WikiIslam:Discussions/Visitor Inquiries

From WikiIslam, the online resource on Islam
Jump to: navigation, search
Discussions
Editor DiscussionsTranslation Project
Visitor InquiriesArchive

Recent Changes to Discussions


Crystal Clear action edit add.png Add Topic | Create Account

This page is for inquiries from visitors concerning the wiki itself, not for general questions about Islam. All new discussion topics should be created at the bottom of the page, below all previous discussions, and all messages should comply with talk page guidelines.

Donations[edit]

Terrific job guys -- keep up the good work. Do you have a donate button? Haqir

Welcome Haqir and thanks! Yes we do. You can find it here --Admin3 00:12, 26 October 2011 (PDT)

Link[edit]

Can someone give this link a good home? Islam-Watch.org:sexual-slavery-and-concubinage-in-islam

Done. --Axius 08:50, 28 November 2009 (PST)

Help[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_of_Terrorism_in_Islam

Some muslims i think are trying to Delete this article. because it shows what islam really teaches

Please help me.

go here, which is a the place to discuss wether the article should be deleted or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Justification_of_Terrorism_in_Islam

and write keep in the discussion. So it doesnt get deleted.

Also pelase dont act islamphobic over there. Because you know wikipedia sucks up to Islam/ and if you cant islamaphobic it will be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.223.124 (talkcontribs) (Remember to sign your comments)

There's no such thing as Islamophobia, but I know what you mean. The problem is that there are active dawa teams over on WikiPedia - at least two that I know of; the Sunni side and the Shia side. Their main purpose is to keep the wiki articles over there presenting Islam in the best possible light. Of course the minor goal of each team is to present themselves as the "right sect" and the others as "wrong"; so at any given time, depending on who edited last (Sunni/Shia) then the Sunni's are the minority who are going to burn in hell, or vice versa. So I understand the problem you are having; and that is the REASON why WikiIslamn was created in the first place, due to frustration of editors because legitimate content would keep getting removed because of these teams and also the dhimmi ignoramuses.
But hey, thanks for calling us "islamophobes" - really appreciated (NOT). Sanitarium 20:27, 14 November 2009 (PST)

Question about Koran Translations online[edit]

I hope this is the right place to pose a question.

I have decided to devote some time every day to reading the koran hadith et all.

1 I have read here that many translations have been whitewashed. Is there an accurate translation online I can access?

2 I have found a site that seems good (it is by and for muslims and has mulitple translations by Ahmed Raza Khan (Mohammed Aqib Qadri), Yusuf Ali and Pickthal. These translations of each line are presented side by side. There is another site with a translation by H M Shakir

But before I devote time to reading from these sites-

a) It is said that the Koran is arranged in "order" from largest chapter to shortest. But on the site I found that isn't a smooth shift from most verses to least verses. This is what I mean: Chap 5 120 verses chap 6 165 verses chap 7 206 verses chap 8 75 verses chap 9 129 verses chap 10 109 verses

And so on. What I Really need to know is- Are there verses being intenionally left out in these translations? Or is it amount of words per chapter only, not number of verses that determines the length?

This page is for issues about anything on WikiIslam, not general Islam stuff. This is the right place ,the FFI forum -> [1]. --Axius 15:46, 11 January 2011 (PST)

IRC?[edit]

Have you considered opening a chat room like #wikiislam on irc.freenode.net where dialogue can occur between skeptics and Muslims in chat? --Sonja 20:59, 28 January 2011 (PST)

That would be nice but there's only a few of us regular editors here and we dont have the time to chat or moderate chat. People are asked to go to forums on other websites. --Axius 21:05, 28 January 2011 (PST)

Jannah[edit]

I can't seem to find an article specifically on paradise - there's one for Jahannam but not for Jannah. I know the site's purpose is to criticize Islam but I think a pretty good case can be made against the Islamic heaven (sex slavery, no broadband etc.). I'm not a scholar of Islam so I'm reluctant to start one myself. -Orange124 10:39, 2 June 2011 (PDT)

Yeah, ATM we do have some articles related to heaven (72 virgins etc.) and a lot of primary sources (here) but we have no main/general article discussing everything. I'll add it to our to-do list. Thanks! --Admin3 10:42, 2 June 2011 (PDT)

Any interest in project to categorize the koran verses for sql database?[edit]

i've described it at FFI forum post & currently just getting started

http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=10270

one approach would be for me to post an article with all the koran verses & initial category assignments (or something i'm new at this wiki stuff) and let people edit the verses to assign categories, then download the article & use as new data for the sql queries

defining the categories & assigning them to the verses is a very open ended task and can be done ranging from simple (a flat category structure & maybe a dozen categories) to complex (a 10 level category tree with 100s of categories)

for me the appeal is having functionality to query the verses based on categories, like - show all verses with categories = violence against unbelievers, show all verses with categories = theology and legal (or however the lack of seperation church/state is represented in the cats)

just having a list of verses & categories is nice but not sure how useful this list is unless can query or show them somehow. example website with verses categorized is the skeptics etc http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/Quran/

thanks

Hi Ecks, thanks for your reply to my message on the FFI forum about that post you linked. The main problem is that there arent many editors on this site, its just me and Gabe right now and we dont have any time to work on this, so you'll have to do everything yourself but we can guide you. On the wiki you can make pages and links and tables and so on. There arent any database functions. 6000 verses means it will be a huge project for one person
I saw the site you linked in your reply [2], the graphs look good.
We can teach how to make Wiki pages and edit here, and answer your questions, but basically you're on your own and you'll have to judge if what you want to do can be wholelly or partially achieved on this site. You can tell us what features you need and we can tell what is possible here and you can see if it will meet your needs. This wiki atmosphere is text based: links between pages, images, tables (sortable) etc. -- Axius 17:27, 26 July 2011 (PDT)
Hi Axius - ok i will just continue as planned & when i get closer to being finished then explore posting more info here at wikiislam. it's clearly possible to do a flat category structure just using html & links into koran verses (thats what the skeptics site does) but i wanted more than that :) which is why i'm planning for sql. automating all that page creation is the way to go, some jscript to read the sql data & emit the html pages, then just upload them etc
Ok sounds good. --Axius 16:25, 27 July 2011 (PDT)

this project fizzled out. i learned alot but not worth the effort to finish, see the post mortem notes at FFI link about. i guess this whole entry can be deleted ? --Ecks why 14:07, 5 September 2011 (PDT)

Thats ok, this will be archived when the we archive all the sections on this page. --Axius 14:44, 5 September 2011 (PDT)
Terrific idea. Should be done sometime. -Haqir

WikiIslam run by the same guy?[edit]

I notice this website is neutral to biased against islam. Is this website writen by many christians? As the christianwiki, is definately extremely pro christian biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.242.71.160 (talkcontribs) on 04:19, 13 March 2012

This wiki is an independent one, so if you're trying to suggest there is some sort of connection with this site to other wikis, you'd be wrong. Doing a quick Google search, I found that there is a WikiChristian, and they are pro-Christian. It would be, considering it is obviously owned by a Christian and they make this clear by having a "Statement of Faith" and the first words you read on the main page is "Welcome to WikiChristian! God bless you."
The owner of WikiIslam is atheist, and the majority of editors/contributors are either atheist or agnostic. There are also Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Zoroastrian editors/contributors. But seriously, how is the religious affiliation of editors a concern for anyone? The wiki is open to all critics so long as they adhere to our policies and guildlines. If their personal beliefs go against TOE, which the site supports, it's not our concern, and we're not in the habit of interrogating our editors and contributors.
BTW, that has been covered in our FAQ already (Link). --Sahabah 04:59, 13 March 2012 (PDT)
User60.242.71.160, apparently you have inspired one of your co-religionists to post a Yahoo!Answers question titled, "Why is WikiIslam run by the same guy who runs WikiChristian?"
This is a great display of how morally bankrupt pious Muslims can become. Deciding to fabricate a lie in an attempt to discredit the site (in a similar vein to how they tend to scream "Christian Missionary" at everyone, regardless of the critic's beliefs or occupation).
He claims, "Just a whois lookup gave it away". But, as the Yahoo!Answers user named Anjali helpfully pointed out in reply to this Muslim, the whois lookup shows nothing of the sort. WikiChristian.org/com etc., is run by an individual from India, WikiIslam's registration is private (clearly this apologist is one of the many illiterate people who follow Islam). --Sahabah (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2012 (PST)
Just for the record, in his continuing campaign to spread lies about WikiIslam, the same Muslim has opened another question on Yahoo!Answers. This time he's claiming we are an Islamic site, but we called him a "moron" for his imaginary edits on an article related to science and banned him. Any user/reader here can check our related talk pages, edit summaries and block logs. Doing so would reveal that this claim is false. We expect editors to be civil to one another on this site. Calling another editor (Muslim or non-Muslim) a "moron" would in itself earn you a ban here. Oh, and we know this Y!A member reads our forum messages, so just for his benefit, science does not say man was created from clay. --Sahabah (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2012 (PST)

History of Jihad[edit]

WHY was the HISTORY OF JIHAD section removed? (anon IP)

The HOJ series of articles was removed due to multiple reasons, one of them being use of inappropriate language and text that was not suitable for this site (specific quotes can be provided if needed). There were also no inline citations that would confirm the validity of what was being said (this is a core policy for our articles). There is also no known authorship. In other words, we don't know who wrote it. HOJ was imported to this site a long time ago and that time we had little content and no policies. HOJ used to exist on its own site [3] but it looks like its offline right now. Here's one copy ---> http://islam-watch.org/HistoryOfJihad/index.html --Axius 13:19, 24 March 2012 (PDT)
Anon will probably never see this message, but the History of Jihad site is back up. --Admin3 (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2012 (PDT)

Arabic word nikah[edit]

IS there a page regarding the details of arabic word nikah , which means "sexual intercourse" ? and why quran uses that word for marriage in several passages ?

Hi anon. No, we haven't at the moment, but it's on our very log to-do list. You may be interested in these comments/posts by Greenforest that covers the meaning of nikah. --Admin3 (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2012 (PDT)

Mirror?[edit]

This site is blocked in some countries; any chance of creating a mirror that might allow direct access without having to use a proxy service?

The mirror would probably also be blocked eventually. They'll have to use proxy or TOR. --Axius (talk) 04:57, 20 June 2012 (PDT)

First article page created. Now I have questions[edit]

I've created my first article here (http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Quranic_Error:_Mary,_the_mother_of_Jesus_or_the_sister_of_Moses%3F)

Since I'm new to wiki editing, I was wondering if someone could see if i've used the guidelines and standardization in the correct way so far. Just a little test to see if I'm on the right track. I definately do not want to pollute this website.

Also I have this question: What do I do when an article is not finished? For now I have the words "Under Construction" at the top of the article. But this is sort of a work around. I haven't found a way to work on the article offline so that it can be published only when its finished. So I was forced to save the page and make it clear that it's still under construction. But perhaps there is a more conventional way to deal with these situations?

Also, feel free to, if you're a native English speaker, fine tune my English here and there. Since English is not my first language, I doubt at times whether my style is recognizable and not too 'Dutch', if that makes sense. Truthseeker (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2012 (PDT)

I've added the "under construction" template to the page (to do this, just add {{Underconstruction}} to the top of any page). As long as that is placed on the page, it is fine. So don't feel that you have to rush yourself.
I'm wondering, how many articles do you have to import? I think it's best if we wait for you to finish importing them all and then add them to the new articles list as a complete series (we can give them their own "front page" like here, and of course you can continue adding new pages to it).
You will also notice that I've moved the page to a title without any special characters (taking out these : , ?). This is because those characters tend to break incoming links. We get around it by adding this template at the bottom: {{DISPLAYTITLE:Qur'anic Errors: Mary, the Mother of Jesus or the Sister of Moses?}} --Admin3 (talk) 04:43, 31 July 2012 (PDT)
I have only a few. I was hoping others could pick up the series. But I now think it's best to not use numbers for episodes. But like you said, after we have a few the articles they can be added to lists. I'm not as fast as I would be in Dutch, so it may take some time to finish the articles.Truthseeker (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2012 (PDT)

Whoops! All Quran quotes fail ??[edit]

It seems that the cmje.org website you refer to for Quran quotes is offline. Is this temporarily or should we start looking for a different Quran-quote template?

Yea you're right its offline. I've written to the website owners and asked if its going to be back up. Otherwise there were some duplicate copies of that website on other places the last time I checked and we can switch. --Axius (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2012 (PDT)
Looks like they got the site back up: http://cmje.org/ . --Axius (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2012 (PDT)
It looks like it's down. --Paul99 (talk) 5:18, 27 August 2014 (CMT)
They have been using another url: http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/ They went from usc.edu to Cmje.org and then back to usc.edu. --Axius (talk | contribs) 01:37, 28 August 2014 (PDT)

Assisting more experienced article writers[edit]

I have a question.

I'm sure there are men and women here with alot of academic experience who have started to write on extensive complex articles.

Would it be an idea that perhaps less experienced editors could assist in doing some of the research work or doing some standardization work for them? This could save the experienced ones alot of time.

I myself would like to volunteer to be one of those assistance if anyone feels they require help with their article.

Just throwing it out there. Truthseeker (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2012 (PDT)

Thanks for the offer! Much appreciated. I'm not aware of anything at the moment, but will let you know. There's always something on the tasks page if you find yourself at a loss for something to do (but note that some of the tasks may be out of date, so it would be best to check with us first). --Admin3 (talk) 05:27, 1 August 2012 (PDT)

It is possible to have sex with a death woman in Islam.[edit]

I just red on line what Saturday, 28 April 2012 the Al Arabia News wrote ( a newspaper owned by the Saudi king). Egypt's women urge MPs not to pass early marriage, and sex-after-death laws. If they pass the law, it will allow men to have sex with their own wife up to 6 hours after her death. The women are anyway just object there, that law would show even more how disturbed their mind is. Please people give some good idea where can I make people aware about this disgusting thing in the media. I don't see any problem if this will bring more tension between Muslims and non Muslims if that is a fact.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Szultan44 (talkcontribs) on 10:54, 11 August 2012

Hi Szultan44. Such questions are better suited to the FFI forum. Open a thread under the Islam: Questioned, Defended, & Explained or The Quran and Hadith sub forums, and you should receive an answer. --Admin3 (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2012 (PDT)

My article still under construction[edit]

My article http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Refuting_Apologists_Jews_Christians_and_Sabiens_can_go_to_heaven still have under construction template. Why ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Azdahaexm (talkcontribs) on 05:00, 3 September 2012

Hi Azdahaexm. It's not ready. I haven't got around to fixing the formatting etc., yet. I'm snowed-under trying to keep the other pages up-to-date. There are also a few points I would like to add to the article. I'm sorry that it's not on our new articles list yet, but the important thing is that it's here and should eventually be added. I hope you don't mind the delay too much. --Admin3 (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2012 (PDT)
Thanks friend. No I didn't mind at all. Infact I have done some more changes. thanks --Azdahaexm (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2012 (PDT)
Hi Azdahaexm. The article has now been added. --Admin3 (talk) 04:46, 11 September 2012 (PDT)
Thank you so much

Underline in editor[edit]

I couldn't find "underline" option in Editor. Is is possible to add that ? --Azdahaexm (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2012 (PDT)

I'm sure Axius could add that if need be, but (with the exception of our very own Prophet Farside) we don't really use underline in articles. We usually stick with using bold within quotes or otherwise italics for emphasis. --Admin3 (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2012 (PDT)
[email protected] Farside... I also sometimes need underline . Sometimes I have to bold the complete statement but to give more emphasize on certain words in the whole statement so I use underline for that. --Azdahaexm (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2012 (PDT)
Oh, cool. You could try adding italics to the bolded text like this:
Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah's Apostle said, "People will not stop asking questions till they say, 'This is Allah, the Creator of everything, then who created Allah? "
How's that? --Admin3 (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2012 (PDT)
Thanks, yes i already did that , if you read my article, in commentary of "Biyanul Quran" I have italicized some words in the beginning. But I think underline will be better. :)
Sorry. I hate saying no but I'll have to here. :( It's to keep our pages consistent in style and content (I think the underlining of text was seen as being messy and hard on the eyes). WikiIslam hasn't used underline in it's pages since 2006 (long before I ever made my first edit or even heard of the site). --Admin3 (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2012 (PDT)
I was about to say the same that if it goes against the standard or looks messy then there is no need to add it. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azdahaexm (talkcontribs) (Remember to sign your comments)
Wikipedia has an Underline template [4], which interestingly is not used much [5]. On their manual of style it says "Underlining is used in typewriting and handwriting to represent italic type. Generally, do not underline text or it may be confused with links on a web page." (the links issue is also what I agree with too), so yes we're OK as we are without it. --Axius (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2012 (PDT)

Appropriate to refute Quranists ?[edit]

As we all know there is an emerging sect that claim to follow ONLY QURAN [Quranists]. Although there are many many refutations to Quranists for their claim that hadiths are not part of Islam or Quran was the only revelation but one of the most well documented and precise is at www.call-to-monotheism.com [islamic apologetic website]. Is it appropriate to create pages using this work to refute claims of Quranists ? I mean such kind of articles are appropriate for wikiislam ? --Azdahaexm (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2012 (PDT)

We focus on mainstream Islamic beliefs but we do have one page dealing with Qur'anists here. I guess you could expand the information on that page, but I don't see the need for more pages on the same thing. We also have to be careful that we do not plagiarize other's work. Taking ideas from them is fine but it cant be the same. Funny thing about Qur'anists is that I was a Muslim most of my life and have never met one. You cant escape their babble on the internet but they hardly seem to exist in the real world. One of life's great mysteries.:)
On another note, I wanted to ask you is there a reason you use the Sahih International translation? We like to use either Yusuf Ali's, Marmaduke Pickthal's or M. H. Shakir's translations from the Compendium of Muslim Texts. Would it be okay for me to change the Qur'an translations on the article to one of these? --Admin3 (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2012 (PDT)
Hahaha, you are right, but i have two of my cousins who are quranists, anyways , i will see what i can add to the page you have posted. About translation , there is no special reason to use Sahih International's quran except it is easily accessible via links like http://quran.com/1/1 and it is very close to the word to word provided by Corpus Quran. Feel free to change translations, I will keep this in mind and will use the above mentioned translations in future and I will change translations for my current article. Thanks --Azdahaexm (talk) 10:40, 8 September 2012 (PDT)

Muhammad and his Wives[edit]

I think this article is probably ready to go live.

There are still a couple of references missing, but I think we have reached the stage where it is not worth delaying publication over them. I will add those references as I locate them.

I may also want to add a couple of small details in the future, but they will not change any major argument or even the flow of a paragraph. They are just details that add life to the character portrayals, but so far I have only read them in secondary (or tertiary or quaternary...) sources.

I suspect my page on Khadija can now replace the existing page on Khadija, and my introductory page, which includes a link to a list of Muhammad's unconsummated marriages, can replace the existing "List of Muhammad's Wives and Concubines".

My pages on Safiya and Mariya should not replace the existing pages, as the latter are analytical articles, whereas my pages are biographies. However, I have added links for further reading.1234567 (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2012 (PDT)

Great. As I mentioned previously, Axius will have to read through it before adding it. He's going to be busy for the next week or so and won't be logging in very often, so it will probably be after that. If it was a normal article, I could have done it but this is a massive addition. --Admin3 (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2012 (PDT)

New Editor[edit]

Hi,

I'm a new editor, I wish to contribute my articles on Islamic miracle claims to this site. How do I get about doing this?

Nahar Varma (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2012 (PST)

Welcome to WikiIslam! Nice to have you here. If you want to work on an article from scratch, you can click this link: User:Nahar Varma/Sandbox. If you have an article already written, you can go to this page and enter the desired page title into the box, then press the "Create page" button. Be sure to add this template to the top of the page while it is formatted etc: {{Underconstruction}}. I will leave our welcome template on your user-talk page because it contains a lot of useful links to help you get the hang of wiki editing, but feel free to ask for additional assistance when needed.--Sahabah (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2012 (PST)
hi Nahar, good to see you here. I'm the person who responded to your email. Nahar had sent the following email (blog):
Hello,

I am interested in studying different religions, although personally I'm not religious; I am a Deist. I came across scientific miracle claims in the Qur'an in early 2011. I soon came across your website, and inspired by it, I have started my own blog refuting the claims of Islamic Bucailleists: www.debunkingbucailleism.blogspot.com

The articles refuting miracle claims are very good, but there are too few of them, hence I'd like to contribute.

Sincerely,

Nahar Varma
Nahar, today I'll go over your site and then comment here.--Axius (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2012 (PST)
Ok, Nahar, I guess you will have to go over Islam and Science yourself and see if your arguments are already present there or in one of the sub-articles. You would start from your first article (written in September, when you started the blog). I liked what you had in this post Three Criteria for Scientific Foreknowledge. I see some of that has been covered in our Islam and Science introduction (we have 4 points and you have 3).
My suggestion: The steps for you would be to go over what we have on our site and get an idea of the types of pages we have and then go to your blog one by one and see where you can add your content. We may not have some topics that you have. Then for example after checking the articles for September, you see that some stuff should be added on our site, let us know what you think you should do. The language should of course be changed to 3rd person. Sorry I could not give a detailed/helpful analysis of what should be done but I'm pressed for time. --Axius (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2012 (PST)

Criticisms of other religions Wiki[edit]

Does your group or any group that you know of plan or have a Wiki devoted to criticisms of each major religion in the world?

97.85.168.22 17:49, 25 April 2013 (PDT)

No we don't. The closest I can think of is rational wiki (See Category:Religion) but their focus is wide and not specifically on religion. I dont know of any other wikis that criticize other religions. --Axius (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2013 (PDT)

While "WikiIslam is a community edited website which focuses on the critique of Islam" and while this site claims that most editors are truly atheists and agnosts and policies and content of this site reflect that "editors are advised that no region should be given priority over another", I suggest too: Would be a huge evidence of that to have critique of Islam by its similarities to Judaism and Christianity. Otherwise critique to Islam may fail, to collapse only into contradictory and hypocrisy. I suggest that this site includes on main page a region of that area and there articles of similarities of one god, attitude to women, attitude to gays, jesus as prophet of both, attitudes towards other religions and religious free people. There is in bible too marriage of Abraham with his half-sister or niece Sarah, father having sex ang gettin children with his daughters (Lot with his daughters in Genesis 19:33) and it is not condemned in bible - moreover there are over 10 stories of incestuous relationships in the bible. A critique that Islam is just one version of Abrahamic religions and very similar, would be very informative addition to this site. This site should make more clear statement on the main page, whether this site is objectively or subjectively critiq to islam. Is this site critiqs from other religion beliefs or from free of religions people to islam? Personally I think that religious people that criticize other religions of same things that their own religion does, are deep in un-credibility. --Oneofusall (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2015 (PDT)

We stay away from criticizing (or praising in any way) other religions because we would not want to alienate various segments of the site visitors. Islam has a lot of issues on its own and people are free to investigate other religions from other sources. --Axius (talk | contribs) 19:10, 8 July 2015 (PDT)

help needed to build new article[edit]

hi. who is admin of this site? if i want to build new article, can you help me ? Yahoo (talk) 08:04, 21 May 2013 (PDT)

Hi Yahoo. Welcome to WikiIslam! There are many administrators/editors. I am one of them and will help in any way I can. Have a read through the policies. When you're ready you can create a page here or use a sandbox (User:Yahoo/Sandbox).--Sahabah (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2013 (PDT)
thanks. can anyone make cite web and book like wikipedia ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cite_web & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cite_book

and can someone give me classical islamic history book(ibn sa`d, tabari, waqedi, etc) and tafsir(tabari, etc) in english text ? i don't have them. Yahoo (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2013 (PDT)

how i can link to external web sites ? Yahoo (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2013 (PDT)

hi Yahoo, we do have a Cite web and its used in a few articles but I still need to change its output format (its input format will still be identical to Wikipedia). We have a reference archive template but it only works with WebCite. I would say, use WebCite and use the reference archive template for now. Examples of use can be seen on the template page or in any of the usage links.
We can provide some sources later on. What kind of articles do you plan on making?
You can get online Tafsirs from sites like http://www.altafsir.com/ and quote them using the quote template.
The article you made will need to have its headings capitalized. I think its a good idea. It will take time to look for all the links because there are so many and new ones are coming up all the time. I think if a fair number of links can be collected, the article can be presentable. Good luck with its completion. --Axius (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2013 (PDT)
  1. Qur'an in English: this site provides 34 compared English translations, and this site provides the English literal translation
  2. Hadiths in English: Compendium of Muslim Texts, and this site includes a few narrations that have been removed from the Compendium.
  3. Tafsirs in English: [6], [7], [8] and [9].
  4. Sira literature: [10] and [11].
  5. Fiqh: [12] and [13].
  6. Fatwa websites in English: [14] and [15]. --Sahabah (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2013 (PDT)

Scientific Method[edit]

A publicly editable web page purports that Alhazen was the father of modern scientific method. Though he may have made some advances in optics, I do not believe this is true. I am interested in improving the page. Who might be a more accurate figure of the same or earlier era, who contributed significantly to the development of scientific method? Devraj (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2013 (PDT)

Hi Devraj. I did a quick Google search and could not find such a page. Anyhow, you can work on an article here: User:Devraj/Sandbox. This particular page is a response to a specific publication, so any article on Alhazen will have to be separate from it. --Sahabah (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2013 (PDT)

Hi Sahabah, The page I'm referring to is Wikipedia's "Scientific Method" page. [16].I would appreciate any link to a source that shows that scientific experimentation was undertaken by those other than muslims who lived in the similar era as Alhazen. Other sources I read say the Christian world came up with true scientific method, but I cannot find the specific example(s) of those persons who supposedly did these experiments prior to Alhazen.

If you look at the talk page for Wikipedia's Alhazen article[17], you'll see a lot of the claims are disputed because Jagged 85 was a big contributor of the information there. We have our hub page concerning the "Golden Age", but other than that, we would suggest going to the FFI forum if you have any questions. --Sahabah (talk) 11:04, 5 July 2013 (PDT)

Concerned about Security, IP Address Tracing etc.[edit]

I'm becoming increasingly active in restoring the historical truth to various Wikipedia pages which were hijacked by Islamists. I am concerned as to whether it would be possible for someone to trace my IP address or my computer, and harm me. Are either of these a valid concern? If so I suppose I can be entirely safe by making my Wikipedia edits from a library or other public computer and public internet connection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Devraj (talkcontribs) (Remember to sign your comments)

Its safe to get a username and edit from the username (just make sure you're logged in all the time) from any computer (home or elsewhere). Good luck. --Axius (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2013 (PDT)

Please check out this article[18] - one among many - that indicates that it is quite possible for someone with ill intent to track the source of online activity. Why should I not be concerned about this?

That is basically an alarmist article. There's about 30-50K active editors on Wikipedia (more than 5 edits in the last 30 days) at any given time. Unless there's illegal activity (real threats of violence for example) there's no tracking and even then only authorities can access that tracking information. Wikipedia admins do have access (I think) if they have the checkuser right but its a small number of admins who do and they dont misuse that data. If you still have questions you can ask on Wikipedia or another internet forum. There are many editors editing Wikipedia with the alternate point of view about Islam, Unless an editor does something really illegal (terrorist threat or something) their identity is not and cannot be known. Again make sure you're logged on (important, otherwise your IP address will be recorded in that page's history). IP addresses can be known to admins but to trace that address to a real person requires a police permit and so on, which is only given if its an extreme case (e.g. violence, as I mentioned). To be safe, always do a "preview" on an edit before you submit it, to make sure your login is still active (sometimes the login goes inactive if the edit window was open for a long time). If you stay logged in, dont do anything illegal you'll be safe. Maybe this link might help - lots of people editing with IPs without any care, however again if you are concerned, you can make sure you are logged in and it will not be public. Once again, you should visit internet IT forums or ask Wikipedia for assistance for further clarifying these things. --Axius (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2013 (PDT)

Thank you! That helps.

Indian female convert to Islam killed by Taliban (Islam in the news)[edit]

Hi. I wanted to share the news of the recent killing of an Indian social worker Sushmita Banerjee (later Syeda Kamal) by the Taliban. She had married an Afghan in the 80's. When she went to Afghanistan, she found out that he was already married. Then after facing oppression under the Taliban there, she fled but her in-laws recaptured her. She decided to do social work in Afghanistan but was recently executed by the Taliban who said "why did you write nasty things about us?" Is there a way I contribue to the "Islam in the news" section?--Mahomet (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2013 (PDT)

[1] [2] [3]

If you look at the contribs for Al-Qaum, you can see stuff is added first to the Islam in the News page and then to the WikiIslam:Latest News. Please follow the formats (small amount of text from the news site, link formats, heading should reflect the news source etc). --Axius (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2013 (PDT)
It's already been added to Islam in the News by Al-Qaum. See here. --Sahabah (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2013 (PDT)
Ohh, great! You guys are really international and stay on top of things. :) --Mahomet (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2013 (PDT)
Thanks Mahomet! --Sahabah (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2013 (PDT)

Add option to "submit your testimony"?[edit]

I would like to submit my testimony to this page http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Special:Form/newapostate

Under "current worldview", can you add the option of Bahá’í?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Golconda (talkcontribs) 19:57, 16 March 2014 (Remember to sign your comments)

Hi Golconda. Just submit your testimony and we'll add that for you. --Sahab (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2014 (PDT)

The Islamic Golden Age referenced on the Wikipedia article on "humans"[edit]

Without any citations, the "Islamic Golden Age" myth was added to other contributions during the Middle Ages.

"The late Middle Ages saw the rise of revolutionary ideas and technologies. In China, an advanced and urbanized society promoted innovations and sciences, such as printing and seed drilling. In India, major advancements were made in mathematics, philosophy, religion and metallurgy. The Islamic Golden Age saw major advancements in mathematics, astronomy, optics, biology, medicine, art and architecture in Muslim empires."

Whatever "Muslim advances" (should say Persian advances!) there were was from conquering places. This appears to represent something debunked in the 1001 inventions page. Basically, they list more advances for Muslims than for China... what a joke.

Maybe add a "citation needed" and delete most of the tags. Muslims contributed to basically nothing except some math and astronomy.

What disgusts me is that it calls those inventions "Muslim" but later talks about globalization and the information age as if it weren't "Western".

Care to fix this with me? 50.187.216.93 23:05, 16 June 2014 (PDT)

I personally don't have enough time to do anything on Wikipedia (too much to do and its hard to maintain it with them contantly fighting to keep away anything truthful about Islam) but someone else might. This certain article [19] doesnt look too long so it shouldnt be too hard to fix. I would suggest add the citation needed tag where you want to and wait a week before you remove those statements with a comment "removing unsourced statements. Had previously left in the Citation needed tag. Use talk page before restoring any statements". Relevant to this might be this article on our site [20]. --Axius (talk | contribs) 01:20, 17 June 2014 (PDT)
Great Idea. I'll go for it. 50.187.216.93 12:37, 19 June 2014 (PDT)
I didnt look at it in detail but I think in this edit over there, you will most likely have to defend removal of references / referenced information.
Its very difficult to clean up the mess created by the Muslim editor Jagged85 (he had 60K or 80K edits, most of which were intentionally misleading as their investigation showed). What you may be seeing or dealing with may be some of his work. The references will have to be checked. --Axius (talk | contribs) 19:14, 19 June 2014 (PDT)

Purpose of this website[edit]

I am personally a Christian, but I have some sympathy for Islam, as I have many Muslim friends who have been quite helpful to me over the years. I have shown them respect, and they have reciprocated. I do not pretend to know what is best for others, any more than I enjoy others pretending to know what is best for myself. I was wondering, is this site meant to ultimately be purely scientific, letting the facts fall where they may, or is it meant to be biased against Islam, preferring to portray views that denigrate Islam whenever possible or convenient? Thanks, Scottperry (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2014 (PDT)

There's a verse in the Quran, 5:38 that says a thief's hands should be cut off. Islam cannot be reformed. If one verse is to be rejected then the whole Quran can be rejected.
This site focuses on criticism of Islam. You can have a good look around first. Start from the site map.
Being biased against Islam is not a bad thing or something to be ashamed of because Islam itself is biased against non-Muslims like me and you since it says we will all burn in Hell for not accepting it (Quran 48:13). Your Muslim friends may be nice people but if they think a thief's hands should not be cut off (Quran 5:38), if they think a wife should not be beaten for disobedience (Quran 4:34), if they dont believe that virgins in Heaven are large breasted (Quran 78:33) then they are not really Muslims and are not believing in actual Quranic verses. They are choosing to reject those verses or defend them in some way.
But do tell us what can be done differently or if you have any suggestions. --Axius (talk | contribs) 15:20, 23 June 2014 (PDT)
Thanks for your frankness. I think I'll try to insert the full edit, along with cites, that I first started to work on, and see what happens. Regarding hand-chopping, there are verses in the Bible that say homosexuals, disobedient sons, and adulterers should all be killed, and Jesus supposedly said that not a "jot" of the Bible should be disregarded, but just the same, modern-day Christianity has opted to reject those verses, yet to keep others, and still continues to be a major influence in the world. Christianity has adapted significantly over the centuries, and much of it for the better. It's had a 700 year head-start over Islam. There are also verses in the Quran that say that there is hope for non-Muslims to enter heaven. As with the Bible, both books are filled with contradictions. Personally, as a Christian, I pick and choose which parts resonate with me, and which don't. I think that whether or not most other Christians would admit it, they all do that too. How many Christians do you know these days that stone all of those "evil-doers" as mentioned above?
At any rate, I don't know if I'll be a very good "fit" here, but I'll try a few edits and see what happens. My "debt" to Islam, as a Christian, is that no less than twice, my life was literally saved by Muslims! Don't ask me why, I couldn't say. So long as you guys are fundamentally honest about your criticisms against Islam here, which we shall see, I shall be happy to contribute here. Thanks, Scottperry (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2014 (PDT)
Ok. Well that is all good stuff for debate.
So for your edit [21] you would first add it on the Education page (possibly Worldwide section here [22]) and after that the main Statistics edit that you made can be restored. Stuff on that page is mentioned and sourced in the sub-pages. You'll notice though that all the stuff in these Stats pages is quotes -- and I think thats a problem (for this reason I think the addition will be a challenge). But as long as what you put in cannot be disputed or challenged it could be fine so the more sources you can add the better. Yea try it and we'll see how it looks. In this case case you would need to provide proof that these named countries were really under the influence of soviet communism as Muslims would challenge that and say "those countries did it on their own". This is the kind of sourcing we use and its important as you can see. Another to thing to check is how "far" other Muslim countries are from the high literacy rates (the ones that were not influenced by soviet communism). --Axius (talk | contribs) 20:04, 23 June 2014 (PDT)
Another opinion, of course there are good Muslims but in how is it because of Islam and how does that help Islam? They are just good as humans. All Muslims need not be hateful or believing in each and every verse of the Quran but their uproach is still cultist. They will keep considering Islam as superior and us as trasshy. Ask your Muslim friends to prove our site (or other sites) wrong. Saggy (talk) 07:04, 24 June 2014 (PDT)
At Scottperry: Actually, the reason why Christians do not stone people is because Jesus stopped an adulteress from being stoned by saying "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone." And as for the "not a "jot" of the Bible should be disregarded", you ignore the bit straight after that sentence where he says "until everything is accomplished" (when he dies, he then says "It is finished"). For a "Christian" you sure do talk about/understand Christianity like a Muslim apologist would. These are exactly the same talking points they try to use as Tu Quoque arguments to shut down criticism. Unfortunately for them, and for you, a simple reading of the text shows your error. This is also where Christianity and Islam differ. Sure, Christian beliefs have changed with the times, but that did not take place by (as you suggest) Christians waking up one day and saying, "I don't like this part of the Bible, let's ignore it." It happened through the ability of reformers to successfully argue a theologically sound case for why Christians should stop certain things. Muslim reformers however do not have a leg to stand on. All the theologically sound arguments come from the terrorists. Let me quote this:
"Chronological Shift in Violence
This is one of the most important factors to take into consideration. If you are going to criticize a holy book for what you believe it advocates to its followers, then you must read the text like a believer would. If a book contains a large amount of violence in it but finishes by telling its readers in the second half of the book to be pacifists and behave like cute little bunny rabbits, does it advocate violence or pacifism? Of course, the answer is that it advocates pacifism. Likewise if a book begins by describing pacifism but finishes by telling its readers to "slay the unbelievers wherever you find them", that book logically advocates violence.
All of the "positive" violence committed in the Bible is found in the Old Testament. The New Testament contains absolutely no exhortations to violence. Quite the opposite, Jesus advocates extreme pacifism. Christians believe they are a part of the "New Covenant" described in the New Testament , not the Old Covenant described in the Old Testament.
Muslims do not have an "old" or "new" covenant to filter their text through. However, what they do have is something very similar, it is the doctrine of Abrogation, where later Qur'anic verse naturally supersede earlier ones. This would be fine if like the Bible all the violence was confined to the beginning, but this is not the case. Don't take my word for it. Read the Qur'an in chronological order and the shift from pacifism to violence is unmissable. This results in rendering almost all of the peaceful verses abrogated and useless." (Link)
Concerning your "Christianity has had a 700 year head-start over Islam" logic, that is a ridiculous way of thinking. Sikhism is only about five hundred years old, so according to your logic, today they should be behaving like European Neanderthals from the early middle-ages. In addition to that, according to your logic, we should be apologizing for these hypothetical Neanderthals and making excuses for them. The evolution of religious believers does not happen like that. Religions generally conform in some degree to the more liberal morals of their times. The fact that the 700 years newer religion of Islam made a regression in morals when compared to Christianity should be all you need to know of its founder and the general spirit of its texts. Interestingly, the Baha'i Faith is a 19th century offshoot of Islam. Since Islam has had 1,000+ years head-start, shouldn't Baha'is be going around invading other countries in order to spread their newer religion, subjugating its people and destroying religious institutions belong to its previous occupants? That isn't happening, but guess what? There is a religion at this very moment cleansing the remaining religious minorities wherever it is dominant, and it ain't the Baha'is or Christians. And about those "verses in the Quran that say that there is hope for non-Muslims to enter heaven," that's total apologetic nonsense. Read this:
"There are many verses in the Qur'an that label Christians and Jews as disbelievers, and numerous more that explicitly condemn them and other disbelievers to Hell. There is scholarly consensus on the fact that Christians and Jews are viewed by Islam as kafirs, because of "the clear nature of the texts about this".
If you read verse 2:62 in context, it is referring only to those Christians, Jews, and Sabiens who believed in the time of their own Prophet/Messenger.
Each Revelation abrogated the previous. Thus, after the advent of Prophet Muhammad and Islam, no individual can make it into Paradise unless they accept Allah as God, Muhammad as his last Prophet and the Qur'an as Allah's final book of guidance.
Therefore, the concept of Heavenly rewards in Islam are now exclusively offered to Muslims. Christians and Jews may believe in a single monotheistic god, but they do not believe in "His Messenger". Thus they are destined for the "burning fire".
Additionally, the non-Muslims who do make it into Paradise will only be used as sex-slaves by believing men, Muslims who themselves will be spared hell-fire by Allah on the Day of Resurrection by making innocent Christians and Jews take their place and be thrown into Hell." (Link) --Sahab (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2014 (PDT)

Inspired by Muhammad: Dog Hadiths[edit]

Hello. I looked at the links to the Hadiths concerning killing dogs and restricting to killing black dogs from this page: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Inspired_by_Muhammad#Killing_Dogs

It seems that the links do not take you to the hadiths you are quoting. Maybe the site was updated or whoever created the page made a mistake. I thought you should know.

Specifically, it's the Sahih Muslim 16:2840 and Sahih Muslim 16:2839.

I think the hadiths are Abu-Dawud: http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/abudawud/016-sat.php Paul99 (talk) 5:18, 27 August 2014 (GMT)

Number 5248 in that section you mentioned has a valid link. What specific quotes have broken links? --Axius (talk | contribs) 03:53, 29 August 2014 (PDT)

It was the bottom two hadiths under "The Black Dog is a Devil". Sahih Muslim 16:2840 and Sahih Muslim 16:2839 do not lead to the hadiths quoted, but I found the hadiths in their entirety in Abu-Dawud. You can find them at the top of the page here: http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/abudawud/016-sat. I believe that the two Hadith collections were mixed up in the post.Paul99 (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2014 (GMT)

Oh ok, yea I see it now. I fixed those now [23]. Thanks! --Axius (talk | contribs) 15:58, 30 August 2014 (PDT)

SerUm, I checked and it still says and goes to Sahih MMuslim. [User:Paul99|Paul99]] (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2014 (GMT)

Nope, it should be fixed. Check this. --Axius (talk | contribs) 10:05, 31 August 2014 (PDT)

Sorry. My mistake. My computer wasn't working correctly or something. I see it now. :) [User:Paul99|Paul99]] (talk) 1:51, 1 September 2014 (GMT)

Website organization[edit]

Hi, i would like firstly to thank you for the great work. This site helped me a lot during my years of doubt about islam. And i ll give you some feedback from a reader's perspective :

  • I think the site has a lot of good articles but it needs more organisation. Maybe making Portals shoud be added to the tasks. For example for islam and science, a Portal would be much more useful than the core article or the unergonomic site Map. In the islam and science portal for example we should find two sections: refutations of quran's miracles like big bang, embryology etc.. and for embryology for example there should be a "subsection" where all the articles should be listed History of embryology, embryology in jewish scriptures, in the quran , in the quran and the hadith... and another section for scientific errors in quran and hadith. Same goes fr other portals.
  • About the sources of the quran and hadith, when i was muslim i had to recheck every islamic quote wrote here in its arabic version (my faith made me do it) and it would be better i guess if there was this possibility to see the arabic version just next to the reference.
  • I'm gonna try to start translating some articles in French and maybe arabic if i have the time to do it.

Cheers --ArabSagan (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2014 (PDT)

  • I prefer a template to portal for all the scientific errors and abrogations but who will bell the cat? New editors are not allowed to edit mainspace. Axius is too busy for long long time and nothing is getting reviewed. Your blank confession will also stay like that. Yes French translations are welcome. Our message must get to France and the whole of French West Africa. Saggy (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2014 (PDT)
Hi. I'm happy to hear you found this site useful. Concerning your queries:
A)
  • This is the Islam Portal on Wikipedia, and this is the Islam and Science Core article on WikiIslam. Looking at them both (and leaving aside our Site Map for the moment), I do not see how a Wikipedia style portal would help people find articles quicker than our Core articles. The Wikipedia portals quite frankly are a mess. There appears little order to them or a clear method for new readers to easily find material they are after. Conversely, the TOC on Core articles make it very easy to find articles. And this site probably does not have enough articles per subject to justify a Wikipedia-style Portal which is engulfed in links all over the place (links which would probably require more energy for new readers to decipher, because they are embedded within walls of text).
  • Then there is the Site Map which you call "unergonomic". That surprises me a lot, since I cannot think of a more comfortable or easier way of navigating the entire site from a single page.
  • You suggest that we should create separate sections; one for Qur'an miracles etc., but we already have separate sections such as the ones you propose, e.g. one of them is indeed "Qur'an miracles".
  • There is no need to create a new embryology "subsection", because the embryology articles are already linked from a single heading (see here). We also do not have an "embryology in jewish scriptures" article. We have one that covers reproduction in general, and that is already linked very clearly beneath the "Embryology in Islamic Scripture" section.
So that leaves a couple of things I'd like you to do:
1. Please explain exactly how and why the enormous effort of replacing Core articles with Portals would be beneficial for us.
2. Give us a better way that readers can explore the entire site from a single page.
B) Concerning Arabic; most Muslims do not read, write or speak Arabic and this is a primarily English-language site that only uses trusted scholarly translations, so I don't see any urgency or major benefit from that. Would it be nice to have a link to Arabic versions of all sources? Probably, but it is not realistic. Where is an Arabic-speaking editor who is willing to find all of them and add them to 2,000+ articles (if each article has 50 refs, that makes at least 100,000 links)? Then where are the editors who will check each link for accuracy and maintain these same links from link rot? Like I said, it may be a nice idea, but it has little actual benefit and is not realistic. If an Arabic-speaker, does use the site, like yourself, it is probably best to let them find Arabic versions if they do not trust the English-language versions used by millions of English-speaking Muslims.
I only see one certainty in trying to do this, and that is a negative one. By including links to Arabic versions in only a few articles, this would set up an arbitrary standard that should not exist i.e. someone can then read a perfectly referenced article and then claim, "But this one doesn't have links to Arabic like the other one did", and then discard all the referenced information they had just read.
C) Translations are most welcome. I'm assuming you read those pages I provided you a while ago, but if you need further help, you can ask Axius or I (if I'm around) for help. --Sahab (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2014 (PDT)

Arab inventions[edit]

So.....arab inventions or innovations/improvements on already existing stuff doesn't matter? Sure some of the inventors could've been from other religions, but the fact remains they were all ARABS. I feel this article tries to discredit arab inventions no matter what faith they are. This is the same thing that happens in the US with black inventors, since they are a minority their inventions get attributed to whites no matter what.

Are you talking about How Islamic Inventors Did Not Change The World? The article is about claims made for "Islamic inventors", not Arab or non-Arab. --Axius (talk | contribs) 10:16, 27 November 2014 (PST)
Assuming the anon is being genuine and not simply trying to disguise an incorrect statement within a question, I would also be very interested in knowing what article they are referring to. None of what is written by our editors try to deny Arab contributions to science. In fact we make a point of mentioning that Arabs, just like every other ethnic group on this planet, have provided the world with their fair share of scientific advances. And depending on the anon's level of ignorance (and whatever article they may be referring to), even the statement that "the fact remains they were all ARABS," may be incorrect. For example, many Egyptians, Lebanese, Iranians, Syrians, etc., may speak Arabic in some form or another, but they are not ethnically Arab, nor do they consider themselves as Arabs. In fact, many of them view being called an Arab a personal insult. That hasn't stopped Islamic propagandists from depicting them as such. --Sahab (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2014 (PST)

Editing the description of the website.[edit]

I ve been using wiki-islam's links when debating online, specially the"quran, hadith and scholars" pages. And always the first response is: wikiislam is an anti-islam website so they are lying (aka using fake data) , until i tell them that they can check the authenticity of the quotes with clicking on the references. So if that was said in the description under the title of the articles, it will be a good thing for the credibility of th website. Also i'm sure this have been already discussed but i think that you should avoid using usc's database since you know how muslims are untrustful of anything that is related to jews, but i don't know what are your options or if it is easy to fix.

"anything that is related to jews" - Sounds like an attempt for us to stop using a reliable source so the content can become less reliable. The reliability is explained on the wiki page [24]. Assuming the inquiry is genuine:
During the debate did you investigate how true this claim is? People will use any excuse they can. The 3 Quran translations are well known and the hadiths are from Bukhari, Muslim and others (6 hadith collections). Ask them if they know of any reliable Quran/hadith websites. The answer is usually "Just ignore all the websites. Consult with a real Islamic scholar" which we know is a cop-out.
No data on our site is fake. You can search any hadith/verse and find the exact quotes on many other websites. The USC database was chosen because it was hosted on an educational institution's server and additional reasons are mentioned on that wiki page I linked. It used to be the website for the MSA at that university originally and currently its the Muslim-engagement center website. That doesnt effect its reliability in any way. People are free to crosscheck the hadiths and verses on other websites.
"until i tell them that they can check the authenticity of the quotes with clicking on the references" - they are visiting a website and a website is supposed to have links by default. People dont need to be told that they should click the links on a page. When someone claims a website has fake information you should challenge that statement because you know that in this case that is a false statement that has no basis. You will get better in debate with time. Additional information about the sources is in our FAQ. The FAQ page is linked on every page on the left. --Axius (talk | contribs) 11:52, 2 December 2014 (PST)

"Jihad is Perpetual" subtopic has bad link[edit]

I was looking at the "Jihad is Perpetual" subtopic of Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Fighting Non-Muslims and tried to navigate to the link to Sunan Abu Dawud Chapter 14, hadith 2526 specified there. However, it appears that USC has removed the Jihad chapter from Sunan Abu Dawud, and the link goes to Chapter 13 on fasting instead.

I did find a working link to this hadith at Sunnah.com though. It is here: http://sunnah.com/abudawud/15/8

Oddly, that hadith number is 2484, so there seems to be inconsistent hadith numbering scheme between what's specified in the wikiislam link and the one at sunnah.com. The convention used at sunnah.com seems to match up with the translation I have by Nasiruddin al-Khattab.

Indeed you are right, it is not there anymore. I have it in my local copy so yes it was removed from their website. Not sure what to do right now so I'm just going to add this to on our tasks page for now. --Axius (talk | contribs) 14:04, 14 March 2015 (PDT)

New article[edit]

Help ! I would like to create a new article. I don't see it. It's always in the sandbox. http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Sandbox/Unreliable_hadeeths --Dare4 (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2015 (PDT)

Not sure what you are asking for. Can you clarify further? --Axius (talk | contribs) 13:57, 14 March 2015 (PDT)
Hi Dare4. Have you actually looked at the state of the page you created? What would make you think it's okay to take it out of the sandbox and put it in our mainspace looking like that? I've deleted that page anyhow. We already have a page that covers all those and many more (see here). Use the Site map or search function to avoid such a situation in the future. Please also read and follow the directions on WikiIslam:Message to New Users before making any further contributions. Thanks. --Sahab (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2015 (PDT)

Question about Islamic Texts[edit]

Has anybody ever combined the Qur'an, Hadith, and Ishaq/Tabari into a single, chronologically ordered document?

As far as I know it hasnt been done. I think the problem is that there's no knowledge of what happened when, so there could be a lot of variation and no one could say that their version of events is right. Maybe if someone only used important events for which they definitely knew the dates they could try. --Axius (talk | contribs) 17:12, 18 August 2015 (PDT)--Axius (talk | contribs) 17:12, 18 August 2015 (PDT)

What about more "responses to apologists" ?[edit]

I am writing this as a confused muslim. You know,there are lots of islamic websites,they have thousands of "rebuttals to islamic critics" and just a few anti islamic ones against them.So when muslims come across an argument against islam, they think "well,im sure someone has already refutted this,so lets not worry about it." It seems like that "Critics of islam have all said what is to be said against islam,but apologists refutted them all,so there is nothing left to say." Probably that is what apologists think or try to prove.Considering these,I have a suggestion.I think you should have more "responses to apologists",so that we,as readers,can decide more reasonably which side is more plausible and you can be more "convincing" that way.Thank you.

I fully agree these sections are very important especially for often debated topics. See this about requests like this. Axius (talk | contribs) 18:30, 2 February 2016 (EST)

On the subject of Islam and Chess[edit]

The Wikislam entry is deceptive and innaccurate. "Many worried chess would be banned by the "Qur'an" an Islamic law banning gambling. Chess become very popular after their theologians decided that chess playing wasn't contrary to the teachings of Mohammed. This decision took about 100 years and illustrates the curious power of a simple game. After the official decision that there was no harm in chess, the Moslems created a greatly detailed literature about it."

The Islamic prophet Mohammed did not say Chess was forbidden, a ccording to a Hadith (not Qu'ran) he is said to have compared dice to eating pork, because it was gambling. Not Chess. The Hadiths are not official Islamic doctrine. Furthermore, Chess was actually invented by the Moors in Spain, earlier versions bore little resemblance to the present game as we know it. There are no real pre-Islamic artifacts attributable to "Chess" just as there is no evidence of the Kingdom of someone named "David". In fact, 15th to 17th century Christians said the same thing about the game of chess as Muslims, that it is harmless unless it consumes an inordinate amount of one's time. Also, there is no evidence that Zoroastrians rather tham Muslims developed the game in early Persia. I have to say, I read wikislam and get the overwhelming impression that, rather than a scholarly site meant to serve as a source of accurate info on Islam, that it is a polemic endeavor, a hostile, agenda-driven vehicle...not just in the various glaring innaccuracies, but in the general tone and often unscholarly asides. I am not a Muslim, but I consider it churlish to falsely represent a religion in a negative way. It's un-American. And most people would agree with me.

ALL LINKS TO VERSES @ usc.edu ARE DEAD[edit]

ALL LINKS TO VERSES @ usc.edu ARE DEAD. Either a new site must be found, or a possible solution might be to link to an archived version of the pages through one (or more) of the following:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache: [original URL]

https://web.archive.org/web/*/ [original URL]

http://archive.is/ [original URL]

Yaakovaryeh (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2016 (EDT)