WikiIslam:Discussions/Editor Discussions

Shall we make logical errors into "logical errors and absurdities" or put any word like "absurdities"? Then there will be a lot more to add.--Saggy (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2014 (PST)

No, I think absurdities is too wide in scope. For example, most of the scientific errors could be seen as absurdities. --Sahab (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2014 (PST)

How about something temporary and general like WikiIslam:Sandbox/Issues in the Quran and gather all the relevant verses and make whatever kinds of internal headings we like. The first main step is to gather the verses and some rough sorting and then later refinement to make sure the claim is correct and refining the sorting/headings also. --Axius (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2014 (PST)

I don't think the issue is a temporary one that can be sorted by refining sub-heading. If that was the case, then the present heading, "Logical Errors in the Qur'an", is fine for now. The issue is about the entire direction of the article i.e. the author hasn't decided on the topic of the article yet. Clearly that's an odd place to be when an article has already been started. The original topic (logical errors) does not seem to create enough content to warrant an article, so the new title, "logical errors and absurdities" was suggested to allow widening its scope. However, including "absurdities" widens the scope too far. To me, the reasonable conclusion is that there is no article here, or it should at least be put on hold until there are enough logical errors found, and efforts should be concentrated on the "Qur'anic Claim of Having Details" article which has more potential, but that's probably not what everyone wants to hear, so we come back the same problem. What is this article about? If it's about "Issues in the Quran", then that completely obliterates the scope. There are hundreds of issues with the Qur'an and we have hundreds of articles dealing with them. I doubt Saggy or anyone will be willing to create an article that would encompass them all, but readers who land on a page named "Issues in the Quran" would expect nothing less. --Sahab (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2014 (PST)

If its in a Sandbox article space it doesnt matter what the article title is or if it doesnt have any structure and so on. Its not indexed and its under construction.

The first step of these articles is to choose from the 6000 verses by scanning them. We dont want any restrictions at this stage which could slow that down. The next is some kind of sorting or making sense of it. When its time to move the article to the main space only then we have to worry about applying the rules you mentioned and I agree with those rules (correct titles whether its one title or many, scope, how it fits in with everything else, whether its a valid claim or not, etc). It has to be ok in every way. Saggy is doing the first core task, bringing out those verses so that can go on in a Sandbox article. In the end we can come back to your comments and see what to do next. --Axius (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2014 (PST)

Well, if you, Saggy or whoever want to do it that way then it doesn't bother me in the slightest, because it's up to each individual how they spend their time and it's being done in a sandbox. But scanning 6000 verses then deciding on what to do with them is not the optimal way good articles are written. That sounds quite absurd in itself. It's common sense that when you write an article that you have a general idea of what the article is about, and only then do you do the research for it. Take the "Qur'an detail" article. We know we want verses that lack detail, so we scan the Qur'an for verses that fit the description. We do not scan the Qur'an for an unidentified purpose, collect anything that looks interesting and then decide that "there are some verses here that lack detail. Let's make an article about it". --Sahab (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2014 (PST)

Actually I've always wanted to scan the Quran for all the interesting things but Skeptics Quran has done a lot of it (I remember your comment about SAQ). In any case yes, as long as its done in a Sandbox people can do what they like (good practice for articles under construction in any case). In the end we can see if it makes sense or not, or how to fix it. If you had to scan the Quran for an identified purpose, you would to scan it again every time you had a new purpse. If scanning is done one time but we have a "filter" on it (like an email filter), it saves time. Anyway. Yea its up to Saggy on what he wants to write in the Sandbox. I need to take a closer look at these articles some time to see how its going. --Axius (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2014 (PST)

Scanning the Qur'an as a general project is a completely different task to the one we are discussing here i.e. Saggy's "logical errors" page. And yeah, when you know what you're looking for, you would scan it again. That's how it's done. Or do you think if you scan the Qur'an now you will never have to scan the Qur'an ever again? We've all "scanned" the Qur'an multiple times (i.e. when we've read through it), but that doesn't do away with the need of re-scanning the Qur'an for a specific purpose. --Sahab (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2014 (PST)

I dont know, I guess its however he scans it. If it was me who had to do it, I would keep a checklist of stuff I want to check against. Anyway, yea he can work on the sandbox page as he likes. I know he was talking about the Logical errors page. I was just giving the general advice that he can work on a sandbox page. --Axius (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2014 (PST)

I asked because I saw some things that may not be logical as I think but they are not scientific either. Just erros.--Saggy (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2014 (PST)

I just renamed it to WikiIslam:Sandbox/Logical Errors and Other Issues in the Qur'an for a general kind of title. You can think about renaming it to something more specific in the end when you're done with it. --Axius (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2014 (PST)

How about an article on Ali? He's (one of) the most important men in Islamic history, so why not? LawrenceGilmore (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2014 (PST)

I made your inquiry into a new section by making a heading. Sure thats fine only if it would be a good article related to criticism of Islam. Otherwise not too much time should be spent on it in my opinion but thats up to you. Do you have any thoughts about the text extracts [1] for the iphobia article? Sorry I have been putting off working on that article but I was waiting to see what you thought of the extracts. --Axius (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2014 (PST)

I think its time to create the details article, What do you say?--Saggy (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2014 (PDT)

I think it needs a language cleanup. I'll try to look at it and see what I can improve.

One of the strongest cases on that page is the 5 pillars. Can you think of any other cases like these where the detail is seriously needed, is an important part of Islamic belief but is there in the Quran? Those would be very good additions to the page and are not as important as the other verses (stories with missing details e.g.) --Axius (talk | contribs) 17:22, 11 March 2014 (PDT)

I think there's probably a lot more that can be added (possibly after the article's creation, but preferably before) and I agree with Axius concerning the need of a language cleanup. I too will try to help with that in the next day or two. I would also say that the 5 pillars section needs to be redone to be consistent with the rest. So, IMO, it is not quite ready but it is getting close. Other than that; well done. --Sahab (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2014 (PDT)

I added some more verses for the claims of being detailed and made some headings. I found those additional verses here after searching for what Quran says about salat so I could add those verses. For now I just did this and will try to add salat verses related verses so match the other sections. A good compilation of Salat related verses has been done for us here: http://www.progressive-muslim.org/salat-prayer-quran.htm . A page like this can probably go in a Ref tag, and we can have some specific verses and for the rest we can give the reader the link in the Ref tag.

Saggy, my opinion is that new verses for missing details should not be added anymore unless they're really good. Instead the effort should be focused on finalizing this page. --Axius (talk | contribs) 20:36, 12 March 2014 (PDT)

Saggy, additions of new verses is fine but it may keep extending the time it may take for the article to be reviewed/finalized (just letting you know). You can keep adding the verses though I think thats fine. --Axius (talk | contribs) 07:01, 15 March 2014 (PDT)

I planned the order to be numerical so we start with chapter 2 and go to 113  :/ --Saggy (talk) 08:55, 15 March 2014 (PDT)

Oh ok. I reverted myself then. I think it should be revised so its categorized in the other sense. I think its more powerful to present "practices of Islam" in one section and laws in another etc. Do you disagree? OR, you can reorder them in the end when you're done. Another related point is that there are enough "stories" (fables) for now. It would be nice to have more incomplete details for other categories like "laws" or practices in Islam (charity, fasting, salat) etc. Or any new categories. But yes I do believe that presenting related categories is more powerful. We dont follow the chapter series anywhere on other pages because the verses are pretty random. --Axius (talk | contribs) 09:04, 15 March 2014 (PDT)

Law? theres hardly any law to search for i think. some practices eg. pilgrimage are more detailed than the 1-line-stories so there may not be more practices to insert. Some are not story or anything categoryable eg. "We revealed the book and with it the balance". Where do they go in the event of separation?--Saggy (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2014 (PDT)

Thief's repentance is one example of a law/sharia issue, currently the only one though. The others can go in a "Miscellaneous/Other verses" section. I guess keep collecting and we can think about it in the end. --Axius (talk | contribs) 11:38, 15 March 2014 (PDT)

I readied the prose, now create it or u want more verses?--Saggy (talk) 08:40, 20 March 2014 (PDT)

I will read through it later and clean it up before creating it. There's enough content there for an initial article. But I also want to separate the 5 Pillars before that. --Sahab (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2014 (PDT)

2 pillars and ablution; and 1 or two more laws. Should they all go into one bunch? The Rest of the pillars have a decent amount of details so they may not go in.--Saggy (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2014 (PDT)

It's okay. I worked around it now. For Axius: concerning that progressive-muslim link; the translation they use is not accurate and distorts verses a lot. They're also Qur'anist apologists; their whole point is that the Qur'an is detailed, so I don't think it will benefit us from citing Qur'anist apologists as a reference. --Sahab (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2014 (PDT)

Only 1 translator called 85;4 as fire.[2] it many not necessarily be the usual future hell. I gave the source from wikipedia. Saggy (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2014 (PDT)

If the lack of detail was based on a historical event, then this should have been mentioned. And if only one translator used the word fire in 85:4 then you should have called the section heading "Makers of the Pit", not "Makers of the Pit of Fire" (I will change this now). Because if the fire translation is accepted then it could be easily argued that this is a poetic way of saying sinners are making their own place in hell, so it's not the Qur'an's lack of detail that is the problem, but the interpretations. --Sahab (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2014 (PDT)

Saggy, why are you rushing everything and only making a half-hearted attempt at creating a decent article? Axius may disagree with me, and I'm not trying to discourage you, but my philosophy has always been, "if you're not going to do something properly, then don't do it at all". It is this that has led to us weeding out most of the weak articles and deleting them, resulting in a very high-quality wiki with a reputation for its accurate and articulate content. But when it comes to you, even your talk page messages are so rushed that it makes them hard to understand.

See this section called "Blowing on Knots" that you wrote. You say about Qur'an 113:1-4 that, "One cannot understand who are those who blow on knots and why." This could be easily refuted by apologists. All they have to do is click on our verse reference that goes to the USC-MSA site an see that both of the other translators render it as "those who practise secret arts" and "the evil of malignant witchcraft". Then they can claim that WikiIslam are dishonest and are simply choosing the 1 translation that is most ambiguous and suited to "their agenda". Looking at the multiple translations available at islamawakened, most translators render it as something to do with witchcraft.

I've now fixed that by removing the text you wrote and replacing it with, "Many translators identify those who blow on knots as "those who practice secret arts" or witchcraft, but this information is not found within the actual Qur'anic text. Others choose to translate it accurately as "those who blow on knots", which makes it impossible to identify who these people are and why they would do such a thing." But you were obviously aware of the situation (since you chose the 1 translation of the three that only mentions knots) so why did you not think to add this to the article? It was the same thing Qur'an 85:4 (discussed above this message). If you were aware of the uncertainty behind the meaning of this verse being discused by Muslim scholars so it confirms the fact that this verse lacks detail, why did you fail to mention it? You are rushing just to throw articles out there and this is resulting in your work being weak or incomprehensible. This is not how we do things. We do not choose quantity over quality. That may have been the case 5 years ago but not today.

So can you please try to adjust you editing style accordingly? --Sahab (talk) 08:32, 23 March 2014 (PDT)

ok. But I bet those claims against this site will never go away.--Saggy (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2014 (PDT)

Thanks, Saggy. Of course. We know these claims will never go away. We are not doing it for those apologists who make these claims. We are doing it for all those people (Muslim and non-Muslim) who use us to learn about Islam and trust us for our accuracy. We need to be thorough and clear enough so that they have the information available to see that we are correct. --Sahab (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2014 (PDT)

I agree with what Sahab said and in particular "We do not choose quantity over quality.". As we can see Sahab did a lot of work [3] on the Details article. Thanks for that Sahab. Saggy please note Sahab's recommendations.

Anyone can make any number of Sandbox articles, whether they're of poor or good quality. Picking those sandbox articles and finalizing them is entirely optional and is up to other users.

So Saggy if you can do a good job in the Sandbox article, it makes it more likely that others will work on it and finalize the article. If its too difficult others can just add it to the tasks page to work on it in the future. If its added there, you can see that the tasks page contains lots of tasks so it will likely be a long time before anyone works on it. I would advise you to keep working on Sandbox articles as you have done but if you ask people to finalize it and it needs a lot of work, you can expect a reply like "it needs a lot of work (for example, X, Y Z) and at the moment I'm unable to work on it". In that case you can keep working on the article to the best of your ability (and make it rebuttal proof as best as you can). It can be added to the Tasks page if it needs a lot of fixing up. --Axius (talk | contribs) 17:27, 24 March 2014 (PDT)

Here see its second sentence. does it make enough of sense? some stray translator calls it "hiding pregnancy," but is it really something that can be hidden over time? especially in those old days? If it is unclear, it should go into some article.--Saggy (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2014 (PDT)

I think it sounds pretty clear. --Sahab (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2014 (PDT)

What does this mean? "Do not kill your children secretly, for the milk, with which a child is suckled while his mother is pregnant, overtakes the horseman and throws him from his horse."[4] Saggy (talk) 08:18, 2 April 2014 (PDT)

Why? --Sahab (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2014 (PDT)

I think he just wants to know what the hadith means. Strange hadith. I dont know myself. --Axius (talk | contribs) 09:56, 2 April 2014 (PDT)

Appears to be claiming fetuses drink their mother's milk in the womb. --Sahab (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2014 (PDT)

Whoa lol. Yea I think you're right. I dont know what that horseman thing means though. Funny. --Axius (talk | contribs) 10:11, 2 April 2014 (PDT)

Yeah, I dunno what the "horseman" refers to either. It's probably the killer. And the milk thing sounds silly but it's not out of the ordinary for Islamic literature where the moon and sun are considered sentient beings and food likewise "praise Allah" or warn Muhammad of poisoning. Although we have to be careful with such things because while the former is a scientific error, the latter is a miracle. --Sahab (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2014 (PDT)

To put it somewhere.Saggy (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2014 (PDT)

Scientific Errors in the Hadith? (lol. I'm assuming it can't be argued that fetuses suckle on their mother's milk). --Sahab (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2014 (PDT)

So I was thinking the apologist could argue (as they do) but that the child in this quote is a child outside which has been born already: "with which a child is suckled while his mother is pregnant". In any case, this hadith could be in a "Other Hadiths" sub-section or wherever (its up to you guys). --Axius (talk | contribs) 14:57, 2 April 2014 (PDT)

I'll fill in the details of every possible meaning. But if this is for the scientific error article, what title to give it? "Breast milk can overflow?"Saggy (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2014 (PDT)

Could be "Break milk is consumed by Fetus", etc.

But look what I found. I think this is interesting. I googled "greek science breast milk uterus" and I found this paper. Google "The History of the Knowledge of Reproductive Anatomy and Physiology " [5] and click on the link from www.lab.anhb.uwa.edu.au

ca 150 A.D. -- Galen – was a Greek Biologist and philosopher who practised medicine, was a surgeon to gladiators and a public demonstrator of anatomy.

He also believed women had two uteri ending in single neck. One of his theories was that if milk flows from the breasts of a pregnant woman, it is an indication that the foetus will be weak. His reasoning for this is; the breasts and uterus are joined by common vessels. The foetus inside the uterus is bathed in nutrients (milk), if this milk overflows to the breasts it is because the foetus is not strong enough to consume as much as it should be.

Galen is mentioned on our site in other places too. site search. Food for thought. I knew it could be connected to Greek science just like the Embryology/semen backbone stuff is copied from Greek science in Islamic texts. I would suggest the next steps as possibly finding more related hadiths and any Islamic scholar's comments on this hadith and then citing this paper to link them. There needs to be more study to see completely what the hadith means to say.

Then I added Galen to the search query greek science breast milk uterus galen. Click on the PDF "Exploring gender: Islamic Perspectives on Breastfeeding" for more info.

Galen says in another link [6] "so that if a nursing mother should become pregnant,", so it might be talking about a pregnant woman who is nursing another child. This is just more information. Saggy could you analyze this carefully or do more research before putting the hadith in to make sure we are not putting in any hadiths that can be explained. I have no additional input on this. --Axius (talk | contribs) 15:12, 3 April 2014 (PDT)

The minimum error is that milk overflows. Where is the baby or how many babies are there does not matter. I'll insert this and its better to see if somebody tries to refute or explain the rest of words later. Saggy (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2014 (PDT)

[7] "there can be only some leakage of milk", can qualify for "A Pregnant woman's milk can overflow". Technically "some leakage" is "overflow". --Axius (talk | contribs) 04:30, 4 April 2014 (PDT)

No, it throws a horseman! All i found was this denial-[8] and another where a guy will make 60 women pregnant and their kids will become horsemen of war[9] - it maybe related to our subject of child/horseman but it does not clarify the milk. neway I read some breastfeeding facts and wrote down.Saggy (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2014 (PDT)

Let me think- mother or somebody else may have planned to kill the foetus ( but i am not sure if this was possible). If it is killed what happens to the milk? overflow, at best. If she's pregnant and feeds a second child and this child is to be killed, again the milk may be excess. the horseman falling must be the exagerration and it is best to point that out. I checked more - only breastfeed woman leaks often. but pregnant plus breastfeeder can be sometimes low on milk supply.Saggy (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2014 (PDT)

Added ref for decreased milk. The ref template needs some fixes. i see it later, i've to go.Saggy (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2014 (PDT)

Ok, I think I understand now. The hadith says that it will always be the case that overflow happens for a pregnant breast feeding woman. I still dont get the logic behind the hadith "Dont kill your child because otherwise the milk wont overflow" ... ? Must be some background on the hadith as to whats going on. Yea I saw that link. I googled "overtakes the horseman and throws him from his horse" and saw a few more links. Here's another [10] which is about intercourse and other stuff.:

Imam Abu Sulaiman Al Khattabi explaining the hadith says, “The Prophet (pbuh) is indicating that when the husband has intercourse with his breastfeeding wife, which results in pregnancy, it reduces her milk, thus depriving the suckling child, as it is being nourished from that milk, hence weakening the suckling child”. (Ma’aalim Al Sunan of Imam Abu Sulaiman Al Khattabi)

and this quote (note the interpretation of horseman etc):

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "…gheelah (pregnancy during the period of breastfeeding) overtakes the rider and throws him from the horse." (Reported by Abu Dawud, this means that the child who nurses from a pregnant mother will suffer from it in later life like a horseman who is thrown from his horse.)"

There may be additional information in the google link about the horseman phrase. --Axius (talk | contribs) 05:08, 4 April 2014 (PDT)

And after Googling that phrase ("this means ....") I found only two links, one of which was that forum and the other is this [11]. So I think this hadith may not be a good choice after addition after all but check all of this information and see for yourself. You can also get additional scientific error Hadiths from this page: Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Islamic_Silliness. You can copy the ones that can be shown as scientific errors. Its ok to have one hadith shown in multiple pages. But yes continue with your hadith scanning/search because we know there are more errors/things found in Hadith than Quran verses. --Axius (talk | contribs) 05:23, 4 April 2014 (PDT)

I searched for "Romans persians" and got this [12] Book 008, Number 3391 is what they seem to call gheelah. But gheelah does not appear linked to "kill children" nor to the fall from horse. Its tiring; verifying such claims. What analogy did they say: Child will suffer the same as a horseback fall? is it due to milk in any way? This fall-suffer analogy is strange, it seems like all those miracle claims derived from half sentences. The subject is clearly milk, not child. but they changed it to child to brush it away. So you have googled and thrown light(lol) on two separate parts: If the second half is an analogy, the first is not clear. If we understand or assume the first, the second is not clear. "Milk throws the horseman from the horse" looks the same as "sperm flows between backbone and ribs." By now, a whole article could be made on this mess if needed.Saggy (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2014 (PDT)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ (outdented)"This fall-suffer analogy is strange" - the apologist will quote Abu Dawaud and claim that its not referring to overflow but punishment later on. I would suggest to move on to something else as things are not as clear as we would like them to be (unless additional evidence can be found). The problem is the meaning of the hadith is not clear, and we cannot claim that horseman refers to overflow (without evidence that says so). --Axius (talk | contribs) 09:28, 4 April 2014 (PDT)

That is what I was trying to say - such an apologist cant show which word refers to what, satisfactorily. (is it "milk" that refers to punishment?) I had said the sperm thing on realising that the first guy who pointed out the sperm-flow error did not expect that apologists will give 10 different interpretations, half of them twisting the original words. They are all debunked. Same may happen here. We should take the hadith literally unless there is strong evidence for different meanings in it.Saggy (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2014 (PDT)

Agreed that it should be taken literally. Literally it just says "horseman taking over the horse". Anything else (overflow or punishment) needs a reference. I would suggest adding the hadith to some kind of "to do" page where hadiths of interest are listed so it can be looked at again when there's more information. If the hadith literally said something about over flow or punishment or lack of milk for the other baby etc, it would be another situation. --Axius (talk | contribs) 10:10, 4 April 2014 (PDT)

I think that hadith should not be added to the list. I do not get "A Pregnant woman's milk can overflow" from a literal reading. In the end, a literal reading is all that matters because anything else is an interpretation and can be argued against. Ultimately, this is just one odd hadith out of literally thousands of odd hadith, so I don't see any importance in this. --Sahab (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2014 (PDT)

Ok. Yes, the concept ofoverflow is not mentioned explictly and one interpretation says it means something else.

Saggy, I would to reiterate the need for adding content that is "rebuttal" proof. You said "Its tiring; verifying such claims.". Yes its more work making sure new content is strong and of high quality but its worth it. If you want you can add the Hadith to your own "to do" page/section where you can continue the research (in which case make sure you add the reference to the Abu Dawud meaning of suffering I found). Again, do look at the Silliness hadiths to see if any can be added from there to the Science errors page. Many hadiths/verses are easy decisions to insert if the meanings are clear (this kind of hadith is not found often). Easy or not, all new content still needs a careful look to make sure it is acceptable.

Its nice that you have been researching hadiths and verses and some of your other additions have been fine so yea, continue that. I recommend you do it like this as its easier: Put all of the interesting verses and hadiths you come across in your own temporary Sandbox page, and when you have a certain number, start inserting them into the relevant pages (after a good review). And then you can go back and search some more. This is easier than finding one quote, inserting, finding another and inserting etc. In the Sandbox you also have more freedom to write what you want until its finalized: User:Saggy/Sandbox, User:Saggy/Sandbox for QHS. etc --Axius (talk | contribs) 05:23, 5 April 2014 (PDT)

Lets see how these changes look. I moved all visitor related links to the top and the Editor related links to the left for easier access. Visitors who are 99% of the people visiting this site can look in that Navigation box while Editors can see what they want on the left for easier access. In my opinion Editors are more important than visitors. We can get visitors and thats easy; we already have a lot of them so lets pay more importance to editing which is a problem. This is more inviting to editors and its telling them they are important. Lets see how it feels for a while. The bad thing is its pushing content down but there's no other way for now.

Later we can also try reverting and moving everything below Editing. --Axius (talk | contribs) 15:18, 26 April 2014 (PDT)

Reverting back for now with a few changes - Editing section is given higher priority, Recent changes is moved to Editing, policies and Core principles have also been moved to Editing.

Still trying to find a good menu navigation system. Making the site look like Wikipedia is not a priority. A site is not judged to be good because it looks like Wikipedia but because it has good content and is easy to navigate and makes it easy for people to find what they're looking for (this is good web design). Making it easy for people to navigate the site is of higher priority. --Axius (talk | contribs) 19:20, 28 April 2014 (PDT)

There is a public Mediawiki extension called "Breadcrumbs" (well, there are even TWO !). Maybe that can help ? François Paganel (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2014 (PST)

The first is a strange way of doing breadcrumbs. The 2nd is the right one which will need manual creation of the breadcrumb data. Its up to Sahab and I can install it if he wants that. --Axius (talk | contribs) 05:33, 16 December 2014 (PST)

What can be done to make the site more inviting and more likely to connect with our readers and most importantly, potential editors? I've always thought of a page where we can list our significant current and past (retired) editors. Even if there are only a few people to mention it could be done. An summary of the kind of work they've done would be nice. That recognition would be nice and people would be interested in seeing who is doing what.

I feel this will make people more interested in joining the website as an editor when they feel a social connection to the site.

Any thoughts? --Axius (talk | contribs) 05:36, 5 July 2014 (PDT)

Both of these people are very knowledgeable about Islam and I would like to invite them to join our site:

• KlingsChor (Youtube, Blog, Twitter) and
• TheRationalizer (Youtube, Blog, Twitter)

I'm in touch with TheRationalizer and have told him that I hope he joins us. I commented on Klingschor's Youtube channel and invited him too but he may not have read it so I will try to create a formal invitation and deliver the invite to them personally and we can also show the invite on the website (which can also be an introduction for them containing information about the internet presence and their areas of interest).

Anyone else who should be on this list? --Axius (talk | contribs) 11:52, 5 July 2014 (PDT)

I have translated a complete article to another language in my sandbox. Now I need a step by step process how to add this translation in the language catagory.

Should I edit the main English article and paste my own translation in the wikitext after deleting the main article and then submit my changes for approval?

Greetings. I have plenty of Wiki experience from gaming wikis and I thought I may be able to help out here a bit now and then. Primarily I may want to start translating articles into Swedish. Sweden is quite prominent in certain aspects of Islam, especially since we have a large minority muslims and our government caters to the more fundamentalist aspects of Islam (they, both sides, seem to have no clue about the difference between moderate and fundamental followers of the religion) and I think there may be an interest for some of these articles in Swedish.

I'm happy to translate things as I go along, and I was thinking of starting pretty soon, but what articles do you think are most prominent and best candidates for translations? A question could be about which pages are visited the most etc.

Mind you that Swedes have a very good knowledge of English, in most cases, so many things can easily remain in English, such as the Quran stuff. I can't be bothered to find a Swedish Quran and copy all your hard work. I'm thinking more general articles on abrogations and stuff like that.

Open for suggestions!

Leord (talk) 01:57, 20 August 2014 (PDT)

Here is the list: WikiIslam:Translations You can go ahead with it in a sandbox. See Abrogation it has 3 articles, I think they are complete and hence fit for translation but take a second opinion on them. More links in Contradictions and Errors. Then there is WikiIslam:Site Map and Tasks to pick anything of your choice. Another interesting article is Questions to Ask About Islam but it keeps receiving some additions. Saggy (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2014 (PDT)

Hi Leord, thanks for joining. Yea it would be great to have some articles in Swedish. You can do the Abrogation articles if you like but how about 72 Virgins. This will remain a popular topic and there's a lot of wrong information for this topic that needs to be challenged. Other articles on our Translation page include List of killings by Muhammad, Health effects of Islamic dress (if there are many Hijabs, Veils seen in Sweden), Invitations to Violence, etc. Let me know what you want to start and I'll make a page for you that you can directly edit. --Axius (talk | contribs) 05:10, 20 August 2014 (PDT)

Brilliant guys, quick reply as well, nice. Cool, I will look into these over the next couple of days. As I said, Swedes are generally very proficient in English, so this is more a means to make it feel "more like home" for some parts of the possible audience than an essential service. As such I don't think the Swedish section will ever need a sub-domain, but it's better to simply link freely to English articles from the Swedish ones, and then have a translation choice on the English for the pertient ones you pointed out. It will probably take me a while to sort it all out.

I am also pretty used to both editing and article writing, so I'll give them all a once-over for grammar, wording, meaning, etc before I start. Probably won't hurt, anyway. :) 10:01, 20 August 2014 (PDT)

Ok, sounds good. Let me know here when you have a choice. Good to know Swedish people are somewhat familiar with english. --Axius (talk | contribs) 19:45, 20 August 2014 (PDT)

Upon doing a Google search for 'Taqiyya' (and all it's spelling variants)I was surprised and disappointed to find that wikislam did not come up (at least not in the first 5 pages). I'm not sure what (if anything) can be done to fix this, so I thought I should mention it. It is likely that this is an issue with other pages/topics/terms as well. I was thinking that the reason is due to the fact that there is no specific Taqiyya Page with the term Taqiyya in the title. I was wondering if I, or preferably a more experienced editor, could create a page specifically on the topic of Taqiyya or just create the page and have a link to http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Lying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakov (talk • contribs) 12:20, 20 August 2014‎ (Remember to sign your comments)

Sounds like a good idea to me. That is a start, the next step is also to get people to link the pages, THAT really adds google ranking. Leord (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2014 (PDT)

"Taqiyya" could become a redirect. I am not sure if it will affect the Google hits as a redirect. @Axius, can you look into it? Saggy (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2014 (PDT)

Unless you get hundreds of pages to link to the redirect, then NO, it does not. However, for SEO purposes, it's better to have separate articles with more specialised content linking each other (somethimes it's better with one bigger article, it depends, but in THIS case it would be ideal). Taqiyya is a very prominant concept when tackling Islam, I definitely think it would help to make sure it had its own article. I have quite a background in web... Leord (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2014 (PDT)

Taqiyya already redirects to Lying. There is a reason why we don't have a page on Taqiyya (and hopefully never will); it is seen as a predominantly Shi'ite practice used by them to save their own lives. Lying to non-Muslims to forward Islam is supported by Muslim texts, that is why we cover it all in Lying (Primary Sources). But as soon as critics mislabel it as "Taqiyya" they lose all credibility. We call it what it is; lying. No fancy words needed. Of course we do have a section within there that covers Taqiyya but that is only a small part of the entire subject. --Sahab (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2014 (PDT)

I would be in favor of having a (small) page on Taqiya to tell people what it is and what its not (so everyone can know including critics of Islam) and it can link to Lying but its to Sahab and he says there shouldnt be a page on it so there. --Axius (talk | contribs) 12:25, 21 August 2014 (PDT)

Actually Ax, your idea of having a stub on the subject is a good idea if done right. It should basically say taqiyya simply refers to Muslims lying to protect themselves (certainly not what these editors are suggesting, to conflate a single aspect of lying with the entire subject of lying itself). It literally only has to be a few sentences long. It would, once and for all, put an end to people trying to smear this site by claiming WikiIslam supports the idea of taqiyya specifically referring to Muslims being allowed to lie freely to everyone. --Sahab (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2014 (PDT)

Axius, I've created that page now[13] (it's a mix of my writing and the dhimmi views from Wikipedia). Let me know what you think. I would stress the need to watch that page carefully. If editors start editing it and claiming lying = taqiyya then it would impact the site's accuracy and credibility in a big way. --Sahab (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2014 (PDT)

Yup great job, looks great. Its definitely better to have this stub for everyone's sake. I havent tried to understand it in detail but I get the general idea. If anyone wants to change the article they would have to get pretty authentic sources to change the meanings. I was also not clear on the meaning of the term myself until a few years ago so its good to have this page for everyone. Seeing this page and the QHS:Lying page, many people will realize these are two different things and the QHS:Lying of course is a unique collection not available anywhere else. This should also make people who wanted to have a page on it. --Axius (talk | contribs) 16:38, 22 August 2014 (PDT)

Guys, you are invited to review my edits. There are too many and the admins currently do not have time to review them. They are major additions proposed at User:Saggy/Sandbox - Issues with Quran and Hadith; categorised by article. Saggy (talk) 05:16, 22 August 2014 (PDT)

Hello. I looked at the links to the Hadiths concerning killing dogs and restricting to killing black dogs from this page: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Inspired_by_Muhammad#Killing_Dogs

It seems that the links do not take you to the hadiths you are quoting. Maybe the site was updated or whoever created the page made a mistake. I thought you should know.

Specifically, it's the Sahih Muslim 16:2840 and Sahih Muslim 16:2839.

I think the hadiths are Abu-Dawud: http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/abudawud/016-sat.php Paul99 (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2014 (GMT)

I have A LOT of content

^^^^ Hey, guys, you sure did not think about people using other font size than yours ! The icon menu overlapped the text zone on my system (Linux Mint 17) ;-)

OK. I have a WHOLE LOT of French texts about islam, that I wrote myself, (PDF, LibreOffice...) and even a French Mediawiki database (which I have on my computer for persnal use, but which is not connected to the Net) about the subject. Do you have use for them ? How can I upload them, if the answer is yes ?

More details here : https://www.facebook.com/groups/738034866282996/

The database in MySql dump format can be downloaded from there under the name xxx.txt. The PDF "Monsieur Ha Ca" can be downloaded from there too. François Paganel (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2014 (PST)

Do wikipedia pages come out ok? How about The main Mediawiki site? Your OS is not a common choice so its probably not worth trying to fix it.

For your other content it depends on what the quality is. Please dont upload anything before showing a sample of the writing. Also currently we dont have any french editors on the site to review the material. Can you upload it on a regular website like a blog, or just make a temporary sandbox here for one of your pages you want to show? That facebook page shows an error (not available). Its strange that you've uploaded a Mediawiki wiki database... to Facebook.com? I dont understand how thats possible. --Axius (talk | contribs) 05:38, 16 December 2014 (PST)

Hi François. Without a trusted French administrator who understands this site's policies and guidelines, it is not possible for us to fully judge the quality of original works, hence why the policies state that sub-domains can only be started when there are a front page's worth of translations (about 25-35 articles) and one reliable editor, and only then are they "free to evolve separately to the English site in style and content".

The content may be great, but we have no way to evaluate it completely. Looking at what you wrote on your user page isn't encouraging, it suggests to me that the content will most likely be breaking a whole host of WikiIslam's policies, both for style and content.

Speaking of user pages, I have deleted those promotional links from there. You have not read the "Message to New Users", otherwise you'd know our policies concerning them (see: WikiIslam:User Names and Pages). Links are allowed after 50 positive edits (i.e. main space edits that are not reverted or need to be fixed by others).

Instead of your original content, why not consider translating existing English pages into French? If you like that idea, you can learn how to do that on WikiIslam:Instructions for Translators.

Anyhow, please do read the "Message to New Users" before making any more contributions to the wiki. Thanks. --Sahab (talk) 09:44, 16 December 2014 (PST)

"Its strange that you've uploaded a Mediawiki wiki database... to Facebook.com?"

I mean I updated of course its MySQL dump in ASCII form so anybody can recreate it quickly on his/her own machine. 3,8 Mo (3 758 022 octets) :-) François Paganel (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2014 (PST)

Hi Wikiislam i am former editor of Sekulyarizm.org first Azerbaijan website about atheist and criticism of İslam.I want to help Wikiislam about translation of articles into Azerbaijani language.I would be happy if you help me about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aykhan (talk • contribs) (Remember to sign your comments)

hi, welcome to the site. Please see WikiIslam:Instructions for Translators for instructions. List of Killings Ordered or Supported by Muhammad is a good choice. Also we have two or three articles from that website [14]. It might have been you who was the original author of those articles. --Axius (talk | contribs) 15:37, 21 January 2015 (PST)

I started to translate that article but i can't move it to translations section please help http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Sandbox/M%C9%99h%C9%99mm%C9%99d_t%C9%99r%C9%99find%C9%99n_sifari%C5%9F_v%C9%99_yaxud_d%C9%99st%C9%99kl%C9%99n%C9%99n_q%C9%99tll%C9%99r

Volunteer needed! Editors! Help me to create the topic Pederasty by Muhamad.

I believe Pederasty by Muhammad and also Racism should be core topics.

I added this remark to the topic racism:

" This text suggests that Muhammad invented the systematic enslavement of Africans and that all enslavement of Africans was inspired by him:

"

Here some stuff for a Pederasty by Muhammad topic-page:

Pederasty by Muhammad:

Pasted from https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/hadith-prophet-muhammad-kissed-the-penis-of-small-boys/comment-page-1/ :

" “And there shall wait on them [the Muslim men] young boys of their own, as fair as virgin pearls.”

Hadith Number 16245, Volume Title: “The Sayings of the Syrians,” Chapter Title: “Hadith of Mu’awiya Ibn Abu Sufyan”:

“I saw the prophet – pbuh – sucking on the tongue or the lips of Al-Hassan son of Ali, may the prayers of Allah be upon him. For no tongue or lips that the prophet sucked on will be tormented (by hell fire)

He (the Prophet) lift up his (al Hassan’s) shirt and kissed his (little) penis..” ﻦﻴﺴﺤﻟاوأ ﻦﺴﺤﻟا ﺔﺒﻴﺑز ﻞﺒﻗ ﻢﻠﺳو ﻪﻴﻠﻋ ﷲ ﻰﻠﺻ ﻪﻧأ ىور He (the prophet) kissed the (little) penis of al Hassan or al Husein ﻪﺘﺒﻴﺑز ﻞﺒﻗو ﻦﻴﺴﺤﻟا يﺬﺨﻓ ﻦﻴﺑ ﺎﻣ جﺮﻓ ﻢﻠﺳ و ﻪﻴﻠﻋ ﷲ ﻰﻠﺻ ﻲﺒﻨﻟا ﺖﻳأر He (the prophet) put Husein’s legs apart and kissed his (little) penis

Another Hadith. Majma al-Zawa’id, Ali ibn Abu Bakr al-Haythami, 299/9 ﻦﺴﺣ هدﺎﻨﺳإو ﻲﻧاﺮﺒﻄﻟا هاور ﻪﺘﺒﻴﺑز ﻞﺒﻗ و ﻦﻴﺴﺤﻟا يﺬﺨﻓ ﻦﻴﺑ ﺎﻣ جﺮﻓ ﻢﻠﺳو ﻪﻴﻠﻋ ﷲ ﻰﻠﺻ ﷲ لﻮﺳر ﺖﻳأر

ﻲﻤﺜﻴﻬﻟا ﺮﻜﺑ ﻰﺑأ ﻦﺑ ﻲﻠﻌﻟﺪﺋاوﺰﻟا ﻊﻤﺠﻣ translated into English: “I saw the Messenger of Allah pbuh putting Husein’s legs apart and kissing his (little) penis.”

Related by Al-Tabarani and it’s authentication is fully validated by Islamic scholars.

Hussein and Hassan is not the same name, so clearly this is of two accounts and he kissed more than one penis."

Pasted from http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2014/04/yahya-snow-advocates-sucking-on-tongues.html?m=1:

"Al-Adab al-Mufrad al-Bukhari 1183—It is related that Abu Hurayra said, "I never saw al-Hasan without my eyes overflowing with tears. That is because the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, went out one day and I found him in the mosque. He took my hand and I went along with him. He did not speak to me until we reached the market of Banu Qaynuqa. He walked around it and looked. Then he left and I left with him until we reached the mosque. He sat down and wrapped himself in his garment. Then he said, 'Where is the little one? Call the little one to me.' Hasan came running and jumped into his lap. Then he put his hand in his beard. Then the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, opened his mouth and put his tongue in his mouth. Then he said, O Allah, I love him, so love him and the one who loves him!'" (Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari, Number 1183)

Musnad Ahmad 16245—[Mua’wiya said]: I saw the prophet sucking on the tongue or the lips of Al-Hassan son of Ali, may the prayers of Allah be upon him. For no tongue or lips that the prophet sucked on will be tormented (by hell fire)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guide (talk • contribs) 20:00, 20 February 2015 (Remember to sign your comments)

First of of all, before attempting to make any more contributions, please read the "WikiIslam:Message to New Users" in its entirety and follow whatever instructions are applicable to you.

Secondly, I have removed your edits to Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Racism‎. What you wrote was absolute rubbish. Enslavement of Africans existed long before Prophet Muhammad was born. The Curse of Ham nonsense already existed in the Jewish Talmud long before Muhammad was born, and I doubt the European Neanderthals who enslaved Africans where inspired specifically by Muhammad. A case could probably be made that the resurgence of slavery or its perpetuance among Europeans was "inspired" to some degree by the actions of their Muslim contemporaries, but that's hardly the same thing.

Thirdly, we will not be making racism and pederasty into core topics. To be a core topic, it has to be very general in its scope and there must be a lot of material to justify its status. If we had an article on "pederasty" it would belong in the "Pedophilia" core topic which obviously encompasses such things as that.

Fourthly, we do not exaggerate or take issues out of context here. Muhammad may qualify as a modern-day pedophile, but he was a heterosexual pedophile, not a homosexual one. Nothing you have quoted here suggests otherwise. I would think anyone who is an ex-Muslim or is familiar with Middle-Eastern culture would realize that. Actually, I'm sure the tongue kiss thing is used somewhere here as an argument for pedophilia, but it is inaccurate so I will remove it. Thanks. --Sahab (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2015 (PST)

Hi people, I want to translate this in Romanian. I have edited on Wikipedia a few years ago, I think I can manage... How this starts, what shall I do? Michael (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2015 (PDT)

I would like to see a translation of 72 Virgins. We have others listed here [15]. If you tell me which article you want to do and its translated title, I can make a copy of that page that you can edit.

I also renamed that image to a better file name and inserted a disclaimer. See this part of the FAQ. --Axius (talk | contribs) 18:27, 17 August 2015 (PDT)

Here is my idea:

TEXTS TO BE USED

1. "Sirat Rasul Allah" pages 111-690 (minus poetry and lists of names).

2. Bukhari/Muslim with repetition cut out.

3. The Qur'an.

INSTRUCTIONS

We start with 1. It will serve as the "skeleton".

Some of 2 describe specific events (2a) and some of 2 do not describe specific events (2b).

We insert 2a into the text of 1, where the events occur.

We insert 2b where the topic arises in 1's text.

Finally, we insert the verses of 3 where they were revealed. (Both 1 and 2 tell us where verses were revealed).

When this is completed, it would serve as an authoritative, one-stop reference. It would be the totality of Islam in one document.

-Enterusername

What makes the totality of Islam is subjective. There are other texts too. --Axius (talk | contribs) 22:30, 4 September 2015 (PDT)

Other texts can be included. "Good" Hadiths can be included in number 2 as well. If this was completed, it would serve as the totality of authoritative knowledge about Islam.

You can work on it if you like (in the sandbox space first). I can tell you how to start. It would fall under the essay category. --Axius (talk | contribs) 07:20, 5 September 2015 (PDT)

I have an idea for an article:

A complete list of all the events that occurred between Muhammad, the Quraysh, and the Jews, along with a final moral analysis.

ALL LINKS TO VERSES @ usc.edu ARE DEAD. Either a new site must be found, or a possible solution might be to link to an archived version of the pages through one (or more) of the following:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache: [original URL]

https://web.archive.org/web/*/ [original URL]

http://archive.is/ [original URL]

Yaakovaryeh (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

It was definitely working yesterday clicking links from wikiislam. I think it's probably just gone down temporarily (has happened before)Lightyears (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

The templates converting hadith/verse number to cmje url don't work anymore. We should start using other website, or use our own quran / hadiths. Prekladator (talk) 04:48, 18 December 2016 (EST)

Yeah, it's not worked since mid October. I contacted one of the cmje members and they got it working again for a few weeks, but now it's down again. They say they have problems maintaining the site. I'm working on a new solution involving another Qur'an and hadith site, but first I am trying to get some of the templates we need unlocked so editor user rights can change them. I know someone who has an excellent site with many great features better than cmje that will be able to work with the existing usc-msa hadith citations on wikiislam as well as new ones after I've changed the templates. I can get the Qur'an links working as soon as I've got the template rights changed and hadiths hopefully fairly soon after when the other site is able to take them.Lightyears (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2016 (EST)

Transition from CMJE to QuranX

I can edit the templates now (I asked for the templates to be unprotected so Editors could change them, but they seem to have decided instead to give me Admin rights). The eventual permanent exmna admin can unprotect them if he/she decides to in future (they are in transition between admins).

The site we will be using as a replacement for cmje is QuranX.com. It combines many of the best features of other well known sites, and as such is an excellent research productivity tool. To start with I've just made the Qur'an templates point there. Some improvements to the QuranX site are soon coming which we can use (e.g. showing the linked verse(s) in context). Hadith templates will be directed there too once it is able to interpret the obsolete usc-msa numbering scheme used by the existing hadith citations here. If there are any technical problems in future with the site we will be using please contact therationaliser

gmail.com Lightyears (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2016 (EST)

Hadiths for the old cmje collections (Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Al-Muwatta) should be working again now. Links to them are now using the quranx site. There's some more work to do (minor feature improvements, and a process comparing the translations with cmje (quranx includes some corrections to the cmje translations), but it's good that we have something once again.

We are also using the new QuranX features allowing alternative referencing systems to be used when citing hadiths (USC-MSA and in-book reference, which also appear on another well known hadith site but without the ability to link using the USC-MSA system). The templates for these 4 collections now allow an in-book reference alternative to the default USC-MSA reference system. This is useful as there are many hadiths that appear on QuranX that were omitted on the old cmje site's hadith collections (especially in cmje's abridged Abu Dawud collection). These hadiths usually have been given a USC-MSA number the same as adjacent hadiths that were on cmje. The in-book referencing system can be used to cite them specifically, or otherwise using the default USC-MSA system, all the hadiths that have a cited USC-MSA number will be listed when there is more than one.Lightyears (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2017 (EST)

The current hadith template is probably causing an Enter. See the last part of this section. Saggy (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2017 (EST)

Thanks, I think it's fixed now. There are also some minor issues with the usc hadith numbers in the data set on QuranX that I'm also helping them fix.Lightyears (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2017 (EST)