WikiIslam:Discussions/Visitor Inquiries: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
WikiIslam:Discussions/Visitor Inquiries (view source)
Revision as of 03:35, 1 March 2016
, 1 March 2016→On the subject of Islam and Chess: new section
(→On the subject of Islam and Chess: new section) |
|||
| Line 472: | Line 472: | ||
I am writing this as a confused muslim. You know,there are lots of islamic websites,they have thousands of "rebuttals to islamic critics" and just a few anti islamic ones against them.So when muslims come across an argument against islam, they think "well,im sure someone has already refutted this,so lets not worry about it." It seems like that "Critics of islam have all said what is to be said against islam,but apologists refutted them all,so there is nothing left to say." Probably that is what apologists think or try to prove.Considering these,I have a suggestion.I think you should have more "responses to apologists",so that we,as readers,can decide more reasonably which side is more plausible and you can be more "convincing" that way.Thank you. | I am writing this as a confused muslim. You know,there are lots of islamic websites,they have thousands of "rebuttals to islamic critics" and just a few anti islamic ones against them.So when muslims come across an argument against islam, they think "well,im sure someone has already refutted this,so lets not worry about it." It seems like that "Critics of islam have all said what is to be said against islam,but apologists refutted them all,so there is nothing left to say." Probably that is what apologists think or try to prove.Considering these,I have a suggestion.I think you should have more "responses to apologists",so that we,as readers,can decide more reasonably which side is more plausible and you can be more "convincing" that way.Thank you. | ||
:I fully agree these sections are very important especially for often debated topics. See [https://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_someone_do_XYZ.2C_create.2Fedit_an_article_for_me.3F this] about requests like this. [[User:Axius|Axius]] <span style="font-size:88%">([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]])</span> 18:30, 2 February 2016 (EST) | :I fully agree these sections are very important especially for often debated topics. See [https://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_someone_do_XYZ.2C_create.2Fedit_an_article_for_me.3F this] about requests like this. [[User:Axius|Axius]] <span style="font-size:88%">([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]])</span> 18:30, 2 February 2016 (EST) | ||
== On the subject of Islam and Chess == | |||
The Wikislam entry is deceptive and innaccurate. | |||
"Many worried chess would be banned by the "Qur'an" an Islamic law banning gambling. Chess become very popular after their theologians decided that chess playing wasn't contrary to the teachings of Mohammed. This decision took about 100 years and illustrates the curious power of a simple game. After the official decision that there was no harm in chess, the Moslems created a greatly detailed literature about it." | |||
The Islamic prophet Mohammed did not say Chess was forbidden, a ccording to a Hadith (not Qu'ran) he is said to have compared dice to eating pork, because it was gambling. | |||
Not Chess. The Hadiths are not official Islamic doctrine. | |||
Furthermore, Chess was actually invented by the Moors in Spain, earlier versions bore little resemblance to the present game as we know it. | |||
There are no real pre-Islamic artifacts attributable to "Chess" just as there is no evidence of the Kingdom of someone named "David". | |||
In fact, 15th to 17th century Christians said the same thing about the game of chess as Muslims, that it is harmless unless it consumes an inordinate amount of one's time. | |||
Also, there is no evidence that Zoroastrians rather tham Muslims developed the game in early Persia. | |||
I have to say, I read wikislam and get the overwhelming impression that, rather than a scholarly site meant to serve as a source of accurate info on Islam, that it is a polemic endeavor, a hostile, agenda-driven vehicle...not just in the various glaring innaccuracies, but in the general tone and often unscholarly asides. | |||
I am not a Muslim, but I consider it churlish to falsely represent a religion in a negative way. It's un-American. And most people would agree with me. | |||