Editors, em-bypass-2
4,744
edits
User talk:Prekladator: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Prekladator (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
| Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
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. | 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 | 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. | |||
:: As for "inflammatory rhetoric", I think that criticism of Islam is inflammatory to pious Muslims in general and I think we should not censor criticism of Islam to not inflame pious Muslims. I think that the problem is that they are inflammable. They should not be inflammable by facts and valid arugments and they should not be shielded from them, but they should be confronted with them. And also I don't think that you can solve the problem of Muslims dismissing criticism of Islam by not criticizing Islam. Even if you stop criticizing Islam and they will read your pro-Islamic articles, they will still dismiss criticism of Islam. And even if they find some problems in the Islamic texts themselves, the will dismiss them. | |||
:: 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) | |||