User talk:Saggy

Hi. That page uses title-case for capitalization of headings[1]. 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[2]. You have repeated those same errors in your second edit. You will have to fix them before your edits can be considered. Thanks. --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. --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? 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. --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?)Saggy (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2014 (PST)

No, that's fine. Thanks. --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. --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..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? --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. Saggy (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2014 (PST)

Alright then fair enough unless anyone else has anything to add for improving the article. --Axius (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2014 (PST)

I moved the one for constellation here on your page [3]. --Axius (talk | contribs) 16:43, 15 May 2014 (PDT)

For WikiIslam:Sandbox/Qur'anic_Claim_of_Having_Details, how did you find these verses? For example the first two. Through your own study? --Axius (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2014 (PST)

Yea--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. --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. --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. --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)--Saggy (talk) 09:19, 26 February 2014 (PST)

Some of the Five Pillars could be included. They're covered here (not a very well written article , but it provides the necessary info). There's also the Jizyah. --Sahab (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2014 (PST)

To make it easy for us to track discussions among current editors, I moved the discussion about logical errors to the Discussions page Discussions page (linked on the left). I'll reply there soon. --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). --Axius (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2014 (PST)

Hi Saggy. I've corrected your use of contracted forms and the missing question mark here. Please read the WikiIslam:Article Style and Content Guide. Thanks. --Sahab (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2014 (PST)

I thought I'd ask you since you've been interested in the errors/contradictions topics. Inheritance laws (Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur'an#Mathematical_Error_in_Hereditary_Laws) have had some responses like [4] and [5].

Do you know how to respond to these rebuttals and see if there's anything to investigate here? --Axius (talk | 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.[6] theres in fact no consistency in whom to divide the remainder among. One site[7] 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[8]. 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.--Saggy (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2014 (PDT)

Ok. We should then think about making an article about this later on. Currently 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. --Axius (talk | contribs) 09:46, 14 March 2014 (PDT)

Ya start it.--Saggy (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2014 (PDT)

For now I just added a link to this section to the tasks page. [9]. --Axius (talk | contribs) 14:59, 14 March 2014 (PDT)

Can you please explain how you interpreted Bukhari 4:52:51 to 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". --Sahab (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2014 (PDT)

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. --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. --Axius (talk | 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." 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. --Sahab (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2014 (PDT)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ 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 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: --Axius (talk | contribs) 12:46, 6 April 2014 (PDT)

Sahab what do you think of the addition here? [10] 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). --Axius (talk | 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. --Sahab (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2014 (PDT)

Ok then, sounds good. Yea that analogy is similar. --Axius (talk | contribs) 14:26, 6 April 2014 (PDT)

Hi Saggy. I've deleted that page. A page like that is something that would interest "Quranists", not us. --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. --Axius (talk | contribs) 15:01, 10 April 2014 (PDT)

We have an (old) article about the very same contradiction mentioned by Saggy (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. --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. --Axius (talk | contribs) 16:36, 10 April 2014 (PDT)

What if I find more contradictions?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. --Axius (talk | 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? --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). --Axius (talk | 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? --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 comment. You had removed some comments from your own talk page earlier if you recall [11] 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 community principles and assume good faith. --Axius (talk | contribs) 12:12, 13 April 2014 (PDT)

"Matn"'s definition on Wikipedia doesnt mention Bukhari or the contradiction issue, why is that? [12]. "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. --Axius (talk | contribs) 05:23, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

To hightlight it again our page [13] 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. --Axius (talk | contribs) 05:36, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ 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" [14] and has nothing to do with "Contradictions between Quran and Hadith". The source article [15] 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. --Axius (talk | contribs) 10:57, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

Clarified [16] 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". --Axius (talk | 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 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. --Axius (talk | 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. --Axius (talk | contribs) 04:32, 12 April 2014 (PDT)

Please note [17] and see the edit summary. --Axius (talk | 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?Saggy (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

"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. --Axius (talk | 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. 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. [18].

Good catch on seeing this error and fixing it. --Axius (talk | 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: [19]. Is this what you were thinking of? --Axius (talk | 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. Saggy (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2014 (PDT)

This is another of those weaker errors [20].

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. --Axius (talk | 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. 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? 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. --Axius (talk | 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.Saggy (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2014 (PDT)

For some errors its hard to find any justification while others can have some. --Axius (talk | contribs) 17:31, 22 April 2014 (PDT)

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). --Axius (talk | contribs) 21:02, 20 May 2014 (PDT)