User talk:Prekladator: Difference between revisions

== Whale ==

I recollected that I had made long ago some notes on the whale [[Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Cosmology|here]]. One or two of the sources are the same as the main whale article. Good for yuo to expand instead of translating!  [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 15:22, 14 January 2017 (EST)

== [[WikiIslam:Sandbox/Diversity in Islam]] ==

What columns do you plan to add in it?  [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 03:09, 1 April 2017 (EDT)

: I don't know, maybe "Tolerate homosexuality"? Just controversial topics that most of the sects would agree on. You can work on it if you want. --[[User:Prekladator|Prekladator]] ([[User talk:Prekladator|talk]]) 05:50, 1 April 2017 (EDT)

::Ok. topics should be Vertical or horizontal? If we get too many topics... [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 09:15, 1 April 2017 (EDT)

:::Also I was planning above the table to have some info about those sects like "sunni" with subsections hanbali, salafi etc. and the table(s) would be only an overview. --[[User:Prekladator|Prekladator]] ([[User talk:Prekladator|talk]]) 10:37, 1 April 2017 (EDT)

:::Now I realized, topics should definitely be as they are - in columns, so that people can sort the column by yes and no, so that they can easily find sects that say yes. --[[User:Prekladator|Prekladator]] ([[User talk:Prekladator|talk]]) 10:49, 1 April 2017 (EDT)

Hie. The table is not becoming larger on right side. do you know how to fix this? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 09:46, 9 April 2017 (EDT)

:: In columns or cells? Cells are added by putting the "||"s on every row. --[[User:Prekladator|Prekladator]] ([[User talk:Prekladator|talk]]) 05:56, 10 April 2017 (EDT)

:::I did that but the screen does not become scrollable to right side. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 14:57, 10 April 2017 (EDT)

::::That would be ugly. I have divided it. But now I think that this article will take infinite time. Either we need someone who studied Islam in Arabic to fill it, or we should at least finish some columns and publish at least a smaller table. I think there eventually should be two pages, one in the sandbox (unfinished) and one in the main-space (smaller, but with all answers and referenced).  --[[User:Prekladator|Prekladator]] ([[User talk:Prekladator|talk]]) 19:20, 10 April 2017 (EDT)

:::::Taking it to article's talk page. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 11:35, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

==Need an opinion on genocides==

Here is the list I made and expanded [https://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Genocides,_Cultural_Genocides_and_Ethnic_Cleansings_under_Islam]. I am reading nowadays about many Muslims massacring Muslims throughout history. If I continue with listing all these massacres, do you think it weakens the article?  [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 12:58, 27 May 2017 (EDT)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:: I wasn't planning to do more much work anyway. I want to focus more on my life now. I did a lot of work and I was proud, because I've made big portions of systematic debunks and many of them weren't debunked previously. That was before I realized that bad admins can throw the result of dozens of hours of my work to trash. But I hope it will be preserved somehow, although I don't see what's going on, because your plans are not very transparent. From what you're writing, I'm not convinced, that quality equals not arguing against Islam. For me quality is that the claims are true, and the arguments make sense and it's all beneficial for the reader. The concept that "arguing against Islam is baad" sounds islamist. Also I don't agree that apologetics and debunks of apologetics have to be removed to make it more academic. I think academics deal regularly with apologetics. People who study Islam in universities learn apologetic interpretations. So why Wikiislam thinks that apologetics is somehow separate from Islam? We could say that all classical scholars and even Muhammad himself was kinda apologist for Islam. For example the hadith which said that people used to say "sister of Aron" also was apologetic in nature. And it is a part of Islam and it should be analyzed in articles about Islam. Not separately.

:: I don't know if I can trust that the archive will be preserved, because I think you want to delete the argumentations because some people are complaining, but they will probably keep complaining until you delete the archive as well and they will be complaining until the website doesn't become pro-Islamically biased. Which would be a pity, because it used to be the center of criticism of Islam. That was what made WikiIslam special.

:: When it comes to the changes that I've seen. And before I say it, I want to say that I can understand some changes that were made and I'm not saying that everything new is bad, but I just think like, if the change is good, then let it be and if it's bad let's talk about it. I've notice one change, it was in a sense of "this verse calls for violence" changed to "this verse is used by extremists" - the new version indicates as if acting upon it was something not desired by the author of the text and as if it was a misinterpretation of some lunatics. But Muhammad, his companions and classical scholars understood the calls for violence to be calls for violence. So are we now going to pretend that "nooo all religions are peaceful and only baad people don't understand them" for the sake of political correctness?

:: As for my deleted content, I miss my overview of deceptive tactics in [[Muhammad's prophecies]]. It was inspired by a similar part in word count miracles article and I find it useful, because when you have something that has a high quantity (for example scientific miracles, or word count miracles or prophecies), it's not enough to just point out the inconsistencies in every particular miracle. Because there are some things that are wrong in general in the whole topic and it should be summarized. It should be pointed out that there is something wrong with the whole apologetic methodology.I think that a long lists of miracles presented by apologists can be overwhelming and it's good to see that it's actually not amazing, because it all relies on similar strategies. I could handle if it was moved to the purely anti-apologetic part, but it seems it's just deleted and Muhammad's miracles is not in the archive website, the archive is from some old version of Wikiislam. Maybe it's a pity I wasn't in contact with you guys, because sometimes I had a deep thought behind an article, but you see only the article. Not that I want to now cooperate, as I've said, I want to move away from dealing with Islam. I don't see the religion challenging anymore anyway. In times of Zakir Naik and ISIS, it looked like it's strong intellectually and politically. But now with Muhammad Hijab, the religion look pathetic. I don't see new arguments for Islam. It seems that now it's just people in echo chambers slowly realizing the truth.

:: I will continue studying Arabic, but I don't see why I should study more of Islam. It's dead for me. [[User:Prekladator|Prekladator]] ([[User talk:Prekladator|talk]]) 18:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

 

As for our process, I want to offer some transparency here. The issue is NOT that we are bowing to political correctness in seeking to reform the language and content here. Rather the issue is that we are seeking a degree of academic validity. We want WikiIslam to be a place where specialists - news media, fact checkers and academics who study Islam - will participate, offer expertise and take advantage of the resources here on offer. Although we understand (and perhaps even sympathize with) the reason for the existence of articles such as "The Tragedy of Aisha" or "The Non-Miracle of Solar Flares in the Qur'an" it must be understood that no credible academic will put their name to a project with material such as this, nor would academics consult an encyclopedia with such material. We understand the moral revulsion and incredulity sparked by Islamic scriptures, dogma, doctrine, and claims of revelation and miracles, however, we here at ExMNA believe that the problems inherent Islamic history, scripture, doctrines and beliefs are sufficient to speak for themselves. Invective and inflammatory rhetoric are not necessary to deal with them, but rather make it easier for those seeking to dismiss a critical understanding of Islam to do so. Where polemic or rhetoric might be called for, we will have a site (which will not be WikiExIslam, despite the tentative internal name) which will provide a home to this material. Let me be clear: although we wish to be even in tone, our site will be hosting and making public the devastating historical critiques of the Islamic origin narrative by such luminaries as Patricia Crone, Michael Cook, Gabriel Said Reynolds, and Stephen Shoemaker as well as highlighting original work by various writers, all while continuing to emphasize Islam’s traditional, Arabic sources.

Once again I want to thank you for your contributions to WikiIslam. If you no longer wish to write on the subject of Islam I totally understand, however if you change your mind I encourage you to reach out to me at [email protected] We would love to have your help. All the best. [[User:asmith|asmith]] WikiIslam Lead Editor and Administrator

 

:: As I've said, when something is good, I let it be, so I respond only to what I disagree with. "The tragedy of Aisha", I haven't read it, but it sounds poetic and more like an opinion, so I don't like that title. But I wouldn't mind if you extracted the facts and arguments from it and put it in other articles about Aisha. But as for my article about solar flares in the Quran, if "non-miracle" sounds ironic/funny (and it is), you can change it to "miracle". But I think it is a serious topic whether solar flares are or are not in the Quran. Although for rationally sober people, it might sound like a funny topic, for apologists and Muslims who trust them, the question whether solar flares in the Quran are present is serious. And I think that academics who deal with the concept of "scientific miracles in the Quran" can benefit from such an article. And I want to emphasize, that this science is a science of religion. So it's not an exact science like math or physics. Academics who study religion are studying the questionable claims of self-proclaimed "god-sent people" and interpretations of their followers. So they have to deal with ridiculous claims all the time. You might say as well "oh some guy claimed he met angel Gabriel, this is not an academic topic at all" and you can close the whole website based on that... and also this website could never become a primary source. The best it can do is to provide primary sources, which it does, in my articles I quote the most respected translations and classical interpretations. I don'know.. do you expect that academics will use WikiIslam as a source? :D lol. I wouldn't use the opinion of the academics as a source. The only relevant sources are the early Islamic texts and classical interpretations.

:: I don't agree that Islamic texts speak for themselves. They are all pro-Islamically biased and it's not apparent, especially not for pro-Islamically biased Muslims, that there are flaws in the narrative.

:: I'm not currently planning to participate. Btw. I was thinking before of the topic of "Poverty of Muhammad" (سؤال جريء has a nice episode about it), it would be good to shed light on the topic of poor Muhammad who didn't get anything from his preaching versus the war booties etc. so you can write something about it. But if I find a motivation to continue delving in the topic of Islam, I think I would use a different method than writing here. But I don't know the future. I'm just saying I'm not currently planning it. [[User:Prekladator|Prekladator]] ([[User talk:Prekladator|talk]]) 19:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

 

 

I am glad to see you back contributing prekladator. We have set up a Discord server for people who wish to contribute to the wiki to communicate with one another, I would be honored to see you there. Please let me know here or on my email if you would like a username and credentials.--[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] ([[User talk:Asmith|talk]]) 23:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

 

:: I've spent all day on that article and it's finished from my point of view. I thought I would now take a break again. But I guess you can give me a username. I guess I will have to explain why you should not delete my article that I just finished. [[User:Prekladator|Prekladator]] ([[User talk:Prekladator|talk]]) 22:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

 

:::OK very good. Where would you like us to send your username and credentials? You can email me at [email protected] if you like and we can get them to you from there.--::[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] ([[User talk:Asmith|talk]]) 23:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

 

:::: I really wanted to just finish that article. I'll write you an email when I decide to do more. [[User:Prekladator|Prekladator]] ([[User talk:Prekladator|talk]]) 19:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 

::If you read Arabic you can find volume 2 here: http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A8/718_%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%B3%D9%8A%D9%84%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AE%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8A-%D8%AC-%D9%A2--[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] ([[User talk:Asmith|talk]]) 21:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)