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

Recent Changes to Discussions

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

This page is for discussions between editors. Visitors should use the visitors page. All new discussion topics should be created at the bottom of the page, below all previous discussions, and all messages should be signed.

Logical Errors rename[edit]

Shall we make logical errors into "logical errors and absurdities" or put any word like "absurdities"? Then there will be a lot more to add.--Saggy (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2014 (PST)

No, I think absurdities is too wide in scope. For example, most of the scientific errors could be seen as absurdities. --Sahab (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2014 (PST)
How about something temporary and general like WikiIslam:Sandbox/Issues in the Quran and gather all the relevant verses and make whatever kinds of internal headings we like. The first main step is to gather the verses and some rough sorting and then later refinement to make sure the claim is correct and refining the sorting/headings also. --Axius (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2014 (PST)
I don't think the issue is a temporary one that can be sorted by refining sub-heading. If that was the case, then the present heading, "Logical Errors in the Qur'an", is fine for now. The issue is about the entire direction of the article i.e. the author hasn't decided on the topic of the article yet. Clearly that's an odd place to be when an article has already been started. The original topic (logical errors) does not seem to create enough content to warrant an article, so the new title, "logical errors and absurdities" was suggested to allow widening its scope. However, including "absurdities" widens the scope too far. To me, the reasonable conclusion is that there is no article here, or it should at least be put on hold until there are enough logical errors found, and efforts should be concentrated on the "Qur'anic Claim of Having Details" article which has more potential, but that's probably not what everyone wants to hear, so we come back the same problem. What is this article about? If it's about "Issues in the Quran", then that completely obliterates the scope. There are hundreds of issues with the Qur'an and we have hundreds of articles dealing with them. I doubt Saggy or anyone will be willing to create an article that would encompass them all, but readers who land on a page named "Issues in the Quran" would expect nothing less. --Sahab (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2014 (PST)
If its in a Sandbox article space it doesnt matter what the article title is or if it doesnt have any structure and so on. Its not indexed and its under construction.
The first step of these articles is to choose from the 6000 verses by scanning them. We dont want any restrictions at this stage which could slow that down. The next is some kind of sorting or making sense of it. When its time to move the article to the main space only then we have to worry about applying the rules you mentioned and I agree with those rules (correct titles whether its one title or many, scope, how it fits in with everything else, whether its a valid claim or not, etc). It has to be ok in every way. Saggy is doing the first core task, bringing out those verses so that can go on in a Sandbox article. In the end we can come back to your comments and see what to do next. --Axius (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2014 (PST)
Well, if you, Saggy or whoever want to do it that way then it doesn't bother me in the slightest, because it's up to each individual how they spend their time and it's being done in a sandbox. But scanning 6000 verses then deciding on what to do with them is not the optimal way good articles are written. That sounds quite absurd in itself. It's common sense that when you write an article that you have a general idea of what the article is about, and only then do you do the research for it. Take the "Qur'an detail" article. We know we want verses that lack detail, so we scan the Qur'an for verses that fit the description. We do not scan the Qur'an for an unidentified purpose, collect anything that looks interesting and then decide that "there are some verses here that lack detail. Let's make an article about it". --Sahab (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2014 (PST)
Actually I've always wanted to scan the Quran for all the interesting things but Skeptics Quran has done a lot of it (I remember your comment about SAQ). In any case yes, as long as its done in a Sandbox people can do what they like (good practice for articles under construction in any case). In the end we can see if it makes sense or not, or how to fix it. If you had to scan the Quran for an identified purpose, you would to scan it again every time you had a new purpse. If scanning is done one time but we have a "filter" on it (like an email filter), it saves time. Anyway. Yea its up to Saggy on what he wants to write in the Sandbox. I need to take a closer look at these articles some time to see how its going. --Axius (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2014 (PST)
Scanning the Qur'an as a general project is a completely different task to the one we are discussing here i.e. Saggy's "logical errors" page. And yeah, when you know what you're looking for, you would scan it again. That's how it's done. Or do you think if you scan the Qur'an now you will never have to scan the Qur'an ever again? We've all "scanned" the Qur'an multiple times (i.e. when we've read through it), but that doesn't do away with the need of re-scanning the Qur'an for a specific purpose. --Sahab (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2014 (PST)
I dont know, I guess its however he scans it. If it was me who had to do it, I would keep a checklist of stuff I want to check against. Anyway, yea he can work on the sandbox page as he likes. I know he was talking about the Logical errors page. I was just giving the general advice that he can work on a sandbox page. --Axius (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2014 (PST)
I asked because I saw some things that may not be logical as I think but they are not scientific either. Just erros.--Saggy (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2014 (PST)
I just renamed it to WikiIslam:Sandbox/Logical Errors and Other Issues in the Qur'an for a general kind of title. You can think about renaming it to something more specific in the end when you're done with it. --Axius (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2014 (PST)

Article on Ali[edit]

How about an article on Ali? He's (one of) the most important men in Islamic history, so why not? LawrenceGilmore (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2014 (PST)

I made your inquiry into a new section by making a heading. Sure thats fine only if it would be a good article related to criticism of Islam. Otherwise not too much time should be spent on it in my opinion but thats up to you. Do you have any thoughts about the text extracts [1] for the iphobia article? Sorry I have been putting off working on that article but I was waiting to see what you thought of the extracts. --Axius (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2014 (PST)

Create the Details article?[edit]

I think its time to create the details article, What do you say?--Saggy (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2014 (PDT)

I think it needs a language cleanup. I'll try to look at it and see what I can improve.
One of the strongest cases on that page is the 5 pillars. Can you think of any other cases like these where the detail is seriously needed, is an important part of Islamic belief but is there in the Quran? Those would be very good additions to the page and are not as important as the other verses (stories with missing details e.g.) --Axius (talk | contribs) 17:22, 11 March 2014 (PDT)
I think there's probably a lot more that can be added (possibly after the article's creation, but preferably before) and I agree with Axius concerning the need of a language cleanup. I too will try to help with that in the next day or two. I would also say that the 5 pillars section needs to be redone to be consistent with the rest. So, IMO, it is not quite ready but it is getting close. Other than that; well done. --Sahab (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2014 (PDT)
I added some more verses for the claims of being detailed and made some headings. I found those additional verses here after searching for what Quran says about salat so I could add those verses. For now I just did this and will try to add salat verses related verses so match the other sections. A good compilation of Salat related verses has been done for us here: . A page like this can probably go in a Ref tag, and we can have some specific verses and for the rest we can give the reader the link in the Ref tag.
Saggy, my opinion is that new verses for missing details should not be added anymore unless they're really good. Instead the effort should be focused on finalizing this page. --Axius (talk | contribs) 20:36, 12 March 2014 (PDT)
Saggy, additions of new verses is fine but it may keep extending the time it may take for the article to be reviewed/finalized (just letting you know). You can keep adding the verses though I think thats fine. --Axius (talk | contribs) 07:01, 15 March 2014 (PDT)
I planned the order to be numerical so we start with chapter 2 and go to 113  :/ --Saggy (talk) 08:55, 15 March 2014 (PDT)
Oh ok. I reverted myself then. I think it should be revised so its categorized in the other sense. I think its more powerful to present "practices of Islam" in one section and laws in another etc. Do you disagree? OR, you can reorder them in the end when you're done. Another related point is that there are enough "stories" (fables) for now. It would be nice to have more incomplete details for other categories like "laws" or practices in Islam (charity, fasting, salat) etc. Or any new categories. But yes I do believe that presenting related categories is more powerful. We dont follow the chapter series anywhere on other pages because the verses are pretty random. --Axius (talk | contribs) 09:04, 15 March 2014 (PDT)
Law? theres hardly any law to search for i think. some practices eg. pilgrimage are more detailed than the 1-line-stories so there may not be more practices to insert. Some are not story or anything categoryable eg. "We revealed the book and with it the balance". Where do they go in the event of separation?--Saggy (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2014 (PDT)
Thief's repentance is one example of a law/sharia issue, currently the only one though. The others can go in a "Miscellaneous/Other verses" section. I guess keep collecting and we can think about it in the end. --Axius (talk | contribs) 11:38, 15 March 2014 (PDT)

I readied the prose, now create it or u want more verses?--Saggy (talk) 08:40, 20 March 2014 (PDT)

I will read through it later and clean it up before creating it. There's enough content there for an initial article. But I also want to separate the 5 Pillars before that. --Sahab (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2014 (PDT)
2 pillars and ablution; and 1 or two more laws. Should they all go into one bunch? The Rest of the pillars have a decent amount of details so they may not go in.--Saggy (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2014 (PDT)
It's okay. I worked around it now. For Axius: concerning that progressive-muslim link; the translation they use is not accurate and distorts verses a lot. They're also Qur'anist apologists; their whole point is that the Qur'an is detailed, so I don't think it will benefit us from citing Qur'anist apologists as a reference. --Sahab (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2014 (PDT)
Only 1 translator called 85;4 as fire.[2] it many not necessarily be the usual future hell. I gave the source from wikipedia. Saggy (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2014 (PDT)
If the lack of detail was based on a historical event, then this should have been mentioned. And if only one translator used the word fire in 85:4 then you should have called the section heading "Makers of the Pit", not "Makers of the Pit of Fire" (I will change this now). Because if the fire translation is accepted then it could be easily argued that this is a poetic way of saying sinners are making their own place in hell, so it's not the Qur'an's lack of detail that is the problem, but the interpretations. --Sahab (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2014 (PDT)
Saggy, why are you rushing everything and only making a half-hearted attempt at creating a decent article? Axius may disagree with me, and I'm not trying to discourage you, but my philosophy has always been, "if you're not going to do something properly, then don't do it at all". It is this that has led to us weeding out most of the weak articles and deleting them, resulting in a very high-quality wiki with a reputation for its accurate and articulate content. But when it comes to you, even your talk page messages are so rushed that it makes them hard to understand.
See this section called "Blowing on Knots" that you wrote. You say about Qur'an 113:1-4 that, "One cannot understand who are those who blow on knots and why." This could be easily refuted by apologists. All they have to do is click on our verse reference that goes to the USC-MSA site an see that both of the other translators render it as "those who practise secret arts" and "the evil of malignant witchcraft". Then they can claim that WikiIslam are dishonest and are simply choosing the 1 translation that is most ambiguous and suited to "their agenda". Looking at the multiple translations available at islamawakened, most translators render it as something to do with witchcraft.
I've now fixed that by removing the text you wrote and replacing it with, "Many translators identify those who blow on knots as "those who practice secret arts" or witchcraft, but this information is not found within the actual Qur'anic text. Others choose to translate it accurately as "those who blow on knots", which makes it impossible to identify who these people are and why they would do such a thing." But you were obviously aware of the situation (since you chose the 1 translation of the three that only mentions knots) so why did you not think to add this to the article? It was the same thing Qur'an 85:4 (discussed above this message). If you were aware of the uncertainty behind the meaning of this verse being discused by Muslim scholars so it confirms the fact that this verse lacks detail, why did you fail to mention it? You are rushing just to throw articles out there and this is resulting in your work being weak or incomprehensible. This is not how we do things. We do not choose quantity over quality. That may have been the case 5 years ago but not today.
So can you please try to adjust you editing style accordingly? --Sahab (talk) 08:32, 23 March 2014 (PDT)
ok. But I bet those claims against this site will never go away.--Saggy (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2014 (PDT)
Thanks, Saggy. Of course. We know these claims will never go away. We are not doing it for those apologists who make these claims. We are doing it for all those people (Muslim and non-Muslim) who use us to learn about Islam and trust us for our accuracy. We need to be thorough and clear enough so that they have the information available to see that we are correct. --Sahab (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2014 (PDT)
I agree with what Sahab said and in particular "We do not choose quantity over quality.". As we can see Sahab did a lot of work [3] on the Details article. Thanks for that Sahab. Saggy please note Sahab's recommendations.
Anyone can make any number of Sandbox articles, whether they're of poor or good quality. Picking those sandbox articles and finalizing them is entirely optional and is up to other users.
So Saggy if you can do a good job in the Sandbox article, it makes it more likely that others will work on it and finalize the article. If its too difficult others can just add it to the tasks page to work on it in the future. If its added there, you can see that the tasks page contains lots of tasks so it will likely be a long time before anyone works on it. I would advise you to keep working on Sandbox articles as you have done but if you ask people to finalize it and it needs a lot of work, you can expect a reply like "it needs a lot of work (for example, X, Y Z) and at the moment I'm unable to work on it". In that case you can keep working on the article to the best of your ability (and make it rebuttal proof as best as you can). It can be added to the Tasks page if it needs a lot of fixing up. --Axius (talk | contribs) 17:27, 24 March 2014 (PDT)

Womb sentence[edit]

Here see its second sentence. does it make enough of sense? some stray translator calls it "hiding pregnancy," but is it really something that can be hidden over time? especially in those old days? If it is unclear, it should go into some article.--Saggy (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2014 (PDT)

I think it sounds pretty clear. --Sahab (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2014 (PDT)
What does this mean? "Do not kill your children secretly, for the milk, with which a child is suckled while his mother is pregnant, overtakes the horseman and throws him from his horse."[4] Saggy (talk) 08:18, 2 April 2014 (PDT)
Why? --Sahab (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2014 (PDT)
I think he just wants to know what the hadith means. Strange hadith. I dont know myself. --Axius (talk | contribs) 09:56, 2 April 2014 (PDT)
Appears to be claiming fetuses drink their mother's milk in the womb. --Sahab (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2014 (PDT)
Whoa lol. Yea I think you're right. I dont know what that horseman thing means though. Funny. --Axius (talk | contribs) 10:11, 2 April 2014 (PDT)
Yeah, I dunno what the "horseman" refers to either. It's probably the killer. And the milk thing sounds silly but it's not out of the ordinary for Islamic literature where the moon and sun are considered sentient beings and food likewise "praise Allah" or warn Muhammad of poisoning. Although we have to be careful with such things because while the former is a scientific error, the latter is a miracle. --Sahab (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2014 (PDT)
To put it somewhere.Saggy (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2014 (PDT)
Scientific Errors in the Hadith? (lol. I'm assuming it can't be argued that fetuses suckle on their mother's milk). --Sahab (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2014 (PDT)
So I was thinking the apologist could argue (as they do) but that the child in this quote is a child outside which has been born already: "with which a child is suckled while his mother is pregnant". In any case, this hadith could be in a "Other Hadiths" sub-section or wherever (its up to you guys). --Axius (talk | contribs) 14:57, 2 April 2014 (PDT)
I'll fill in the details of every possible meaning. But if this is for the scientific error article, what title to give it? "Breast milk can overflow?"Saggy (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2014 (PDT)
Could be "Break milk is consumed by Fetus", etc.
But look what I found. I think this is interesting. I googled "greek science breast milk uterus" and I found this paper. Google "The History of the Knowledge of Reproductive Anatomy and Physiology " [5] and click on the link from
ca 150 A.D. -- Galen – was a Greek Biologist and philosopher who practised medicine, was a surgeon to gladiators and a public demonstrator of anatomy.
He also believed women had two uteri ending in single neck. One of his theories was that if milk flows from the breasts of a pregnant woman, it is an indication that the foetus will be weak. His reasoning for this is; the breasts and uterus are joined by common vessels. The foetus inside the uterus is bathed in nutrients (milk), if this milk overflows to the breasts it is because the foetus is not strong enough to consume as much as it should be.
Galen is mentioned on our site in other places too. site search. Food for thought. I knew it could be connected to Greek science just like the Embryology/semen backbone stuff is copied from Greek science in Islamic texts. I would suggest the next steps as possibly finding more related hadiths and any Islamic scholar's comments on this hadith and then citing this paper to link them. There needs to be more study to see completely what the hadith means to say.
Then I added Galen to the search query greek science breast milk uterus galen. Click on the PDF "Exploring gender: Islamic Perspectives on Breastfeeding" for more info.
Galen says in another link [6] "so that if a nursing mother should become pregnant,", so it might be talking about a pregnant woman who is nursing another child. This is just more information. Saggy could you analyze this carefully or do more research before putting the hadith in to make sure we are not putting in any hadiths that can be explained. I have no additional input on this. --Axius (talk | contribs) 15:12, 3 April 2014 (PDT)
The minimum error is that milk overflows. Where is the baby or how many babies are there does not matter. I'll insert this and its better to see if somebody tries to refute or explain the rest of words later. Saggy (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2014 (PDT)
[7] "there can be only some leakage of milk", can qualify for "A Pregnant woman's milk can overflow". Technically "some leakage" is "overflow". --Axius (talk | contribs) 04:30, 4 April 2014 (PDT)
No, it throws a horseman! All i found was this denial-[8] and another where a guy will make 60 women pregnant and their kids will become horsemen of war[9] - it maybe related to our subject of child/horseman but it does not clarify the milk. neway I read some breastfeeding facts and wrote down.Saggy (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2014 (PDT)
Let me think- mother or somebody else may have planned to kill the foetus ( but i am not sure if this was possible). If it is killed what happens to the milk? overflow, at best. If she's pregnant and feeds a second child and this child is to be killed, again the milk may be excess. the horseman falling must be the exagerration and it is best to point that out. I checked more - only breastfeed woman leaks often. but pregnant plus breastfeeder can be sometimes low on milk supply.Saggy (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2014 (PDT)
Added ref for decreased milk. The ref template needs some fixes. i see it later, i've to go.Saggy (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2014 (PDT)
Ok, I think I understand now. The hadith says that it will always be the case that overflow happens for a pregnant breast feeding woman. I still dont get the logic behind the hadith "Dont kill your child because otherwise the milk wont overflow" ... ? Must be some background on the hadith as to whats going on. Yea I saw that link. I googled "overtakes the horseman and throws him from his horse" and saw a few more links. Here's another [10] which is about intercourse and other stuff.:
Imam Abu Sulaiman Al Khattabi explaining the hadith says, “The Prophet (pbuh) is indicating that when the husband has intercourse with his breastfeeding wife, which results in pregnancy, it reduces her milk, thus depriving the suckling child, as it is being nourished from that milk, hence weakening the suckling child”. (Ma’aalim Al Sunan of Imam Abu Sulaiman Al Khattabi)
and this quote (note the interpretation of horseman etc):
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "…gheelah (pregnancy during the period of breastfeeding) overtakes the rider and throws him from the horse." (Reported by Abu Dawud, this means that the child who nurses from a pregnant mother will suffer from it in later life like a horseman who is thrown from his horse.)"
There may be additional information in the google link about the horseman phrase. --Axius (talk | contribs) 05:08, 4 April 2014 (PDT)
And after Googling that phrase ("this means ....") I found only two links, one of which was that forum and the other is this [11]. So I think this hadith may not be a good choice after addition after all but check all of this information and see for yourself. You can also get additional scientific error Hadiths from this page: Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Islamic_Silliness. You can copy the ones that can be shown as scientific errors. Its ok to have one hadith shown in multiple pages. But yes continue with your hadith scanning/search because we know there are more errors/things found in Hadith than Quran verses. --Axius (talk | contribs) 05:23, 4 April 2014 (PDT)
I searched for "Romans persians" and got this [12] Book 008, Number 3391 is what they seem to call gheelah. But gheelah does not appear linked to "kill children" nor to the fall from horse. Its tiring; verifying such claims. What analogy did they say: Child will suffer the same as a horseback fall? is it due to milk in any way? This fall-suffer analogy is strange, it seems like all those miracle claims derived from half sentences. The subject is clearly milk, not child. but they changed it to child to brush it away. So you have googled and thrown light(lol) on two separate parts: If the second half is an analogy, the first is not clear. If we understand or assume the first, the second is not clear. "Milk throws the horseman from the horse" looks the same as "sperm flows between backbone and ribs." By now, a whole article could be made on this mess if needed.Saggy (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2014 (PDT)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (outdented)"This fall-suffer analogy is strange" - the apologist will quote Abu Dawaud and claim that its not referring to overflow but punishment later on. I would suggest to move on to something else as things are not as clear as we would like them to be (unless additional evidence can be found). The problem is the meaning of the hadith is not clear, and we cannot claim that horseman refers to overflow (without evidence that says so). --Axius (talk | contribs) 09:28, 4 April 2014 (PDT)

That is what I was trying to say - such an apologist cant show which word refers to what, satisfactorily. (is it "milk" that refers to punishment?) I had said the sperm thing on realising that the first guy who pointed out the sperm-flow error did not expect that apologists will give 10 different interpretations, half of them twisting the original words. They are all debunked. Same may happen here. We should take the hadith literally unless there is strong evidence for different meanings in it.Saggy (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2014 (PDT)
Agreed that it should be taken literally. Literally it just says "horseman taking over the horse". Anything else (overflow or punishment) needs a reference. I would suggest adding the hadith to some kind of "to do" page where hadiths of interest are listed so it can be looked at again when there's more information. If the hadith literally said something about over flow or punishment or lack of milk for the other baby etc, it would be another situation. --Axius (talk | contribs) 10:10, 4 April 2014 (PDT)
I think that hadith should not be added to the list. I do not get "A Pregnant woman's milk can overflow" from a literal reading. In the end, a literal reading is all that matters because anything else is an interpretation and can be argued against. Ultimately, this is just one odd hadith out of literally thousands of odd hadith, so I don't see any importance in this. --Sahab (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2014 (PDT)
Ok. Yes, the concept ofoverflow is not mentioned explictly and one interpretation says it means something else.
Saggy, I would to reiterate the need for adding content that is "rebuttal" proof. You said "Its tiring; verifying such claims.". Yes its more work making sure new content is strong and of high quality but its worth it. If you want you can add the Hadith to your own "to do" page/section where you can continue the research (in which case make sure you add the reference to the Abu Dawud meaning of suffering I found). Again, do look at the Silliness hadiths to see if any can be added from there to the Science errors page. Many hadiths/verses are easy decisions to insert if the meanings are clear (this kind of hadith is not found often). Easy or not, all new content still needs a careful look to make sure it is acceptable.
Its nice that you have been researching hadiths and verses and some of your other additions have been fine so yea, continue that. I recommend you do it like this as its easier: Put all of the interesting verses and hadiths you come across in your own temporary Sandbox page, and when you have a certain number, start inserting them into the relevant pages (after a good review). And then you can go back and search some more. This is easier than finding one quote, inserting, finding another and inserting etc. In the Sandbox you also have more freedom to write what you want until its finalized: User:Saggy/Sandbox, User:Saggy/Sandbox for QHS. etc --Axius (talk | contribs) 05:23, 5 April 2014 (PDT)