User talk:Axius

Moon split

I see Wikiepedia has made it a GA. So where do I respond to their claims? We have Witnessing the Moon Splitting Miracle responses section. But it is made for an Indian king. Should I make some changes in its lead and respond to WP there itself? Saggy (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2014 (PDT)

I think you should also include recently improved articles with new articles in the home page. it will be better. Ready for this?

What claims do you want to respond to? Wikipedia article -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_of_the_moon

I think the NASA scientist's statement takes care of it in the Hoax section [1]

For your addition, what is the source for the Asteroid theory? I want to read it. [2]

Recently improved, depends on the amount of improvement. If its a lot we have been listing it as "revised" or something like that. --Axius (talk | contribs) 15:56, 22 April 2014 (PDT)

I did in Witnessing the Moon Splitting Miracle‎. Do the check.Saggy (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2014 (PDT)

Oops, my bad. There are two sources in wikipedia, it could be any of them. no. 4: Annemarie Schimmel, no 5: Robert G. Mourison. I cant check them. But like sahab said before we need not mention sources for claims. Simply its there on wp, we can respond here.Saggy (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2014 (PDT)

i saw Giordano Bruno (crater). It has a similar incident reported by monks.Saggy (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2014 (PDT)

Ok, for starters you can do some cleanup on the Wikipedia article [3] does not qualify for their policy WP:RS. Be sure not to do 3RR and follow wikipedia policies. This means a lot of "Some Muslim scholars postulate and believe ...." can be deleted from there.

Also a strong refutation for the asteroid claim is that Quran and hadith themselves say that the split happened, so if these scholars imply it did not split and it was an illusion created by an asteroid, they're basically saying the Quran/hadith contain false statements about something that really did not happen. I included that.

I dont know why its marked as a GA article (2010). You can remove the GA tag (its a template at the end of the article) and it was placed in the article since a long time ago (atleast September 2012) and take the matter to the talk page in case someone restores it. GA articles have to follow strict standards and at least one of the source being used is not acceptable so its not a GA. Our article should also directly quote the relevant Quranic verse. [4]. Probably needs a lot of work both on Wikipedia and here. You can also repeat the NASA claim in the lead of the article. Good luck as everything is a battle there with regards to Islam, even simple things like this. And yea you can change/improve our article any way you want. I'll have to review it though. If I was you I would start with the Wikipedia article, take the GA tag off and those scholar statements off, insert the NASA statement in the lead as NASA scientists are an important source of reliable information about the moon. --Axius (talk | contribs) 15:14, 23 April 2014 (PDT)

That article is semi-protected which means if you dont have an account already you can make one but it will have to be: "is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia". --Axius (talk | contribs) 15:19, 24 April 2014 (PDT)

I made a username there and when its 4 days old I'll do some of this. I usually dont edit Wikipedia but some of this stuff is simple and wont take time so I'll try it. --Axius (talk | contribs) 12:29, 26 April 2014 (PDT)

Martyrs of Córdoba

[5] is it allowed here? Because it is not about any texts so i had doubt.Saggy (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2014 (PDT)

If its related to criticism of Islam (coi). Can you give a short summary in relation to COI? --Axius (talk | contribs) 14:46, 25 April 2014 (PDT)

They were saints and killed for not converting under the Caliph. Summary means do I have to quote the quran for this case in the article?Saggy (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2014 (PDT)

Ok yea you can quote the Quran. Wikipedia [6] says some were killed for other reasons e.g. "She escaped, openly denounced Muhammad and was beheaded." Is it going to have information that is not on the Wikipedia article? We dont have to duplicate it. A short stub is fine but it should have references for any claims not present on Wikipedia. Yea start it in a Sandbox see how it goes. User:Saggy/Martyrs of Cordoba --Axius (talk | contribs) 06:44, 26 April 2014 (PDT)

Importance to quality is ok but I think this sandbox is too strict. We have an undercontruc warning dont we?Saggy (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2014 (PDT)

Actually yea, the Site wide sandbox is the right one so you used the right sandbox. We do the Sandbox first because if a new page is created in the main space, Google indexes it pretty quickly. The next time it re-indexes is usually at a later date. For this reason new pages in the main space should be created when they are complete. Thats why we do the Sandbox first and then move it to the main space when its complete so Google indexes the complete version of the page. Also explained in the sandbox section on the help page: [7]

For this Cordova page like for any other page, you should source all statements that can be challenged by visitors. Its going to be a long project because it will have to be checked and reviewed. I would suggest you should keep it as short as possible and mention the most important points and let people go to the Wikipedia link you mentioned for additional information. Or take your time, just be sure its as good as you can make it.

I wonder how a Table format would work for this page like we have here: List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad. You'd have to break out the information into: Name, Date of killing, Bio, Circumstances of Execution etc. I dont know if the Table format would be possible, or make it better or not so its just a suggestion. Maybe a good idea to just write the text for now and later convert to a table format if needed. --Axius (talk | contribs) 16:36, 29 April 2014 (PDT)

About Responses for "errors"

Hello, I'm new to WikiIslam and I made an edit to the page of "Scientific Errors in the Qur'an", yet you removed it and gave me a link for the page of responses (and thanks for that, by the way). But wouldn't it be better if the responses and claims are on the same page? (I mean that after every claim about an error, if someone wants to respond, the response is written under the claim so that all people can see the claim and response together and judge for themselves.) Currently, the reponses' page is separated from the claims' page, and it's only mentioned in the "see also" in the end, so if someone doesn't notice it (as I did), he would believe everything written there without hearing the counter-argument. I don't know if what I sent you should be sent to you, but if it shouldn't please tell me to whom I should send it to. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightmare140 (talk • contribs) (Remember to sign your comments)

This is a site which focuses on criticism of Islam so that will always be given priority. You can edit the Responses page and we're already being pretty fair by even allowing responses. As for them being on the same page, no we cant do that. That would interrupt the reading experience of people who are interesting in criticism of Islam. A responses page also gives you the freedom to make the page look like whatever you want and not have it interrupted by the other side's arguments. --Axius (talk | contribs) 14:51, 15 May 2014 (PDT)

Another question (and sorry for bothering you much), when I see a page that contains wrong, misleading, or opinion-based information with no or unrelated evidence (as much info many articles I read contain), how can I report it? Or should I just edit the page?Nightmare140 (talk • contribs)

What does this mean there are blatant hoaxes floating? Which are they? give some examples. properly written opinions derived from evidence are okay. Polemics not allowed. If there is something misleading, it may need more details and clarity as I have done in the past. Saggy (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2014 (PDT)

Nightmare140, keep in mind that we're a website that focuses on criticism of Islam so if you can improve an article, sure go ahead and try your edits. If they are incorrect they can be reverted. You can also make new response articles and there you have the freedom to write what you want (but it should still be appropriate and written well for example). --Axius (talk | contribs) 16:21, 16 May 2014 (PDT)

I know that, but shouldn't criticism be based on facts and true things not on misunderstood or mistranslated things that aren't even close to errors? Moonlight said to provide examples. An example is the Grammar mistake that was claimed to be a mistake and I removed it because it's not, but then you (Axius) returned it as it was before. When a thing is controversial, not known to be a mistake or not, we can make a response page, but when there's no error at all to start with, isn't it just so misleading to keep it there? Thanks again. Nightmare140 (talk • contribs)

How do we know there's a mistake there? Thats only what you claim. It has to be checked by the author or someone who is familiar with the topic before it can be changed. I added it to the tasks page so someone can check it later [8]. This issue for that arabic word is a small issue. There are many more important things to make a response to. --Axius (talk | contribs) 07:39, 17 May 2014 (PDT)

It's true that's only what I claim, but it's because I'm an Arab, and if you have anyone who knows Arabic Grammar I can persuade him and let him understand what I mean. And yes, of course this is a small matter with respect to other things here, and that's why I'd like to check if my little notes, responses, or edits will be applied (of course that's when I'm right) in order to start with other things that may take time. Anyway, you know, small things make a difference, and, concerning that thing with Grammar, do you know anyone in this site who knows Arabic and might be able to judge if I talk to him? I don't like to do different tasks together, just one at a time, and that's why I want to finish the task in hand at first, which is correcting this thing. Nightmare140 (talk • contribs)

The person who wrote that article is not available at this time and I dont know if we can get in touch with him so someone else will to look into this. You can post in the FFI forum to see if anyone knows enough arabic. Or you can post in the Council of ex muslims forum and see if there's an ex-Muslim there who knows arabic. --Axius (talk | contribs) 08:43, 17 May 2014 (PDT)

What in silliness?

Why you remove the last anus one? I was going to add more :/ :/ Saggy (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2014 (PDT)

I think the anus one isnt funny, because its a biological function. If you see the other hadiths, most have very obvious humor. You can add them but we'll have to see if they're funny or not. If not maybe they can be added something else. I'm a great fan of QHS and hate to see any verse/hadith being lost if there's any value in it. --Axius (talk | contribs) 13:32, 22 May 2014 (PDT)

Which ones do you want to add? This page is one of my favorites. It was just referenced here [9]. --Axius (talk | contribs) 22:29, 25 May 2014 (PDT)

most visited pages

Where do you see the most visited articles?Saggy (talk) 08:57, 26 May 2014 (PDT)

You need a Google account to view the stats. If you're interested email the site email [10] with a Google account and I can add you there. --Axius (talk | contribs) 10:17, 26 May 2014 (PDT)

QHS on forbiddens

Let us make a QHS on everything forbidden. What will its name be? Forbade ? or Forbidden Things?Saggy (talk) 06:09, 31 May 2014 (PDT)

Yea that sounds good. The name can be changed later: WikiIslam:Sandbox/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Forbidden_Things. You can copy paste stuff from existing QHS pages e.g: Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Beauty_and_Makeup (some forbidden things). --Axius (talk | contribs) 07:21, 31 May 2014 (PDT)

for main

How about a selected hadith/hadith of the day or verse of day and make it rotate like Wikipedia's portals?

here's something LightYears missed[11] Saggy (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2014 (PDT)

Main page needs a redesign but currently there's no one to do that and maintain the rotation. We need more people to join and help us out. --Axius (talk | contribs) 05:56, 7 June 2014 (PDT)

Why somebody must maintain it? Rotation should be automatic. If it has to be manual, how about a weekly quote? Anyway create a template, insert it on main, then I will get the content. Or I shall do first?Saggy (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2014 (PDT)

Oh, yea rotation can be done you're right. [12] I was thinking about something else. You can make a copy of the main page text and put it into a Sandbox and play with it. Hadith could be at the bottom or anywhere else. --Axius (talk | contribs) 06:47, 7 June 2014 (PDT)

Go through Claims of evolution. See if it is ready.Saggy (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2014 (PDT)

Sorry, I dont have much time to do anything else other than maintain existing content. Taking a quick look, no its not ready. For example heading 29. And headings should be text based (descriptive), not the suah numbers (those headings are not helpful). --Axius (talk | contribs) 11:32, 7 June 2014 (PDT)

Fixed.

I found tafsirs and some other narrations on seven earths and seven seas, resting on bulls and whales. Where to add it? QHS Cosmology is on the cards. How about adding it to scientific errors in hadith as well? That variety of angels in Haykal's book also deserves some QHS. But we dont have any. So a QHS on angels and jinn? Saggy (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2014 (PDT)

That article is probably 20% of what it can be. I doubt those are the only verses relating to evolution so it needs more work. We need more people to join and help out with this.

7 earths/seas, maybe QHS geology? Add them here first: WikiIslam:Sandbox/Temporary_Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars_page. For others just do what you think is best. Add what you find to the Temp page and then we can see where they can go. --Axius (talk | contribs) 15:16, 8 June 2014 (PDT)

Wow! Abu Huraira's confession there made my day. I think it must immediately go into silliness (though its not funny it will be a feather in that hat, with comments) or let it go somewhere else but not rot there. Saggy (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2014 (PDT)

Added: [13]. --Axius (talk | contribs) 15:06, 9 June 2014 (PDT)

Let me know if you have any good ideas on how to attract more people to the site and get them involved. --Axius (talk | contribs) 15:56, 9 June 2014 (PDT)

First thing might be welcome message template for new accounts.Saggy (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2014 (PDT)

Let me what changes I should make and I'll do them-> MediaWiki:Welcomecreation. --Axius (talk | contribs) 14:59, 10 June 2014 (PDT)

Link something users can start doing on the very first day. I presume they cant do the listed to-dos till they get acquainted with key policies. Saggy (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2014 (PDT)

Category:Articles_needing_attention - we have this linked on the left. I dont know what else could be done. --Axius (talk | contribs) 14:32, 11 June 2014 (PDT)

Essays? then link or advice Confessions.Saggy (talk) 08:13, 13 June 2014 (PDT)

What do you mean. --Axius (talk | contribs) 03:59, 14 June 2014 (PDT)

A curious Muslim becomes Admirer of Christ?

The latest confession, she calls herself someone who always seeks more knowledge. Admiring Christ is ok but did she ignore that the Bible is only marginally better than Quran? And that UFO thing was.... omg. Do you check if she's true?Saggy (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2014 (PDT)

No I havent read it, I was just deleted some extra text there. Thats a problem with these testimonies (that sometimes there's no way to see if they are really fake or not - no way to verify), hence the disclaimer at the top. Most testimonies are ok. For this one the UFO bit is unusual and indeed most former Muslims become atheists and agnostics and dont convert to another religion. I found that out when I did some statistics for the stories we have and only 10% of them were Christians, 50% were atheists and agnostics combined. Not sure what to do about it, to keep it or delete it and I havent read it fully yet. I check these pages later together at the same time. It sure is strange (the UFO thing) and the fact that she looked at the Quran in detail but did not look at the Bible in the same way. That does suggest its fake but then we cant really be sure. --Axius (talk | contribs) 03:57, 14 June 2014 (PDT)

I admit its eerie to suspect - like, somebody is desparate to fool us but they afford a frequency of only two confessions per week (or lesser) and they keep changing to international IPs.Saggy (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2014 (PDT)

The bible thing, she may have noticed but preferred not to mention and forced herself to believe it. I wont be surprised if future Christians are the same, they cant get any better. She is right to say that Jesus existed . No need to delete it i think.Saggy (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2014 (PDT)

Was there a different submission with another IP? People have submitted duplicate stories in the past and sometimes (but rarely) they are fake. I respect different faiths because we have had editors from all backgrounds. Anyway I still have to review that page and will do when there's a number of testimonies to review. --Axius (talk | contribs) 19:07, 14 June 2014 (PDT)

What is left to review? I checked all the histories of so many places. There was no monotheism or anything similar to Islam taught anywhere outside Middle east and nearby areas.Saggy (talk) 07:39, 18 June 2014 (PDT)

Are you talking about Scientific errors? That article is under review and you've made too many questionable additions in the past to that page so they always need a review which I dont have time/energy to do right now. Dont let this slow you down though, just keep adding everything you see to the temp pages.

Also use this template for welcoming users: [14], so you just need to do this and save the page: {{subst:New Member}} --Axius (talk | contribs) 17:02, 18 June 2014 (PDT)

Currently the universe from smoke verse (41:11) is inside another section "earth created before stars". It seems to fit there but we need separate section or sub-section to expand there, then we link the smoke article. Saggy (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2014 (PDT)

Which article and section? --Axius (talk | contribs) 12:55, 21 June 2014 (PDT)

Scientific Errors in the Qur'an#Earth Created before Stars Saggy (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2014 (PDT)

Ok yea I see now, yea you're right. The Smoke article is not linked anywhere on that Errors page. There can be a new section in Astrology[15] called "Creation of Universe from Smoke" etc, the smoke verse can be repeated in that new section and the smoke article [16] can be linked there after a brief discussion like for the others. --Axius (talk | contribs) 08:09, 22 June 2014 (PDT)

Hold on, i noticed more; right above this verse is its contradiction (earth and heavens were one piece and then got seperated). This may also need a section, because no such event took place hence it is in error. But the common error is "earth is old as rest of universe." So do you really want a repeat of both the verses to push in more discussion? How 2 subsections to the existing section "Earth created before stars"? Saggy (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2014 (PDT)

Do whatever you think is best but be sure to add stuff to your Sandbox pages for now (as per my recent note). --Axius (talk | contribs) 19:55, 22 June 2014 (PDT)

Regarding your request for a cite..

I have replied to your question at Muslim Statistics Talk Thanks, Scottperry (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2014 (PDT)

Hi Axius,

Thank you for offering to look at the cite I gave. I think you will probably agree that it is a suitable cite. I have been a fairly active editor on the Wikipedia site, and so long as I would not be wasting my time, I would be happy to properly add that information to both the statistical summary page, and to the educational detail page, in a format which would match Wikiislam's current formatting. I know this will take a little bit of doing, but I would be willing to do it.

I don't know what the overall guiding principles are on this site, however I consider myself to be somewhat "pro-Islamic" despite the fact that I am a Christian. I see this site as having the potential of assisting Islam with it's very-much-needed reforms. Lord knows, Christendom has had its lunatic leaders over the centuries too (along with its pragmatists and true saints).

My question for you is: If I insert certain types of duly-documented "quasi-positive information" about Islam as I attempted to do here, will I find a structural bias in WikiIslam against such edits? Or not? Thanks, Scottperry (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2014 (PDT)

First you could decide if this is a site you want to work on because from your other message it looks like you may not want to stay but have a good look around first. Click on any of the Core articles e.g. [17]. Note that all/most of the information is sourced to Islam's own sources. Islam's reform can only happen if people decide to abandon the religion. The only other reform that can happen is if all the Islamic scholars or even Muslims formed a group and said that certain Quranic verses are invalid (this we know will never happen). People abandoning Islam altogether is the only thing that is possible and that is being done at a gradual pace which will speed up with time. The other option is for Muslims to not really see or believe the spirit of Quran and hadith and be moderate Muslims, but that is because they disagree with some aspects of Islam yet do not want to leave it and apostatize. "Islam can be reformed" is not a statement that makes sense to me but I'm not going to take part in long debates about it. Our site is what it is. We cite Islam's own sources and focus on criticism of Islam.

What do you mean by 'duly-documented "quasi-positive information"'? You could do a few edits and give some examples.

Why are you pro-Islamic to any degree at all? Are you aware that according to Quran 48:13 you'll burn in Hell since you (like me) refuse to convert to Islam?

Also feel free to combine the main page messages where you started a discussion so it can be kept on one page. Also note that these opinions are only mine and do not reflect the opinions of the site but I can confirm that the site focuses on the criticsm of Islam. Most other opinions I mentioned will vary from person to person as there are all kinds of different approaches to criticism of Islam. --Axius (talk | contribs) 15:26, 23 June 2014 (PDT)

Abu Dawud book numbers

Are you aware of the discrepancies in numbering Sunan Abu Dawud's books? I was checking for Hot Baths (Kitab Al-Hammam). All of the following give different numbers [18] [19] [20]. We stick to CMJE which has incomplete Abu Dawud rather. Saggy (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2014 (PDT)

??

Sorry I forgot to reply. Yea numbering systems are different for the CMJE website and Sunnah.com. Not sure what to do but if you find a hadith on CMJE, use that. If not, use Sunnah.com. How about that?

Gender determination by sperm is the only Science article to which there is an apologist. But there is no response worth improving our article. He made said "Unlike quran, the Egyptian source does not claim the two Gods were male and female." Are readers foolish not to google them both or go all the way upto scholarly sources? Then he claims it was not possible to mention "ovum" in the 7th century. So why cant Allah mention in crude words as he mentioned sperm/semen? (most miracles are found in crude words btw) The repeated omission of female cell from all verses of man created from nutfah is undoubtedly an error. Saggy (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2014 (PDT)

Good that you found that link. I think we should keep a list of such websites/links so we are aware of them and we can use them at some point to further improve our articles. --Axius (talk | contribs) 15:25, 29 June 2014 (PDT)

QHS additions

You have time to check them, don't you. I want to add n shift some. Saggy (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2014 (PDT)

If its just quotes yea, its easier to review so go ahead. --Axius (talk | contribs) 14:04, 1 July 2014 (PDT)

One super scientific error I just spotted. [21] Vol. 4, Book 6, Hadith 2143. Its about mange, a skin disease which affects dogs and other animals causing hair loss. Some types of it spread from one animal to another, some dont. But he claims that there is no such thing as spread of any diseases. He gave all his ideas within this hadith. I am for adding it straightaway. Saggy (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2014 (PDT)

Sounds good. Indeed "one thing does not infect the other" is a scientific error. Here's the permanent link [22] for that one. --Axius (talk | contribs) 09:49, 2 July 2014 (PDT)

Shia/Sufi

We have very few contents on Shi ism and Sufism. Mention it in tasks? eg. "Creating articles or providing sources on which artciles can be written." There must be losts of Sufi sources. Saggy (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2014 (PDT)

Sure thats fine. --Axius (talk | contribs) 14:59, 3 July 2014 (PDT)

Any specifics on the task [23] so it relates to criticism of Islam? Or are you thinking about general information/introduction to Shia/Sunnis. etc? Any additional definition for the task helps. --Axius (talk | contribs) 14:43, 4 July 2014 (PDT)

Ya mainly criticism. Because I see Sufism is an innovation by each of its saints. Of course, they taught good things. But they appear silent on the literal verses of Qur'an and on Muhammad, Ali etc. Saggy (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2014 (PDT)

Hmmm...I am just browsing a book "THE ENCLOSED GARDEN OF THE TRUTH" by Hakim Abu l Majd. This is why one gets angry easily on Sufis, they have set up lots of imaginations on Allah. I heard they have their own cosmology. Will find it soon. I am adding another link of readable books. Saggy (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2014 (PDT)

Sounds good I agree with all of that. --Axius (talk | contribs) 08:56, 5 July 2014 (PDT)

Only Muslim critics? Is there no place for secular/Western critics? I am yet to see any. Saggy (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2014 (PDT)

Sure thats fine. I'll edit that. --Axius (talk | contribs) 11:42, 5 July 2014 (PDT)

Forbiddens Done

Could be expanded to at least 100 things if we keep adding fatwas but I think you should make it. Some cite formats need attention. Saggy (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2014 (PDT)

Google for Quran forbidden things brings up some links for example [24]. Anything useful relating to criticism of Islam that can be used? Or this haraam list.

I'll look at it when I have time (its probably going to take a long time). There's no hurry for this so keep adding Fatwas or other stuff if its interesting. --Axius (talk | contribs) 12:54, 4 July 2014 (PDT)

I dont want to repeat the silliness hadiths here. Then there are forbiddens in almost every QHS. The fatwas are too long. Saggy (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2014 (PDT)

Repetitions are ok and there's not too many of them, just a few. How about the search for "forbade" on sunnah.com ? --Axius (talk | contribs) 13:01, 12 July 2014 (PDT)

Later. In the claims of evolution article, I have probably no more claims. What other sites do is including the heavens/earth and mountain verses in their evolution articles. Saggy (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2014 (PDT)

You missed the above one? Saggy (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2014 (PDT) Giving the link [25]

Oh ok. Thats a great article. I really wish I had the time and energy to go through it and finalize it but right now it will have to wait. We really need to find someone to help us out. One idea is for you to go to ex-Muslim forums (for example [26]) and introduce yourself briefly and ask if anyone would be willing to help you with this article and expand it. What do you think?

It is definitely not ready for the public yet. For example I saw a spelling error (traanslator) but other than this, the more important thing is to make sure we've not missed anything. Have you searched around and seen what other critics of Islam have said about the topic? --Axius (talk | contribs) 15:31, 15 July 2014 (PDT)

The link you gave has devout atheists. I dont want it. I will think of something else. Saggy (talk) 08:46, 16 July 2014 (PDT)

I myself can easily quality for that label as I dont have any beliefs but that should not effect the work that is done on this site. We have had editors from all backgrounds with a common purpose and their forum has people from all backgrounds as well. But ok yea you can get help from any place that you're comfortable with (its up to you). --Axius (talk | contribs) 09:04, 16 July 2014 (PDT)

Websites Censored by Islamic Governments

Is it upated and does it mean blogs are not banned? Saggy (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2014 (PDT)

Nope, its an incomplete list. I guess we should include a note at the top. --Axius (talk | contribs) 06:35, 6 July 2014 (PDT)

Hi

I sent you the wrong testimony, that was my old one and I will upload the new one which is longer and more detailed. Thanks

Ok. Thanks for getting a username. You can now click on my contributions at the top left and you'll find the testimony that you can directly edit on the site (instead of a copy paste which required re-formatting the whole submission).

After you confirm that you'll directly edit the one we have, I can start to finalize it and publish it on the site so let me know your plans. --Axius (talk | contribs) 05:40, 8 July 2014 (PDT)

w:1001 Inventions?

EU leaders stooped to this level to strip their own civilization of all its credit? Which way should our invention articles go now? Saggy (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2014 (PDT)

All we can do is add to the to-do list and investigate and refute those inventions in a new article series. Something about it in the conclusion here. [27]--Axius (talk | contribs) 14:32, 12 July 2014 (PDT)

Ok add it to tasks. Also add that we need translations of every article into languages that users know. Saggy (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2014 (PDT)

Ok done. Translation task is on the Translation page. [28]. --Axius (talk | contribs) 05:40, 13 July 2014 (PDT)

Aint it better to link it in the tasks? I think you should put more in the candidates for translation Saggy (talk) 06:57, 13 July 2014 (PDT)

Linked in tasks already: [29]

More candidates, sure, but we need to make good choices (well sourced, nicely written, complete etc). Other than the ones linked, most of the remaining articles qualify equally. But let me know if you see any that are important enough. The current list is small so it doesn't look too scary. I'm fine with adding to it if there are any good additions we can make. --Axius (talk | contribs) 07:03, 13 July 2014 (PDT)

Are the 1001 inv listed or shown anywhere? Whats the direct link? We need to link to specific places where these things are found (otherwise the task should be removed as its not "actionable".)--Axius (talk | contribs) 08:03, 13 July 2014 (PDT)

I got a preview. [30] I did not count them but chapters are 7. The number is not imp. Saggy (talk) 08:47, 13 July 2014 (PDT)

Ok well, I guess whatever can be done then. --Axius (talk | contribs) 09:36, 13 July 2014 (PDT)

Sugestions to translate are Farsideology, some QHSes, Scientific Errors in Hadith (could be expanded). Saggy (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2014 (PDT)

Farsideology is great humor (one of my favourite series of pages) but its not suited for translation. We dont get much traffic on it. It has to be something which is useful in debate and entertaining the person who is already critical of Islam is not a priority so all those reasons together say its not a good candidate for translation. QHS would be great but there's so much. I'll still add it though. Scientific errors in hadith when we are sure its complete. There are enough translation candidates for now and even those havent been translated yet. --Axius (talk | contribs) 13:58, 13 July 2014 (PDT)

Scientific Errors in the Qur'an to update

Earth Created before Stars Verses are already there. So I just have to add sub-sections, more text and link to the smoke article. There is nothing to verify I think. All done in my sandbox.
From above. Sura 41:9-12 contains the whole story of creation: earth in 2 days/periods. Mountains and things sustaining us (plants etc) in 4 days, seven heavens and stars in (or after) 2 days. All of these are to be added in various sections.
Hail Comes from Mountains in the Sky At least 3 tafsirs agree that there are mountains in heaven. Even the alternate meaning by Ibn Kathir is that ice in clouds comes from existing mountains on the ground.
Solomon and Ants Need to extend the verse upto Solomons comment. Maybe link the Jewish tales article.
Noah's Ark holds Every Species To explain more that two animals of each species can't help the species survive. Their kids will have incest and die out.
Pharaoh or Pharaohs Confused. There are 5 or 6 candidates for this pharaoh. I checked them and saw no evidence of anyone drowning and then his body taken out of the sea. The entire Moses-Exodus story may not be a hoax, but the Bible is claimed to have exaggerations and this may be no different. There is a miracle article on it but it is not so complete.
Non-Existent Mosque in Jerusalem Needs an article or at least link to AI/FFI.
Few prose corrections left, like directly saying Muhammad wrote so-and-so verse.

We should soon have the review notice gone. Saggy (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2014 (PDT)

Ok. I'll work with you for this article (since its pretty important and high traffic). The above list wont probably get the review notice removed (we need to review the whole page for that) but at least it will improve the page.

You can make the edits for improvement directly (just dont add any new errors, those should be done on the temp page). --Axius (talk | contribs) 09:32, 20 July 2014 (PDT)

Half done. Now verify my sandbox for the earth/heavens. Saggy (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2014 (PDT)

Earth/Heavens - are these new or existing errors? --Axius (talk | contribs) 13:07, 20 July 2014 (PDT)

Existing in the Earth created before stars section. But detail is less. Saggy (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2014 (PDT)

Ok. --Axius (talk | contribs) 13:32, 20 July 2014 (PDT)

Can you add them to the main Error page and lets see how it looks. sandbox, error page --Axius (talk | contribs) 14:07, 20 July 2014 (PDT)

Also looking at this one [31]. Seems to be more of a historical error I think? For that another page could be made for historical errors. --Axius (talk | contribs) 15:31, 20 July 2014 (PDT)

earth/universe done. Changed to Pickthall translation. Yusuf ali writes like a metaphor and tries to hide a part of the error by avoiding the word "Then." I used all the wp links to ensure the info is correct. Or you need to cite? Saggy (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2014 (PDT)

Ok I'll check. Going to take some time. --Axius (talk | contribs) 15:51, 21 July 2014 (PDT)

I know four historical errors that are currently not added and the total becomes about 15. Not so much of a seperate article. Tales are somewhat historical and I see no reason for repeating them in new article. History is a Science anyway. Saggy (talk) 08:43, 22 July 2014 (PDT)

Have you searched Google to make sure these are the only historical errors? Nope, historical errors are not scientific errors. --Axius (talk | contribs) 10:00, 22 July 2014 (PDT)

Yes thats it. Though other sites list more errors like Abraham and Haman , they are assuming the Bible is 100% accurate and then saying its history got contradicted. We already have an article where Quran confirms Bible's message instead of calling it corrupted. So we will have a Quran-Bible comparison if its not there. Saggy (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2014 (PDT)

Yes the bible cant be used as a way to check what is accurate historically. We would use historians and other sources. Ok well lets see what happens. --Axius (talk | contribs) 14:31, 22 July 2014 (PDT)

To clarify historical/scientific: Historical error means that something did not happen in the past, or happened at the wrong time or some other wrong information which has to do with history (what happened and when). Scientific error has to do with science, not necessarily timing or historical information. I'm pretty sure there are more historical errors (true errors compared with historians). Anyway its going to take some time for me to check the changes. --Axius (talk | contribs) 14:45, 22 July 2014 (PDT)

You posted three msgs yesterday. Is'nt this enough of time to check one or two errors

Ok. Phew, I have checked that that now. I checked all the new additions and I think they are fine except for Inbreeding [32]. This theory is refuted by some people (see [33]) so it needs a response or some way to deal with it. --Axius (talk | contribs) 14:45, 23 July 2014 (PDT)

ICR Its claim of "the inbreeding inherent in the initially small populations need not have posed any problem" is right in some cases but two is too small a number. So it says that not every species must have been on Ark. The verse has each, all, or every [34]. then it claims that some species may have evolved only after the flood. Lets assume this happens, then such rapid evloution cant be from a unicellular into a mammal/bird/reptile, can it ? We have evidence of when each phylum of animals evolved. Saggy (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2014 (PDT)

Other google hits are not refutations. feasiblity study of the Ark: "Noah was engaged in modern breeding ... (p. 194). If hibernation was a desirable trait, Noah was able to breed strains of animals which were more likely to hibernate. He was able to acclimatize reptiles to the temperatures they would find on the ark ( p. 124) and breed a pair of Koalas who would accept dried Eucalyptus leaves." I strongly demand that in future we must have such a Noah doing this service to the ruined ecosystems. But none of it is true as of Biblical era. Bears and Marsupials appeared after the end of dinosaurs(65 mn years ago) and evolveed till last few mn years. Reptiles are older. The link itself calls such a story "ad hoc". Saggy (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2014 (PDT)

(reset) The text I removed is the only text that I'm talking about. The additional stuff you mentioned is most likely good (evolution of species, hibernation etc) and can be used for another article or error. For now lets only talk about the text that you saved on that page.

In the text I removed you said that humans would die out. We cant say that would definitely happen. The best and most we can say is "inbreeding" would not be healthy and would most likely result in health/genetic issues/disorders (etc). We know there is strong medical proof for that (Wikipedia's article has proof that is easy to see) and so I can agree with that addition. We cannot insert any statements or text on this errors page which can be challenged or refuted. --Axius (talk | contribs) 15:42, 24 July 2014 (PDT)

Lets see. What are you creating on scientists? Saggy (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2014 (PDT)

Someone who I've talked to before by email wanted to make a page on that so I got them started. Their username is Alfred Russell and he just registered it. --Axius (talk | contribs) 04:38, 25 July 2014 (PDT)

By the way the problem with the concept of Noah's ark as presented in Islam can have a page on its own. There we can quote the Quran and any hadith and talk about it (things you mentioned, evolution, species, inbreeding etc). Just like how we deal with evolution and Islam. --Axius (talk | contribs) 05:30, 25 July 2014 (PDT)

Hi guys, so far I missed reference to the fact Muhammad does away with the leap year 9:37. Arabs added a month every so many years to synchronize the sun and moon calendar. So Muhammad does not know more about the sky and earth than one picks up at local market places but understands even less of it. Because of this omission the Ramadan is every year 10 to 11 days earlier, and Muslims need one calendar for agriculture and one for Ramadan.

I read the link. So the old Arab calendar was replaced by a strict lunar calendar hence there is shortfall of 10 or 11 days from the 365-day year. Now can you clarify the error you found? Are you saying that a leap year situation should have been considered? And when, while creating this lunar calendar? Saggy (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2014 (PDT)

Hi, My point is that Muhammad does not understand what it is for, and now the Muslims have to use two calendars, one for Ramadan (the lunar calendar imposed by Muhammad) and one for agriculture ( the solar calendar). Quote from PDF:Calendars are basically of two types: lunar or non-lunar. Lunar calendars have months based on the cycle of the phases of the moon (the synodic month, ca. 29.53 days). Twelve lunar months will total an average of about 354 days and are thus roughly 11 days shorter than the true solar (tropical or sidereal) year of 365.2422 days. Most of the nations of the ancient world used lunisolar calendars, where the difference between the lunar and the solar year is compensated by periodically intercalating a thirteenth month. Non-lunar calendars are based on notional "months" with a fixed number of days and make no attempt to keep pace with the phases of the moon. Link: https://cmes.uchicago.edu/sites/cmes.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/Middle%20Eastern%20Calendars.pdf --PW. Jansen (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2014 (PDT)

Blank testimonies

At least people give their country details, age and religion. May be they dont want to reveal their story out of privacy concern. (the latest girls IP is correct but I dont know how this site works in Saudi arabia) Have you considered redirecting these cases to the list of apostates? I think its of some importance to keep record of the blanks. Saggy (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2014 (PDT)

I like that empty data too and in the past we used to keep that data in another table. Sahab said it shouldn't be there so we got rid of it. I forgot what reasoning he gave. Now if we do include it we can probably move the table to another page later on and for now we can keep it? What do you think. I can try to get the old data so its not a blank start. Lets see. --Axius (talk | contribs) 04:55, 27 July 2014 (PDT)

For now keep the names in a sandbox table. Saggy (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2014 (PDT)

Ohh we should find out the reason why he rejected it. It must be somewhere in the talk pages? Saggy (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2014 (PDT)

Ok. I'll try to to find it. --Axius (talk | contribs) 06:09, 27 July 2014 (PDT)

Whcih side is the new editor on? Saggy (talk) 06:16, 27 July 2014 (PDT)

Not sure. We can try Google translate later on and also use his talk page after that. --Axius (talk | contribs) 07:15, 27 July 2014 (PDT)

The reason was discussed off-wiki I think. It was probably "there's no information that can be gotten from that table and it doesnt tell the reader much". I restored the ones that were deleted. This doesnt include those which were received after Oct 2012 and now/ Those can be found but its not that important for me right now. Should be fine to just have that table for now.--Axius (talk | contribs) 08:01, 27 July 2014 (PDT)

Skeptics may reject it faster than the detailed testimonies. but A quick view helps the reader to learn about few trends. Saggy (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2014 (PDT)

Yea thats true. We can make a note at the top of that page that this list is just meant to give a quick review or for trends, etc. --Axius (talk | contribs) 20:02, 27 July 2014 (PDT)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘To Saggy: The reason why I was against those types of "testimonies" was because it takes zero amount of effort to fake, has little value for the purpose of Islam-criticism, and could result in the site getting egg on its face. I've caught a crapload of atheists submitting fake full testimonies and Axius has caught several Hindus doing the same. If submitting fake full testimonies is attractive to some, how much more would this be? A Muslim could do it easily if they wanted to, and that would end up putting all of our genuine testimonies in doubt (at least in the minds of Muslims who may be considering leaving). Personally, I don't think it's worth the risk. I haven't looked around the site much, but I think there may have been a few rule reversals since the few short months I have been gone. Considering all of the hard work and thought I have put behind everything, I think it is a complete shame, so I have no problem with answering any queries you may have. At least until I finish the attribution thing. --Sahab (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2014 (PDT)

The_Quran_and_Mountains

There are two pieces to add: Bible also claims mountains have roots. And one quote of the whale holding earth and shaking it, hence mountains were inserted. Sandbox again? Saggy (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (PDT)

In the past we have refrained from commenting on other books for the reason that it might make believers of other religions upset (this could include potential editors and viewers). However I've always felt that if we did include things like that, it would be an overall benefit from the perspective of someone who is thinking about leaving Islam. How about if we leave it out just to be safe? --Axius (talk | contribs) 14:06, 29 July 2014 (PDT)

I think only some (not all) Christians think the Bible has miracles. Here are the verses:

Job 28:9 : People assault the flinty rock with their hands and lay bare the roots of the mountains.

Psalm 18:7 : The earth trembled and quaked, and the foundations of the mountains shook; they trembled because he was angry.

Jonah 2:6 : To the roots of the mountains I sank down; the earth beneath barred me in forever. But you, LORD my God, brought my life up from the pit.

The point is that if there is anything miraculous (which is not the intent of the authors), the credit must go to the Bible. This is not adding up to a criticism of Bible, or is it? Saggy (talk) 07:44, 30 July 2014 (PDT)

Yea. I think this is the right thing to do. If its related to criticism of Islam it should be there. But these verses dont sound very clear. For example the Quran verses are clear and they say the mountains are there to prevent Earth from shaking [35]. If its a verse that only says the mountains have roots, it doesnt imply its going to prevent Earth from shaking. I see where you got them from, here [36]

"And one quote of the whale holding earth and shaking it, hence mountains were inserted." - which quote is that? --Axius (talk | contribs) 11:05, 30 July 2014 (PDT)

Not being hostile to any religion or world view and focusing only on Islam is an integral part of this site's identity, and one of several things that have led to the success of this site. It is linked to by Christians, Hindus, and to a lesser degree, atheists, LGBT and many other people-groups. I spent a lot of time cultivating this harmonious image through networking with sites like Answering Islam and engaging with atheists, the online gay community etc., so does anyone really want to endanger that? Criticizing the Bible/Christians/any religion would help people leave a totally different religion? What about the massive block of readers/fans who will no longer feel comfortable with recommending/linking the site? I have no authority over what is posted here now, but you are well aware that there is a reason for everything I have ever done on this site and every rule that I have implemented. I myself was a Christian for a few years after leaving Islam. Although agnostic now, I have nothing but positive experiences with Christians since leaving their religion. Do you think I would have wanted anything to do with this site if it was hostile to them or their beliefs? There is no other Islam-critical site on the net that has such a diverse readership. That is one of the reasons why. --Sahab (talk) 04:10, 31 July 2014 (PDT)

Still an on-going discussion and we know Quran borrows a lot from other books and sources so a light mention of that can be made without being too critical and that wont look hostile. Of relevance is the fact that 50% of all testimony submissions for this site are atheists/agnostics (and you're one of them now yourself) with Christians being 10% and that the fastest growing group in the USA and other places is non-religious and a 1/3rd of all adults in the US are non-religious. You can see the general direction that the world is going in with regards to religion plus if its relevant for criticism of Islam a passing mention can be made. Answering-Islam gives us just a few views a day. We get most of our hits from search engines. So all of this considered we'll see how it goes. As of yet I'm not seeing why the verses should be mentioned because they don't say what the Quran has said. There's other ways for example just linking to another site for more information. We'll see. --Axius (talk | contribs) 04:39, 31 July 2014 (PDT)

Yeah, I'm aware that this thread is on-going and did not mean to suggest otherwise. Western trends maybe, but that's probably not a worldwide thing or would not be valid if you analyzed non-western or white countries separately (Christianity is growing fast in Asia/Africa, and even Islam is growing fast in former Communist countries like China/Russia). It is a universal audience (not Euro/white-centric audience) that we are (or at least were) targeting. There may not be many views directly from Answering Islam, but I can guarantee that Christians and Hindus outnumber atheist readers by a long shot. Most of our critics (excluding Muslims) are atheist. Very rarely are we criticized by Christians or Hindus. BTW I'm not making judgments on Saggy's suggestion, just the general situation. This is supposed to be an Islam-critical site, not an Islam-critical atheist site. If that was the case, shouldn't theists be told as soon as they join? All over the FAQ and related pages, there is talk of how this is a non-partisan site. There has been a couple of times you have flip-floped over this issue when new editors have brought it up. I think there should be a decisive decision made so theists are not used and do not feel cheated.--Sahab (talk) 04:46, 31 July 2014 (PDT)

You mentioned testimonies, so I should also add that most of the fake testimonies we've spotted have been submitted by atheists. I remember I spotted 5 or six clearly written by the same person within the space of a few weeks. We discussed this off site and I think those testimonies were never removed. That was a few years ago, and for the past year or so I've given up pointing out fakes or caring about any fakes I see submitted. --Sahab (talk)

The intent is not to cheat anyone but to make a better decision for the site. As far as I can see there are no fake testimonies right now. Most fake ones that we've gotten are hinduism related. Nothing to discuss at this point because we dont even know what's going to be added so we'll have to wait.--Axius (talk | contribs) 05:38, 31 July 2014 (PDT)

Okay. --Sahab (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2014 (PDT)

Translations

They look most important to me now that there is not much to do in science. But i dont know any langs. Do you know any online translator which constructs proper sentences? google is not good for sentences longer than six or seven words.

Otherwise i think we should start average quality translations. Whoever reads them if he knows the language willdo the cleanup. Saggy (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2014 (PDT)

There's a lot to do in science like refuting existing Muslim responses, cleaning up the Science error article and getting rid of the header template. Nope there's no online translator that can do a good job like a human translator. What you say is a good idea and we could put a note on the top saying "This is a machine translation. Please help us complete it" but it might also not look good so I'm undecided. Probably best to wait for a human translator to come up. --Axius (talk | contribs) 16:41, 2 August 2014 (PDT)

Refuting existing Muslim responses? I search them and they write long articles but they dont refute anything. Most of it is embryology, sunset, universe and creation which we have done almost entirely. eg. [37] [38] [39] The second has probably something for QHS. Two articles of inheritance laws and sex of worker ant are yet to create. Tell if you have found any recent apologist. i will see the main errors article again.

"This is a machine translation. You can help WikiIslam by improving its prose (or its something else)" will be better. Or any apologist site will write refutations that blame the improper traslation? Then link it to the English one. Waiting for human translators will take too long, might be several years for a few languages. the quantity of French articles is just ok, Arabic, Indonesian, Bengali, Urdu and Turkish is very poor. Saggy (talk) 07:03, 3 August 2014 (PDT)

Ummm I dont know. I'll think about it. Give me a few days. --Axius (talk | contribs) 07:35, 3 August 2014 (PDT)

Just giving my 2 cents (take it or leave it, I'm not saying it with any kind of authority): I think machine translations are a very bad idea. They are way below average status. Some sentences are so incomprehensible they seem to say the opposite of what the original language said. Besides, the idea is a little redundant considering if someone wanted to read a machine translation, all they have to do is install a Chrome plugin (I have one on right now so the RU site displays in English). And of course there is Google Translate which everyone and their mother uses. The idea sounds silly and unprofessional to me (I'm not aware of any decent site that does this), and experience tells us that expecting others to do clean up is unrealistic. It just simply wouldn't happen. Even if some anonymous users did make a few changes here and there to clean it up, you'd have no idea what they're actually doing because chances are you wouldn't have a trusted user who could read that particular language. It could get real messy. It also leaves the RU site with its admin and editors more than a little redundant (if you're going to machine translate, why not translate all 2,700 articles into every language including Russian?). Yeah it will take a while but as that old Guinness ad says, "good things come to those who wait." The English material on this site took years to build up. In the process we deleted hundreds of articles. This may have put WikiIslam back a few years in regards to the amount of content it has, but it was worth it to keep standards high. The same could be said about translations in a few years. --Sahab (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2014 (PDT)

Redundancy is not good. But there's hardly any traffic from the EU countries (Esp. France and its French neighbors). They may not even know this site exists. Let us focus on such cases. Saggy (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2014 (PDT)

Traffic shouldn't be of concern to anyone when it comes to decisions concerning content. It's quality of material that matters. Traffic will always follow quality material. There is no emergency concerning traffic from EU countries that necessitates the need for WikiIslam to artificially attract views with material authored by Google Translate. --Sahab (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2014 (PDT)

Saggy, I'm going to go with what Sahab says. France is actually #8 for locations so there's good enough traffic from there. I dont even have a Translation plugin in Chrome and it still gives me prompts to translate when its a different language. --Axius (talk | contribs) 11:32, 3 August 2014 (PDT)

How to get the plugin? Saggy (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2014 (PDT)

I Dont have the plugin and it still gives the prompt. --Axius (talk | contribs) 14:59, 3 August 2014 (PDT)

Links to translations

Hi Ax. I noticed Le 72 vergini was not linked to its language hub page. I also did the "See Also" section in a certain way. If you look here, the first entry on a translation's "See Also" section is its corresponding hub page (this way non-English speaking readers can easily find all articles in their preferred language. After that we have the English links (mainly to encourage them to translate them for us). This is then followed by the languages template. But notice how the other language names must be in their language. For example the link to the Azerbaijani version should have been titled "azero" (meaning "Azerbaijani" in Italian). Otherwise it would be odd. An Italian speaker who also speaks Azerbaijani but does not understand English, may miss it. When I was active, adding that stuff at the end was like second nature to me, but maybe you should add some sort of additional guide for translator/editors concerning this? Or you could do it differently if you want. --Sahab (talk) 12:01, 2 August 2014 (PDT)

Yea I agree. I didnt do a complete job of finalizing it. Thanks for correcting that. Its up to you if you want to add that additional guide. We can ask them to translate anything like this in their language and make the links from there ourselves when finalzing:

A version of this page is also available in the following languages: Azerbaijani, Czech, German, Turkish, Italian. For additional languages, see the sidebar on the left.

Something like that? --Axius (talk | contribs) 16:37, 2 August 2014 (PDT)

Re: Scientific Errors

The quickest task I spotted is an external link for the non-existent mosque in Jerusalem (Will propose its own article later). Tell me which link to add, or more than one link. Saggy (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2014 (PDT)

Not sure what you mean to say. Can you add it to your Sandbox and then show it? --Axius (talk | contribs) 13:36, 4 August 2014 (PDT)

More obvious errors are [40] Both are supported by Tafsirs. yusuf ali and his commentary twisted them. Saggy (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2014 (PDT)

Is it an existing or new error? --Axius (talk | contribs) 13:36, 4 August 2014 (PDT)

They are new. but the Fruits in pairs error is partly like existing error "All living things are made in pairs." Shadows prostrate is similar to existing error "The cause of shadows." I added the Jerusalem mosque under existing errors in my sandbox. Saggy (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2014 (PDT)

For fruits, [41] which I found after some research some flowers are male and female. A forum post [42]. The rebuttal could be that some fruits come flowers and some of them are male/female. Any response to that? This article has a long way to go before being finalized. If there's partial truth to what was said then its not a strong error. My opinion is that things like this were plagiarized from other sources/books (like semen origination stuff). So it can be an issue but we have to think about it thoroughly before adding it there. Its still nice to have it on the record for further study so thats good that you saw it. --Axius (talk | contribs) 18:46, 6 August 2014 (PDT)

I saw both links. good to know. but the verse has erred with the word "all/every". See all of them-[43] 3 Major translators seem to say that fruits are male and female. Some less reliable translators agree (They are obviously wrong) and rest of translators claim that this male or female emerges from fruits. but different plants are a combination of many sexes in the WP link you gave. See this It also explains that a specific pair is not possible, much less a pair for all plants. i l l use both links and possibly more later. Saggy (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2014 (PDT)

Ok. I guess this is a new error then. Could you keep this one in your Sandbox for now since we're not adding any new errors to that page. You can add supporting links like the one you added from Answering-Islam. Any supporting evidence of any of these errors is good. Give me some time to look at the others. --Axius (talk | contribs) 20:17, 8 August 2014 (PDT)

I will finalise it in sandbox. ~~also I am making changes in QHS template. Its last section is looking too broad.~~ Saggy (talk) 08:27, 10 August 2014 (PDT)

I completed it. Other new errors require less comments than this, so they are also complete. Saggy (talk) 11:29, 13 August 2014 (PDT)

First I want to say that I want you contributing on the site and you're a valued member in spite of the difficulties in reviewing your edits. Anyone who wants to improve this site should have the opportunity to do so and considering the low amount of active editors we have, even the few we get are valued even more. Second, I have just become even busier than before so I am forced to go into a very minimum maintenance mode especially for your edits and even others (if we get any from other users who may be new and they need reviews). I am not able to review any edits of any user as of now unless they are simply QHS quotes or other simple things like that (insertions into Statistics for example). I am currently not able to review any Quran error edits unless they are existing errors and even those I will need a lot of time to review (months, or even more - I'm not sure). Just work in your sandbox where you have to freedom to do what you want. Any of your edits which require any kind of checking would need to be done in the Sandbox for now. You should put more work into Quran errors and do more research on them. For example the link I added from Answering-Islam for the female/male fruit errors; things like that should be present when available and it took me a few seconds of Google searching to find that link. Sorry but this is the max I can do. For now I simply do not have time to do any difficult tasks on the site (but I may do some stuff when I want to). But keep doing your stuff, keep scanning, bringing in stuff, making new errors in your Sandbox. All those things will get incorporated one day. If you like source scanning I have a lot of sources to share (email on the site contact email and I will send you those). Source scanning is stuff that can be quoted (hadiths, scholars etc). You can also review existing Quran errors (not in main space, only in your own pages). Maybe some day we'll get some editors who can help in reviews more than I can. --Axius (talk | contribs) 19:09, 13 August 2014 (PDT)

Just letting you know

Hi Ax. Just letting you know that today I'm gonna finish cleaning up my user pages, see if there is anything else to add to the "Meet the Editors" page (or any others, for that matter) and then I will probably only be back very briefly every month or so just to say hi and help out here and there (I will definitely be back to fix that Indonesian image page that has been brought to my attention, so don't worry yourself with that). What we have both built up here over the years is amazing and something we should be real proud of. I really do worry though about our established articles degrading over time. Edits that improve articles are obviously great but edits just for the sake of new edits are not. My only hope is that you look at the articles (their quality, layout and general thesis) and keep/revert edits based solely on their worth to those articles as a whole, disregarding potentially hurt feelings even if you feel this will impact community harmony negatively. I'm sure I haven't been the most popular admin over the years because of the fact that I keep/revert edits strictly on this principle, but I think it was necessary for the integrity of this wiki and I don't regret it (let's be honest; even if this site was closed to further edits and only viewable as an archive, it would still be the best site about Islam on the net). The same with ideas concerning changes to the site. When you know an idea is bad or not suited to the site you should be very clear about your thoughts. I know you do this already and I'm not trying to say otherwise, but I also know that I'm much more willing to just lay it all out there. Well, that's my 2 cents for the day :D I will send you a new email address later in case you want to discuss anything with me in private or need to contact me in an emergency. --Sahab (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2014 (PDT)

Ah sad, I was hoping you would have changed your mind and stayed but its ok. So I guess it was true.

My only hope is that you look at the articles (their quality, layout and general thesis) and keep/revert edits based solely on their worth to those articles as a whole, disregarding potentially hurt feelings even if you feel this will impact community harmony negatively.

I'll try my best and I'll try to be more strict. I'll figure out more ways to keep bad edits out of the main space while still allowing people to edit like in their Sandboxes. Yea let me know that email later. --Axius (talk | contribs) 15:13, 11 August 2014 (PDT)

Hi Ax :) Since I was asked for some input on that other page I thought I'd look through the recent user creation logs to see what new editors have been doing and it was a bit shocking. I'm just making you aware that some odd stuff had been approved on the mainspace :( So far it's some obvious Muslim trolling that I reverted and an edit to that Qur'an only page that completely messed up the conclusion (made no logical sense at all so I reverted and left a message on the user's page). You can read my reasoning here and see if you agree with it. --Sahab (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2014 (PDT)

Oh, yea I see this edit [44] about the chess. I thought he was adding extra information but I wasnt paying attention. I should have checked the hadith. Oops. Thanks for fixing that other edit too. I guess my reviews need reviews. I'll try to be more careful. --Axius (talk | contribs) 10:08, 16 August 2014 (PDT)

You're welcome :) --Sahab (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2014 (PDT)

A few remarks

Hi Axius,

Thanks for your reply. About your question:

"For your edit here, there's probably some others on that page that could also quality for what Allah thinks e.g.:

For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe.

So I guess the other 'Allah' ones could be moved to the new section or, have all of them in one big section like we had before. Not sure which one is the best. --Axius (talk | contribs) 19:03, 18 August 2014 (PDT)"

I have come across this before and my solution was create two or more sections and mark the ones mentioned before. This to get them grouped properly, and avoid the accusation of repeating the (usually insulting) verse several times. So add a header saying e.g. "The quotes marked with an asterisk are mentioned before".

Another point: don't you think "Jizyah" on the page http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars needs to be explained on the very page? E.g. Jizyah (extortion) The same with "Hijab" or other dress code.

Sounds like a good idea. We can repeat verses in various categories but mention that some are being repeated. I have always been in favor of repeating verses/hadiths as needed for better organization (they can qualify for multiple situations). The only challenge is to adjust the other QHS pages (there's 80 of them) for this as well but that could be done later after we see how the new version looks for this page.

Do you mean including a short explanation on the main QHS page? [45] Yea, sure that sounds like a good idea and in that same explanation we can also link a hub page for that topic and/or its main article. --Axius (talk | contribs) 05:46, 20 August 2014 (PDT)

Hi Ax,

I will work on the change on non-Muslims and Allah page (Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Characteristics of Non-Muslims). It is indeed a hell of a job to do this for the hell and heaven pages too. Perhaps bigger categories "food", "clothing", "sexual pleasures", and even sadistic ones: 6:30, 8:50, 42:22, 83:35-36. You haven't replied yet to my suggestion on the page http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars My suggestion here is "Dress Code (Hijab)" and Extortion (Jizyah) instead of Islamic terms straight away. Also I missed a category Ransom Qur'an 47:4 and 8:67-69. Shall I add this to the page: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars ?

I am a bit puzzled about the use of 74:31 in the context of "Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Characteristics of Non-Muslims" category "have a disease in their heart"
"And We have set none but angels as Guardians of the Fire; and We have fixed their number only as a trial for Unbelievers,- in order that the People of the Book may arrive at certainty, and the Believers may increase in Faith,- and that no doubts may be left for the People of the Book and the Believers, and that those in whose hearts is a disease and the Unbelievers may say, "What symbol doth Allah intend by this ?" Thus doth Allah leave to stray whom He pleaseth, and guide whom He pleaseth: and none can know the forces of thy Lord, except He and this is no other than a warning to mankind. "
As the association is made, but not explicitly stated that the Unbelievers have etc, etc.. Shall I add this or not?

Zakat is another problem: Some translate this a religious tax, in which case it goes to a tax collector, and others translate this as (compulsory) alms, in which case you decide who to give it to. The Zakat page needs some explanation on this. Certainly when it is tax. Since the Qur'an does not say how this tax is spent. I don't know what is practice. --PW. Jansen (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2014 (PDT)

IMO you are approaching a lot of this in the wrong way.

The QHS pages are specialized pages that consist of categorized quoted sources that can be used by others as references in whatever way they want. There is no need to provide detailed explanations about each subject because someone who had no idea what zakat was, would not be reading its QHS page in the first place. Instead, they would be reading its corresponding article page (i.e. Zakat (Tax)).

At most, there should be a 1 sentence description that links to its hub page/article page (e.g. "This page is a collection of quotations concerning Zakat.", similarly to this page). But I honestly don't even see the need for this because the hub page is already linked on the "see Also" section.

Concerning the "Dress Code (Hijab)" and "Extortion (Jizyah)" suggestions, I would say no for several reason. If you think we would name a page on Jizyah, "Extortion", then you clearly do not understand what WikiIslam is about. Then there's the fact that "Hijab" does not refer to dress code alone, so your title is inaccurate. Islamic terms are often not completely analogous to the English-language concepts they are mostly associated with. So your suggestion would cause more trouble than I think it's worth. Also, on an international wiki about Islam, why would we not use the Islamic term first in the title?

Finally, concerning your query about the definition of zakat; we go by what the primary sources (e.g. the Qur'an, Hadith, etc.) tell us. The zakat was a compulsory tax under Prophet Muhammad, the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, the later Caliphate, and even some some theocracies today, so it is a tax, pure and simple. Just because there is no global caliphate to enforce the tax on every Muslim, does not change this. --Sahab (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2014 (PDT)

Thanks for explaining that Sahab, but I wonder if this is user friendly (for non-Muslims that is). And there were a few more questions I put in this section also in your field of expertise. Can you reply to those too? --PW. Jansen (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2014 (PDT)

User friendliness is not the only issue here. Of course we try to be as user friendly as we can, but there are many other factors to consider. One of those is accuracy. In fact that is a lot more important than user friendliness. So if only using Islamic terms is the most accurate thing to do, then that is what we do (and even if an analogous English word was found, could you imagine how silly a wiki about Christianity or Buddhism would look if Islamic terms were given precedence over Christian/Buddhist terms to make it easier for non-Christians/Buddhists to understand? It would be ridiculous). Then there is staying on topic and avoiding redundancy. A QHS page for those looking for in-depth references and quotes should remain a QHS page with in-depth references and quotes. And encyclopaedic entries explaining the subjects of QHS pages should remain encyclopaedic entries. Since someone who doesn't understand what zakat is wouldn't be concerned with the QHS page to begin with, the important thing is to provide a link between the two (which we already do via hub pages that can be found in their "see Also" sections).

Concerning the other questions, I can only see one that I missed, and that was the question about Qur'an 74:31. I think that would be okay to include because (when read in conjunction with Qur'an 2:9-10 which is already quoted) it is obviously saying that unbelief/doubt are a disease of the heart. --Sahab (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2014 (PDT)

Hi Sahab, Thanks for your reply, I will put it in. The other question you missed was about ransom e.g. 8:68 (Had it not been for a previous ordainment from Allah, a severe penalty would have reached you for the (ransom) that ye took. ), and 47:4 (Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.) I did expect a page / chapter about it.--PW. Jansen (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2014 (PDT)

Hi Jansen. Two verses alone are not enough to create a QHS page. When a new page is created, ideally it should cover the subject as it is found in the Qur'an, major hadiths, sira, tafsir, fiqh and fatwas from major scholars. You can work on something like that in a sandbox (e.g. WikiIslam:Sandbox/Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Ransom). If text of each kind is not found, it is okay, but the final page must still be a decent enough length to justify its own page. If not, then the few quotes can be listed at Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Miscellaneous (the subjects in this page are arranged alphabetically).

But even before doing all of that, you must consider if it is appropriate for this site and series. What exactly is the reason/benefit to be gained from having a page on ransom? There is a reason for each and every one of the QHS scholars pages. This is after all a wiki critical of Islam, so they all in some way or the other help towards that. What exactly is your point for the addition? --Sahab (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2014 (PDT)

Hi Sahab, I have read the Qur'an and found too much emphasis on hate, greed (masked as religious tax, support, spoils of war etc..) violence and virtually nothing on detachment, compassion, spirituality etc. . So putting it in is essential. I found greed of Muhammad is the main thing that is coherently present throughout the Qur'an. I did put it in the sandbox you referred to. Decide yourself where to put it in the end. --PW. Jansen (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2014 (PDT)

Those sound like emotional reasons, so those alone aren't reason enough to justify a page such as that. As I noted earlier, two quotes are not enough for a stand-alone page, but feel free to add the contents of WikiIslam:Sandbox/Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Ransom to Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Miscellaneous (placing the Heading "Ransom" in its correct alphabetically order). --Sahab (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2014 (PDT)

Suggestion to make things easier for editors

Hi Ax! I've finally sorted that image thing (it was really bugging me actually, I don't like leaving things half done, especially when it's something concerning accuracy). Anyways, have you thought of creating a page for editors called (something like), "WikiIslam:Arguments Not To Use"?

It would save you and the editors a lot of headache/wasted time in the future. It would also function as a permanent "reminder" of why a certain thing is wrong/bad (since there may not always be an editor available who would notice these things). It is a bit silly to have these issues constantly brought up and discussed anew when only the same thing is repeated (that's not to say new arguments/perspectives are not welcome).

For example, trying to call everything related to lying, "Taqiyya"[46] or claiming that Allah prays to Muhammad.[47]. It was the Taqiyya issue that gave a bad impression to Hassan Radwan and others on COEMB. He thinks we're a pretty good site now, which is great considering all the quotes included in that old (and pretty terrible) Taqiyya article are actually in the new (greatly expanded) "Lying and Deception" article I wrote. If I remember correctly, that "Pray to Muhammad" argument was also previously removed by you actually. OsmanHassan tried to add it.

Also a quick note about accepting spelling/grammer corrections made by editors; you should take care to check whether or not the spelling/grammer error is ours or the person/material we are quoting. If it is the latter[48], then we should not be altering it. --Sahab (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2014 (PDT)

Agreed, I think there was a language problem about the Praying/blessing, thanks for explaining it to PW Jansen.

Yea that sounds good. Anything to help out editors know whats good and bad. There can be a see-also link to the Tone/Style article.

Yea I made a mistake and didnt notice it was in the quotebox. Good idea by the way to add "What people say" to the left. That definitely should be linked on every page now. --Axius (talk | contribs) 12:29, 21 August 2014 (PDT)

Ax, with Jansen and the forum conversation in mind, I have to say that I find it very disconcerting that there are editors who do not grasp our general approach and style, or simple concepts such as hijab, zakat or the fact that taqiyya is a single aspect of lying, not the entire subject of lying itself. Even with all the ups and downs, we are friends and I don't want to leave you in the lurch, so I have no problems with correcting things when I am here. But very soon I will be writing elsewhere and will have little free time, so I really will only be able to pop in once or twice a month. It worries me that some of the suggestions made by editors may have been followed through if I was not here to point out why they were wrong. Even Jansen's additions to to that Characteristics page were in the completely wrong page (times that a few times over and you are left with a QHS series that is a disorganized and illogical mess). I really don't know what to suggest except you being more involved and pointing out these errors when they make them, and I think you should start asking new contributors to at least read the Core Principles page when they first arrive. Before then, their input seems like a waste. I will make that "WikiIslam:Arguments Not To Use" page when I can because I think that will be very useful to the site, but do you have any other ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahab (talk • contribs) (Remember to sign your comments)

Since I'm unable to review the stuff (not having the time or the ideal capability; time being the bigger problem), the only way I know of dealing with this is to lock down the site for editing, create a page for "Apply to become an editor" where we can put all kinds of stuff we want to. We can tell people why we have locked down the site and where they are asked to explain why they should be allowed to edit and so on and send us a sample article, answer some questions that we ask for them (like a test) etc. Test questions like "What is Taqiyaa and what mistakes do critics of Islam sometimes make for this term?", "Rate yourself from 1 to 10 on English language skills", "Work on any 'Under construction' article we have and send us the fixes so we can evaluate your quality of work." etc. Any kind of stuff that makes it so its only people who really want to edit, and have proven they do not need reviews or a lot of 'education' and can make a positive contributions. Its sad but we simply dont have the time, neither of us and no one else is available. So tThat should reduce the number of people trying to edit. Locking the editing down could be a big loss in terms of potential editors and translators but that's all I can think of.

By the way the page on Mamta Kulkarni is now in the top 10 traffic wise. I find it funny but I guess thats a pretty popular thing people search for (Sunita Williams is also popular, even more actually). --Axius (talk | contribs) 16:55, 22 August 2014 (PDT)

Lol, I actually forgot to sign my name. Oops. I'm usually a stickler for such things. Sorry. Anyways, news on that Mamta Kulkarni page is a pleasant surprise. Wow. I'm guessing we must get a lot of views from India/Pakistan/Bangladesh? Good news indeed. About locking down the wiki and getting people to apply; I know that is something you wouldn't want by choice. So that is sad to hear. I think we should keep our thinking caps on in the time-being, but I dunno. Maybe if you did get a few decent applications, it wouldn't be so bad? All you would need is a few reliable, regular editors who understand what this place is about and you'd be set. From there, you possibly go back to open editing because your reliable, regular editors would hopefully catch any mistakes. Your actual idea concerning the questions/tasks are good. I'm sure with a little bit of thought, we could come up with something that would provide you with a very good idea of what quality of editing to expect. --Sahab (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2014 (PDT)

Yea, its very popular, it might even become a top 5 like Sunita Williams.

The Meet The editors page should play a big role in making people want to join the site (that's my guess because it helps them make a connection with us). I feel if we do lock the site its at a time when we may be attracting more people who want to help or are interested. Locking it down will therefore effect that goal. Another option is to simply ask people not to edit main space until they have received the 'Reviewer' flag. It also looks like that if someone cant get the flag in their first 50 edits, they will likely never get it since good judgement seems to be an built-in ability, not something that can be improved or changed a lot. Its there or its not so people's first few edits can tell us a lot about their ability for a logical/rational approach, ability for critical thinking, attention to detail and so on.

So for changes they need to use the talk page first. On the other hand thats whats the Reviewer tag is since it needs a review. I'm inclined to keep it open and ask people to use Talk pages first. I dont know how it will help though because I'm the only one now who will have review and I too dont have much time for that.

OR keep editing open and only disallow editors from main space when they have shown consistently that they are unable to make good judgements for a lot of their edits and when its becoming too much work to review them. I think that sounds good. Its just that I need to be there to check all that. Ahhhh. Anyway lets see how it goes.

I feel this page you made [49] is going to be hard to complete because of the so many things that can be put on it, but, I think its more useful in giving examples on what kinds of things, or thinking or attitudes to stay away from so thats pretty good. --Axius (talk | contribs) 17:50, 24 August 2014 (PDT)

Cool. Okay, I wish you all the best with whatever you decide. I'll work on that page over the next few days. --Sahab (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2014 (PDT)

Wow

How tragic was your last revert. Even a Quran source you had difficulty to see. Let us see how long the articles recently promised by other editors will take to form. and See also what to do with the QHS edit. Saggy (talk) 12:52, 21 August 2014 (PDT)

I understand your sadness but I'm sorry there is no one available to review the edits of a regular editor who has problems with the majority of their edits (as Sahab pointed out here saying "I'll admit I usually think you edits should be removed. But that is because they are usually terrible." and I agreed with it). We have to maintain quality (this is high priority) and there is simply not enough time to review your edits. I had suggested you can work in your user space sandboxes (where you have full freedom to write and organize your content) and one day someone will come by to review and incorporate your edits into the main space.

Another solution is for you to talk to someone who is willing to review your edits.

Also search for your talk page for this text "not a reference" where Sahab asks you to fix the reference for that quote. --Axius (talk | contribs) 13:21, 21 August 2014 (PDT)

Zakat / Charity

Sorry to have causes such a stir with my changes. I will stick to adding some to the QHS pages on Qur'an input. I need some input on this. Most translations do not use the word zakat. From one that does I got the following verses referring to them:2:43, 2:83, 2:110, 2:277, 4:77, 4:162, 5:12, 5:55, 7:156, 9:5, 9:11, 9:18, 9:71, 19:31, 19:55, 21:73, 22:41, 22:78, 23:4, 24:56, 27:3, 30:39, 31:4, 33:33, 41:7, 58:13, 73:20, 98:5. Most are not on the Zakat page yet. The translation WikiIslam uses Abdullah Yusuf Ali translates this with regular charity. So I think this needs a word from an editor to explain, but I leave that to someone else. But there are many more requests for money from the believers. Which Yusuf Ali translates with Charity (33:35) or offering for sacrifice (2:196) Those who spend their substance in the cause of Allah (2:262) Do they need to be included with some other header, or just avoid them for the time being? --PW. Jansen (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2014 (PDT)

Can you give some verses where you think Zakat was not mentioned in the verse but the verse was mentioned in the QHS page?

"Zakat" (compulsory ordered by Islam) is an arabic word and so is "Sadaqah" (voluntary) [see this link talking about the difference] both of which you'll find in the verses. When you see the word 'Charity', thats the translation.

So do you mean that some of the verses in the QHS zakat page actually talk about Sadqah and not Zakat?

Thanks for the addition here. --Axius (talk | contribs) 17:36, 24 August 2014 (PDT)

To Axius: Jansen is not saying there are verses on our page that do not mention zakat. He is saying there are many more verses that mention it but are not covered in our QHS page. And also that translators do not usually use the Arabic word, zakat.

To Jansen: You have to understand that these pages are not meant to include every single quote that is available on the subjects. As I mentioned earlier, they are all there for specific reasons, and they are there with the intention of aiding others in Islam criticism. This zakat page is mainly there to emphasize that zakat is only for Muslims, and especially the terrorist/jihadi kind. So just filling up that page with lots and lots of quotes from the Qur'an that does not advance Islam criticism would not be helpful. Of course you are welcome to list and quote verses that you think are helpful in a personal sandbox page (e.g. User:PW. Jansen/Sandbox 1) and then other editors/admin can take a look at it. --Sahab (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2014 (PDT)

Indeed I mean the confusion caused by translators not using the word Zakat. One gets compulsory alms (Rodwell) or regular charity here. Looking at the QHS page on this I find the following verses should not be listed here: 2:219 2:254 2:262 2:270 2:272 2:273 The word used in my translation is contribution not zakat. Also the verses 9:60 (love gifts), 17:26 (gifts to relative etc.) and 28:86 (as "support" here is not clearly financial).

To Sahab, I get your point. But it is important to understand the atmosphere reading the Qur'an creates. The number of times that some kind of financial contribution is asked/demanded (many) compared to the number of time a really charitable purpose is mentioned (a few times) shows the emphasis of Muhammad. Good idea to put that in my sandbox. --PW. Jansen (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2014 (PDT)

So... I'm looking at the first one 2:219 [50].

Some Muslim websites talk about this verse when talking about Zakat and Sadaqah (charity) e.g. I searched quran zakat 2:219. Would it be possible to work on a Sandbox like Sahab said and make your own version of the QHS page (start adding some verses and let us know so we can take a look). You can click here to make that page: User:PW. Jansen/Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Zakat.

Maybe Sadqah /charity related verses can be moved to one section at the end of the Zakat page or make a page for Sadqah itself. See whatever looks good for criticism of Islam. Any additional thoughts Sahab? --Axius (talk | contribs) 13:18, 25 August 2014 (PDT)

Jansen, I still do not think you have grasped what these pages are about. Pointing out the fact that Allah (aka Prophet Muhammad) asked often for money, and rarely for good causes, is something that belongs in an essay or article, not in a QHS page. The issue concerning the word zakat or contribution is easily sorted through adding an introductory line explaining that this page covers both zakat and sadaqah (sometimes referred to as voluntary zakat, and as Axius pointed out, even if the word zakat is not explicitly used, Muslims do associate these verses with it). Concerning 28:86, I would say it is very clear, since it says "in any way". That would apply to physical and financial support. If it did not, then there would be no need to use the qualifier.

What's interesting about this is that it provides another example of where the Islamic terms are not completely analogous with English ones. In Islamic terms, zakat is both a tax and a charity, and they see no problem with discussing it as both, along with actual charity (i.e. sadaqah). But by its English definition, it is strictly a tax. For example, consider tax in the UK. It is taken by the country from people who work and then in part distributed to those who don't work and are in need. This tax functions exactly as zakat does. However, the British do not go around calling it "charity" and the media don't make silly news stories about how Britons are the "most generous" people-group. --Sahab (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2014 (PDT)

Ax, due to the recent conversations, I have completely rewritten the Zakat (Tax) stub into a full length page so others can properly understand what zakat is and what it is not. What do you think? This will probably be my last mainspace article for the site before my commitments elsewhere will rob me of all my spare "online time". Rewriting/expanding that page was actually one of our "to-dos" on the Tasks page. I've removed a lot of the tasks from there now because a lot of them were already completed by me or were no longer relevant. I'm sure there's more on there that can be removed, but I probably got most of them. Anyways, that page can be seen as a "parting gift". I hope you like it :) Of course, I'll still work on that "WikiIslam:Arguments Not To Use" page like I promised (but that's not a mainspace page anyhow. --Sahab (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2014 (PDT)

Lol. off-topic but Ax, this is hilarious. Some anon just vandalized the "Muhammad Drank and Performed Ablution with Wine" page with vitriol aimed at me ("Do your homework Sahab before you post anything online"). So what are the chances that this idiot is picking on a page I did not contribute to in any significant way (it's not even link on my List of Works)? Classic unintended humor :D --Sahab (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2014 (PDT)

Yea thats funny how he addressed you specifically. Nice to get some more recognition.

Zakat page looks good, thanks for that.

I didnt see all the tasks removed but Raisins or Virgins old revision would be a nice page to be linked into externally. Its already shown in the "responses" section but it could be expanded and given its own page because that Pseudonym guy who started the Raisins thing has done a lot of damage. So... Anyway. One of the tasks was correctly removed though but I didnt check anything else. I'd like to restore any that are possible pages, maybe out them into an "Evaluation" section there. --Axius (talk | contribs) 12:26, 26 August 2014 (PDT)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Okay, I've added those tasks to an Evaluation section as you suggested. Keep or remove as you see fit. I'll just briefly explain my reasons:

1. Deleted article. It was a silly mainspace article by OsmanHassan before I added the humor tag and eventually deleted it because of overwhelming inaccurate and misleading content, even for a humorous page. I suppose the task could be continued on the page, "Positive Teachings in Islam".

2. Already completed the task.

3. Doesn't make sense. It is referring to the same article.

4. Already completed the task.

5. Deleted article. It was an extremely poor article and the subject is of no major importance.

6. Already completed the task.

7. Deleted article. My summary for deletion was, "unfinished. controversial topic using obscure sources & some claims (i.e. egypt) have been refuted. needs lot of work before it's in mainspace". Frankly, recreating this page would only result in doubt being cast on the site's other material.

8. Deleted article (deleted by you, in fact).

9. Already completed the task.

10. Not really needed, important or suitable. If people want to read quotes of Ali Sina or Robert Spencer, they could just go to FFI or JW/

11. Article would give people the wrong impression of this site and provide them with ammunition to mock it. See [51], [52], [53], [54]

12. Not really inportant, has already been covered in "Sahih", and Sani probably will not return to start it.

13. I think the section on the main 72 page is sufficient, but that's a matter of opinion

14. The whole "How Islamic Inventors Did Not Change The World" is about the same issue and covers all the most important ones. I don't see a need for another one, but again, I suppose that's a matter of opinion. --Sahab (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2014 (PDT)