WikiIslam:Frequently Asked Questions: Difference between revisions

Concerning bias; if the references are reliable and presented correctly, the perceived bias of the site providing the information is irrelevant. Those who wish for others to dismiss the site by accusing us of bias are "attacking the messenger", a sub variety of the ad hominem logical fallacy.  

There are countless individuals and websites that present a critical perspective on all forms of belief, but this does not lead to them being automatically labelled as unreliable. Evidently, this is not always the case for those who choose to present a critical perspective on Islam. Dismissal of the wiki, therefore, does not necessarily reflect upon the quality of the wiki itself, but rather the biases of the individuals who write the wiki off as unreliable without ever analyzing its content.  

Conversely, apologetic sites are hardly a reliable source about Islamic beliefs. By their very nature, they are there to defend Islam from criticism, they are not there to reflect current Muslim thought on anything. They can be just as guilty of bias as some of the biased, Islam-critical sites out there. WikiIslam strives to eliminate this sort of bias from its articles.

If one were looking for accurate information on Christianity or Buddhism, with and without the apologetics, they would not ask a Christian or Buddhist alone, nor would they resist visiting a site that openly presented critical perspectives on Christianity or Buddhism. If they did, they would actively engaging in a sort of confirmation bias -- consuming only that information which confirms their beliefs, while ignoring everything else. The same principles can apply to Islam.

Facts concerning Islamic theology are supported by citing Islamic sources such as Qur'an verses, tafsirs, hadiths, and fatwas. If you believe something is factually inaccurate, please verify the citation in the footnotes for yourself, use the associated talk-page, and [[WikiIslam:Contact Us|let us know]]. Some examples of the types of reliable sources encouraged for use on the wiki are listed [[WikiIslam:Reliable_Sources#External_Links_to_Resources|here]].

===Someone found mistakes in one of the wiki's articles. How can I trust the rest of the site?===

WikiIslam hosts {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} articles written by various users. Anyone who claims they have found mistakes in one of our articles and therefore the rest of our site should be dismissed, is committing the logical fallacy of [[W:Poisoning_the_well|poisoning the well]].

We are receptive to criticism and appreciate the input of our readers because it only results in improving the site. So if you notice any errors please let us know via the associated talk-pages and we will put the article under review. Better still, if your aim is to provide us with constructive criticism, why not <span class="plainlinks">[[WikiIslam:Join the Team|become an editor]]</span> and edit the page yourself?

===Does WikiIslam use polemical sources?===

No, it does not. Statements of fact concerning Islamic history and theology from polemic sources such as books, articles or commentaries by individuals such as Robert Spencer, Pamela Gellar, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Mark A. Gabriel, Wafa Sultan, Ali Sina, Walid Shoebat, Brigitte Gabriel etc., are not permitted under any circumstances as [[WikiIslam:Reliable Sources|references on WikiIslam]]. Editors are advised to remove any such statements immediately if they come across them.

No, it does not. The wiki relies on Islamic and academic sources which are readily available, either on the net or through retailers. They are the same sources you will see being used and accepted by thousands of Muslim websites. Wherever possible, we link directly to these Muslim websites which, for example, host [{{Compendium-of-muslim-texts-base-url}}/quran/ Qur'an], [{{Compendium-of-muslim-texts-base-url}}/hadith/ Hadith], [http://www.islam-qa.com/en fatwa], [http://bewley.virtualave.net/Risalatitl.html fiqh] and [http://www.theholybook.org/content/section/1/2/ Tafsir] text.  

Unless otherwise stated, we use the respected and widely accepted translations of Yusuf Ali, Marmaduke Pickthal or M. H. Shakir. All Qur'an quotes are taken from the University of Southern California Muslim Students Association's [[Compendium of Muslim Texts]] and are properly sourced and linked with the context of three preceding and subsequent verses.

No, it does not. If a misquoted Qur'an verse is brought to the editors' attention, it will be corrected immediately. Most claims of "misquoted Qur'an verses" consist of an apologists using an obscure translation of the Qur'an and pointing out that the translation on the wiki is different from theirs (e.g. see [http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmybroadband.co.za%2Fvb%2Fshowthread.php%2F607524-I-am-islamophobic%3Fp%3D12428900%26viewfull%3D1%23post12428900&date=2014-04-07 here]). If someone fails to check the sources, they may assume that it is a misquotation on the part of the editors. However, the wiki's policy is such that it relies on the most widely accepted and established translations of the Qur'an (i.e. Yusuf Ali, Marmaduke Pickthal or M. H. Shakir).   

All hadith translations are taken from [https://quranx.com/About quranx.com]. Sunnah.com translations may also sometimes be used on occasion (however, these are often the same as those used on quranx.com, and the source linked will always link to the relevant quranx.com page).

No, it does not. The hadith collections used most often at WikiIslam form what is known as the "Authentic Six" i.e. the six canonical hadith collections of mainstream Islam, especially Bukhari and Muslim. Bukhari and Muslim are labeled as entirely authentic (sahih). The others are from Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, Nasa'i, and Ibn Majah. Malik's Muwatta' is also used and is placed just below the two Sahihs for its reliability, but is not generally included among the six. If possible, when hadith from collections such as Nasa'i and Ibn Majah are quoted, the grading of its authenticity is also provided.  

Hadith are never quoted out of context. They are almost always quoted in full. If a partial hadith is quoted, then it is only for the sake of brevity, and a verifiable online source is always provided to the full text. If a hadith is quoted out of context or is quoted in a way that obscures its actually meaning, readers are advised to bring this to the wiki's attention and it will promptly be corrected.

It is somewhat ironic that Islamic apologists are usually the most frequently guilty of using weak hadiths or quoting partial hadiths out of context. In fact, the wiki hosts many articles that deal with both of these issues (e.g. see [[List of Fabricated Hadith|here]], [[Misinterpreted Qur'anic Verses|here]] and [[Aishas Age of Consummation|here]]) and requires editors to adhere to strict guidelines concerning [[WikiIslam:Reliable Sources|reliable sources]] and how they are [[WikiIslam:Citing Sources|cited]].

No, WikiIslam not in any way related to or endorsed by these organizations. The only commonality is WikiIslam's use of the same [http://www.mediawiki.org Mediawiki] software which is also used by many other wiki websites.

The [http://wikiislam.github.io/wiki/Islam_Science_and_the_Problems_at_Wikipedia.html Jagged 85 incident] is a good example of the problems faced by Wikipedia with respect to Islam-related articles. Jagged 85 was an editor who contributed to 8,115 separate articles with over 67,000 edits made over a period of 5 years until they were caught in 2010. Focusing efforts on improving the image of Islam and downplaying the achievements of the western world, for 5 years he/she was left largely unhindered, misrepresenting sources in various ways, misrepresentations which were then reproduced all over the net by other sites which use Wikipedia as a source.

Wikipedia's policies have also allowed for the use of some very suspect "reliable" secondary sources. A prime example of this would be Paul Vallely's "[[How Islamic Inventors Did Not Change The World|How Islamic inventors changed the world]]". And they also host a [[List_of_Fabricated_Hadith#Muhammad.27s_Farewell_Sermon|fabricated version of Muhammad's farewell sermon]] which was created by an Indian/Pakistani author in the 80's, simply because the version often features in Islamic propaganda, all while ignoring the authentic version of the sermon found in Tabari.

As WikiIslam concentrates on only one subject, it hosts fewer articles than Wikipedia. This enables the community to fine-tune the wiki's articles to a much higher standard.

WikiIslam's primary focus is on Islam while Wikipedia is a compendium of general knowledge. These differing goals have led to different policies and guidelines.  

Wikipedia discourages the use of primary and "non-notable/reliable" sources. WikiIslam, on the other hand, encourages the use of authentic primary religious text and the rulings of authoritative Muslim scholars who may not be notable to people outside of the Muslim world but who are giants within. This is in addition to permitting the citation of critical, academic scholarship, which, while also allowed on Wikipedia, is almost invariably suppressed due to the abundance of editors seeking to cast Islam in a favorable light.

Wikipedia focuses on "[{{Reference archive|1=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth|2=2012-02-10}} verifiability, not truth]". In essence, this means that anyone who falls under Wikipedia's classification of "notable/reliable" can make a statement about any subject, and regardless of its factual accuracy, it can be used in their articles. In regards to Islam, it has meant they accept what "notable/reliable" western commentators and apologists claim about Islamic scriptures and Muslims over what the religious text and Muslims actually say themselves.

These commentators who speak about Islam and who fall under Wikipedia's classification of "notable/reliable" tend to be apologists, because serious scholars, for example; [[Videos_on_Islam:_Quran#Bart_Ehrman_Explains_Why_He_Doesn.27t_Criticize_the_Qur.27an|Bart Ehrman]], are scared of violence against themselves or of being accused of bigotry if they criticize anything Islam-related. Thus, Wikipedia often uses notable apologists like Karen Armstrong (who is not a qualified historian or Islamic scholar) whilst ignoring some giant figures from the Islamic world and Islamic history as well as world-renown academic historians and scholars of religion, such as Michael Cook.