WikiIslam:Discussions/Archive

I've made this template {{essay}} which puts a box on a user's page if its an essay. I thought its a good idea to mark a certain page as an essay, especially when it has been largely written by a certain user. Here are a few examples:

• Al-Azhar fatwa on adult suckling
• Current Jihad Motivation
• Medicine and biology

I think the first thing a user questions when he sees an essay is, who wrote this? The user attribution solves this. Thats basically it. I'm also thinking of having a new section on the main page called Essays by users or should we call it Op-Eds? Suggestions are welcome. --Axius ^(talk/contribs) 21:29, 4 July 2007 (PDT)

I propose the we change the title "Quotes from Famous People" to "Quotations on Islam". Or we can make "Quotes from Famous People" a subsection of "Quotations on Islam". The reason for this change would be to allow for quotes that have been said by obscure but important authors to be placed on this page. Selfworm 04:54, 7 September 2006 (CDT)

Hey Selfworm, thanks for contributing! "Quotations on Islam" seems much better and I agree with the rest of your changes too. I dont like the re-direct feature of wikipedia because it includes that little text which is better not seen sometimes ("redirected from"). Maybe its better to make a new page "Quotations on Islam" and start from there. What do you think? --Axius 09:33, 7 September 2006 (CDT)

"Maybe its better to make a new page "Quotations on Islam" and start from there. What do you think?" I agree with this approach. We can make "Quotes from Famous People" a subsection of this new page. Selfworm 11:14, 7 September 2006 (CDT)

Ok good, I made those changes then. Here's the new page: Quotations on Islam -a copy of the same page with just a different title. I see now its easier to rename, but it doesnt look as nice as deleting and recreating the page. --Axius 13:54, 7 September 2006 (CDT)

I suggest we create a page for new article, template, etc. proposals.--Wanderer 20:22, 8 July 2007 (PDT)

Do we have anything specific on "Honor Killings" or "Cults"? I'd like to see an article that proves Islam is a cult based on widely-accepted descriptions.--Natassia 15:18, 16 September 2009 (PDT)

I see you added something about the cult (Is Islam a cult?) but Honor related violence is on the to-do list. I thought we can 'violence' because sometimes its not killing but other violence (if they survive or some other attack). --Axius 06:49, 17 September 2009 (PDT)

Do we have anything on the Muslim Brotherhood? How about Rifqa Bary?--Natassia 20:00, 9 October 2009 (PDT)

Nope, nothing on either. --Axius 20:21, 9 October 2009 (PDT)

Think someone with an understanding of the Arabic language could do an article on Iblis? The etymology of its name? About how it lives in our noses and is made of fire, smokeless fire which would imply some reaction resembling the powder used in modern firearms, yet the worst a human body apparently gets from this is suggestive whispers instead of a deafening, burning, ripped to pieces explosive death? About, "The God" throwing Iblis in hell, which is described as fiery in the Qu'ran and how that is supposed to be punishment for a creature that is made of fire? An Arabic fluent user could probably come up with a lot more.

Thanks for the suggestion, yes that would be a good article. Currently we dont have any arabic editors active on the site. --Axius (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2013 (PDT)

Just a suggestion for the creator of http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Setting_the_Record_Straight:_The_Non-Miracle_of_Islamic_Science: If you intend that the material in white below the blue boxes be what is "fact" or what is meant to "balance out" the views in the blue boxes, it would be very helpful to reverse the two - ie, to put the material you want to replace the other in the blue box so it is emphasized. Especially since one of the items in the blue box has the caption "what should be taught" but apparently you really want to say what occurs below it outside the box should at least also be taught...? ~Kathy

Hi, Kathy. Everything within the blue quote boxes from the article "Setting the Record Straight: The Non-Miracle of Islamic Science" (found here) are quotes from "Setting the Record Straight: The Miracle of Islamic Science" (found here). The article which it is replying to.

We're trying to keep the formatting consistent throughout the wiki, so you will see the same thing in "How Islamic Inventors Did Not Change The World"[1] and others. --Admin3 09:38, 22 April 2011 (PDT)

an easy and cheap way to "do something" about the islam problem is to leave copies of brochures at places. brochures are just 1 page or 1/2 page flyers with info text about islam & a few links for reference. clearly the public needs more education about this horrible ideology and you don't need debating skills or temperament control dealing with hecklers to print & leave copies of brochures

it's easy enough to create your own brochure, there is a ton of info about islam on the internet, just cut/paste into word document or even text file, format it, add a few links, print them out and start distributing :)

here is a good article about this topic at an excellent activism type blog and it has a few sample brochures for download, also see links on right side for more brochures

http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2011/04/educate-public-with-leaflets.html

and of course yours truly did a 1 page pdf flyer that has met with good response on the internet (depending on where i posted it of course LOLOLOL) and is a real eye catcher when i leave it at libraries, sometimes i'll sit nearby and watch a few minutes :) :)

1 page pdf version - do file/download 6kb viewer doesn't show fonts well, has better fonts header footer links, great for emailing printing etc

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_UyNP-72AVKYWNiNTFlYTEtMTA1ZC00YjhiLTljMDUtMDhhNDE0NDMzNmYz

i can poke around and add this section if interested but not worth it if will just get deleted/not approved etc

here is text from flyer: _____

islam is a horrible ideology for human rights

5 key things about islam

1. mythical beliefs - all religions have these (faith) because its part of being a religion: having beliefs without proof until after the believer dies. the problem is people will believe almost anything.

2. totalitarianism - islam has no seperation of church and state: sharia law governs all. there is no free will in islam: only submission to the will of allah as conveniently determined by the imams who spew vapors to feather their own nests. there are no moderate muslims: they all support sharia law.

3. violence - islam leads the pack of all religions in violent tenets for their ideology & history: having eternal canonical imperatives for supremacy at all costs and calling for violence & intimidation as basic tools to achieve these goals.

4. dishonesty - only islam has dishonesty as a fundamental tenet: this stems from allah speaking to mohamhead & abrogation in the koran which is used to explain how mo's peaceful early life was superseded by his warlord role later.

5. misogyny - present day islam is still rooted in 8th century social ethics: treating females as property of men good only for children, severely limiting their activities, dressing them in shower curtains and worse.

conclusions ??

there really are NO redeeming qualities for this muddled pile of propaganda.

islam is just another fascist totalitarian ideology used by power hungry fanatics on yet another quest for worldwide domination and includes all the usual human rights abuses & suppression of freedoms.

We can link brochures on this page: Literature on Islam. --Axius 16:31, 27 July 2011 (PDT)

done :)

I want to join your team . You are doing excellent work.

I also have an idea . How about a section where we can have debates with muslims ? I am not talking about a traditional forum but a closed private discussion section ,where a Muslim can start a discussion on any topic and admins can respond to him/her.

Another idea i have is little bit technical. Is it possible to have some sort of API for this website. As you have huge database of articles and other stuff which is so far the best i have found on internet with all authentic sources. It would be great if you have API . It can serve as a marketing tool and also can be used to share wikiislam articles with wide audience. for example using API , bloggers[who criticize islam] can link recent articles of wikiislam on their blog.

Hi Azdahaexm! Thanks for your interest! Due to excessive attempts at vandalism, the wiki is currently on lock-down mode. So I will add you to our "safe list". This will allow you to carry out edits.

Thank you also for your ideas. Regarding the first; we do allow Muslims to submit original responses to our articles, but that's as far as the "dialogue" aspect of the site will go. We get apologists here often trying to defend child/adult marriages and so forth, and we direct them to the FFI forum. We do this because we haven't the time to spare, and it doesn't seem to matter if you answer their objections satisfactorily because you'll always have another apologists come along the next week raising the same objections.

Regarding the second; this sounds good, but we'll have to wait until Axius returns from his break. He handles all the technical stuff here. --Admin3 (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2012 (PDT)

Hi Azdahaexm, I had been working on some type of API so blogs and websites could import content from us but I didn't complete it. I plan to work on it in the future. Thanks for the suggestion about the "new articles" section. --Axius (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2012 (PDT)

Axius,thanks for responding...yes i can understand that you guys are doing a great job and it really requires a lot of strength and time to research properly with authentic sources. I am a computer programmer by profession , so if I can be of any help , do let me know. thanks

I've been working on a Dutch blog series called: Quranic Blunders, proving that the writer(s) of the Quran have made some huge errors which are further proof of the fact that the Quran was 1. manmade and 2. inspired by the teachings that circled in the time and place of Mohammad, including pagan and (now dismissed) Christian teachings. I think such a series of short studies, made by the contributors of this website, could provide a reader's need to quickly obtain proof for the fact that the Quran cannot be devine text.

I'll give you a few examples. Let me first point out that though these arguments seem to be "Christian", please let me stress that one can objectively (without being religioussely bias) see where the Quran writer(s) has made their blunders.

1. I have a blog (which i can turn into an article) about the father of Mary which, according to the Quran, is Imran. The Bible doesn't mention a father of Mary, the mother of Jesus, but does coincidently mention an Amram (Hebrew version of Imran) in the Old Testament who happens to be the father of a different Mary. This Old Testament Amram also had a son called Aaron. And guess what: Mary, the mother of Jesus, is called "Son of Haroun" (Aaron) in the Quran. This gives us further indication that the one who wrote the Quran has made a terrible blunder when he mixed up two different Mary's. It's hilarious because the Quran indirectly makes Moses (another son of Amram) the uncle of Jesus, skipping about 1400 years according to their own teachings. I have also refuted Muslim apologistic arguments like "Haroun is actually Joachim", who is the father of Mary according to Catholic (non biblical) doctrine. Besides refuting their claim, the same argument is further proof of the fact that the Quran writers responded to (and took from) the teachings that were circling the area of Mohammad during his time.

2. The Christian Trinity is clearly rejected in the Quran. However, one would expect that when Allah/God describes the Trinity, it would be the one almost all Christians believe in, opposed to one that no denomination has ever believed in. I am refering to the Quranic verse which describes that the trinity consists of Jesus, Allah and Mary, according to "unbelievers". Now perhaps this was 'a teaching' by a gnostic group of those days. But even if that is so, this is further proof that the Quran is manmade since it clearly addresses so called controversy of those days. Therefor the Quran is not timeless in its perspective.

I think you already have a section which addresses the so called science in the Quran which is often proven to be wrong by today's technology, but perhaps it could be integrated into the series, since it proves the same thing: that the Quran cannot be devine text.

It would be great if we could start a series like this, which could be expanded every now and then with a new 'episode' if you will.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Truthseeker (talk • contribs) on 11:02, 29 July 2012

Sounds great. Our Science pages are standalone articles, so we wont integrate them, but we can add a "see also" link to it. We already have articles that form their own "series" on the site (you can see them here), so a new series about errors in the Qur'an will be a good addition to the site (although the name may have to be changed to fit in with the style of WikiIslam). As our policies and Guidlines state, we like the articles hosted here to "be written in a professional scholarly manner and where possible, should refrain from using sensationalist and extremist expressions and labels for maximum impact on the reader." --Admin3 (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2012 (PDT)

gotcha, I will soon look into my blogs and rewrite them, leaving out the 'columnist style' while keeping just the facts and arguments. I prefer academic arguments myself, so I will have fun rewriting them. Would it be a problem if I number the articles? Like for instance: "Quranic errors, episode 2: The Christian trinity in Islam" Truthseeker (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2012 (PDT)

Hi Chris. I will create a template like this one for you. Then there shouldn't be any need to number them. --Admin3 (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2012 (PDT)

This is idea will be unpopular with Wikipedia die-hards, but it is well established in the psychological research.

Publish everything with a serifed font (Times, Garamond, Cambria, Bookman, Georgia, etc.).

Studies keep on showing that it is easier to read a serifed font. Those little flicks at the end of each letter seem to glide onto the next letter more easily than a blank space. Although the clean, childish appearance of Arial or Geneva looks superficially as if it should be clearer, in fact people are much less likely to finish reading something in an unserifed font.

If you want readers to finish the major articles, presenting them in a serifed font could make the difference.1234567 (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2012 (PDT)

Thanks for the suggestion! --Admin3 (talk) 02:57, 2 August 2012 (PDT)

Some interesting comments on Wikipedia's page for serif fonts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serif#Readability_and_legibility. Basically says "scientific study on this topic has been ambiguous". --Axius (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2012 (PDT)

Many muslims quote 2:62 and 5:69 to show that Islam is tolerant towards other religions and Jews,Christians and sabiens can go to heaven ....i have a complete refutation to their claim . I just want to be sure that such page do not already exists ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Azdahaexm (talk • contribs) on 14:19, 19 August 2012

We only have a short section on 2:62 here but not a complete refutation. So, yes, please go ahead and create that page. We could then link it under a "Main article" heading and add it to this hub page. Thanks!--Admin3 (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2012 (PDT)

Okey thanks...i will create the page within a day or two

The page is created Refuting_Apologists_Jews_Christians_and_Sabiens_can_go_to_heaven . Please review for english and standards.

Thanks. No need to worry about your English (I'll fix that). I will take a proper look at it when I have time. For now I will add an "under construction" template to the page, but 2 things I did notice:

1. References need to be provided (look here and here to see what I mean). Rather than writing "Tafsir Al-Jalalayn", we need an online link to the source, or if it's not available online, we need a proper book citation noting the page and ISBN number etc. You have one reference that says "Commentary By Dr.Israr Ahmed". But this is not enough. We need to know the name of the book, page number etc.
2. Our articles should be easy to understand for anyone. So there should be at least a little additional commentary there to explain the quotes. We also like our articles to start with an Introduction section and to end with a Conclusion section that summaries all the information. --Admin3 (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2012 (PDT)

I will take care of both the points and will edit my article.....one thing i want to point out is that when adding external link in source of Quote , if a link contains & , wiki seems to mess up the quotation and do not mention the source instead post the text in place of source --Azdahaexm (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2012 (PDT)

I know our reference archive doest work with an "&" in the URL, but otherwise it should be fine. For example, from our QHS Creation page:

Surah 3 Ayah 59
Tafsir al-Jalalayn

That URL has 4 "&" in it:

{{Quote|1=[http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=3&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0 Surah 3 Ayah 59]<BR>Tafsir al-Jalalayn|2=}}

Ah... the problem will be that you need to add a "1=" and "2=" to the quote template:

{{Quote|1=[http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=3&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0 Surah 3 Ayah 59]<BR>Tafsir al-Jalalayn|2=}}

I have added links for the quotes ...now working on conclusion part....thanks for the help --Azdahaexm (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2012 (PDT)

You're welcome! --Admin3 (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2012 (PDT)

Required changes are done...please review it. Thanks --Azdahaexm (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2012 (PDT)

Great! Will do. --Admin3 (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2012 (PDT)

Quranists claim that "ma malakat aymanuhum" in 23:6,70:30 and others are not "right hand possess" but it means "maintained by oath". They confuse "aymanuhum" with "aymanihim" and "aymanukum" with "aymanikum". It would be great if someone can write a complete refutation using Arabic. I have some dictionaries but Quranists refuse to accept them by calling them "influenced by hadiths".

If someone can use Lisanul quran and Lisanul Arab it would be awesome. --Azdahaexm (talk)

Perhaps you could add a rebuttal to their idiotic "X-rated porn in the Bible". When arguing against Islam, one has to defend the Bible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.186.58.47 (talk • contribs) on 03:29, 6 October 2012

We're not an "interfaith" or "dialogue" site, so unless it's someone very notable, we do not respond to specific apologists. Instead we respond to the general arguments raised, if those arguments are popular enough to merit a response at all. There will certainly be exceptions to the rule, but, no, you don't have to defend the Bible in order to criticize Islam. An article refuting the claim of "X-rated porn in the Bible" has no place on WikiIslam. Issues like that should be dealt with on Christian sites such as Answering Islam. A site called answer-islam.org already have a response to Answering Christianity's article: http://answer-islam.org/AnsweringPornography.htm --Admin3 (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2012 (PDT)

Here's another from Answering Islam: http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/pedophilia.htm (if you scroll down to the bottom of the page, they link to several articles dealing with the claim)

I would like to tell everyone to watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y&feature=relmfu

This guy make a historical argument about the destruction of classical civilization via Jihad.

Someone could create an article basead on this video.

Sorry about my english. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 187.75.24.202 (talk • contribs) on 23:19, 12 October 2012

The categories for the videos are on the left: Videos_on_Islam. --Axius (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2013 (PDT)

Star Of The Crown: I put the suggested video under people talking about Islam and put another video on Indian History under miscellaneous. I am wonder if we should not make a new section for Islamic history in general. What do you think?

I noticed recently that wikipedia now has a Ref hover system where you hover over the ref number and it shows you the reference in a little popup and you dont have to go down to the references section. ([2], hover over ref #10). So here you see a popup and you can click on the source there. I've thought of this feature before. Hopefully we'll have this in the next software upgrade. --Axius (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2012 (PST)

That would be an awesome addition. Though I doubt that will stop the trolls from their false protests. --Sahabah (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2012 (PST)

Yea they'll still have to actually read the text. --Axius (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2012 (PST)

I got this working. I disabled it to see how it does it and then had trouble getting it back on. I think I had to clear my cache. But yea its working now. --Axius (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2012 (PST)

Cool! But did you notice, as if by magic, a Muslim does this false protest just after you add it. Wow, I must be the Final Prophet^TM!! --Sahabah (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2012 (PST)

Nice to see that its working. --Axius (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2012 (PST)

Is there any chance in the future that we could make a book of the articles in WikiIslam in PDF similar to Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ‎124.171.143.31 (talk • contribs) on 23:18, 4 January 2013

Hmm. Sounds like an interesting idea. I don't know about what kind of pro's and con's will be involved for us. --Sahabah (talk) 07:22, 5 January 2013 (PST)

hi ‎124.171.143.31, thanks for your suggestion. Currently there's no plan for this. The best way to read the content is on the website directly because if a PDF is compiled, it will become outdated as changes are made on the website. Our articles also contain links and the PDF experience is less user friendly as compared to a website (where all activity happens within the browser, as opposed to switching between Acrobat and the browser). Its an extra feature but its not a high priority right now. --Axius (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2013 (PST)

I noticed that Muslims are heavily into dawa on these platforms, but there are no skeptical voices on there yet. Any thoughts on creating some text-based apps for them? For example Google host some stuff that Christian users would find offensive (zombie Jesus comic and a clock that will "die for your sins twice a day"). I'm not even suggesting anything like that, although it would be a nice counterbalance to have that preet Mohammed site create some of their hilarious comics on their (it may also keep Google's security on their toes). I was thinking our "Islam on the Net" series would be perfect as an app. Hmm, I may contact some of the other big sites about it (for example a body counter app from TROP would be popular). --Sahabah (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2013 (PST)

Yea thats a great idea. Different kinds of apps (or games) should be there. Even though the number of downloads may not be much (unless it has something that gets the general public's attention), its still very important to have something like that there. A simple categorized small/important collection of hadith/verses and comics as you say yea, that should definitely be there. Or the TROP counter too yes. --Axius (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2013 (PST)

"simple categorized small/important collection of hadith/verses." Nice! A cut-down mobile QHS app would be very useful. When I'm up and running again, I'll try to look into this some more. --Sahabah (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2013 (PST)

I have to disable editing on this site while we move. I would say, watch out for the new site [3]. Once the edits have been transferred over, edits can be made on that new site. I'll post a discussion message there at some point. --Axius (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2013 (PST)

Ok, this new IP site is active now. Editing can be done here instead of on the old site. Thanks Claustrum! --Axius (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2013 (PST)

You're welcome! — Claustrum ϟ 17:56, 10 February 2013 (PST)

There can be some thought given to the fact, that If ALLAH required a messenger to talk to people, chances are 1) He wasn't present everywhere

2) Definitely not all powerful

3) He could not speak to Arabs in Arabic, Muhammad spoke in Arabic, hence Arabic is definitely not the language of GOD. Maybe Muhammad just felt Jibreel's words in his mind and when he spoke, he spoke in Arabic.

4) Why does Allah have to keep on not only adding to his messages , but keeps on CHANGING them..Is Allah a GOD who believes in reaching perfection by Trial and Error method? Then he(or is it a She) can definitely not be Perfect, but seems like a fickle minded child who keeps on making MISTAKES and changing his stance.

Any THOUGHTS on THIS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paganwarrior786 (talk • contribs) on 12:44, 9 April 2013

Hi Paganwarrior786. You are probably better off asking these questions on an Islam-related forum. For example, the FaithFreedom forum. Thanks. --Sahabah (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2013 (PDT)

Thanks Sahabah...

Actually I was looking if someone had information on these points so I could answer a few "Muslim" acquaintances, who seem to be fixated on saying that Arabic God and his messenger were real.. and they actually made more sense than science.

You can try this series to see if it has any discussion on the above questions Islam: A Critical Analysis. Thats the only one I can think of. Other than that, yes the forum would be the best place to go for this. --Axius (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2013 (PDT)

hi! I have a suggestion for you: I'm an active user on Facebook and I have some pages about Islam that are similar to your website. I could not find any page related to your site on Facebook. I suggest you to open a page there. for instance I made one and now it is ready to use: [4]

it may help you to have much more visitors and many new people to find you website and read your ideas. I'm ready for any kind of help and waiting for your permission to start or stop the page activities. Best Wishes!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sepehr (talk • contribs) on 04:31, 19 April 2013

Hi Sepehr. Thanks for taking the initiative. But I don't think we'd be interested in that. We did have our own page and it was deleted. Maybe Axius will think differently (he'll probably comment later when he logs in). A fairly recent addition to the site is the Translation Project, so how would you feel about translating a few of our articles into the Persian language? Also you could create a sandbox: User:Sepehr/Sandbox and work on/submit some of your articles if you think they would be suitable for the site.--Sahab (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2013 (PDT)

Sepehr, thanks for making that. I'll think about this. We need a new URL though. I'm assuming its possible to have multiple admins on a Facebook page. I'll get back to you here or by email.--Axius (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2013 (PDT)

Not sure if this is where I can suggest a page that needs to be created: All over the internet, I see claims that Muslims greatly upgraded Sicily during their rule, however I do not believe this would be the case. This section in particular [5] makes me sick. What solid sources exist showing that Muslims did nil to benefit Sicily during their occupation? Devraj (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2013 (PDT)

I dont see much on our site about Sicily. Here's a Google search within the site. Assuming its a valid task (if sources can be found to support the claims): we have a long ever-growing list of tasks and this certain task about Sicily although interesting is most likely not high-priority. But if you'd like to do this yourself (or add it to the tasks page), by all means. --Axius (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2013 (PDT)