User talk:PW. Jansen

Thanks for your additions on that QHS page for Characteristics [1] and welcome to the site. --Axius (talk | contribs) 15:51, 17 August 2014 (PDT)

For your edit here, there's probably some others on that page that could also quality for what Allah thinks e.g.:

For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe.

So I guess the other 'Allah' ones could be moved to the new section or, have all of them in one big section like we had before. Not sure which one is the best. --Axius (talk | contribs) 19:03, 18 August 2014 (PDT)

If these existing sections were renamed "Allah thinks...." they would lose much of their impact and they would be IMO pretty inaccurate. In Islam, Allah is the law. If he thinks something, then it simply is. So, to Muslims in general, it's not simply "Allah thinks Non-Muslims are the Worst of Creatures," it is literally "Non-Muslims are the Worst of Creatures". --Sahab (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2014 (PDT)

I agree with Sahab, but we do also write for non-Muslims who do not understand that "what Allah thinks" is equal to "it is". A line to explain this would help. Non-Muslims will look for the literal text. I will work on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PW. Jansen (talk • contribs) (Remember to sign your comments)

Ok we wont do it then. I'm also thinking its difficult to decide what the difference is for the verses where Allah thinks and where its the other case so yes, just keep it like that. Could you re-adjust the verses to flow with the rest of the content? --Axius (talk | contribs) 19:41, 20 August 2014 (PDT)

Jansen, you seemed to have missed the message above this one where Axius suggests that you replace the page to its original format (i.e. "Non-Muslims are.."). But, never-mind, I have done that myself.

As I noted on my edit summaries, no need for adding * before a repeated verse because there will already be several QHS pages that repeat the same verses. But this is not a problem and does not need to be pointed out if the section that it is being repeated in focuses on a different aspect of those same verses. Another point you seemed to have missed is that your additions (worded as they are) have little to do with the subject matter of the page. Rather than remove them completely, I have moved them (with a few changes) to a more suitable page[2]. --Sahab (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2014 (PDT)

All I understood is that altering months of a calendar is forbidden. That is the Ramadan calendar. Which calendar is used for agriculture, the 365 days one? Is the gap of 10 or 11 days because of that leap year day (Feb 29)? Saggy (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2014 (PDT)

hi PW. Jansen, regarding this I'll reply here for continuity. Is there a Quranic verse for the calender issue? That could be used in the Scientific errors in the Quran article. In any case there could be a separate article on this. There could be information from Wikipedia lunar year and/or Islamic calendar (History section). --Axius (talk | contribs) 07:36, 20 August 2014 (PDT)

Thanks, I am not that familiar with the Wiki communication features so something may be rather inefficient. The Koranic verse here is 9:37: Verily the transposing (of a prohibited month) is an addition to Unbelief: the Unbelievers are led to wrong thereby: for they make it lawful one year, and forbidden another year, in order to adjust the number of months forbidden by Allah and make such forbidden ones lawful. The evil of their course seems pleasing to them. But Allah guideth not those who reject Faith.
Traditionally the Arab added a month every so many years to synchronize sun and moon calendar. This a rather coarse way but sun and moon calendar don't get out of synch completely like is the case now. see: http://islam.about.com/cs/calendar/a/hijrah_calendar.htm for the current one. For the older one e.g. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/20837003?uid=3737536&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104072781421 (PW. Jansen)

I read the link. So the old Arab calendar was replaced by a strict lunar calendar hence there is shortfall of 10 or 11 days from the 365-day year. Now can you clarify the error you found? Are you saying that a leap year situation should have been considered? And when, while creating this lunar calendar? Saggy (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2014 (PDT)

Hi, My point is that Muhammad does not understand what it is for, and now the Muslims have to use two calendars, one for Ramadan (the lunar calendar imposed by Muhammad) and one for agriculture ( the solar calendar). Quote from PDF:Calendars are basically of two types: lunar or non-lunar. Lunar calendars have months based on the cycle of the phases of the moon (the synodic month, ca. 29.53 days). Twelve lunar months will total an average of about 354 days and are thus roughly 11 days shorter than the true solar (tropical or sidereal) year of 365.2422 days. Most of the nations of the ancient world used lunisolar calendars, where the difference between the lunar and the solar year is compensated by periodically intercalating a thirteenth month. Non-lunar calendars are based on notional "months" with a fixed number of days and make no attempt to keep pace with the phases of the moon. Link: https://cmes.uchicago.edu/sites/cmes.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/Middle%20Eastern%20Calendars.pdf

We cant accuse Muhammad in the Scientific Errors in Qur'an article. The calendar clearly has some tiff. But it is a case of lack of explanation which Ax had said is not a scientific error. So if it is not meant for that article (decide), I have another place in the making WikiIslam:Sandbox/Logical Errors and Other Issues in the Qur'an. I think you should insert your point, with the verse. Saggy (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2014 (PDT) For the boats, there is 31:31 already at the bottom of the sc. errors article. But i think the most blatant is 17.066 and 42:32 upto 34. So u may add them over there. Saggy (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2014 (PDT) You can check for more errors in User:Saggy/Sandbox - Issues with Quran and Hadith. They are pending review. Saggy (talk) 08:05, 25 August 2014 (PDT)

Hi Jansen. I've removed the "Pray to Muhammad" section you added to "Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Islamic Theology". There were several problems:

1. The page is about Islamic theology, not Allah. Your comment about "One wonders, who answers Allah's prayers," shifts the focus from Muslim beliefs onto Allah's characteristics.

2. There is a big difference between "sending blessings" onto someone and praying to someone. A quick Google search brings up some interesting stuff, e.g. [3]. Without reading anything about it, it is common sense to most, even outside an Islamic perspective, that being "blessed by God/gods" does not equate to being prayed to by God/gods. I've also heard this argument before. In fact others have tried to add it here and there in the past and it has always been removed. It is not an accurate criticism of Allah/Islam so does not belong here.

3. Even if we accepted the argument, we would not word it in the way you did. We try to approach things in a professional manner, so the sarcastic tone is not welcome.

I'm not on here very often now, but if you have any questions, I'll gladly answer them when I can. Thanks. --Sahab (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2014 (PDT)

Okay I get it. I was confused by a Dutch translation which said literally "prayers of blessing" and I thought it depended on the translation. The verse is (IMHO) relevant because explains why Muslims refer to prophet Muhammad with pbuh.--PW. Jansen (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2014 (PDT)

No it is not relevant. That page is there to explain some of the major theology so people better understand how Muslims approach their texts (Qur'an, Hadith and Sunnah). Something as insignificant as the use of (PBUH) does not qualify. In fact that verse on its own explains little. All it says it to respect him, but a religious group being told to respect its founder is hardly illuminating. --Sahab (talk) 10:28, 22 August 2014 (PDT)

I have made a section Changes in calendar in my sandbox. You might want to add all that comes to your mind from the forbidden 1 month to the leap year day. I listed more errors. if you find them correct, we will tell admins to add them.
(Addition Jansen: I presume this was said by User:Saggy/Sandbox - Issues with Quran and Hadith at 03:14, 29 August 2014 by WikiIslam user ) I would add that because of this change Ramadan shifts every year, 10 to 11 days earlier, and keeps shifting. And because of this change Muhammad made Muslims needed a separate calendar for agriculture. FYI I have no knowledge of the Hadith, I have a manuscript on the morals of Muhammad as comes forward in the Qur'an, and was not focused on scientific errors.
I found these missing about the sky Link

17:92 "Or thou cause the sky to fall in pieces, as thou sayest (will happen), against us; or thou bring Allah and the angels before (us) face to face:
22:65 Seest thou not that Allah has made subject to you (men) all that is on the earth, and the ships that sail through the sea by His Command? He withholds the sky (rain) from failing on the earth except by His leave: for Allah is Most Kind and Most Merciful to man.
26:187 "Now cause a piece of the sky to fall on us, if thou art truthful!"
31:10 He created the heavens without any pillars that ye can see; He set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you; and He scattered through it beasts of all kinds. We send down rain from the sky, and produce on the earth every kind of noble creature, in pairs. (You might be tempted to use the last one as nonsense on "pairs" but I found translations differ widely on this point.)
50:6 Do they not look at the sky above them?- How We have made it and adorned it, and there are no flaws in it?
52:44 Were they to see a piece of the sky falling (on them), they would (only) say: "Clouds gathered in heaps!"

Together with the ones already in there are so many it deserves a separate header. Add them to your page or to the Scientific errors page?

About the flat earth, the following are missing on the scientific errors page:
13:3 And it is He who spread out the earth, and set thereon mountains standing firm and (flowing) rivers: and fruit of every kind He made in pairs, two and two: He draweth the night as a veil o'er the Day. Behold, verily in these things there are signs for those who consider!
15:19 And the earth We have spread out (like a carpet); set thereon mountains firm and immovable; and produced therein all kinds of things in due balance.
51:48 And We have spread out the (spacious) earth: How excellently We do spread out!
79:30 notice how much the translations differ:
YUSUFALI: And the earth, moreover, hath He extended (to a wide expanse);
PICKTHAL: And after that He spread the earth,
SHAKIR: And the earth, He expanded it after that.
Again: Add them to your page or to the Scientific errors page? --PW. Jansen (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2014 (PDT)

When replying, add one colon before you start the paragraph. If there is already somebody else's reply, every next reply must add one more colon. No need to write your name in the first sentence. You don't need any special knowledge of hadith. Just start reading and searching them for any topic. About sky: I think 22:65 should be in the same sky section but not Yusuf ali's words. Pickthall and shakir are correct because they dont write "rain" and it is not in the Arabic text. "Pillars" and "A piece of sky can fall on them" is present. Adding the same verses if they dont strengthen the article? Not sure but I was discouraged from doing it. Some sections will have a rolling list of verses. There is variety in the added sky verses so that each of them strengthen the claim of sky being a solid dome over earth. Flat Earth and the Quran article has most of the flat verses with Arabic word meanings. Saggy (talk) 04:57, 7 September 2014 (PDT)

Ok, so there is a much more extensive page on the flat earth, but not a cross link from the scientific errors page. About completeness or not I prefer to be complete. It is after all supposed to be an encyclopedia. And you avoid discussions what verse should be cited. And when it is not about science but priorities one can get a better sense of what is important in the Quran. But I don't set the standard here. I think YUSUFALI was not a good choice as the main reference for wikiislam, he differs significantly from most other translators. It seems he tried to create something more acceptable. But I also realize that any choice has its problems and controversy. When adding a verse that is translated significantly different in different translations how to treat this? Since it is, I think rightly, practice here to cite only one translation here: YUSUFALI.--PW. Jansen (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2014 (PDT)

1. There is a cross-link right there, under the heading, "The Earth is Flat". Click on the link and see for yourself (it quite clearly says, "Main Article: Flat Earth and the Qur'an").

2. When has this site claimed it was only an encyclopaedia? As the policies state, "WikiIslam is not restricted to only being an encyclopedia of Islam. It is there for editors to make use of in contributing and arranging information about Islam in many ways. For example, compiling news, translating media, making lists, collecting images and videos, counter-apologetics, hosting online books and other documents, and so on."

A list of scientific errors in the Qur'an is clearly not intended to be an Encyclopedic page. Every page has its own requirements. Yes, that page should aim be a "complete" list, but it was never meant to contain a comprehensive analysis of each entry. If it did, that page would be outrageously lengthy and the resulting wall of text would pretty much turn everyone away. That is left to the cross-linked stand-alone pages.

3. A quick look through the FAQ (something that all editors should really try at least once), would show that you are in error. If you look under, "Sources Used," it says, "What Qur'an translation do you use? Unless otherwise stated, we use the respected and widely accepted translations of Yusuf Ali, Marmaduke Pickthal or M. H. Shakir. All Qur'an quotes are taken from the University of Southern California Muslim Students Association's Compendium of Muslim Texts."

The Pickthal and Shakir translations are both very good translations. Those three were chosen because they are the most readily available and accepted. What is the point of quoting the Qur'an if Muslims won't even accept the translations used? None whatsoever. All that is asked of the editor is to limit his use of translations to one per section/error, since using multiple translations in a single section may appear disingenuous. --Sahab (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2014 (PDT)

To Sahab, indeed I overlooked that link looking in the sky part. About the translation used here in wiki the part chronological order Chronological_Order_of_the_Qur'anshows the YusufAli translation and this one is here often used when quoted here. I know the standard link is to three translations. Perhaps you can answer my question "When adding a verse that is translated significantly different in different translations how to treat this?" and with this I mean not quoting from YusufAli but from the other two. Just mention the translator like this?

As far as completeness is concerned this does not only matter scientific errors. The answer Saggy got was more or less the answer you gave me about Zakat quotes. We simply disagree on this. And as I stated I realize I do not set the standard here. --PW. Jansen (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2014 (PDT)

Hardly, Jansen. The answer Saggy received concerning scientific errors and the answer I gave you concerning Zakat quotes were definitely not "more or less" the same. If they were, then please enlighten me on how it was so.

One page (Zakat) had a particular point to make (about non-Muslims and terrorism) and your suggestion of having all the mundane verses mentioned simply to point out the fact that Allah (aka Prophet Muhammad) asked often for money, and rarely for good causes, would have buried it underneath something that belongs in an essay. The other page (scientific errors) is meant as a quick and easy-to-read list of errors that can lead off to more in-depth pages. Making them "complete" with all verses, even tafsir, hadith etc. as some editors have tried, would leave the list no longer "quick and easy-to-read."

Yeah, I'm still not seeing how my answers were "more or less" the same, unless you're referring to the fact that I basically said "no" to both suggestions. We do not "simply disagree." I've fully explained why your ideas are wrong for this site. And it is not an issue of standards. I can assure you that no one sets standards higher here than I do. It is a matter of appropriateness, style, usefulness, intent and a whole lot of other factors.

Concerning your translation query, if the quoted translation is one of the three, then there is no need to mention it at all. That verse you quoted is pretty much the same across all three. If there does happen to be a massive difference in meaning for a certain verse, then it's probably best to bring the issue up with Axius. --Sahab (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2014 (PDT)

I made a new page in my dir and I want to organize what heavenly promises are made in the Qur'an User:PW. Jansen/Sandbox/Heaven in the Qur'an

If you want to fill just quotes and no content of your own, there is a QHS on heaven - Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Heaven. Why not organise there? Saggy (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2014 (PDT)

The page I made was initially a copy/paste from that page, but I noticed I too easily create irritation. So let someone have a look at it first and then copy/paste it to that page QHS on heaven - Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Heaven. I made it to replace that page. There were only a few quotes added. --PW. Jansen (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2014 (PDT)

I saw your email now. For one [4], this verse is listed in the Furniture section:

And round about them will (serve) youths of perpetual (freshness): If thou seest them, thou wouldst think them scattered Pearls.

Your organization effort is nice but I think its far from complete due to the fact that I found this verse in the furniture section (this is a serious error as this verse deserves to be in another new section such as .. "Carnal Pleasures", for example). I think you could re-think what kind of sections you want to have. --Axius (talk | contribs) 14:00, 18 September 2014 (PDT)