 June 2014 (PDT)
:::::You have a gmail account? I can add you to the statistics view and you can see the top 10.
:::::Many errors dont have a dedicated page. "Responses to apolgetics/Notes" - basically a few lines to repel criticism. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 13:39, 15 June 2014 (PDT)
::::::I go one by one; we have [[Qur'an and a Universe from Smoke]] for the first claim. i think it should be linked and then expanded, but iam not yet sure how to expand.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 09:15, 17 June 2014 (PDT)
:::::::I dont either. There are many good existing articles written on various other websites, try searching. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:37, 17 June 2014 (PDT)
::::::::By the way that blog link now has some kind of notice saying that the author is going to stop writing responses for now and write better responses later on. He says (the username is ' .. guy', so) that some of our error sections that he addressed were removed or edited in reaction to his content and I dont think thats true. If he's watching he's most welcome to create a user account and join this discussion.
::::::::As for revisions/deletions/additions, we have always improved our work and that's a good thing for any kind of work.
::::::::He also implies that we inserted the "under construction" notice recently or in reaction to his blog's content but we did it in [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=103064&oldid=103063 January] (6 months ago) before this blog was noticed and I think it has been on that page before as well. I doubt he'll make these corrections as he probably wants his readers to believe what he originally said (that makes his blog look better).
::::::::Here's another 'rebuttal' link [http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/faithfreedom-wikiislam] on another site/forum.
::::::::You can see why its critical to have this page in the best shape possible. In my opinion none of these rebuttals have really addressed the errors but they may still have content that can be used to improve our page(s). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:49, 29 June 2014 (PDT)

Hey Guys,

I think you have completely misunderstood my recent blog post regarding halting replies to articles written on this site. I will reply to some of the points made:

:"By the way that blog link now has some kind of notice saying that the author is going to stop writing responses for now and write better responses later on. He says (the username is ' .. guy', so) that some of our error sections that he addressed were removed or edited in reaction to his content and I dont think thats true. If he's watching he's most welcome to create a user account and join this discussion."

Over-time you have removed, rewritten alot of the page. Removing many sections that I wrote responses to. Im not claiming this is due to my work solely - I think it is more in relation to you guys realising how weak and lack luster many of the points were on that article.

:"By the way that blog link now has some kind of notice saying that the author is going to stop writing responses for now and write better responses later on. He says (the username is ' .. guy', so) that some of our error sections that he addressed were removed or edited in reaction to his content and I dont think thats true. If he's watching he's most welcome to create a user account and join this discussion."

Im really unsure where I implied this? After recieving traffic from this page. I realised your discussion regarding the blog. So I checked out the page and found it to have this editing title and noticed large changes to the page. Hence I paid a post detailing I wont be analysing the work until it is 100% finished.

Hope this clears up any misunderstanding guys.

Also forgive me. I dont know how to correctly post on this site. Feel free to clean it up if you guys can.

--[[User:ThatMuslimGuy|ThatMuslimGuy]] ([[User talk:ThatMuslimGuy|talk]]) 15:20, 1 July 2014 (PDT)
::Hi, welcome. You can use colons to indent lines. Indeed over time we have revised (that includes revision/removal/addition) this page a lot to improve it. Its an important page and its a work in progress like everything else on the site. Which sections were removed or edited that had been responded to on your blog?
:::''I think it is more in relation to you guys realising how weak and lack luster many of the points were on that article.''
::Again its a work in progress like any other page and we try to make all the content stronger with time and the reason for that revision can be scrutiny/afterthought that we have ourselves or that closer look may come from outside. Some errors are more obvious than others (this is expected). This dialogue can help us strengthen our page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 18:12, 1 July 2014 (PDT)

:::: No this is good. And I commend you for going through the articles and rewriting them.-- [[User:ThatMuslimGuy|ThatMuslimGuy]] ([[User talk:ThatMuslimGuy|talk]]) 18:42, 1 July 2014 (PDT)
:::::Ok and we look forward to seeing your new revised materials as well.
:::::Have you thought of contacting other Islamic rebuttal websites and starting an apologetics wiki to coordinate the rebuttals? I say this because from my perspective ultimately such an initiative will help our site (in the long run) and for your perspective this is something you would probably want.
:::::Originally I had the idea of having apologetics on our site (for example this article [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an_(Response)] which is linked at the bottom of the main Errors page) but that idea didnt take off fully and now I think its better to have those things off-site so the apologetics can manage their material any way they want and we can still exchange links. You probably need a good domain name first. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 01:35, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
::::::Who is on whose side? Lol. It begins with the lies that we made drastic changes in the scientific errors article and put the review notice because of that blog. Barely one or two sentences we added because of it. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 12:10, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
:::::::Competition doesnt scare me and it will motivate people on our side to do even better. We have it very easy already and we dont have the burden of defending Islam.
:::::::But indeed the blog's claims are misleading and they do suggest as I mentioned to ThatMuslimGuy before that they are written to make the reader believe we changed/removed stuff in reaction to the blog which is not true. In any case one of the claim made is:
::::::::"I recently noticed that WikiIslam has updated there "Scientific Errors Page" with the following:"
:::::::As mentioned we had that notice since a long time and he would have noticed that template even before because he has been writing some rebuttals since a long time (I believe some of his rebuttals are dated a while back). He only created that notice after I mentioned the blog link to you.
:::::::The other claim made on the blog is:
::::::::"So far they have removed various areas - some of which I addressed."
:::::::I have asked him twice to tell us what areas we removed or edited and he hasn't responded and until he does that and is specific about which areas/sections/errors he's talking about he cannot make the claim that the areas, some of which he addressed were removed or edited.
:::::::So ThatMuslimGuy, can you support your claim by telling us which sections that you addressed on your blog were removed? Here's a link to the [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&offset=&limit=250&action=history page history.] You can use the Diff links to go back in time to show you older versions of the page. You can give us Diff links and tell us which sections you're talking about. Here's one example of a Diff link. [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=107485&oldid=107473 Diff] link or you can just copy paste the URL(s) here. [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Adverse_Effects_of_Islamic_Fasting Happy Ramadan.] (a favorite article of mine) --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:18, 2 July 2014 (PDT)

::::::::: Hey guys, In the past yeah we have thought about doing that. Saggy - Removing multiple points on the site, rewriting sections, adding additions etc - I would say is big change to the article, In my post no where have I asserted you changed the article because of me or anything alike. I simply detailed that I recently checked out the page and that you had added that on the top of the page and removed some points, some of which I had written about, hence rendering those posts on my blog now void.

:::::::::I think you seriously reading to much into the post. I simply realised you were editing the page. Hence I thought id give you guys time to rewrite it - add additions etc- then later address it. Instead of addressing things which may be changed or removed later.

:::::::::You removed - Night Time Cold is Caused by the Moon [http://quran-errors.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/re-quran-scientific-error-night-time.html]] [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&oldid=90145#Night_time_cold_is_caused_by_the_Moon]

:::::::::You removed - the Universe contracting according to the Quran [http://quran-errors.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/is-universe-contracting-according-to.html] [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&oldid=90145#The_Universe_is_contracting]

:::::::::You reworded this - How Many Planets are in the solar system according to the Quran? [http://quran-errors.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/re-wikiislam-quran-scientific-error-how.html] [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&oldid=90145#How_many_planets_in_the_solar_system_according_to_the_Quran.3F] to Seven Planets in the Universe.

:::::::::etc

:::::::::Im never claiming you removed them because of my blog. Im simply stating you removed them - some of which I wrote articles on - hence rendering them void.
:::::::::--[[User:ThatMuslimGuy|ThatMuslimGuy]] ([[User talk:ThatMuslimGuy|talk]]) 18:36, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::''" In the past yeah we have thought about doing that. "'' - I say make it happen. Have you thought of a domain name?
::::::::::Alright thats what I was looking for, the blog post links and the diffs - thanks much. We'll look into them. Are there any more? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 19:23, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::::: I dont think so. I think the others wordings have just changed. People discussed it before: [http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,1024.msg4792.html#msg4792] But the idea died. --[[User:ThatMuslimGuy|ThatMuslimGuy]] ([[User talk:ThatMuslimGuy|talk]]) 19:42, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::::::I'm thinking at least some of the ones that were removed were added by Saggy (he has been asked by people not to add any errors that arent obvious, hence I made this set of [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Talk:Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#.5BSticky.5D_Instructions_for_editing_this_page guidelines] on the talk page). But thats ok, all editors make mistakes (including myself) or may have different perspectives. He's done some good work in finding hadiths and verses and he's passionate and interested about the topic. He made this page on the [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Hadith Scientific errors in Hadiths] (a sample error: [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Hadith#Black_cumin_cures_all_diseases "black cumin cures everything"]), and some other pages.
:::::::::::::You should follow up with the idea you were discussing with your friends. Sounds like some progress was being made. Take control of it, get advice and give it your best shot. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 20:01, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::::::Why dont you try to rebutt some of the more obvious errors such as [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#Stars_are_Located_in_the_Nearest_Heaven Stars are Located in the Nearest Heaven], [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#Earth_Created_before_Stars Earth Created before Stars], [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#Humans_Created_in_Paradise_and_then_Brought_to_Earth Humans Created in Paradise and then Brought to Earth] which is explored in detail at: [[Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Creation]] <---- This is a huge glaring Scientific error (evolution). etc. So start with the most difficult errors if you really believe Quran has no errors. Saying they're figures of speech is not a defense.
::::::::::::::We'll look at the ones you pointed out and I can assure you they were not removed in reaction to your blog but as we were reviewing them ourselves. There are some others that were removed/revised which are not on your blog. We have done such revisions all the time and not just recently. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:05, 3 July 2014 (PDT)

:::::::::::::::: Will do - Some of those are the most weakest ones. --[[User:ThatMuslimGuy|ThatMuslimGuy]] ([[User talk:ThatMuslimGuy|talk]]) 03:46, 3 July 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::::::::::I doubt the most obvious errors will ever be responded to (remember to deal with Creationism and Evolution as you know that is a major issue for science) and after that there will be a vast amount of [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Site_Map other content] to deal with. Good luck. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:05, 3 July 2014 (PDT)

== Reviews ==

I have to tell you that currently I do not have the time to review your additions. So if they're significant, please add them to your Sandbox pages so they can be reviewed at the same time later on. You can continue doing minor additions where a review doesn't take a long time. If its anything I have to analyze it has to go in the sandbox page. Sorry about that but I just do not currently have the time to review these things one at a time and check if they are accurate or if they have any problems.

Just create as many Sandbox pages as you like so you can organize all your additions. Add notes there where they should be added on the target page etc. Here's [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Science_and_the_Seven_Earths&diff=107921&oldid=103980 one] that you just added. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 19:54, 22 June 2014 (PDT)
::When will you get time? Besides you spent at least 10 minutes yesterday. How long does it take to review that an apologist is contradicting the quran itself (this is not even like my error claims)? If I gather all errors in my sandbox, one day you will have to spend an a lot more time than you get per day right now. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 11:23, 23 June 2014 (PDT)
:::Forgot to reply. At least for me its easier and more efficient mentally to deal with multiple similar issues at the same time instead of one at a time with long breaks in between them. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 09:51, 2 July 2014 (PDT)

== 72 Virgins ==

I'm still trying to figure out what the point of [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=72_Virgins&diff=prev&oldid=109201 this] edit was, and how it was supposed to be connected to [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Talk:72_Jungfrauen this] rant by a fly-by anonymous German. The German guy is only complaining about how he thinks the German ''language'' in that section is linguistically incorrect. In that case, the German translator should probably be asked to comment or the talk page should be deleted (if they have no intention of fixing the alleged problem, then their complaint is nothing more than a rant). Instead you make some linguistically incorrect additions of your own to the English version and claim "I corrected the English side"? Really? The point of that western dhimmi author is that the Bible does not claim that after death Christians will be issued with wings and a harp, and walk on clouds, just like how she wants us to believe the Qur'an does not claim that after death Muslims will be issued with virgins. Our point is her analogy is faulty because the Qur'an ''does'' state that after death Muslims will be issued with virgins. Since Revelation 14:2 does not state anywhere that Christians will be issued with wings and a harp, and walk on clouds, the addition was pointless and is counter-productive to the purpose of the article. The probable origin of ideas is irrelevant information and only serves to water-down and confuse the articulated and concise approach of the article. Your other edit to [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Revelational_Circumstances_of_the_Qur%27an%3A_Missing_Verses&diff=109206&oldid=109200 Revelational Circumstances of the Qur'an] was also faulty, in that Tabari is not a part of "the major Hadith collections" (all other sources such as tafsirs etc., were purposely excluded by Sani because they are not as authoritative as the major Hadith collections and tend to contain apologetic opinions). The fact that this series only quotes major Hadith collections is stated quite clearly on its main page, but you seem to be making additions without fully understanding why or what you are editing. Please can you explain your edits or at least try to be more careful in the future. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 02:27, 11 August 2014 (PDT)
:The woman overlooked that Quran makes the claim but Bible does not. The image of a heavener with a harp is at best a pop culture thing derived from that verse. The sentence is still too weird. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 06:48, 11 August 2014 (PDT)
::She did not overlook it. That was exactly her point. She is claiming Muslims view the idea of virgins in heaven much the same as Christians view wings and a harp i.e. it's a made-up thing that no practising Christian actually believes. Okay, so you think that sentence is "weird", but that does not explain why you think adding pointless trivia to the page is "fixing it", nor does it explain why you think your edit made it less "weird" (if it wasn't linguistically weird to begin with, it certainly was afterwards). We are not contesting her claim that the wings and harp thing is a myth because she is right, so there is nothing more needed to be said about that. What we are doing is pointing out ''how'' she is wrong.[[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 07:22, 11 August 2014 (PDT)

== QHS edits ==

Your edit here [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Animals&diff=prev&oldid=109252]. This is Ritual slaughter. It applies to all Abrahamic religions. I agree killing an animal with a knife like this is painful for the animal but the animal's meat is consumed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice#Abrahamic_traditions.

So tell me why those hadiths should stay here and how they fit with the other content of the page.

For the 2nd edit, [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Cosmology&diff=109253&oldid=109212]

This belongs in Creationism more than it does in Cosmology. Is there anything specific about cosmology mentioned in that quote? Plus this quote has round brackets '(' and you've used double triangular brackets '<'.

So can you explain? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 22:01, 14 August 2014 (PDT)
::He did it in large numbers. Thats all I want to show, whether it is for food or fun. There is also some kindness to a animals hadith that does not fit in.
::Some uterus is attached to that throne. It will react on Judgement Day and so on. Often this cosmology and creation are seen to have some things overlaping like creation of throne, sun, moon stars and heavens, (but not creation of Adam ). So you want it in creation? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 23:32, 14 August 2014 (PDT)
:::You are the boss. I am a nobody. So I will edit my sandbox. What am I going to do with a sandbox out of this site? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:26, 15 August 2014 (PDT)
::::I will also post it to the tasks. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:37, 15 August 2014 (PDT)

::::: The site's quality is the first priority and must be preserved (so it doesn't matter who the boss is - we are all bosses and it depends whose arguments makes sense). I am a nobody too just like you and I will consult with Sahab to decide on this. Looking at it rationally, the problem is that I don't have time to review a regular editor's edits every time and many of yours edits need to be seriously corrected and require a lot of time for correction. If all of someone's edits require serious evaluation it wouldnt be a problem unless there was someone willing to evaluate the edits who had the time to do it.
:::::''"He did it in large numbers."'' - what large numbers? The hadith only say "many camels". Many camels could be 6, 10, 15, 30 -- we dont know. So what do you mean by large numbers and how do you prove it? If there were a large number of people to feed, 20 camels could be slaughtered and that would be considered "many" or "large numbers".
:::::No as I said, the Tafsir quote has nothing specific to do with Cosmology; nothing about Stars, skies, universe etc. It leaves one wondering what it has to do with cosmology. ''"Often this cosmology and creation are seen to have some things"'' - this is your interpretation. If creationism is linked we can then copy all the Creation hadiths into Cosmology which doesnt make any sense. I will wait for Sahab's input before commenting further. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:51, 15 August 2014 (PDT)
::::::I know what he's likely to say. So I think you should add it to creation and forget the first one. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 06:34, 15 August 2014 (PDT)
:::::::I think the edit Saggy made to [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Animals&diff=prev&oldid=109252#Sacrifices Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Animals] is a very good addition to the page. Ritual slaughter is described in all Abrahamic texts, but there are several differences here in comparison to the other two big faiths:

:::::::1. Concerning Christians, they do not perform ritual slaughter, nor did Jesus ever perform a ritual slaughter.
:::::::2. Concerning Jews, yes they do perform ritual slaughter, but they do not go around telling people that Moses loved animals and that he is an excellent role-model for today's socially conscientious youth.
:::::::3. On the other hand, a lot of apologists do try to convert young people to Islam by trying to sell the idea that Muhammad was a progressive man who loved animals.

:::::::So, considering the above, it is very relevant in the QHS:Animals page to quote proof that Muhammad not only ordered the ritual slaughter of animals, but also partook in it himself.

:::::::I also agree with Saggy that the "kindness to animals" hadith do not fit in with that page. I certainly did not add them and I do not think they should remain. A section like that does not belong on a wiki critical of Islam. If it was added with the intention of making the wiki appear more "neutral" then I can safely say that it will ''never'' convince anyone that the wiki is neutral, but it does make the page look odd and will probably confuse people.

:::::::I think the edit Saggy made to [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Cosmology&diff=109253&oldid=109212 Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Cosmology] does not belong in the Creation page (it is too vague for that and the Creation page is very specific), but it can be squeezed in with cosmology because it describes Allah's "Throne" etc. In all honesty though, I would just remove that last edit by Saggy and move it to a temp page until somewhere more suited is found (I don't think it really talks about cosmology or creation in a very coherent way). Or at the very least, keep it on the cosmology page but trim it down to only include the relevant information (e.g., as Saggy noted, "Some uterus is attached to that throne. It will react on Judgement Day and so on.").

:::::::About the triangular brackets; I'm guessing they are there because Saggy copy/pasted text from Answering Islam. This is a concern to me. The last time we had an editor who got carried away with copy/pasting stuff from there, things didn't turn out so well (It was this by OsmanHassan that left us with those Errors pages in such a mess). If you are not going to bother removing the emphasis added by the Answering Islam team (such as brackets, underlining and caps) you really should not be using them.

:::::::Another concern is the fact that the tafsir is not being cited properly. ''Ibn Kathir, "Interpretation of Qur'an 47:22"'' is not a reference. If an online version of Tafsir Ibn Kathir is going to quoted, then it should be cited more like [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Creation#Ibn_Kathir_2 this] (Not exactly an up-to-date example of a reference because it does not use any CiteWeb templates. Nevertheless, notice the archived URL and the actual heading of each section provided in the tafsir being quoted).

:::::::At Saggy: What does "I know what he's likely to say" mean? Honestly, I would really like to know what you think you know, because I highly doubt you know what I'm going to say. I'll admit I usually think you edits should be removed. But that is because they are usually terrible. In this case, they are not wholly terrible (in the first case, it was actually a good addition and a good observation concerning the "Kindness" hadith). [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 03:51, 16 August 2014 (PDT)
::::::::Ok. I added back the Sacrifice hadiths and took out the kindness section. Maybe those reasons could be added to those sections (just a suggestion). Thanks for the analysis. I agree care should be taken if copying stuff from Answering-Islam.
::::::::Saggy, you can move the Cosmology stuff to the temp page as directed by Sahab or trim it down as suggested.
::::::::Well guys I dont know if I can keep up with the edit reviews but I'll try my best. I had suggested to Saggy that he should keep his edits in his Sandbox pages and maybe one day we can find someone willing who has the time to review them. I am operating in a minimum maintenance mode and even [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAxius&diff=109285&oldid=109250 that] is a challenge for me. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 10:31, 16 August 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::No probs. I don't think any additional text would be needed. As it is, it lets the readers know that Mo had no problems with animal slaughter without making judgements on it or bringing up other faiths. If we did bring up other faiths, then it would look like we're defending them (just think of Natassia and the problems her writings have caused on the wiki recently). With the exception of a few major tu quoque arguments which inhibit the criticism of Islam, that is something the wiki is not here to do. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 11:43, 16 August 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::Ok. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 09:02, 17 August 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::What is this Natassia tangle? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 11:48, 16 August 2014 (PDT)
:Saggy, please fix the reference style in this edit [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Cosmology&diff=prev&oldid=109291] as Sahab mentioned above.
:Sahab also said to you ''"I usually think you[r] edits should be removed. But that is because they are usually terrible."'' I agree with Sahab, adding that its too much work reviewing your edits and fixing them and currently no one is available to do that. So I'm sorry but from now please only edit Sandboxes in your userspace (no main space edits, or edits on Sandboxes for the site). You can edit your Sandboxes in any way you like and organize your content in whatever way you like and you can also make new pages in your Sandboxes.
:''"What am I going to do with a sandbox out of this site?"'' - what do you mean by this? You can work on the sandboxes and hopefully one day someone will come by and take your edits from there and merge them into main space articles where necessary. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 09:02, 17 August 2014 (PDT)
::Sahab I'm guessing you wouldn't have a problem with Saggy's edits to the mainspace being disallowed. I dont have enough time to review the edits of a regular editor who has problems with most of their edits (as you said above and I agreed with it). Unless you're willing to review them and I'm guessing you dont have enough time as well.
::To anyone else: I'm sorry but the top priority is to maintain the quality of the site and if anyone is willing to review Saggy's edits let me know and we can make that arrangement. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 13:29, 21 August 2014 (PDT)
:::No, I don't have the time to do that. Sorry Ax. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 19:02, 21 August 2014 (PDT)
::::Yea, I figured. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:13, 29 August 2014 (PDT)
Saggy, possible material for [[WikiIslam:Sandbox/Forgiveness]] - "Allah forgives all sins" but then "does not forgive shirk" etc. Take what you want and let me know when you're done and I'll delete that page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:13, 29 August 2014 (PDT)
:Why do you want to delete it? It is in a bad state. But it is an extension of [[Contradictions in the Qur'an]](1.13 Does Allah forgive everything? , 1.14 Does Allah forgive worshipping other gods/shirk?). Since there are hadith for shirk, it will also benefit from them. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:28, 29 August 2014 (PDT)
::Is there already another article for this "forgiveness" subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Saggy|contribs]]) {{#if:| |}} ([[WikiIslam:Signatures#Signing_Posts|Remember to sign your comments]]) 
:::That Sandbox is what we have. It was written in the early days when we didnt have any good content and its not a good article but you can take the "Will all sins be forgiven?" and make a section for Contradictions in the Quran (in your sandbox article for QHS issues) and take anything else whatever you think is useful.--[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:50, 29 August 2014 (PDT)
::::Is [[Contradictions in the Qur'an]] meant for detailed explanations?? Where will hadiths go? I think of trying to edit this old article itself. Wait for a while. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:58, 29 August 2014 (PDT)

== Disasters ==

What do you see in the history? [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Accidents_and_Natural_Disasters_in_the_Muslim_World&action=history]. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:35, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
:So quick? Anyway, Kashmir is a Muslim majority state and the Kashmir Valley is almost entirely Muslim. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 04:40, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
::The disaster also affected non-Muslim Indian-controlled areas so no. That does not fit in with the rest of the page. It doesnt matter if its Muslim majority. That is not the pattern already on the page. I have asked you not to edit main space so can you please remember not to? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:44, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
:::You did not even look at the final rendered version of your page edit [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Accidents_and_Natural_Disasters_in_the_Muslim_World&diff=109713&oldid=109710]. There is a huge red tag there. See it? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:47, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
::::Another thing is that you had to re-add the previous text. That means someone must have removed it. So you would have checked page history or Recent changes to see what was going on. How did you not notice that the text had been removed? Why did you re-add the text without seeing the page history or seeing who removed it, or contact them to ask about the removal? And you wonder why you are asked not to edit the main space. This means that you should not edit any page on this site unless it has these patterns: (Talk page, User talk page, Sandbox page). This means all your main space edits can be reverted in the future without any explanation. Do you understand this now? I would normally not approach an editor like this but I have asked you multiple times before not to edit main space and of course your quality of edits has been brought up before. The only way to get back mainspace editing is to demonstrate high quality editing/engagement in the 3 other types of pages you can edit.
::::Please provide a confirmation that you have understood what I have said here. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 06:08, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
:::::I clicked once, browser did did not load saved edit, internet was down, the page still remained. Minutes after that i added the next incident. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 07:32, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
::::::Ok. The first edit though shows the red ref tag [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Accidents_and_Natural_Disasters_in_the_Muslim_World&diff=109709&oldid=109610]. Did you see that? Use preview or view the page right away to make sure the output looks ok. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 07:36, 14 September 2014 (PDT)

== New editors ==

About your comment [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=WikiIslam:Forum/Visitor_Inquiries&diff=109960&oldid=109956 here], its easy for new editors to be able to directly edit main space [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Message_to_New_Users]: ''"Therefore (excluding minor edits and corrections), new users should not edit or create main space articles until they demonstrate good judgement and the ability to make positive contributions, upon which they will receive the Editor or Reviewer user right.".''. All they need to do is display good judgement in Sandbox pages. If they cannot do that that yes, they must wait for content to be reviewed and that of course is dependent on who is available to review.

The highest priority on the site is to maintain and increase its quality. It is not whether or not someone can edit the main space content directly or not. They also have a lot of options because they can edit Sandbox and userspace pages to any extent. The quality of work in those pages will decide if they can edit main space directly. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:38, 8 October 2014 (PDT)

== New addition on Scientific errors in Quran ==

* Investigate and add if suitable: [http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Qur%27anic_scientific_foreknowledge&oldid=1453448]. Also add any other suitable errors on this page.
* Check for additions: http://www.islam-watch.org/SyedKamranMirza/Erroneous-Science-and-Contradictions-in-Quran.htm

User talk:Saggy

2017-09-07T20:33:12Z

AAA: /* New addition on Scientific errors in Quran */ new section

==Scientific Errors==

Hi. That page uses title-case for capitalization of headings[http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Standardization#Section_headings]. And there should not be multiple Qur'an translations used to illustrate a single error (i.e choose only one translation from the USC site). Both those errors were in your first edit to the page but I fixed them[http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=102143&oldid=102140]. You have repeated those same errors in your second edit. You will have to fix them before your edits can be considered. Thanks. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 13:27, 5 January 2014 (PST)
:I've reverted your edit again. You are aware this talk page discussion has been initiated. If you do not understand something here, the answer is not to reinsert whatever was reverted with a summary saying "btw I don't understand". That's basically ignoring this talk page. If you don't understand something then ask. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 19:07, 9 January 2014 (PST)
::Not much time . ok , what am I to do to caps? If u revert instead of correcting (which is a loss to the readers), others dont mind? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 02:48, 10 January 2014 (PST)
:::No they don't mind. Quality standards are high on this wiki. If editors do not have the time to adhere to guidelines/stick to proper etiquette or take the care to format their contributions properly, we'd rather they not edit at all. Do you think it's fair if others have to waste their time cleaning up after someone else's edits? We don't. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 11:49, 10 January 2014 (PST)

Got it. Got mistake. Thanks. (Or u want me to stop doing anything until we complete discussing?)[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 02:53, 10 January 2014 (PST)
:No, that's fine. Thanks. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 11:42, 10 January 2014 (PST)
hi Saggy, this Science error/Quran page is popular and is often linked to by people so its important for this page to be as strong as possible. Some errors are more obvious than others. Some only appear in one translation and so on. For example the Golden Calf statue verse that you added was great. It obviously goes against science and is a glaring error while some others are not that obvious.

One idea I have is to keep the strongest errors at the top and the less obvious ones (or the ones that can be explained in some way by apologists) near the bottom in another section. I tried making some rules here: [[Talk:Scientific Errors in the Qur'an]] (draft). Let me know your thoughts. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 08:19, 1 February 2014 (PST)
:How can we judge weakness? Its is everyones POV. EG Every claim about the sky is weak on its own. But when put together its a huge blunder. We already have sections for the branchs of science. At most we'll put weak claims at bottom of each section. of course we mustnt say - xyz is a weaker claim , we can try to explian it or justifiy it as much as possible..[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 12:52, 1 February 2014 (PST)
::Hi, I moved your comment back to keep it in one place. Some errors are present in Arabic and the translations, while others are present only in the translations. For example Constellations. Apologetist might say the Quran just means "collections of light" and yes these were made by Allah for humans (for example) and he was just talking in a general sense. A more glaring error is the Golden statue or mathematics of inheritance. So some are more obvious, the others are a little iffy and have some conditions.
::You might have some good points, I'm myself unsure about this issue so I'm just talking about it to see if there's any concrete ideas. So thats one idea, to put weak claims at the bottom.
::Another suggestion is to look at other websites like Answering-Islam and expand on the evidence for these errors, for example with arabic or tafsir.
::Another thing. Verses should be checked against the 3 translators to make sure those are the only ones we're using. I saw an instance where there was another translation being used and it was corrected. I will try to go through all of them.
::Anyone else have anything about this? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 16:06, 1 February 2014 (PST)
:::3 translators is ok. but we cant cry about translation matters in the article itself or lose content bcoz of them. on the long run give Every claim its main article like we have lying forehead or sunset in a muddy spring. As for constellations, other translations are "towers" or "mansions"- Both are disgusting if we take them literaly. And the calf statue may be defended by just calling it a miracle. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 23:05, 1 February 2014 (PST)
::::Alright then fair enough unless anyone else has anything to add for improving the article. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 10:29, 2 February 2014 (PST)
:::::I moved the one for constellation here on your page [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=User:Saggy/Sandbox_-_Issues_with_Quran_and_Hadith&diff=107464&oldid=106860]. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:43, 15 May 2014 (PDT)

:::::: Hi Saggy, I found some more miracles of floating boats: 2:164, 16:14, 42:32. Perhaps it should be mentioned that at Muhammad's time Archimedes law describing buoyancy was more than 8 centuries old. Shall I put it in? Also I added a remark about the missing leap year on Axius talk page. --[[User:PW. Jansen|PW. Jansen]] ([[User talk:PW. Jansen|talk]]) 22:18, 24 August 2014 (PDT)

== Quran details ==

For [[WikiIslam:Sandbox/Qur%27anic_Claim_of_Having_Details]], how did you find these verses? For example the first two. Through your own study? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 18:16, 24 February 2014 (PST)
:Yea--[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 07:45, 25 February 2014 (PST)
::Thats great. I will try to work on this article. I had just added a few lines at the top. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 10:48, 25 February 2014 (PST)
:::Just a quick pointer for Saggy concerning that page; readers should not be directly addressed. So rather than say, ''"What will this beast be like? How come it will be able to talk to people?"'', it should say something like, ''"The Qur'an does not elaborate on the physical appearance of this beast or how it would communicate with humans"''. The Isra and Mi'raj section seems to have it right. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 13:51, 25 February 2014 (PST)
::::Yea, we'll have to work on that after the verses have been put in.
::::Saggy how are you finding these verses? Through search or by reading the verses yourself and searching for issues? Any plans of getting more?
::::Still not sure about the article or where it will go but I think its a good idea (needs more verses though). Its different than the usual "errors/contradictions" and so on. Its another kind of defect but we'll see how it goes. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 19:21, 25 February 2014 (PST)
:::::Some are old things i just recollect (like i heard- isra-mi'raj is incomplete without reading bukhari)--[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 09:19, 26 February 2014 (PST)
::::::Some of the [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam Five Pillars] could be included. They're covered [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an_Only_Islam_-_Why_it_is_Not_Possible#Five_Pillars_of_Islam here] (not a very well written article , but it provides the necessary info). There's also the [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Jizyah Jizyah]. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 06:09, 27 February 2014 (PST)

== Discussions link ==

To make it easy for us to track discussions among current editors, I moved the discussion about logical errors to the Discussions page [[WikiIslam:Forum|Discussions]] page (linked on the left). I'll reply there soon. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 04:35, 6 March 2014 (PST)
:Just letting you know that there's a new "Editing" section on the left that has all the links related to Editing (including Discussions). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 15:30, 6 March 2014 (PST)

== Contracted forms ==

Hi Saggy. I've corrected your use of contracted forms and the missing question mark [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Contradictions_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=105449&oldid=105391 here]. Please read the [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Article_Style_and_Content_Guide WikiIslam:Article Style and Content Guide]. Thanks. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 11:58, 8 March 2014 (PST)

== Inheritance Laws ==

I thought I'd ask you since you've been interested in the errors/contradictions topics. Inheritance laws ([[Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#Mathematical_Error_in_Hereditary_Laws]]) have had some responses like [http://www.khalidzaheer.com/qa/615] and [http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_inheritance_law__by_ansar_al__adl].

Do you know how to respond to these rebuttals and see if there's anything to investigate here? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:56, 12 March 2014 (PDT)

:Easy- site 1-"Out of the remaining (11 out of 24), the two daughters are going to get one-third each. " site 2- "And for the daughters 2/3 of '''what remains''' = 2/3 of 13/24=13/36 of the total amount" This ''remaining'' is assumed. Where is it mentioned? Nothing is mentioned so u have to divide whole (24 / 24) into two thirds. Other sites do the same thing.[http://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/1408/inheritance-shares-dont-add-up-to-1] theres in fact no consistency in whom to divide the remainder among. One site[http://www.kurandersleri.net/miras/en/Miras_Erkek_en.html] divides watever looks comfortable, whole or remains, only to ensure that fractions add upto 1 or a lesser value. [This http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/inh_01.htm] uses the contradictory shares of sisters to convert more than 1 to less than 1. Some use an old law of increasing denominator in the sum so that it is equal to numerator- but they violate all the stated fractions[http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/ma_addup.htm]. First, 4:11-12 have 10+ rules and and 4:176 has 4 rules contradicting some of them so lots of whims will show up. We are not even talking about gender injustice in this.--[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 04:21, 14 March 2014 (PDT)
::Ok. We should then think about making an article about this later on. Currently [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Inheritance_Laws this] exists but it may not be dealing with the rebuttals and its also an essay by another author, so we can make a new article about this later. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 09:46, 14 March 2014 (PDT)
:Ya start it.--[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 12:05, 14 March 2014 (PDT)
::For now I just added a link to this section to the tasks page. [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=WikiIslam:Tasks&diff=105798&oldid=105528]. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 14:59, 14 March 2014 (PDT)

== Comprehension of errors ==

Can you please explain how you interpreted [http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/052-sbt.php#004.052.051 Bukhari 4:52:51] to [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Hadith&curid=9085&diff=106685&oldid=106682 mean] "Orbit of the Sun is comparable to a Bow". From a cursory glance, it doesn't say anything of the sort. What it says is that having an area the size of a bow (not the bow itself) in heaven is better (not comparable) to having the entire earth (not sun). That same hadith continues by saying, "A single endeavor in Allah's Cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all that on which the sun rises and sets." If we apply your logic to the rest of the same narration, it would mean that the "Orbit of the Sun is comparable to a single endeavor in Allah's Cause" is also a valid interpretation, something which it is not. I find it hard to understand how you could misinterpret something so obvious, so please do explain it to us. Can you also stop rushing things (like you had previously agreed)? This way you would avoid making typos such as "comaprable". [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 16:03, 5 April 2014 (PDT)
:[http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/052-sbt.php#004.052.053 Bukhari 4:52:53] says, "A place in Paradise as small as the bow '''or lash''' of one of you is better than '''all the world''' and whatever is in it." So clearly the connection you made between the shape of a bow and the sun's orbit does not exist. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 16:26, 5 April 2014 (PDT)
::Saggy, I would also like to know how you made that deduction and add to this query. Recently you interpreted the Horseman thing and now this certain one as well. Its good that you're exploring new verses and hadiths but there is a problem in how you're interpreting text. If you dont understand a certain text, you can ask us on your talk or on the [[forum]] page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:34, 6 April 2014 (PDT)
::Suppose you wanted to say the same thing, no matter if it sounds good or mediocre: "A place as small as X is better than that on which Y happens." Of course "that" could refer to "place " better than to "X". But if X is not something typically ''small,'' what is the point in saying it? ''Bow'' must have the other meaning (which is backed up by that sun travelling-prostrating and permission verse) Come on, u could have said as small as... anything. Why bow? You can think of several adjectives on hearing the word bow, except "small." Whether this was narrated at war (single endeavor) or some other hadith sounds partly similar, does not matter. That could be a change of the simile made in the first place. Is a place anything like a bow? The sun rises and sets? Not at all. Only a person who thinks the sun runs on a semicircle over the other place(earth) would have said "bow." [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 10:53, 6 April 2014 (PDT)

:::'''"But if X is not something typically ''small,'' what is the point in saying it?"'''
:::A bow is small in comparison to the earth or in comparison to a lot of things.
:::'''"''Bow'' must have the other meaning"'''
:::You only assert that it must, but you haven't provided any convincing reasons why.
:::'''"Come on, u could have said as small as... anything. Why bow?"'''
:::Because they were warriors and Muhammad was describing where they would go when they die in battle. Is that really too much of a stretch? No, it makes perfect sense. In fact it's what most people would get from reading that verse. Your explanation just comes of as a stretch.
:::'''"You can think of several adjectives on hearing the word bow, except "small.""'''
:::Words such as "dying" and "in battle" spring to mind. And I don't agree with your "except small" comment. A bow is small in comparison to the world, so there is no valid reason why it could not be described as "small".
:::'''"Whether this was narrated at war (single endeavor) or some other hadith sounds partly similar, does not matter."'''
:::Of course it does. That is what we call "context". Context is what helps us understand the meanings behind text. It is what Muslim apologists usually ignore. And of course what "some other hadith sounds partly similar" says is important. It's important because it is describing the exact same event, but via a different narrator. Even the one hadith you are misinterpreting debunks your ideas when read fully (refer to my original post)'
:::'''"Is a place anything like a bow?"'''
:::The hadith does not claim any place is like a bow, it is referring to the size of the bow. You don't need that to be explained. It is written in plain English for everyone to see (i.e. "as ''small'' as a bow").
:::'''"Only a person who thinks the sun runs on a semicircle over the other place(earth) would have said "bow.""'''
:::You havn't shown that at all. Your reasoning is convoluted and ignores the obvious meaning. I would suggest sticking to hadiths that are clear errors rather than ones that need your interpretations. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 12:10, 6 April 2014 (PDT)
{{outdent|4}}
Saggy, so that we're clear this is the the hadith:
:Volume 4, Book 52, Number 51: Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "A place in Paradise as small as a bow is better than all that on which the sun rises and sets (i.e. all the world)." He also said, "A single endeavor in Allah's Cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all that on which the sun rises and sets."
Breaking it up, "X is better than Y".

X = "A place in Paradise as small as a bow." (a small sized object)

Y = "all that on which the sun rises and sets" (some kind of large space according to the Quran)

Your title was "Orbit of the Sun is comparable to a Bow". This is incorrect. The ''size'' of a bow is being compared to the size of the sun's place of rising and setting.

The hadith means "A tiny place in Islamic Heaven is better than a huge place which is not part of Heaven".

If you're talking about the arc of a bow (golden part [https://3dmagicmodels.com/wp-content/uploads/bow-and-arrow-3d-model1.jpg here] which is a semi circle) being compared to what an observer on Earth sees, this is not an error. We see that kind of semi-circle even today as we see the sun form an arc. A scientist can say "look how the Sun makes (or seems to make) a semi circle around the Earth". So these things can be explained. This is like the horseman hadith where there wasnt any interpretation like the one you were saying there was. As again if you come across a hadith and you're not sure of the meaning you can ask us. On the other hand, the hadith could be added to as supporting evidence ("the sun rises and sets"): [[Geocentrism_and_the_Quran#Muslims_around_the_time_of_Muhammad]] but I think its weak on its own on the Errors page: --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 12:46, 6 April 2014 (PDT)
:Sahab what do you think of the addition here? [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Geocentrism_and_the_Quran&diff=106736&oldid=103187] Since the hadith is saying the same thing about the sun. (sun rises and sets). If you dont agree its fine for it to be removed (its up to you). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 13:00, 6 April 2014 (PDT)
::Hi Ax. Yeah, I've removed it. Even with those surrounding hadith, this particular hadith is not making any reference whatsoever to the orbit of the sun. If I can see this and you can see this, then so can most other people. As you noted, the object being "compared" to the bow is something ''other'' than the sun itself. There is not "ifs" or "buts" about it. The second hadith down from that one confirms the meaning (which was obvious anyway.). It's like a Muslim saying a can of Pepsi is more refreshing than all that is inside a coffee cup, then us accusing him of saying a ceramic cup is more refreshing than a soft drink. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 13:20, 6 April 2014 (PDT)
:::Ok then, sounds good. Yea that analogy is similar. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 14:26, 6 April 2014 (PDT)

== Contradictions in the Qur'an and Hadith ==

Hi Saggy. I've deleted that page. A page like that is something that would interest "Quranists", not us. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 13:03, 10 April 2014 (PDT)
:I've moved the content to his personal sandbox for now: [[User:Saggy/Sandbox - Contradictions in the Qur'an and Hadith]]. I'll send an email about this. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:01, 10 April 2014 (PDT)
::We have an (old) article about the very same contradiction mentioned by Saggy ([[Muhammads Miracles|Muhammad's Miracles]]). If you read the section on Bukhari's criteria, you'll see that Muslims have contradictions between the Qur'an and Hadith covered. Thus it renders the article completely pointless. In fact, Muslims will probably think it's funny and talk about how we don't know anything about the "science of hadith". That's on top of the fact that such an article would only be used for Qur'anist propaganda. If the very idea is pointless, then I don't see any benefit from letting an editor waste their time working on it. That is why I deleted it rather than just leave it in a sandbox. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 15:39, 10 April 2014 (PDT)
:::I just dont have energy to debate about this at the moment so I deleted the Sandbox page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:36, 10 April 2014 (PDT)
::::What if I find more contradictions?[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:25, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
:::::Here I've made a page for you that gives you the freedom to do any kind of QHS work (since that is something you like doing). You can reorganize content there using section headings (logical error, hadith errors, contradictions, etc):
:::::[[User:Saggy/Sandbox - Issues with Quran and Hadith]] - use this for any new work or new ideas to keep it in the same place.
:::::Just keep in mind that we can have a democratic discussion together later on as to whether certain content will be approved or not for conversion from sandbox to main space. My view is that interesting QHS can be re-used in other places too in some way so if you have discovered verses or hadiths that are interesting, it is totally OK for them to go in a personal sandbox page of your own. Sandboxes are all excluded from Google search so no one can find them unless they come to recent changes/contributions and explore that way. Doing this does not harm the quality of the main content as sandbox content has to be carefully reviewed to make sure it complies with guidelines and the mission.
:::::You can keep adding content for existing pages as you are doing (Scientific errors in hadith, in the Quran, Contradictions in the Quran etc.) As before we will review those to see if they are ok as that is content in the main space.
:::::Doing a short reply for Sahab, if Quranists want to use content on our site for any purpose, its a good thing. It brings them to our site and they have effectively approved content on our site (I think its a plus for us). They're a minority so I would not worry about them. I can make many more points but my point is that all alternatives can be argued for equally. There are advantages and disadvantages for each alternative.
:::::''"you'll see that Muslims have contradictions between the Qur'an and Hadith covered."'' - those are only contradictions for miracles, not other topics. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:25, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

::::::To Saggy: My action was not based on the quality or length of the page (I was obviously aware that you would add to it). It was based on the fact that the actual idea behind the article was not suitable. Regardless, Axius has recreated the page so you can carry on working on it.

::::::To Axius: '''"those are only contradictions for miracles, not other topics"'''
::::::Did you read that section about Bukhari's criteria? Mat'n applies to ALL contradictions between the Qur'an and hadith.
::::::'''"if Quranists want to use content on our site for any purpose"'''
::::::Strawman. I never objected to them using this site. My point is that it ONLY benefits their propaganda, nothing else. If we allow something like this, why not also allow Atheistig to write an article about how unreliable the hadith are? [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 04:34, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
:::::::''"Let's go all the way and invalidate 95% of our material just to keep 1 editor happy."'' ---- :-) this is an imaginary situation that hasn't happened yet so lets not do that.
:::::::He knows its a Sandbox page that later may or may not be approved so whats the issue? I dont see any.
:::::::''"Mat'n applies to ALL contradictions between the Qur'an and hadith."'' - is Bukhari's criteria the golden absolute rule on deciding whats a contradiction? I would say no. To me a Sahih hadith is Sahih. I would say that Bukhari does not have the authority to invalidate the Hadiths of other Hadith collectors (like Muslim). Also if the criteria is to delete things that are in contradiction with each other, the Quran contradicts itself in various verses, so what does one do about that? To most people they are all valid Islamic sources (especially Sahih hadiths). All these points can be mentioned on a page about Quran/hadith contradictions. All of these things seen together expose more serious problems with Islam and create challenges for people reading them.
:::::::''"My point is that it ONLY benefits their propaganda"'' - Again they are a minority. The other side effect is letting the rest of the Muslims know that these contradictions exist. Most Muslims view hadiths as holy. I would say that they would have to deal with the contradiction when they see it and it creates a challenge for them.
::::::: My main point here again is that cases can be argued against equally. Its a Sandbox page and people have the right to work on a Sandbox which later may or may not be approved (as long its not an obvious content violation). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 05:13, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::::::::You have not dealt with anything I've actually said, so no they can't be argued against equally. I've mentioned several times why I deleted that page from the sandbox but you continue acting like I never explained. Your opinion on Bukhari's criteria is irrelevant. Mat'n is a well known thing. Hence, contradictions between the Qur'an and certain hadith will not effect mainstream Islam in the slightest. And wth, you're telling editors to stay away from me now? The discussion we're having now isn't even on my talk page, so maybe you should have considered a more appropriate time or place to mention this or considered how it would look to others? [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 05:09, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::Although you're right my comment could have been made at a better time (so ok, I apologize again for making it at the wrong time), I never asked anyone to stay away from you when I made the [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saggy&diff=106872&oldid=106871 comment]. You had removed some comments from your own talk page earlier if you recall [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sahab&diff=106769&oldid=106768] so I was stressing the point that others should use the forum page for general issues and not someone's talk page.
::::::::::I'm asking everyone to follow talk page guidelines and core [[WikiIslam:Core_Principles|community principles]] and assume good faith. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 12:12, 13 April 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::"Matn"'s definition on Wikipedia doesnt mention Bukhari or the contradiction issue, why is that? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_studies#Sanad_and_matn]. "text of the report" =matn is what I'm seeing, not a contradiction with the Quran issue. Are there are sources to support what Matn means? As I mentioned, the issue of deletion arises at the point of review when something is being considered for main space but not before that when it is in a temporary condition (in the Sandbox). Saggy knows it may or may not be approved. As for whether you're right or I'm right, I've shown that points can be made on both sides. Lets do that full debate when the time comes for a review of that piece. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 05:23, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::To hightlight it again our page [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muhammads_Miracles] that you pointed to in the begining and you refered to it again, claims ''"His third criteria is mat'n, i.e. the content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an."'', but there's no reference for that. According to other sources Matn means "text of the hadith", not "must not be in contradiction with the Quran". Bukhari's criteria of this contradiction cannot apply to other Hadith scholars (it is his own personal opinion). And even if we were to assume such a criteria, we are faced by the question: Is a Sahih hadith being declared invalid simply because of the contradiction? Why was it considered in the first place if it was actually invalid? The hadith was considered authentic because the events narrated actually happened.
::::::::::In any case a sourced definition of Matn would be one point. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 05:36, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
{{outdent}}
Visiting this again and stressing this point:
:''Mat'n applies to ALL contradictions between the Qur'an and hadith.''
This is not correct as Mat'n means "the text of the hadith" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_studies#Sanad_and_matn] and has nothing to do with "Contradictions between Quran and Hadith". The source article [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muhammads_Miracles#Bukhari.27s_criteria] you linked for Miracles should have the definition of Matn sourced correctly. I believe this is a page that an author made with the username starting with J (forgot the full name). So this line:
:''His third criteria is mat'n, i.e. the content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an.''
is incorrectly implying that Matn = the content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 10:57, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::Clarified [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muhammads_Miracles#Bukhari.27s_criteria] and changed from:
:::His third criteria is ''mat'n'', i.e. the content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an.
::To:
:::His third criteria is regarding ''mat'n'' (text), i.e. the text/content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an.
::So its clear that Matn means just "text" and not "no contradiction between Quran and hadith". --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:57, 12 April 2014 (PDT)
:::Pointing out contradictions between Quran and hadith is a criticism of Islam. Our site's mission is criticism of Islam (or to provide "an accurate and comprehensive resource on Islam" as currently mentioned in the [[WikiIslam:Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_is_the_purpose_of_WikiIslam.3F|FAQ]], which is even more inclusive), not whether certain criticism is seen as favorable to certain minority sects of Islam like Quran-only.
:::And as I mentioned (sorry if I'm repeating some points), this certain criticism is not seen as favorable to the majority of Muslims who do believe in the hadith. The Matn contradiction issue is Bukhari's opinion and cannot invalidate all problematic hadiths, (definitely not other hadiths like Muslim and neither his own) just because he said so. In short again that means we should not be excluding criticism of Islam because it is favoring a minority sect. And again, we will have a full picture of the situation when there is an actual article to review which there is none at this time. Its just text in a Sandbox. In an article like this Quran/hadith contradiction issue, we definitely want to point out clearly that people can not simply reject Sahih hadiths for whatever reason. There was a reason they were considered Sahih. Sometimes a certain issue is covered in multiple Hadiths which adds to the strength of what the Hadith is saying. If there are multiple Hadith collectors (Muslim and Bukhari for example) that is even more evidence that a Hadith's content actually happened and it is difficult to reject that hadith. So we should wait to see what an article looks like in the end to give a full opinion. The other issue again is, if Contradiction is the reason to reject a hadith, Quranic verses which contradict each other also have a problem. As for Atheistig's article, I dont know what that situation was and perhaps we missed a chance on making a valid article but I dont know enough details. Having an article that mentions Quran/hadith contradictions provides motivation for further strengthening the position that it is not possible to reject hadiths and definitely not Sahih hadiths, so it provides motivation for further improving the "Quran only - Why it is not possible" article or any other content like that. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:21, 12 April 2014 (PDT)
::::Saggy, whats your opinion about the fact that some Muslims may try to reject that contradict the Quran? We need to make sure that your hadith/Quran article also explains (using references) why it is not possible to reject Sahih hadiths that contradict the Quran. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:32, 12 April 2014 (PDT)

== 1000 years ==

Please note [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Contradictions_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=106878&oldid=106876] and see the edit summary. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 05:42, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
:But the verses are clear. 1 day = 1000 years or 1 day=50000 yrs. Human days are not mentioned. Have you read the speed of light hoax?[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 05:51, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

{{Quote||How long is Allah's day?

One thousand days
Yet they ask thee to hasten on the Punishment! But Allah will not fail in His Promise.
Verily a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning.
Qur'an 22:47

Fifty thousand days
The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty
thousand years:
}}

"Verily a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning"

It means one day for '''ALLAH''', is the same as 1000 years for '''HUMANS'''.

See that? "'''Your''' reckoning" = human's perspective. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 06:03, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
:U quote years and still insist on days? Reckoning means our "count" not days or years. Everywhere online the meaning is 1000/50000 years not days. Of course it is same perspective for everyone. Time flows the same for all ( we or anyone outside the solarsystem). The measurement and units differ. (This also debunks the Einsteins theory of relativity miracle claim for the above verses). A day for us is 24 hours. Nobody can change this. Day is defined by a planets rotation! His day is nothing to do with our 24 hrs in anyway! Why do i even need to say this when the equation is about years? Let me show one more : "He regulates the affair from the heaven to the earth; then shall it ascend to Him in a day the measure of which is a thousand years of what you count" 32:5. Clear length of a day is given. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 11:39, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::Well I'm sorry, you were right from the start - my mistake. I got confused somehow and didnt read the hadith carefully enough. It should have been easy to spot that but I missed it somehow (I probably was in a hurry at that time). It is indeed a 1000 years. I reverted it back now. [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Contradictions_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=106876&oldid=106861].
::Good catch on seeing this error and fixing it. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:02, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
:::''"Have you read the speed of light hoax"'' - I've heard of the speed of might miracle but know nothing more than that. There is an article here about that: [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Speed_of_Light_in_the_Quran]. Is this what you were thinking of? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:03, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
::::Yeah, that miracle itself is based on a day=1000 years and many more reasons to be a hoax. I will laugh hours long if I read it again. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 02:29, 12 April 2014 (PDT)

== Rain/miraculous ==

This is another of those weaker errors [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#Rain_has_Miraculous_Effects].
: Remember He covered you with a sort of drowsiness, to give you calm as from Himself, and he caused rain to descend on you from heaven, to clean you therewith, to remove from you the stain of Satan, to strengthen your hearts, and to plant your feet firmly therewith.

What if the apologetic response is: "The rain was a special rain for the prophet, it was not ordinary rain. It was a miraculous rain." - its talking about the rain for the prophet right? Its a specific example. These kinds of errors should not be mixed with stronger errors. Something will have to be done about these kinds of errors. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:55, 17 April 2014 (PDT)
:"your hearts". Thus it is not for one person but plural. The earlier verses are not clear on who the audience is(a common goof). If there is a claim of a miracle with tafsirs or stuff to back up (Ibn kathir and Ibn abbas have nothing to say), we can post it under miracles. one site said there are two battles in the single verse (Uhud and Badr) but it is not entirely true to them. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 23:47, 17 April 2014 (PDT)
::Strong errors are long since covered so we have only these. We can rearange them within their section as I think i said. Another site "islamfrominside.com" says everything is about Badr but Wikipedia does not say so. Apologists have four effects of rain to explain infact. The last "feet" one differs in translations. Anyway, The whole miracle about Badr is wrong. The error began with "Allah caused the rain" itself. He cannot cause it, it just happens. If he caused it, what was he doing in much bigger battles in future? Testing believers? How long will he do this? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 00:05, 18 April 2014 (PDT)
:::Although you do great finding interesting verses/hadiths I have to say this:
:::''"Strong errors are long since covered so we have only these."'' - then I would rather not weaken the article with less stronger verses. The problem is when people post the article somewhere and someone points out the excuses like I showed, its discouraging for the person who posts the link. Then they have to work through the rebuttal and point out things like you did - many people are not as committed or may not know what to say. If the errors are strong they cannot be refuted in any way and it makes it easy for the other person who posts our link. This page is one of our most popular pages and its critical for it to be a good page. In fact, you see the under construction template at the top. The article needs to be reviewed and fixed so we can get rid of the template.
:::''We can rearange them within their section as I think i said.'' - sorry I forgot about what you said earlier. So what did you say, how should it be arranged? Lets see how we can do this and keep the stronger errors in one place and the weaker ones in some kind of "misc" section. Should each section have its own Miscellaneous section, or do we collect all of them at the bottom in one section? I'm thinking about the latter.
:::I made a link on your user page: [[User:Saggy]].
:::One of the most critical goals we have to take care of is to increase the quantity of good-quality editors. If you have any suggestions let me know. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:16, 18 April 2014 (PDT)
::::I donn't believe in strong or weak in case of refutation. If an error is refuted its not an error till we explain how we are correct. I will try to sort the sections on sc errors.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 07:42, 22 April 2014 (PDT)
:::::For some errors its hard to find any justification while others can have some. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:31, 22 April 2014 (PDT)

== Moon split (wikipedia) ==

That article is a joke now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_of_the_moon

Look at this talk page discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Splitting_of_the_moon#Good_article_nomination_on_hold
They were trying to make it into a good article a long time ago. Now the lead has this:
:In 2010 a NASA Lunar Science Institute (NLSI) staff scientist said "No current scientific evidence reports that the Moon was split into two (or more) parts and then reassembled at any point in the past."[7]

And the "NASA" section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_of_the_moon#NASA_mis-cited_as_proof

I bet now they would like to go the opposite direction and make sure no one sees that article. Anyway, I think its taken care of (for now). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 21:05, 20 May 2014 (PDT)

==Quran/evolution==
The new sandbox article you made on evolution is good. Here's a QHS page on it: [[Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Creation]] and this is a pro-Islamic page: [[Qur'an and the Theory of Evolution]].

If you're just gathering verses, you can add them to the existing QHS page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 21:02, 20 May 2014 (PDT)
:No this is about the apology claim on evolution. so i have to write that. I dont think a QHS can cover that thing.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 07:14, 22 May 2014 (PDT)
::Ok. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 13:32, 22 May 2014 (PDT)

== Scientific Errors #2 ==

I have asked you not to add any verses to the Scientific errors page and for now only add them to your sandbox page. The article is currently under review and new stuff should not be added there while it is under review. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:01, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

== Moon Position ==

Once again the addition you added [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&curid=9078&diff=107595&oldid=107587] is not an error in my opinion. Its just describing what things look like to humans (aesthetically). The verse literally does not mean "the moon is placed between the seven layers". It is talking about what it looks like to humans.

The seven layers is an error, that we know (and that error is present on the page I think) but the "moon is among them" just means what it appears to people on Earth. Lightyears if you see this, any thoughts on this addition? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:06, 23 May 2014 (PDT)
:No, it does not mean what the moon appears from earth. It directly places the moon somewhere. Moon and its reflected light is insignificant in the first heaven itself, let alone seven heavens. If it is about the how the moon "appears", why is appears not mentioned? How about this "The whole book appears like a war manual, a book full of hate for kafirs. but it only appears, it is not true and it was only about a 7th century power struggle. Muhammad only appears like a criminal from all the content but this is not true and all he did was right for his situation" ? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 23:45, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

:This is not a demonstrable error. Fee simply means in and feeinna means in that. In the constellations verse (25.61), it indicates that the stars are also said to be in (fee) the heavens and the sun and moon in it (feeha). Muslims will generally assume that the stars, sun and moon are in the nearest one, where other verses specify that the stars are. They believe the entirety of the visible universe is in this nearest heaven, and the other heavens are in some physical or metaphysical sense beyond it. No verse can disprove this. The only heaven ever explained is the lowest heaven.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 02:07, 24 May 2014 (PDT)
::Sorry, it can be disproven. 54:11 "Then opened We the gates of heaven with pouring water".[http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/054-qmt.php](the word is sama) Does this rainwater come from the universe? seven heaven = seven layers of atmosphere is wrong (because of the stars verse) and seven heavens = seven universes that we are yet to explore is wrong also beacause of this rain verse. The winged horse that goes to all seven heavens is another example of how awfully wrong things are. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 04:03, 24 May 2014 (PDT)
:::As if this is not enough, read [http://download.iranville.com/books/%DA%A9%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%A8%E2%80%8C%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C%20%D8%A7%D9%86%DA%AF%D9%84%DB%8C%D8%B3%DB%8C/Ali%20Sina%20-%20Understanding%20Muhammad.pdf here] p. 111 Last but one paragraph about stars. More proof that we are becoming appeasers.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 04:27, 24 May 2014 (PDT)
::::Saggy, the issue is the word "therein" (The Position of the Moon). As Lightyears said "This is not a demonstrable error."
::::You have been addressed by 3 people (me, Sahab and Lightyears) about the issues in your additions and you're still unwilling to understand what we're saying. As again you can do what you want in your sandbox.
::::''"More proof that we are becoming appeasers"'' - no this is not true. We are preventing the site from being mocked. I dont have to remind you of all the times the issues have been pointed out to you.
::::How much Arabic do you know? Are you looking at Lexicons like Lightyears is? I looked at the PDF and didnt see anything about this specific verse on p. 111 (of the PDF or as marked in the book).
::::''"It directly places the moon somewhere."'' - it does not. It simply says "among them". The placement described in Quran is vague. The position of the moon is being described as "therein / in their midst". --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:44, 24 May 2014 (PDT)
:::::And I see the paragraph on pg 111 of that book now (begins with "The Egyptian Muslim scholar..."). The original source if found, can be added to a relevant QHS about Astrology but the topic under discussion that I opened here is the Moon position and the use of the word Therein and again with regards to that, Lightyears agreed with me and said it is not an error and he used his knowledge of Arabic ("Fee simply means in and feeinna means in that"). The Science/Quran errors page is critical and needs urgent attention to delete any more non-errors. They should be moved to a Sandbox so they are not lost. I will try to see what can be done about that. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 09:21, 24 May 2014 (PDT)

== Forbidden things ==

Google search for [https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=islam%20forbidden%20things&safe=off islam forbidden things] can also help. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:01, 5 June 2014 (PDT)
:From the silliness page, [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Islamic_Silliness#Wicked_wigs], Wigs, One-shoe walks outlawed, Say no to green jars and white jars, Sinning with silverware, Allah likes sneezing but hates yawning, Fight polytheists by trimming moustache, Pus better than poetry, Allah curses tatooed women, Looking up during prayer may cause blindness.
:Blackgammon [http://www.muslimconverts.com/Munajjid-books/forbiden.htm#67], "Playing with dice"--[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 16:39, 11 July 2014 (PDT)
:: Search link for [http://sunnah.com/search/forbade "forbade"]. 1150 results. Other searches could be for words "haram", "outlawed", prohibited, "do not", "disallowed" etc--[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 20:01, 11 July 2014 (PDT)

== Scientific errors - response blog ==

Here's a blog that has some "refutations" of a small amount of errors. [http://quran-errors.blogspot.com/] These should be checked and used to further strengthen [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an our page] (without needing to specifically mention this blog). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:17, 14 June 2014 (PDT)

:*'''Universe contracting/Heaven is from Smoke:''' Why talk about galaxys and gas clouds? The verse says earth and heaven were coming together (and talking to Allah). Earth is as old as Galaxies? Nope.
:*'''Mountains:''' i think [http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Quran_and_Mountains this] is sufficient. They dont stabilize so they are not pegs.
:*'''Universe was made in 6 days:''' It was not made in 6 periods. There are no 6 periods. The best that guy could do was reject the backup hadith of Sahih Muslim.
:*'''Seven Planets''': rejecting a tafsir that does not support them. The seven planets have names, will add them soon.
:*'''Thunder is an Angel:''' Again rejecting a tafsir. I have added a similar hadith.
:*'''Moonlight:''' Nur never means reflected light. Poor guy wasted so much time. Ibn Kathir is also wrong (that moon light is different from the sun's).
:*Rest we have already covered: embryology, geocentric, flat earth.
:*'''Sun sets in a Muddy spring:''' We covered the word meanings. No use of the apologists dictionary, he cherrypicked meanings. Two or three scholars he quoted are utterly flimsy who make more errors defending one. Rest of scholars are tolerable, but still wrong as we have proven in the word analysis. The last part reminds me, do we have articles on hadith authenticity other than the list of fake hadiths?
:I will see how to add all the above, or it could be there already.
:[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 13:43, 14 June 2014 (PDT)
::Yes, best to somehow improve the existing information on our side (if needed) or add additional supporting evidence where possible. A small "Responses to Apologetics" section can made for each error below the verse.
::Yes I saw that the blog has rejected the Tafsir. When all else fails they resort to "The Tafsir/hadith is weak". I'm sure every single hadith can be considered weak if all the chain of narrators are examined. They just do the analysis for the hadiths they dont like. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 19:04, 14 June 2014 (PDT)
:::I'll try to work on this too. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:19, 15 June 2014 (PDT)
::::A responses section below every verse? It will look like a train wreck. Better say in the lead that there are responses and detailed analysis in the main articles of verses.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 10:56, 15 June 2014 (PDT)
::::Which are the other top 10 articles?[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 10:57, 15 June 2014 (PDT)
:::::You have a gmail account? I can add you to the statistics view and you can see the top 10.
:::::Many errors dont have a dedicated page. "Responses to apolgetics/Notes" - basically a few lines to repel criticism. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 13:39, 15 June 2014 (PDT)
::::::I go one by one; we have [[Qur'an and a Universe from Smoke]] for the first claim. i think it should be linked and then expanded, but iam not yet sure how to expand.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 09:15, 17 June 2014 (PDT)
:::::::I dont either. There are many good existing articles written on various other websites, try searching. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:37, 17 June 2014 (PDT)
::::::::By the way that blog link now has some kind of notice saying that the author is going to stop writing responses for now and write better responses later on. He says (the username is ' .. guy', so) that some of our error sections that he addressed were removed or edited in reaction to his content and I dont think thats true. If he's watching he's most welcome to create a user account and join this discussion.
::::::::As for revisions/deletions/additions, we have always improved our work and that's a good thing for any kind of work.
::::::::He also implies that we inserted the "under construction" notice recently or in reaction to his blog's content but we did it in [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=103064&oldid=103063 January] (6 months ago) before this blog was noticed and I think it has been on that page before as well. I doubt he'll make these corrections as he probably wants his readers to believe what he originally said (that makes his blog look better).
::::::::Here's another 'rebuttal' link [http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/faithfreedom-wikiislam] on another site/forum.
::::::::You can see why its critical to have this page in the best shape possible. In my opinion none of these rebuttals have really addressed the errors but they may still have content that can be used to improve our page(s). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:49, 29 June 2014 (PDT)

Hey Guys,

I think you have completely misunderstood my recent blog post regarding halting replies to articles written on this site. I will reply to some of the points made:

:"By the way that blog link now has some kind of notice saying that the author is going to stop writing responses for now and write better responses later on. He says (the username is ' .. guy', so) that some of our error sections that he addressed were removed or edited in reaction to his content and I dont think thats true. If he's watching he's most welcome to create a user account and join this discussion."

Over-time you have removed, rewritten alot of the page. Removing many sections that I wrote responses to. Im not claiming this is due to my work solely - I think it is more in relation to you guys realising how weak and lack luster many of the points were on that article.

:"By the way that blog link now has some kind of notice saying that the author is going to stop writing responses for now and write better responses later on. He says (the username is ' .. guy', so) that some of our error sections that he addressed were removed or edited in reaction to his content and I dont think thats true. If he's watching he's most welcome to create a user account and join this discussion."

Im really unsure where I implied this? After recieving traffic from this page. I realised your discussion regarding the blog. So I checked out the page and found it to have this editing title and noticed large changes to the page. Hence I paid a post detailing I wont be analysing the work until it is 100% finished.

Hope this clears up any misunderstanding guys.

Also forgive me. I dont know how to correctly post on this site. Feel free to clean it up if you guys can.

--[[User:ThatMuslimGuy|ThatMuslimGuy]] ([[User talk:ThatMuslimGuy|talk]]) 15:20, 1 July 2014 (PDT)
::Hi, welcome. You can use colons to indent lines. Indeed over time we have revised (that includes revision/removal/addition) this page a lot to improve it. Its an important page and its a work in progress like everything else on the site. Which sections were removed or edited that had been responded to on your blog?
:::''I think it is more in relation to you guys realising how weak and lack luster many of the points were on that article.''
::Again its a work in progress like any other page and we try to make all the content stronger with time and the reason for that revision can be scrutiny/afterthought that we have ourselves or that closer look may come from outside. Some errors are more obvious than others (this is expected). This dialogue can help us strengthen our page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 18:12, 1 July 2014 (PDT)

:::: No this is good. And I commend you for going through the articles and rewriting them.-- [[User:ThatMuslimGuy|ThatMuslimGuy]] ([[User talk:ThatMuslimGuy|talk]]) 18:42, 1 July 2014 (PDT)
:::::Ok and we look forward to seeing your new revised materials as well.
:::::Have you thought of contacting other Islamic rebuttal websites and starting an apologetics wiki to coordinate the rebuttals? I say this because from my perspective ultimately such an initiative will help our site (in the long run) and for your perspective this is something you would probably want.
:::::Originally I had the idea of having apologetics on our site (for example this article [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an_(Response)] which is linked at the bottom of the main Errors page) but that idea didnt take off fully and now I think its better to have those things off-site so the apologetics can manage their material any way they want and we can still exchange links. You probably need a good domain name first. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 01:35, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
::::::Who is on whose side? Lol. It begins with the lies that we made drastic changes in the scientific errors article and put the review notice because of that blog. Barely one or two sentences we added because of it. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 12:10, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
:::::::Competition doesnt scare me and it will motivate people on our side to do even better. We have it very easy already and we dont have the burden of defending Islam.
:::::::But indeed the blog's claims are misleading and they do suggest as I mentioned to ThatMuslimGuy before that they are written to make the reader believe we changed/removed stuff in reaction to the blog which is not true. In any case one of the claim made is:
::::::::"I recently noticed that WikiIslam has updated there "Scientific Errors Page" with the following:"
:::::::As mentioned we had that notice since a long time and he would have noticed that template even before because he has been writing some rebuttals since a long time (I believe some of his rebuttals are dated a while back). He only created that notice after I mentioned the blog link to you.
:::::::The other claim made on the blog is:
::::::::"So far they have removed various areas - some of which I addressed."
:::::::I have asked him twice to tell us what areas we removed or edited and he hasn't responded and until he does that and is specific about which areas/sections/errors he's talking about he cannot make the claim that the areas, some of which he addressed were removed or edited.
:::::::So ThatMuslimGuy, can you support your claim by telling us which sections that you addressed on your blog were removed? Here's a link to the [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&offset=&limit=250&action=history page history.] You can use the Diff links to go back in time to show you older versions of the page. You can give us Diff links and tell us which sections you're talking about. Here's one example of a Diff link. [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&diff=107485&oldid=107473 Diff] link or you can just copy paste the URL(s) here. [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Adverse_Effects_of_Islamic_Fasting Happy Ramadan.] (a favorite article of mine) --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:18, 2 July 2014 (PDT)

::::::::: Hey guys, In the past yeah we have thought about doing that. Saggy - Removing multiple points on the site, rewriting sections, adding additions etc - I would say is big change to the article, In my post no where have I asserted you changed the article because of me or anything alike. I simply detailed that I recently checked out the page and that you had added that on the top of the page and removed some points, some of which I had written about, hence rendering those posts on my blog now void.

:::::::::I think you seriously reading to much into the post. I simply realised you were editing the page. Hence I thought id give you guys time to rewrite it - add additions etc- then later address it. Instead of addressing things which may be changed or removed later.

:::::::::You removed - Night Time Cold is Caused by the Moon [http://quran-errors.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/re-quran-scientific-error-night-time.html]] [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&oldid=90145#Night_time_cold_is_caused_by_the_Moon]

:::::::::You removed - the Universe contracting according to the Quran [http://quran-errors.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/is-universe-contracting-according-to.html] [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&oldid=90145#The_Universe_is_contracting]

:::::::::You reworded this - How Many Planets are in the solar system according to the Quran? [http://quran-errors.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/re-wikiislam-quran-scientific-error-how.html] [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an&oldid=90145#How_many_planets_in_the_solar_system_according_to_the_Quran.3F] to Seven Planets in the Universe.

:::::::::etc

:::::::::Im never claiming you removed them because of my blog. Im simply stating you removed them - some of which I wrote articles on - hence rendering them void.
:::::::::--[[User:ThatMuslimGuy|ThatMuslimGuy]] ([[User talk:ThatMuslimGuy|talk]]) 18:36, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::''" In the past yeah we have thought about doing that. "'' - I say make it happen. Have you thought of a domain name?
::::::::::Alright thats what I was looking for, the blog post links and the diffs - thanks much. We'll look into them. Are there any more? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 19:23, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::::: I dont think so. I think the others wordings have just changed. People discussed it before: [http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,1024.msg4792.html#msg4792] But the idea died. --[[User:ThatMuslimGuy|ThatMuslimGuy]] ([[User talk:ThatMuslimGuy|talk]]) 19:42, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::::::I'm thinking at least some of the ones that were removed were added by Saggy (he has been asked by people not to add any errors that arent obvious, hence I made this set of [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Talk:Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#.5BSticky.5D_Instructions_for_editing_this_page guidelines] on the talk page). But thats ok, all editors make mistakes (including myself) or may have different perspectives. He's done some good work in finding hadiths and verses and he's passionate and interested about the topic. He made this page on the [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Hadith Scientific errors in Hadiths] (a sample error: [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Hadith#Black_cumin_cures_all_diseases "black cumin cures everything"]), and some other pages.
:::::::::::::You should follow up with the idea you were discussing with your friends. Sounds like some progress was being made. Take control of it, get advice and give it your best shot. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 20:01, 2 July 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::::::Why dont you try to rebutt some of the more obvious errors such as [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#Stars_are_Located_in_the_Nearest_Heaven Stars are Located in the Nearest Heaven], [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#Earth_Created_before_Stars Earth Created before Stars], [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an#Humans_Created_in_Paradise_and_then_Brought_to_Earth Humans Created in Paradise and then Brought to Earth] which is explored in detail at: [[Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Creation]] <---- This is a huge glaring Scientific error (evolution). etc. So start with the most difficult errors if you really believe Quran has no errors. Saying they're figures of speech is not a defense.
::::::::::::::We'll look at the ones you pointed out and I can assure you they were not removed in reaction to your blog but as we were reviewing them ourselves. There are some others that were removed/revised which are not on your blog. We have done such revisions all the time and not just recently. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:05, 3 July 2014 (PDT)

:::::::::::::::: Will do - Some of those are the most weakest ones. --[[User:ThatMuslimGuy|ThatMuslimGuy]] ([[User talk:ThatMuslimGuy|talk]]) 03:46, 3 July 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::::::::::I doubt the most obvious errors will ever be responded to (remember to deal with Creationism and Evolution as you know that is a major issue for science) and after that there will be a vast amount of [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Site_Map other content] to deal with. Good luck. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:05, 3 July 2014 (PDT)

== Reviews ==

I have to tell you that currently I do not have the time to review your additions. So if they're significant, please add them to your Sandbox pages so they can be reviewed at the same time later on. You can continue doing minor additions where a review doesn't take a long time. If its anything I have to analyze it has to go in the sandbox page. Sorry about that but I just do not currently have the time to review these things one at a time and check if they are accurate or if they have any problems.

Just create as many Sandbox pages as you like so you can organize all your additions. Add notes there where they should be added on the target page etc. Here's [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Science_and_the_Seven_Earths&diff=107921&oldid=103980 one] that you just added. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 19:54, 22 June 2014 (PDT)
::When will you get time? Besides you spent at least 10 minutes yesterday. How long does it take to review that an apologist is contradicting the quran itself (this is not even like my error claims)? If I gather all errors in my sandbox, one day you will have to spend an a lot more time than you get per day right now. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 11:23, 23 June 2014 (PDT)
:::Forgot to reply. At least for me its easier and more efficient mentally to deal with multiple similar issues at the same time instead of one at a time with long breaks in between them. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 09:51, 2 July 2014 (PDT)

== 72 Virgins ==

I'm still trying to figure out what the point of [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=72_Virgins&diff=prev&oldid=109201 this] edit was, and how it was supposed to be connected to [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Talk:72_Jungfrauen this] rant by a fly-by anonymous German. The German guy is only complaining about how he thinks the German ''language'' in that section is linguistically incorrect. In that case, the German translator should probably be asked to comment or the talk page should be deleted (if they have no intention of fixing the alleged problem, then their complaint is nothing more than a rant). Instead you make some linguistically incorrect additions of your own to the English version and claim "I corrected the English side"? Really? The point of that western dhimmi author is that the Bible does not claim that after death Christians will be issued with wings and a harp, and walk on clouds, just like how she wants us to believe the Qur'an does not claim that after death Muslims will be issued with virgins. Our point is her analogy is faulty because the Qur'an ''does'' state that after death Muslims will be issued with virgins. Since Revelation 14:2 does not state anywhere that Christians will be issued with wings and a harp, and walk on clouds, the addition was pointless and is counter-productive to the purpose of the article. The probable origin of ideas is irrelevant information and only serves to water-down and confuse the articulated and concise approach of the article. Your other edit to [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Revelational_Circumstances_of_the_Qur%27an%3A_Missing_Verses&diff=109206&oldid=109200 Revelational Circumstances of the Qur'an] was also faulty, in that Tabari is not a part of "the major Hadith collections" (all other sources such as tafsirs etc., were purposely excluded by Sani because they are not as authoritative as the major Hadith collections and tend to contain apologetic opinions). The fact that this series only quotes major Hadith collections is stated quite clearly on its main page, but you seem to be making additions without fully understanding why or what you are editing. Please can you explain your edits or at least try to be more careful in the future. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 02:27, 11 August 2014 (PDT)
:The woman overlooked that Quran makes the claim but Bible does not. The image of a heavener with a harp is at best a pop culture thing derived from that verse. The sentence is still too weird. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 06:48, 11 August 2014 (PDT)
::She did not overlook it. That was exactly her point. She is claiming Muslims view the idea of virgins in heaven much the same as Christians view wings and a harp i.e. it's a made-up thing that no practising Christian actually believes. Okay, so you think that sentence is "weird", but that does not explain why you think adding pointless trivia to the page is "fixing it", nor does it explain why you think your edit made it less "weird" (if it wasn't linguistically weird to begin with, it certainly was afterwards). We are not contesting her claim that the wings and harp thing is a myth because she is right, so there is nothing more needed to be said about that. What we are doing is pointing out ''how'' she is wrong.[[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 07:22, 11 August 2014 (PDT)

== QHS edits ==

Your edit here [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Animals&diff=prev&oldid=109252]. This is Ritual slaughter. It applies to all Abrahamic religions. I agree killing an animal with a knife like this is painful for the animal but the animal's meat is consumed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice#Abrahamic_traditions.

So tell me why those hadiths should stay here and how they fit with the other content of the page.

For the 2nd edit, [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Cosmology&diff=109253&oldid=109212]

This belongs in Creationism more than it does in Cosmology. Is there anything specific about cosmology mentioned in that quote? Plus this quote has round brackets '(' and you've used double triangular brackets '<'.

So can you explain? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 22:01, 14 August 2014 (PDT)
::He did it in large numbers. Thats all I want to show, whether it is for food or fun. There is also some kindness to a animals hadith that does not fit in.
::Some uterus is attached to that throne. It will react on Judgement Day and so on. Often this cosmology and creation are seen to have some things overlaping like creation of throne, sun, moon stars and heavens, (but not creation of Adam ). So you want it in creation? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 23:32, 14 August 2014 (PDT)
:::You are the boss. I am a nobody. So I will edit my sandbox. What am I going to do with a sandbox out of this site? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:26, 15 August 2014 (PDT)
::::I will also post it to the tasks. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:37, 15 August 2014 (PDT)

::::: The site's quality is the first priority and must be preserved (so it doesn't matter who the boss is - we are all bosses and it depends whose arguments makes sense). I am a nobody too just like you and I will consult with Sahab to decide on this. Looking at it rationally, the problem is that I don't have time to review a regular editor's edits every time and many of yours edits need to be seriously corrected and require a lot of time for correction. If all of someone's edits require serious evaluation it wouldnt be a problem unless there was someone willing to evaluate the edits who had the time to do it.
:::::''"He did it in large numbers."'' - what large numbers? The hadith only say "many camels". Many camels could be 6, 10, 15, 30 -- we dont know. So what do you mean by large numbers and how do you prove it? If there were a large number of people to feed, 20 camels could be slaughtered and that would be considered "many" or "large numbers".
:::::No as I said, the Tafsir quote has nothing specific to do with Cosmology; nothing about Stars, skies, universe etc. It leaves one wondering what it has to do with cosmology. ''"Often this cosmology and creation are seen to have some things"'' - this is your interpretation. If creationism is linked we can then copy all the Creation hadiths into Cosmology which doesnt make any sense. I will wait for Sahab's input before commenting further. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:51, 15 August 2014 (PDT)
::::::I know what he's likely to say. So I think you should add it to creation and forget the first one. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 06:34, 15 August 2014 (PDT)
:::::::I think the edit Saggy made to [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Animals&diff=prev&oldid=109252#Sacrifices Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Animals] is a very good addition to the page. Ritual slaughter is described in all Abrahamic texts, but there are several differences here in comparison to the other two big faiths:

:::::::1. Concerning Christians, they do not perform ritual slaughter, nor did Jesus ever perform a ritual slaughter.
:::::::2. Concerning Jews, yes they do perform ritual slaughter, but they do not go around telling people that Moses loved animals and that he is an excellent role-model for today's socially conscientious youth.
:::::::3. On the other hand, a lot of apologists do try to convert young people to Islam by trying to sell the idea that Muhammad was a progressive man who loved animals.

:::::::So, considering the above, it is very relevant in the QHS:Animals page to quote proof that Muhammad not only ordered the ritual slaughter of animals, but also partook in it himself.

:::::::I also agree with Saggy that the "kindness to animals" hadith do not fit in with that page. I certainly did not add them and I do not think they should remain. A section like that does not belong on a wiki critical of Islam. If it was added with the intention of making the wiki appear more "neutral" then I can safely say that it will ''never'' convince anyone that the wiki is neutral, but it does make the page look odd and will probably confuse people.

:::::::I think the edit Saggy made to [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Cosmology&diff=109253&oldid=109212 Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Cosmology] does not belong in the Creation page (it is too vague for that and the Creation page is very specific), but it can be squeezed in with cosmology because it describes Allah's "Throne" etc. In all honesty though, I would just remove that last edit by Saggy and move it to a temp page until somewhere more suited is found (I don't think it really talks about cosmology or creation in a very coherent way). Or at the very least, keep it on the cosmology page but trim it down to only include the relevant information (e.g., as Saggy noted, "Some uterus is attached to that throne. It will react on Judgement Day and so on.").

:::::::About the triangular brackets; I'm guessing they are there because Saggy copy/pasted text from Answering Islam. This is a concern to me. The last time we had an editor who got carried away with copy/pasting stuff from there, things didn't turn out so well (It was this by OsmanHassan that left us with those Errors pages in such a mess). If you are not going to bother removing the emphasis added by the Answering Islam team (such as brackets, underlining and caps) you really should not be using them.

:::::::Another concern is the fact that the tafsir is not being cited properly. ''Ibn Kathir, "Interpretation of Qur'an 47:22"'' is not a reference. If an online version of Tafsir Ibn Kathir is going to quoted, then it should be cited more like [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Creation#Ibn_Kathir_2 this] (Not exactly an up-to-date example of a reference because it does not use any CiteWeb templates. Nevertheless, notice the archived URL and the actual heading of each section provided in the tafsir being quoted).

:::::::At Saggy: What does "I know what he's likely to say" mean? Honestly, I would really like to know what you think you know, because I highly doubt you know what I'm going to say. I'll admit I usually think you edits should be removed. But that is because they are usually terrible. In this case, they are not wholly terrible (in the first case, it was actually a good addition and a good observation concerning the "Kindness" hadith). [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 03:51, 16 August 2014 (PDT)
::::::::Ok. I added back the Sacrifice hadiths and took out the kindness section. Maybe those reasons could be added to those sections (just a suggestion). Thanks for the analysis. I agree care should be taken if copying stuff from Answering-Islam.
::::::::Saggy, you can move the Cosmology stuff to the temp page as directed by Sahab or trim it down as suggested.
::::::::Well guys I dont know if I can keep up with the edit reviews but I'll try my best. I had suggested to Saggy that he should keep his edits in his Sandbox pages and maybe one day we can find someone willing who has the time to review them. I am operating in a minimum maintenance mode and even [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAxius&diff=109285&oldid=109250 that] is a challenge for me. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 10:31, 16 August 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::No probs. I don't think any additional text would be needed. As it is, it lets the readers know that Mo had no problems with animal slaughter without making judgements on it or bringing up other faiths. If we did bring up other faiths, then it would look like we're defending them (just think of Natassia and the problems her writings have caused on the wiki recently). With the exception of a few major tu quoque arguments which inhibit the criticism of Islam, that is something the wiki is not here to do. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 11:43, 16 August 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::Ok. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 09:02, 17 August 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::What is this Natassia tangle? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 11:48, 16 August 2014 (PDT)
:Saggy, please fix the reference style in this edit [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Cosmology&diff=prev&oldid=109291] as Sahab mentioned above.
:Sahab also said to you ''"I usually think you[r] edits should be removed. But that is because they are usually terrible."'' I agree with Sahab, adding that its too much work reviewing your edits and fixing them and currently no one is available to do that. So I'm sorry but from now please only edit Sandboxes in your userspace (no main space edits, or edits on Sandboxes for the site). You can edit your Sandboxes in any way you like and organize your content in whatever way you like and you can also make new pages in your Sandboxes.
:''"What am I going to do with a sandbox out of this site?"'' - what do you mean by this? You can work on the sandboxes and hopefully one day someone will come by and take your edits from there and merge them into main space articles where necessary. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 09:02, 17 August 2014 (PDT)
::Sahab I'm guessing you wouldn't have a problem with Saggy's edits to the mainspace being disallowed. I dont have enough time to review the edits of a regular editor who has problems with most of their edits (as you said above and I agreed with it). Unless you're willing to review them and I'm guessing you dont have enough time as well.
::To anyone else: I'm sorry but the top priority is to maintain the quality of the site and if anyone is willing to review Saggy's edits let me know and we can make that arrangement. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 13:29, 21 August 2014 (PDT)
:::No, I don't have the time to do that. Sorry Ax. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 19:02, 21 August 2014 (PDT)
::::Yea, I figured. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:13, 29 August 2014 (PDT)
Saggy, possible material for [[WikiIslam:Sandbox/Forgiveness]] - "Allah forgives all sins" but then "does not forgive shirk" etc. Take what you want and let me know when you're done and I'll delete that page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:13, 29 August 2014 (PDT)
:Why do you want to delete it? It is in a bad state. But it is an extension of [[Contradictions in the Qur'an]](1.13 Does Allah forgive everything? , 1.14 Does Allah forgive worshipping other gods/shirk?). Since there are hadith for shirk, it will also benefit from them. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:28, 29 August 2014 (PDT)
::Is there already another article for this "forgiveness" subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Saggy|contribs]]) {{#if:| |}} ([[WikiIslam:Signatures#Signing_Posts|Remember to sign your comments]]) 
:::That Sandbox is what we have. It was written in the early days when we didnt have any good content and its not a good article but you can take the "Will all sins be forgiven?" and make a section for Contradictions in the Quran (in your sandbox article for QHS issues) and take anything else whatever you think is useful.--[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 03:50, 29 August 2014 (PDT)
::::Is [[Contradictions in the Qur'an]] meant for detailed explanations?? Where will hadiths go? I think of trying to edit this old article itself. Wait for a while. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:58, 29 August 2014 (PDT)

== Disasters ==

What do you see in the history? [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Accidents_and_Natural_Disasters_in_the_Muslim_World&action=history]. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:35, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
:So quick? Anyway, Kashmir is a Muslim majority state and the Kashmir Valley is almost entirely Muslim. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 04:40, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
::The disaster also affected non-Muslim Indian-controlled areas so no. That does not fit in with the rest of the page. It doesnt matter if its Muslim majority. That is not the pattern already on the page. I have asked you not to edit main space so can you please remember not to? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:44, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
:::You did not even look at the final rendered version of your page edit [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Accidents_and_Natural_Disasters_in_the_Muslim_World&diff=109713&oldid=109710]. There is a huge red tag there. See it? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 04:47, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
::::Another thing is that you had to re-add the previous text. That means someone must have removed it. So you would have checked page history or Recent changes to see what was going on. How did you not notice that the text had been removed? Why did you re-add the text without seeing the page history or seeing who removed it, or contact them to ask about the removal? And you wonder why you are asked not to edit the main space. This means that you should not edit any page on this site unless it has these patterns: (Talk page, User talk page, Sandbox page). This means all your main space edits can be reverted in the future without any explanation. Do you understand this now? I would normally not approach an editor like this but I have asked you multiple times before not to edit main space and of course your quality of edits has been brought up before. The only way to get back mainspace editing is to demonstrate high quality editing/engagement in the 3 other types of pages you can edit.
::::Please provide a confirmation that you have understood what I have said here. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 06:08, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
:::::I clicked once, browser did did not load saved edit, internet was down, the page still remained. Minutes after that i added the next incident. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 07:32, 14 September 2014 (PDT)
::::::Ok. The first edit though shows the red ref tag [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Accidents_and_Natural_Disasters_in_the_Muslim_World&diff=109709&oldid=109610]. Did you see that? Use preview or view the page right away to make sure the output looks ok. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 07:36, 14 September 2014 (PDT)

== New editors ==

About your comment [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=WikiIslam:Forum/Visitor_Inquiries&diff=109960&oldid=109956 here], its easy for new editors to be able to directly edit main space [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Message_to_New_Users]: ''"Therefore (excluding minor edits and corrections), new users should not edit or create main space articles until they demonstrate good judgement and the ability to make positive contributions, upon which they will receive the Editor or Reviewer user right.".''. All they need to do is display good judgement in Sandbox pages. If they cannot do that that yes, they must wait for content to be reviewed and that of course is dependent on who is available to review.

The highest priority on the site is to maintain and increase its quality. It is not whether or not someone can edit the main space content directly or not. They also have a lot of options because they can edit Sandbox and userspace pages to any extent. The quality of work in those pages will decide if they can edit main space directly. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:38, 8 October 2014 (PDT)

== New addition on Scientific errors in Quran ==

* Investigate "Heavy clouds" and add if suitable: [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Qur%27anic_scientific_foreknowledge#Climatology]. Also add any other suitable errors on this page.
* Check for additions: http://www.islam-watch.org/SyedKamranMirza/Erroneous-Science-and-Contradictions-in-Quran.htm

Talk:Main Page

2015-12-11T21:27:31Z

AAA: /* Add */

Talk:Main Page

2015-12-11T21:26:57Z

AAA: /* Adding content to the Main page */

'''''This page is intended for use only to discuss issues directly related to the WikiIslam main page. Please use the relevant [[WikiIslam:Discussions|Discussions]] for discussions.'''''



== News ==

Islam in the news hasn't been updated for a couple of months. Would you like me to make some suggestions? —The preceding [[WikiIslam:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:LawrenceGilmore|LawrenceGilmore]] ([[User talk:LawrenceGilmore|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/LawrenceGilmore|contribs]]) {{#if:13:23, 21 February 2014| on 13:23, 21 February 2014|}} 

: Hi Lawrence. Yeah, it hasn't been updated in a while. Another admin (Al-Qaum) is usually in charge of that section but has taken a break. He's told me that he'll be back very soon and will update it fully. But what ideas do you have? [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 15:45, 21 February 2014 (PST)
:: I think we should remove the news section until its updated again because its all from December and its not making the main page look good. We can remove the section, switch to auto somehow or update it manually. Another easy option: Just use links and dont put the text of the news website in. Any of these are better than having old news. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 16:18, 21 February 2014 (PST)
:::Okay, I'll update it weekly with a few news stories until Al returns. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 16:43, 21 February 2014 (PST)
::::Alright sounds good. I hope you just add external links because its easy. I really dont think there's a lot to gain if the extract/text archiving is done too but I think you said that it keeps the visitor on the site (they can always press 'back'). Its up to you. I wanted to find a feature that allows us to open links in a new window if we ask it to but I couldn't find it. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 16:47, 21 February 2014 (PST)
There are several benefits gained from the format we are currently using (in addition to keeping visitors on the site):

#It's like our very own news site/blog (like how Wikipedia's news section links to WikiNews).
#We want WikiIslam to be an all-in-one resource. This helps us achieve that. When it was updated regularly, many readers commented positively on it, mentioning how WikiIslam is the only site they need.
#When Al adds news about LGBT issues, converts, apostates, statistics etc., he usually adds it to our relevant articles ("Persecution of...", "Converts to Islam" etc.). If he was no longer quoting these news pages, then those other pages would never be updated. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 17:48, 21 February 2014 (PST)
::Well yea it does have its benefits - good points. Its just a lot to keep up with on a regular basis. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 18:08, 21 February 2014 (PST)

== "Did you know" portal ==
How about a "did you know" portal? Then along with new articles, lets put recently improved articles. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 12:30, 3 April 2014 (PDT)
:"Did you know" is a good idea but there's a similar pictorial Islam section at the bottom. I know Main page could be improved but we just dont have enough people at this time to do all the [[tasks|stuff]] that needs to be done. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 15:30, 3 April 2014 (PDT)
::As Axius noted, we already have a section on the front page that generates random interesting articles. If we did have such a section, what would be in it? Things like "Did you know... Muhammad Married and had intercourse with a nine-year-old" would look a lot less professional than simply having it the way we have it know (i.e. a heading, "Muhammad and Aisha", followed by a description). Then there is the issue of maintenance. There is no point in adding to our already long to-do list with things that require a lot of work and/or need constant updating. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 00:36, 4 April 2014 (PDT)

== Adding content to the Main page ==

I have a suggestion. I have found many interesting articles that i cannot see on the main page, and therefore we cannot fastly reach them.
Examples:
~The article about Scientific errors and contradictions in the quran and the hadith.
An article about the miraculous nature of Vigils georgias
--[[User:Einstein reason|Einstein reason]] ([[User talk:Einstein reason|talk]]) 17:13, 7 October 2014 (PDT)
:Thanks for the suggestions. Contradictions in the Quran is a very important article but it has been under review for a long time and because of that I would think it would not be an article we would like to link on the main page. The other one (Miracles in Vigils..) is probably not that important (but still interesting). People can get to it through various other means (Site map, Quran page etc). Thats my input in any case. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]]) 17:20, 7 October 2014 (PDT)
::There is only so many articles you can add to the main page. There are 2,790 of them in total and most of them are great, but they obviously can't all go there. So we've limited them to the best/most relevant.

::The place to go to when looking for an article on any site like this one (Wikipedia, etc.), is never the front page. It's the search function or the [[site map]]. That is how you can easily find any page. Even without that, this website goes one better than Wikipedia by linking every single hub page at the bottom of the main page (the errors and contradictions page is also linked there).

::Finally, as Axius has already noted, pages that are tagged for quality etc., are not front page material, and the Georgics articles you have suggested for the main page is already there. It is on the right hand side, under "Humor and Satire". [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 19:06, 7 October 2014 (PDT)

==Add==
Add [[Scientific Errors in the Qur'an]] to main page, under "scientific miracles."--[[User:AAA|AAA]] ([[User talk:AAA|talk]]) 16:26, 11 December 2015 (EST)

User talk:AAA

2015-12-11T21:23:44Z