User talk:Saggy

Scientific Errors

Hi. That page uses title-case for capitalization of headings[1]. And there should not be multiple Qur'an translations used to illustrate a single error (i.e choose only one translation from the USC site). Both those errors were in your first edit to the page but I fixed them[2]. You have repeated those same errors in your second edit. You will have to fix them before your edits can be considered. Thanks. --Sahabah (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2014 (PST)

I've reverted your edit again. You are aware this talk page discussion has been initiated. If you do not understand something here, the answer is not to reinsert whatever was reverted with a summary saying "btw I don't understand". That's basically ignoring this talk page. If you don't understand something then ask. --Sahabah (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2014 (PST)

Not much time . ok , what am I to do to caps? If u revert instead of correcting (which is a loss to the readers), others dont mind? Saggy (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2014 (PST)

No they don't mind. Quality standards are high on this wiki. If editors do not have the time to adhere to guidelines/stick to proper etiquette or take the care to format their contributions properly, we'd rather they not edit at all. Do you think it's fair if others have to waste their time cleaning up after someone else's edits? We don't. --Sahabah (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2014 (PST)

Got it. Got mistake. Thanks. (Or u want me to stop doing anything until we complete discussing?)Saggy (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2014 (PST)

No, that's fine. Thanks. --Sahabah (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2014 (PST)

hi Saggy, this Science error/Quran page is popular and is often linked to by people so its important for this page to be as strong as possible. Some errors are more obvious than others. Some only appear in one translation and so on. For example the Golden Calf statue verse that you added was great. It obviously goes against science and is a glaring error while some others are not that obvious.

One idea I have is to keep the strongest errors at the top and the less obvious ones (or the ones that can be explained in some way by apologists) near the bottom in another section. I tried making some rules here: Talk:Scientific Errors in the Qur'an (draft). Let me know your thoughts. --Axius (talk) 08:19, 1 February 2014 (PST)

How can we judge weakness? Its is everyones POV. EG Every claim about the sky is weak on its own. But when put together its a huge blunder. We already have sections for the branchs of science. At most we'll put weak claims at bottom of each section. of course we mustnt say - xyz is a weaker claim , we can try to explian it or justifiy it as much as possible..Saggy (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2014 (PST)

Hi, I moved your comment back to keep it in one place. Some errors are present in Arabic and the translations, while others are present only in the translations. For example Constellations. Apologetist might say the Quran just means "collections of light" and yes these were made by Allah for humans (for example) and he was just talking in a general sense. A more glaring error is the Golden statue or mathematics of inheritance. So some are more obvious, the others are a little iffy and have some conditions.

You might have some good points, I'm myself unsure about this issue so I'm just talking about it to see if there's any concrete ideas. So thats one idea, to put weak claims at the bottom.

Another suggestion is to look at other websites like Answering-Islam and expand on the evidence for these errors, for example with arabic or tafsir.

Another thing. Verses should be checked against the 3 translators to make sure those are the only ones we're using. I saw an instance where there was another translation being used and it was corrected. I will try to go through all of them.

Anyone else have anything about this? --Axius (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2014 (PST)

3 translators is ok. but we cant cry about translation matters in the article itself or lose content bcoz of them. on the long run give Every claim its main article like we have lying forehead or sunset in a muddy spring. As for constellations, other translations are "towers" or "mansions"- Both are disgusting if we take them literaly. And the calf statue may be defended by just calling it a miracle. Saggy (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2014 (PST)

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

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

Quran details

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

Yea--Saggy (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2014 (PST)

Thats great. I will try to work on this article. I had just added a few lines at the top. --Axius (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2014 (PST)

Just a quick pointer for Saggy concerning that page; readers should not be directly addressed. So rather than say, "What will this beast be like? How come it will be able to talk to people?", it should say something like, "The Qur'an does not elaborate on the physical appearance of this beast or how it would communicate with humans". The Isra and Mi'raj section seems to have it right. --Sahab (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2014 (PST)

Yea, we'll have to work on that after the verses have been put in.

Saggy how are you finding these verses? Through search or by reading the verses yourself and searching for issues? Any plans of getting more?

Still not sure about the article or where it will go but I think its a good idea (needs more verses though). Its different than the usual "errors/contradictions" and so on. Its another kind of defect but we'll see how it goes. --Axius (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2014 (PST)

Some are old things i just recollect (like i heard- isra-mi'raj is incomplete without reading bukhari)--Saggy (talk) 09:19, 26 February 2014 (PST)

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

Discussions link

To make it easy for us to track discussions among current editors, I moved the discussion about logical errors to the Discussions page Discussions page (linked on the left). I'll reply there soon. --Axius (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2014 (PST)

Just letting you know that there's a new "Editing" section on the left that has all the links related to Editing (including Discussions). --Axius (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2014 (PST)

Contracted forms

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

Inheritance Laws

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

Do you know how to respond to these rebuttals and see if there's anything to investigate here? --Axius (talk | contribs) 17:56, 12 March 2014 (PDT)

Easy- site 1-"Out of the remaining (11 out of 24), the two daughters are going to get one-third each. " site 2- "And for the daughters 2/3 of what remains = 2/3 of 13/24=13/36 of the total amount" This remaining is assumed. Where is it mentioned? Nothing is mentioned so u have to divide whole (24 / 24) into two thirds. Other sites do the same thing.[6] theres in fact no consistency in whom to divide the remainder among. One site[7] divides watever looks comfortable, whole or remains, only to ensure that fractions add upto 1 or a lesser value. [This http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/inh_01.htm] uses the contradictory shares of sisters to convert more than 1 to less than 1. Some use an old law of increasing denominator in the sum so that it is equal to numerator- but they violate all the stated fractions[8]. First, 4:11-12 have 10+ rules and and 4:176 has 4 rules contradicting some of them so lots of whims will show up. We are not even talking about gender injustice in this.--Saggy (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2014 (PDT)

Ok. We should then think about making an article about this later on. Currently this exists but it may not be dealing with the rebuttals and its also an essay by another author, so we can make a new article about this later. --Axius (talk | contribs) 09:46, 14 March 2014 (PDT)

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

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

Comprehension of errors

Can you please explain how you interpreted Bukhari 4:52:51 to mean "Orbit of the Sun is comparable to a Bow". From a cursory glance, it doesn't say anything of the sort. What it says is that having an area the size of a bow (not the bow itself) in heaven is better (not comparable) to having the entire earth (not sun). That same hadith continues by saying, "A single endeavor in Allah's Cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all that on which the sun rises and sets." If we apply your logic to the rest of the same narration, it would mean that the "Orbit of the Sun is comparable to a single endeavor in Allah's Cause" is also a valid interpretation, something which it is not. I find it hard to understand how you could misinterpret something so obvious, so please do explain it to us. Can you also stop rushing things (like you had previously agreed)? This way you would avoid making typos such as "comaprable". --Sahab (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2014 (PDT)

Bukhari 4:52:53 says, "A place in Paradise as small as the bow or lash of one of you is better than all the world and whatever is in it." So clearly the connection you made between the shape of a bow and the sun's orbit does not exist. --Sahab (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2014 (PDT)

Saggy, I would also like to know how you made that deduction and add to this query. Recently you interpreted the Horseman thing and now this certain one as well. Its good that you're exploring new verses and hadiths but there is a problem in how you're interpreting text. If you dont understand a certain text, you can ask us on your talk or on the forum page. --Axius (talk | contribs) 04:34, 6 April 2014 (PDT)

Suppose you wanted to say the same thing, no matter if it sounds good or mediocre: "A place as small as X is better than that on which Y happens." Of course "that" could refer to "place " better than to "X". But if X is not something typically small, what is the point in saying it? Bow must have the other meaning (which is backed up by that sun travelling-prostrating and permission verse) Come on, u could have said as small as... anything. Why bow? You can think of several adjectives on hearing the word bow, except "small." Whether this was narrated at war (single endeavor) or some other hadith sounds partly similar, does not matter. That could be a change of the simile made in the first place. Is a place anything like a bow? The sun rises and sets? Not at all. Only a person who thinks the sun runs on a semicircle over the other place(earth) would have said "bow." Saggy (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2014 (PDT)

"But if X is not something typically small, what is the point in saying it?"

A bow is small in comparison to the earth or in comparison to a lot of things.

"Bow must have the other meaning"

You only assert that it must, but you haven't provided any convincing reasons why.

"Come on, u could have said as small as... anything. Why bow?"

Because they were warriors and Muhammad was describing where they would go when they die in battle. Is that really too much of a stretch? No, it makes perfect sense. In fact it's what most people would get from reading that verse. Your explanation just comes of as a stretch.

"You can think of several adjectives on hearing the word bow, except "small.""

Words such as "dying" and "in battle" spring to mind. And I don't agree with your "except small" comment. A bow is small in comparison to the world, so there is no valid reason why it could not be described as "small".

"Whether this was narrated at war (single endeavor) or some other hadith sounds partly similar, does not matter."

Of course it does. That is what we call "context". Context is what helps us understand the meanings behind text. It is what Muslim apologists usually ignore. And of course what "some other hadith sounds partly similar" says is important. It's important because it is describing the exact same event, but via a different narrator. Even the one hadith you are misinterpreting debunks your ideas when read fully (refer to my original post)'

"Is a place anything like a bow?"

The hadith does not claim any place is like a bow, it is referring to the size of the bow. You don't need that to be explained. It is written in plain English for everyone to see (i.e. "as small as a bow").

"Only a person who thinks the sun runs on a semicircle over the other place(earth) would have said "bow.""

You havn't shown that at all. Your reasoning is convoluted and ignores the obvious meaning. I would suggest sticking to hadiths that are clear errors rather than ones that need your interpretations. --Sahab (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2014 (PDT)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Saggy, so that we're clear this is the the hadith:

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 51: Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "A place in Paradise as small as a bow is better than all that on which the sun rises and sets (i.e. all the world)." He also said, "A single endeavor in Allah's Cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all that on which the sun rises and sets."

Breaking it up, "X is better than Y".

X = "A place in Paradise as small as a bow." (a small sized object)

Y = "all that on which the sun rises and sets" (some kind of large space according to the Quran)

Your title was "Orbit of the Sun is comparable to a Bow". This is incorrect. The size of a bow is being compared to the size of the sun's place of rising and setting.

The hadith means "A tiny place in Islamic Heaven is better than a huge place which is not part of Heaven".

If you're talking about the arc of a bow (golden part here which is a semi circle) being compared to what an observer on Earth sees, this is not an error. We see that kind of semi-circle even today as we see the sun form an arc. A scientist can say "look how the Sun makes (or seems to make) a semi circle around the Earth". So these things can be explained. This is like the horseman hadith where there wasnt any interpretation like the one you were saying there was. As again if you come across a hadith and you're not sure of the meaning you can ask us. On the other hand, the hadith could be added to as supporting evidence ("the sun rises and sets"): Geocentrism_and_the_Quran#Muslims_around_the_time_of_Muhammad but I think its weak on its own on the Errors page: --Axius (talk | contribs) 12:46, 6 April 2014 (PDT)

Sahab what do you think of the addition here? [10] Since the hadith is saying the same thing about the sun. (sun rises and sets). If you dont agree its fine for it to be removed (its up to you). --Axius (talk | contribs) 13:00, 6 April 2014 (PDT)

Hi Ax. Yeah, I've removed it. Even with those surrounding hadith, this particular hadith is not making any reference whatsoever to the orbit of the sun. If I can see this and you can see this, then so can most other people. As you noted, the object being "compared" to the bow is something other than the sun itself. There is not "ifs" or "buts" about it. The second hadith down from that one confirms the meaning (which was obvious anyway.). It's like a Muslim saying a can of Pepsi is more refreshing than all that is inside a coffee cup, then us accusing him of saying a ceramic cup is more refreshing than a soft drink. --Sahab (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2014 (PDT)

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

Contradictions in the Qur'an and Hadith

Hi Saggy. I've deleted that page. A page like that is something that would interest "Quranists", not us. --Sahab (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2014 (PDT)

I've moved the content to his personal sandbox for now: User:Saggy/Sandbox - Contradictions in the Qur'an and Hadith. I'll send an email about this. --Axius (talk | contribs) 15:01, 10 April 2014 (PDT)

We have an (old) article about the very same contradiction mentioned by Saggy (Muhammad's Miracles). If you read the section on Bukhari's criteria, you'll see that Muslims have contradictions between the Qur'an and Hadith covered. Thus it renders the article completely pointless. In fact, Muslims will probably think it's funny and talk about how we don't know anything about the "science of hadith". That's on top of the fact that such an article would only be used for Qur'anist propaganda. If the very idea is pointless, then I don't see any benefit from letting an editor waste their time working on it. That is why I deleted it rather than just leave it in a sandbox. --Sahab (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2014 (PDT)

I just dont have energy to debate about this at the moment so I deleted the Sandbox page. --Axius (talk | contribs) 16:36, 10 April 2014 (PDT)

What if I find more contradictions?Saggy (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

Here I've made a page for you that gives you the freedom to do any kind of QHS work (since that is something you like doing). You can reorganize content there using section headings (logical error, hadith errors, contradictions, etc):

User:Saggy/Sandbox - Issues with Quran and Hadith - use this for any new work or new ideas to keep it in the same place.

Just keep in mind that we can have a democratic discussion together later on as to whether certain content will be approved or not for conversion from sandbox to main space. My view is that interesting QHS can be re-used in other places too in some way so if you have discovered verses or hadiths that are interesting, it is totally OK for them to go in a personal sandbox page of your own. Sandboxes are all excluded from Google search so no one can find them unless they come to recent changes/contributions and explore that way. Doing this does not harm the quality of the main content as sandbox content has to be carefully reviewed to make sure it complies with guidelines and the mission.

You can keep adding content for existing pages as you are doing (Scientific errors in hadith, in the Quran, Contradictions in the Quran etc.) As before we will review those to see if they are ok as that is content in the main space.

Doing a short reply for Sahab, if Quranists want to use content on our site for any purpose, its a good thing. It brings them to our site and they have effectively approved content on our site (I think its a plus for us). They're a minority so I would not worry about them. I can make many more points but my point is that all alternatives can be argued for equally. There are advantages and disadvantages for each alternative.

"you'll see that Muslims have contradictions between the Qur'an and Hadith covered." - those are only contradictions for miracles, not other topics. --Axius (talk | contribs) 04:25, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

To Saggy: My action was not based on the quality or length of the page (I was obviously aware that you would add to it). It was based on the fact that the actual idea behind the article was not suitable. Regardless, Axius has recreated the page so you can carry on working on it.

To Axius: "those are only contradictions for miracles, not other topics"

Did you read that section about Bukhari's criteria? Mat'n applies to ALL contradictions between the Qur'an and hadith.

"if Quranists want to use content on our site for any purpose"

Strawman. I never objected to them using this site. My point is that it ONLY benefits their propaganda, nothing else. If we allow something like this, why not also allow Atheistig to write an article about how unreliable the hadith are? --Sahab (talk) 04:34, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

"Let's go all the way and invalidate 95% of our material just to keep 1 editor happy." ----  :-) this is an imaginary situation that hasn't happened yet so lets not do that.

He knows its a Sandbox page that later may or may not be approved so whats the issue? I dont see any.

"Mat'n applies to ALL contradictions between the Qur'an and hadith." - is Bukhari's criteria the golden absolute rule on deciding whats a contradiction? I would say no. To me a Sahih hadith is Sahih. I would say that Bukhari does not have the authority to invalidate the Hadiths of other Hadith collectors (like Muslim). Also if the criteria is to delete things that are in contradiction with each other, the Quran contradicts itself in various verses, so what does one do about that? To most people they are all valid Islamic sources (especially Sahih hadiths). All these points can be mentioned on a page about Quran/hadith contradictions. All of these things seen together expose more serious problems with Islam and create challenges for people reading them.

"My point is that it ONLY benefits their propaganda" - Again they are a minority. The other side effect is letting the rest of the Muslims know that these contradictions exist. Most Muslims view hadiths as holy. I would say that they would have to deal with the contradiction when they see it and it creates a challenge for them.

My main point here again is that cases can be argued against equally. Its a Sandbox page and people have the right to work on a Sandbox which later may or may not be approved (as long its not an obvious content violation). --Axius (talk | contribs) 05:13, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

You have not dealt with anything I've actually said, so no they can't be argued against equally. I've mentioned several times why I deleted that page from the sandbox but you continue acting like I never explained. Your opinion on Bukhari's criteria is irrelevant. Mat'n is a well known thing. Hence, contradictions between the Qur'an and certain hadith will not effect mainstream Islam in the slightest. And wth, you're telling editors to stay away from me now? The discussion we're having now isn't even on my talk page, so maybe you should have considered a more appropriate time or place to mention this or considered how it would look to others? --Sahab (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

Although you're right my comment could have been made at a better time (so ok, I apologize again for making it at the wrong time), I never asked anyone to stay away from you when I made the comment. You had removed some comments from your own talk page earlier if you recall [11] so I was stressing the point that others should use the forum page for general issues and not someone's talk page.

I'm asking everyone to follow talk page guidelines and core community principles and assume good faith. --Axius (talk | contribs) 12:12, 13 April 2014 (PDT)

"Matn"'s definition on Wikipedia doesnt mention Bukhari or the contradiction issue, why is that? [12]. "text of the report" =matn is what I'm seeing, not a contradiction with the Quran issue. Are there are sources to support what Matn means? As I mentioned, the issue of deletion arises at the point of review when something is being considered for main space but not before that when it is in a temporary condition (in the Sandbox). Saggy knows it may or may not be approved. As for whether you're right or I'm right, I've shown that points can be made on both sides. Lets do that full debate when the time comes for a review of that piece. --Axius (talk | contribs) 05:23, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

To hightlight it again our page [13] that you pointed to in the begining and you refered to it again, claims "His third criteria is mat'n, i.e. the content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an.", but there's no reference for that. According to other sources Matn means "text of the hadith", not "must not be in contradiction with the Quran". Bukhari's criteria of this contradiction cannot apply to other Hadith scholars (it is his own personal opinion). And even if we were to assume such a criteria, we are faced by the question: Is a Sahih hadith being declared invalid simply because of the contradiction? Why was it considered in the first place if it was actually invalid? The hadith was considered authentic because the events narrated actually happened.

In any case a sourced definition of Matn would be one point. --Axius (talk | contribs) 05:36, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Visiting this again and stressing this point:

Mat'n applies to ALL contradictions between the Qur'an and hadith.

This is not correct as Mat'n means "the text of the hadith" [14] and has nothing to do with "Contradictions between Quran and Hadith". The source article [15] you linked for Miracles should have the definition of Matn sourced correctly. I believe this is a page that an author made with the username starting with J (forgot the full name). So this line:

His third criteria is mat'n, i.e. the content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an.

is incorrectly implying that Matn = the content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an. --Axius (talk | contribs) 10:57, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

Clarified [16] and changed from:

His third criteria is mat'n, i.e. the content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an.

To:

His third criteria is regarding mat'n (text), i.e. the text/content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an.

So its clear that Matn means just "text" and not "no contradiction between Quran and hadith". --Axius (talk | contribs) 03:57, 12 April 2014 (PDT)

Pointing out contradictions between Quran and hadith is a criticism of Islam. Our site's mission is criticism of Islam (or to provide "an accurate and comprehensive resource on Islam" as currently mentioned in the FAQ, which is even more inclusive), not whether certain criticism is seen as favorable to certain minority sects of Islam like Quran-only.

And as I mentioned (sorry if I'm repeating some points), this certain criticism is not seen as favorable to the majority of Muslims who do believe in the hadith. The Matn contradiction issue is Bukhari's opinion and cannot invalidate all problematic hadiths, (definitely not other hadiths like Muslim and neither his own) just because he said so. In short again that means we should not be excluding criticism of Islam because it is favoring a minority sect. And again, we will have a full picture of the situation when there is an actual article to review which there is none at this time. Its just text in a Sandbox. In an article like this Quran/hadith contradiction issue, we definitely want to point out clearly that people can not simply reject Sahih hadiths for whatever reason. There was a reason they were considered Sahih. Sometimes a certain issue is covered in multiple Hadiths which adds to the strength of what the Hadith is saying. If there are multiple Hadith collectors (Muslim and Bukhari for example) that is even more evidence that a Hadith's content actually happened and it is difficult to reject that hadith. So we should wait to see what an article looks like in the end to give a full opinion. The other issue again is, if Contradiction is the reason to reject a hadith, Quranic verses which contradict each other also have a problem. As for Atheistig's article, I dont know what that situation was and perhaps we missed a chance on making a valid article but I dont know enough details. Having an article that mentions Quran/hadith contradictions provides motivation for further strengthening the position that it is not possible to reject hadiths and definitely not Sahih hadiths, so it provides motivation for further improving the "Quran only - Why it is not possible" article or any other content like that. --Axius (talk | contribs) 04:21, 12 April 2014 (PDT)

Saggy, whats your opinion about the fact that some Muslims may try to reject that contradict the Quran? We need to make sure that your hadith/Quran article also explains (using references) why it is not possible to reject Sahih hadiths that contradict the Quran. --Axius (talk | contribs) 04:32, 12 April 2014 (PDT)

1000 years

Please note [17] and see the edit summary. --Axius (talk | contribs) 05:42, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

But the verses are clear. 1 day = 1000 years or 1 day=50000 yrs. Human days are not mentioned. Have you read the speed of light hoax?Saggy (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

"Verily a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning"

It means one day for ALLAH, is the same as 1000 years for HUMANS.

See that? "Your reckoning" = human's perspective. --Axius (talk | contribs) 06:03, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

U quote years and still insist on days? Reckoning means our "count" not days or years. Everywhere online the meaning is 1000/50000 years not days. Of course it is same perspective for everyone. Time flows the same for all ( we or anyone outside the solarsystem). The measurement and units differ. (This also debunks the Einsteins theory of relativity miracle claim for the above verses). A day for us is 24 hours. Nobody can change this. Day is defined by a planets rotation! His day is nothing to do with our 24 hrs in anyway! Why do i even need to say this when the equation is about years? Let me show one more : "He regulates the affair from the heaven to the earth; then shall it ascend to Him in a day the measure of which is a thousand years of what you count" 32:5. Clear length of a day is given. Saggy (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

Well I'm sorry, you were right from the start - my mistake. I got confused somehow and didnt read the hadith carefully enough. It should have been easy to spot that but I missed it somehow (I probably was in a hurry at that time). It is indeed a 1000 years. I reverted it back now. [18].

Good catch on seeing this error and fixing it. --Axius (talk | contribs) 15:02, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

"Have you read the speed of light hoax" - I've heard of the speed of might miracle but know nothing more than that. There is an article here about that: [19]. Is this what you were thinking of? --Axius (talk | contribs) 15:03, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

Yeah, that miracle itself is based on a day=1000 years and many more reasons to be a hoax. I will laugh hours long if I read it again. Saggy (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2014 (PDT)

Rain/miraculous

This is another of those weaker errors [20].

Remember He covered you with a sort of drowsiness, to give you calm as from Himself, and he caused rain to descend on you from heaven, to clean you therewith, to remove from you the stain of Satan, to strengthen your hearts, and to plant your feet firmly therewith.

What if the apologetic response is: "The rain was a special rain for the prophet, it was not ordinary rain. It was a miraculous rain." - its talking about the rain for the prophet right? Its a specific example. These kinds of errors should not be mixed with stronger errors. Something will have to be done about these kinds of errors. --Axius (talk | contribs) 17:55, 17 April 2014 (PDT)

"your hearts". Thus it is not for one person but plural. The earlier verses are not clear on who the audience is(a common goof). If there is a claim of a miracle with tafsirs or stuff to back up (Ibn kathir and Ibn abbas have nothing to say), we can post it under miracles. one site said there are two battles in the single verse (Uhud and Badr) but it is not entirely true to them. Saggy (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2014 (PDT)

Strong errors are long since covered so we have only these. We can rearange them within their section as I think i said. Another site "islamfrominside.com" says everything is about Badr but Wikipedia does not say so. Apologists have four effects of rain to explain infact. The last "feet" one differs in translations. Anyway, The whole miracle about Badr is wrong. The error began with "Allah caused the rain" itself. He cannot cause it, it just happens. If he caused it, what was he doing in much bigger battles in future? Testing believers? How long will he do this? Saggy (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2014 (PDT)

Although you do great finding interesting verses/hadiths I have to say this:

"Strong errors are long since covered so we have only these." - then I would rather not weaken the article with less stronger verses. The problem is when people post the article somewhere and someone points out the excuses like I showed, its discouraging for the person who posts the link. Then they have to work through the rebuttal and point out things like you did - many people are not as committed or may not know what to say. If the errors are strong they cannot be refuted in any way and it makes it easy for the other person who posts our link. This page is one of our most popular pages and its critical for it to be a good page. In fact, you see the under construction template at the top. The article needs to be reviewed and fixed so we can get rid of the template.

We can rearange them within their section as I think i said. - sorry I forgot about what you said earlier. So what did you say, how should it be arranged? Lets see how we can do this and keep the stronger errors in one place and the weaker ones in some kind of "misc" section. Should each section have its own Miscellaneous section, or do we collect all of them at the bottom in one section? I'm thinking about the latter.

I made a link on your user page: User:Saggy.

One of the most critical goals we have to take care of is to increase the quantity of good-quality editors. If you have any suggestions let me know. --Axius (talk | contribs) 17:16, 18 April 2014 (PDT)

I donn't believe in strong or weak in case of refutation. If an error is refuted its not an error till we explain how we are correct. I will try to sort the sections on sc errors.Saggy (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2014 (PDT)

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

Moon split (wikipedia)

That article is a joke now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_of_the_moon

Look at this talk page discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Splitting_of_the_moon#Good_article_nomination_on_hold They were trying to make it into a good article a long time ago. Now the lead has this:

In 2010 a NASA Lunar Science Institute (NLSI) staff scientist said "No current scientific evidence reports that the Moon was split into two (or more) parts and then reassembled at any point in the past."[7]

And the "NASA" section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_of_the_moon#NASA_mis-cited_as_proof

I bet now they would like to go the opposite direction and make sure no one sees that article. Anyway, I think its taken care of (for now). --Axius (talk | contribs) 21:05, 20 May 2014 (PDT)

Quran/evolution

The new sandbox article you made on evolution is good. Here's a QHS page on it: Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Creation and this is a pro-Islamic page: Qur'an and the Theory of Evolution.

If you're just gathering verses, you can add them to the existing QHS page. --Axius (talk | contribs) 21:02, 20 May 2014 (PDT)

No this is about the apology claim on evolution. so i have to write that. I dont think a QHS can cover that thing.Saggy (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2014 (PDT)

Ok. --Axius (talk | contribs) 13:32, 22 May 2014 (PDT)

Scientific Errors #2

I have asked you not to add any verses to the Scientific errors page and for now only add them to your sandbox page. The article is currently under review and new stuff should not be added there while it is under review. --Axius (talk | contribs) 16:01, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

Moon Position

Once again the addition you added [21] is not an error in my opinion. Its just describing what things look like to humans (aesthetically). The verse literally does not mean "the moon is placed between the seven layers". It is talking about what it looks like to humans.

The seven layers is an error, that we know (and that error is present on the page I think) but the "moon is among them" just means what it appears to people on Earth. Lightyears if you see this, any thoughts on this addition? --Axius (talk | contribs) 16:06, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

No, it does not mean what the moon appears from earth. It directly places the moon somewhere. Moon and its reflected light is insignificant in the first heaven itself, let alone seven heavens. If it is about the how the moon "appears", why is appears not mentioned? How about this "The whole book appears like a war manual, a book full of hate for kafirs. but it only appears, it is not true and it was only about a 7th century power struggle. Muhammad only appears like a criminal from all the content but this is not true and all he did was right for his situation" ? Saggy (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

This is not a demonstrable error. Fee simply means in and feeinna means in that. In the constellations verse (25.61), it indicates that the stars are also said to be in (fee) the heavens and the sun and moon in it (feeha). Muslims will generally assume that the stars, sun and moon are in the nearest one, where other verses specify that the stars are. They believe the entirety of the visible universe is in this nearest heaven, and the other heavens are in some physical or metaphysical sense beyond it. No verse can disprove this. The only heaven ever explained is the lowest heaven.Lightyears (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2014 (PDT)

Sorry, it can be disproven. 54:11 "Then opened We the gates of heaven with pouring water".[22](the word is sama) Does this rainwater come from the universe? seven heaven = seven layers of atmosphere is wrong (because of the stars verse) and seven heavens = seven universes that we are yet to explore is wrong also beacause of this rain verse. The winged horse that goes to all seven heavens is another example of how awfully wrong things are. Saggy (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2014 (PDT)

As if this is not enough, read here p. 111 Last but one paragraph about stars. More proof that we are becoming appeasers.Saggy (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2014 (PDT)

Saggy, the issue is the word "therein" (The Position of the Moon). As Lightyears said "This is not a demonstrable error."

You have been addressed by 3 people (me, Sahab and Lightyears) about the issues in your additions and you're still unwilling to understand what we're saying. As again you can do what you want in your sandbox.

"More proof that we are becoming appeasers" - no this is not true. We are preventing the site from being mocked. I dont have to remind you of all the times the issues have been pointed out to you.

How much Arabic do you know? Are you looking at Lexicons like Lightyears is? I looked at the PDF and didnt see anything about this specific verse on p. 111 (of the PDF or as marked in the book).

"It directly places the moon somewhere." - it does not. It simply says "among them". The placement described in Quran is vague. The position of the moon is being described as "therein / in their midst". --Axius (talk | contribs) 04:44, 24 May 2014 (PDT)

And I see the paragraph on pg 111 of that book now (begins with "The Egyptian Muslim scholar..."). The original source if found, can be added to a relevant QHS about Astrology but the topic under discussion that I opened here is the Moon position and the use of the word Therein and again with regards to that, Lightyears agreed with me and said it is not an error and he used his knowledge of Arabic ("Fee simply means in and feeinna means in that"). The Science/Quran errors page is critical and needs urgent attention to delete any more non-errors. They should be moved to a Sandbox so they are not lost. I will try to see what can be done about that. --Axius (talk | contribs) 09:21, 24 May 2014 (PDT)

Forbidden things

Google search for islam forbidden things can also help. --Axius (talk | contribs) 15:01, 5 June 2014 (PDT)

From the silliness page, [23], Wigs, One-shoe walks outlawed, Say no to green jars and white jars, Sinning with silverware, Allah likes sneezing but hates yawning, Fight polytheists by trimming moustache, Pus better than poetry, Allah curses tatooed women, Looking up during prayer may cause blindness.

Blackgammon [24], "Playing with dice"--Axius (talk | contribs) 16:39, 11 July 2014 (PDT)

Search link for "forbade". 1150 results. Other searches could be for words "haram", "outlawed", prohibited, "do not", "disallowed" etc--Axius (talk | contribs) 20:01, 11 July 2014 (PDT)

Scientific errors - response blog

Here's a blog that has some "refutations" of a small amount of errors. [25] These should be checked and used to further strengthen our page (without needing to specifically mention this blog). --Axius (talk | contribs) 04:17, 14 June 2014 (PDT)

• Universe contracting/Heaven is from Smoke: Why talk about galaxys and gas clouds? The verse says earth and heaven were coming together (and talking to Allah). Earth is as old as Galaxies? Nope.
• Mountains: i think this is sufficient. They dont stabilize so they are not pegs.
• Universe was made in 6 days: It was not made in 6 periods. There are no 6 periods. The best that guy could do was reject the backup hadith of Sahih Muslim.
• Seven Planets: rejecting a tafsir that does not support them. The seven planets have names, will add them soon.
• Thunder is an Angel: Again rejecting a tafsir. I have added a similar hadith.
• Moonlight: Nur never means reflected light. Poor guy wasted so much time. Ibn Kathir is also wrong (that moon light is different from the sun's).
• Rest we have already covered: embryology, geocentric, flat earth.
• Sun sets in a Muddy spring: We covered the word meanings. No use of the apologists dictionary, he cherrypicked meanings. Two or three scholars he quoted are utterly flimsy who make more errors defending one. Rest of scholars are tolerable, but still wrong as we have proven in the word analysis. The last part reminds me, do we have articles on hadith authenticity other than the list of fake hadiths?

I will see how to add all the above, or it could be there already.

Saggy (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2014 (PDT)

Yes, best to somehow improve the existing information on our side (if needed) or add additional supporting evidence where possible. A small "Responses to Apologetics" section can made for each error below the verse.

Yes I saw that the blog has rejected the Tafsir. When all else fails they resort to "The Tafsir/hadith is weak". I'm sure every single hadith can be considered weak if all the chain of narrators are examined. They just do the analysis for the hadiths they dont like. --Axius (talk | contribs) 19:04, 14 June 2014 (PDT)

I'll try to work on this too. --Axius (talk | contribs) 03:19, 15 June 2014 (PDT)

A responses section below every verse? It will look like a train wreck. Better say in the lead that there are responses and detailed analysis in the main articles of verses.Saggy (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2014 (PDT)

Which are the other top 10 articles?Saggy (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2014 (PDT)

You have a gmail account? I can add you to the statistics view and you can see the top 10.

Many errors dont have a dedicated page. "Responses to apolgetics/Notes" - basically a few lines to repel criticism. --Axius (talk | contribs) 13:39, 15 June 2014 (PDT)

I go one by one; we have Qur'an and a Universe from Smoke for the first claim. i think it should be linked and then expanded, but iam not yet sure how to expand.Saggy (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2014 (PDT)

I dont either. There are many good existing articles written on various other websites, try searching. --Axius (talk | contribs) 17:37, 17 June 2014 (PDT)

By the way that blog link now has some kind of notice saying that the author is going to stop writing responses for now and write better responses later on. He says (the username is ' .. guy', so) that some of our error sections that he addressed were removed or edited in reaction to his content and I dont think thats true. If he's watching he's most welcome to create a user account and join this discussion.

As for revisions/deletions/additions, we have always improved our work and that's a good thing for any kind of work.

He also implies that we inserted the "under construction" notice recently or in reaction to his blog's content but we did it in January (6 months ago) before this blog was noticed and I think it has been on that page before as well. I doubt he'll make these corrections as he probably wants his readers to believe what he originally said (that makes his blog look better).

Here's another 'rebuttal' link [26] on another site/forum.

You can see why its critical to have this page in the best shape possible. In my opinion none of these rebuttals have really addressed the errors but they may still have content that can be used to improve our page(s). --Axius (talk | contribs) 15:49, 29 June 2014 (PDT)

Hey Guys,

I think you have completely misunderstood my recent blog post regarding halting replies to articles written on this site. I will reply to some of the points made:

"By the way that blog link now has some kind of notice saying that the author is going to stop writing responses for now and write better responses later on. He says (the username is ' .. guy', so) that some of our error sections that he addressed were removed or edited in reaction to his content and I dont think thats true. If he's watching he's most welcome to create a user account and join this discussion."

Over-time you have removed, rewritten alot of the page. Removing many sections that I wrote responses to. Im not claiming this is due to my work solely - I think it is more in relation to you guys realising how weak and lack luster many of the points were on that article.

"By the way that blog link now has some kind of notice saying that the author is going to stop writing responses for now and write better responses later on. He says (the username is ' .. guy', so) that some of our error sections that he addressed were removed or edited in reaction to his content and I dont think thats true. If he's watching he's most welcome to create a user account and join this discussion."

Im really unsure where I implied this? After recieving traffic from this page. I realised your discussion regarding the blog. So I checked out the page and found it to have this editing title and noticed large changes to the page. Hence I paid a post detailing I wont be analysing the work until it is 100% finished.

Hope this clears up any misunderstanding guys.

Also forgive me. I dont know how to correctly post on this site. Feel free to clean it up if you guys can.

--ThatMuslimGuy (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2014 (PDT)

Hi, welcome. You can use colons to indent lines. Indeed over time we have revised (that includes revision/removal/addition) this page a lot to improve it. Its an important page and its a work in progress like everything else on the site. Which sections were removed or edited that had been responded to on your blog?

I think it is more in relation to you guys realising how weak and lack luster many of the points were on that article.

Again its a work in progress like any other page and we try to make all the content stronger with time and the reason for that revision can be scrutiny/afterthought that we have ourselves or that closer look may come from outside. Some errors are more obvious than others (this is expected). This dialogue can help us strengthen our page. --Axius (talk | contribs) 18:12, 1 July 2014 (PDT)

No this is good. And I commend you for going through the articles and rewriting them.-- ThatMuslimGuy (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2014 (PDT)

Ok and we look forward to seeing your new revised materials as well.

Have you thought of contacting other Islamic rebuttal websites and starting an apologetics wiki to coordinate the rebuttals? I say this because from my perspective ultimately such an initiative will help our site (in the long run) and for your perspective this is something you would probably want.

Originally I had the idea of having apologetics on our site (for example this article [27] which is linked at the bottom of the main Errors page) but that idea didnt take off fully and now I think its better to have those things off-site so the apologetics can manage their material any way they want and we can still exchange links. You probably need a good domain name first. --Axius (talk | contribs) 01:35, 2 July 2014 (PDT)

Who is on whose side? Lol. It begins with the lies that we made drastic changes in the scientific errors article and put the review notice because of that blog. Barely one or two sentences we added because of it. Saggy (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2014 (PDT)

Competition doesnt scare me and it will motivate people on our side to do even better. We have it very easy already and we dont have the burden of defending Islam.

But indeed the blog's claims are misleading and they do suggest as I mentioned to ThatMuslimGuy before that they are written to make the reader believe we changed/removed stuff in reaction to the blog which is not true. In any case one of the claim made is:

"I recently noticed that WikiIslam has updated there "Scientific Errors Page" with the following:"

As mentioned we had that notice since a long time and he would have noticed that template even before because he has been writing some rebuttals since a long time (I believe some of his rebuttals are dated a while back). He only created that notice after I mentioned the blog link to you.

The other claim made on the blog is:

"So far they have removed various areas - some of which I addressed."

I have asked him twice to tell us what areas we removed or edited and he hasn't responded and until he does that and is specific about which areas/sections/errors he's talking about he cannot make the claim that the areas, some of which he addressed were removed or edited.

So ThatMuslimGuy, can you support your claim by telling us which sections that you addressed on your blog were removed? Here's a link to the page history. You can use the Diff links to go back in time to show you older versions of the page. You can give us Diff links and tell us which sections you're talking about. Here's one example of a Diff link. Diff link or you can just copy paste the URL(s) here. Happy Ramadan. (a favorite article of mine) --Axius (talk | contribs) 15:18, 2 July 2014 (PDT)

Hey guys, In the past yeah we have thought about doing that. Saggy - Removing multiple points on the site, rewriting sections, adding additions etc - I would say is big change to the article, In my post no where have I asserted you changed the article because of me or anything alike. I simply detailed that I recently checked out the page and that you had added that on the top of the page and removed some points, some of which I had written about, hence rendering those posts on my blog now void.

I think you seriously reading to much into the post. I simply realised you were editing the page. Hence I thought id give you guys time to rewrite it - add additions etc- then later address it. Instead of addressing things which may be changed or removed later.

You removed - Night Time Cold is Caused by the Moon [28]] [29]

You removed - the Universe contracting according to the Quran [30] [31]

You reworded this - How Many Planets are in the solar system according to the Quran? [32] [33] to Seven Planets in the Universe.

etc

Im never claiming you removed them because of my blog. Im simply stating you removed them - some of which I wrote articles on - hence rendering them void.

--ThatMuslimGuy (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2014 (PDT)

" In the past yeah we have thought about doing that. " - I say make it happen. Have you thought of a domain name?

Alright thats what I was looking for, the blog post links and the diffs - thanks much. We'll look into them. Are there any more? --Axius (talk | contribs) 19:23, 2 July 2014 (PDT)

I dont think so. I think the others wordings have just changed. People discussed it before: [34] But the idea died. --ThatMuslimGuy (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2014 (PDT)

I'm thinking at least some of the ones that were removed were added by Saggy (he has been asked by people not to add any errors that arent obvious, hence I made this set of guidelines on the talk page). But thats ok, all editors make mistakes (including myself) or may have different perspectives. He's done some good work in finding hadiths and verses and he's passionate and interested about the topic. He made this page on the Scientific errors in Hadiths (a sample error: "black cumin cures everything"), and some other pages.

You should follow up with the idea you were discussing with your friends. Sounds like some progress was being made. Take control of it, get advice and give it your best shot. --Axius (talk | contribs) 20:01, 2 July 2014 (PDT)

Why dont you try to rebutt some of the more obvious errors such as Stars are Located in the Nearest Heaven, Earth Created before Stars, Humans Created in Paradise and then Brought to Earth which is explored in detail at: Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Creation <---- This is a huge glaring Scientific error (evolution). etc. So start with the most difficult errors if you really believe Quran has no errors. Saying they're figures of speech is not a defense.

We'll look at the ones you pointed out and I can assure you they were not removed in reaction to your blog but as we were reviewing them ourselves. There are some others that were removed/revised which are not on your blog. We have done such revisions all the time and not just recently. --Axius (talk | contribs) 03:05, 3 July 2014 (PDT)

Will do - Some of those are the most weakest ones. --ThatMuslimGuy (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2014 (PDT)

I doubt the most obvious errors will ever be responded to (remember to deal with Creationism and Evolution as you know that is a major issue for science) and after that there will be a vast amount of other content to deal with. Good luck. --Axius (talk | contribs) 04:05, 3 July 2014 (PDT)

Reviews

I have to tell you that currently I do not have the time to review your additions. So if they're significant, please add them to your Sandbox pages so they can be reviewed at the same time later on. You can continue doing minor additions where a review doesn't take a long time. If its anything I have to analyze it has to go in the sandbox page. Sorry about that but I just do not currently have the time to review these things one at a time and check if they are accurate or if they have any problems.

Just create as many Sandbox pages as you like so you can organize all your additions. Add notes there where they should be added on the target page etc. Here's one that you just added. --Axius (talk | contribs) 19:54, 22 June 2014 (PDT)

When will you get time? Besides you spent at least 10 minutes yesterday. How long does it take to review that an apologist is contradicting the quran itself (this is not even like my error claims)? If I gather all errors in my sandbox, one day you will have to spend an a lot more time than you get per day right now. Saggy (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2014 (PDT)

Forgot to reply. At least for me its easier and more efficient mentally to deal with multiple similar issues at the same time instead of one at a time with long breaks in between them. --Axius (talk | contribs) 09:51, 2 July 2014 (PDT)

72 Virgins

I'm still trying to figure out what the point of this edit was, and how it was supposed to be connected to this rant by a fly-by anonymous German. The German guy is only complaining about how he thinks the German language in that section is linguistically incorrect. In that case, the German translator should probably be asked to comment or the talk page should be deleted (if they have no intention of fixing the alleged problem, then their complaint is nothing more than a rant). Instead you make some linguistically incorrect additions of your own to the English version and claim "I corrected the English side"? Really? The point of that western dhimmi author is that the Bible does not claim that after death Christians will be issued with wings and a harp, and walk on clouds, just like how she wants us to believe the Qur'an does not claim that after death Muslims will be issued with virgins. Our point is her analogy is faulty because the Qur'an does state that after death Muslims will be issued with virgins. Since Revelation 14:2 does not state anywhere that Christians will be issued with wings and a harp, and walk on clouds, the addition was pointless and is counter-productive to the purpose of the article. The probable origin of ideas is irrelevant information and only serves to water-down and confuse the articulated and concise approach of the article. Your other edit to Revelational Circumstances of the Qur'an was also faulty, in that Tabari is not a part of "the major Hadith collections" (all other sources such as tafsirs etc., were purposely excluded by Sani because they are not as authoritative as the major Hadith collections and tend to contain apologetic opinions). The fact that this series only quotes major Hadith collections is stated quite clearly on its main page, but you seem to be making additions without fully understanding why or what you are editing. Please can you explain your edits or at least try to be more careful in the future. --Sahab (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2014 (PDT)

The woman overlooked that Quran makes the claim but Bible does not. The image of a heavener with a harp is at best a pop culture thing derived from that verse. The sentence is still too weird. Saggy (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2014 (PDT)

She did not overlook it. That was exactly her point. She is claiming Muslims view the idea of virgins in heaven much the same as Christians view wings and a harp i.e. it's a made-up thing that no practising Christian actually believes. Okay, so you think that sentence is "weird", but that does not explain why you think adding pointless trivia to the page is "fixing it", nor does it explain why you think your edit made it less "weird" (if it wasn't linguistically weird to begin with, it certainly was afterwards). We are not contesting her claim that the wings and harp thing is a myth because she is right, so there is nothing more needed to be said about that. What we are doing is pointing out how she is wrong.--Sahab (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2014 (PDT)

QHS edits

Your edit here [35]. This is Ritual slaughter. It applies to all Abrahamic religions. I agree killing an animal with a knife like this is painful for the animal but the animal's meat is consumed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice#Abrahamic_traditions.

So tell me why those hadiths should stay here and how they fit with the other content of the page.

For the 2nd edit, [36]

This belongs in Creationism more than it does in Cosmology. Is there anything specific about cosmology mentioned in that quote? Plus this quote has round brackets '(' and you've used double triangular brackets '<'.

So can you explain? --Axius (talk | contribs) 22:01, 14 August 2014 (PDT)

He did it in large numbers. Thats all I want to show, whether it is for food or fun. There is also some kindness to a animals hadith that does not fit in.

Some uterus is attached to that throne. It will react on Judgement Day and so on. Often this cosmology and creation are seen to have some things overlaping like creation of throne, sun, moon stars and heavens, (but not creation of Adam ). So you want it in creation? Saggy (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2014 (PDT)

You are the boss. I am a nobody. So I will edit my sandbox. What am I going to do with a sandbox out of this site? Saggy (talk) 03:26, 15 August 2014 (PDT)

I will also post it to the tasks. Saggy (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2014 (PDT)

The site's quality is the first priority and must be preserved (so it doesn't matter who the boss is - we are all bosses and it depends whose arguments makes sense). I am a nobody too just like you and I will consult with Sahab to decide on this. Looking at it rationally, the problem is that I don't have time to review a regular editor's edits every time and many of yours edits need to be seriously corrected and require a lot of time for correction. If all of someone's edits require serious evaluation it wouldnt be a problem unless there was someone willing to evaluate the edits who had the time to do it.

"He did it in large numbers." - what large numbers? The hadith only say "many camels". Many camels could be 6, 10, 15, 30 -- we dont know. So what do you mean by large numbers and how do you prove it? If there were a large number of people to feed, 20 camels could be slaughtered and that would be considered "many" or "large numbers".

No as I said, the Tafsir quote has nothing specific to do with Cosmology; nothing about Stars, skies, universe etc. It leaves one wondering what it has to do with cosmology. "Often this cosmology and creation are seen to have some things" - this is your interpretation. If creationism is linked we can then copy all the Creation hadiths into Cosmology which doesnt make any sense. I will wait for Sahab's input before commenting further. --Axius (talk | contribs) 04:51, 15 August 2014 (PDT)

I know what he's likely to say. So I think you should add it to creation and forget the first one. Saggy (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2014 (PDT)