WikiIslam:Forum

From WikiIslam

(Redirected from WI:D)
Jump to: navigation, search

New section


Contents

[edit] History of Jihad - New Pages

We have added ten new pages to History of Jihad as external links. You may want to host them on Wikiislam and add them to the TOC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Historyofjihad (talk • contribs) (How to sign your posts)


[edit] Need suggestions for essays written by Users

I've made this template {{essay}} which puts a box on a user's page if its an essay. I thought its a good idea to mark a certain page as an essay, especially when it has been largely written by a certain user. Here are a few examples:

I think the first thing a user questions when he sees an essay is, who wrote this? The user attribution solves this. Thats basically it. I'm also thinking of having a new section on the main page called Essays by users or should we call it Op-Eds? Suggestions are welcome. --Whale (talk/contribs) 21:29, 4 July 2007 (PDT)

[edit] Created Site map link

Following a discussion on the Deletions page, I've created a Site map link on the left navigational bar now as you can see. Its a good link to have there as its a universal/general kind of page that relates to the whole site. This page is able to give an overview of the whole site and list (all or most of the) the articles in addition to the ones on the main page. This can be a page where we can find any link that we're looking for, which is sometimes hard to do. There are many links which are hidden behind the Main page. Uncovering those links is the job of this page. Feel free to change it as you think will help you (and others) navigate the site better and more comprehensively. --Whale talk contribs 20:57, 26 June 2007 (PDT)

[edit] Main page?

I thought that was what the Talk:Main Page was for.--Wanderer 15:00, 26 June 2007 (PDT)
Actually the main page should be only for discussing content about the main page. I've moved some of the general content here. --Whale talk contribs 19:25, 26 June 2007 (PDT)

[edit] Quotes from Famous People

I propose the we change the title "Quotes from Famous People" to "Quotations on Islam". Or we can make "Quotes from Famous People" a subsection of "Quotations on Islam". The reason for this change would be to allow for quotes that have been said by obscure but important authors to be placed on this page. Selfworm 04:54, 7 September 2006 (CDT)

Hey Selfworm, thanks for contributing! "Quotations on Islam" seems much better and I agree with the rest of your changes too. I dont like the re-direct feature of wikipedia because it includes that little text which is better not seen sometimes ("redirected from"). Maybe its better to make a new page "Quotations on Islam" and start from there. What do you think? --Whale 09:33, 7 September 2006 (CDT)
"Maybe its better to make a new page "Quotations on Islam" and start from there. What do you think?" I agree with this approach. We can make "Quotes from Famous People" a subsection of this new page. Selfworm 11:14, 7 September 2006 (CDT)
Ok good, I made those changes then. Here's the new page: Quotations on Islam -a copy of the same page with just a different title. I see now its easier to rename, but it doesnt look as nice as deleting and recreating the page. --Whale 13:54, 7 September 2006 (CDT)

[edit] Just a suggestion

I have recently come across this wiki, and I have a few suggestions to make it more encyclopediac. I have noticed one good thing about the muslim wikipedia that you may be able to copy here. It is written like an encyclopedia. As I assume you are creating a wiki critical to Islam, you may want to create articles similar to those found on wikipedia but tailor them to fit in this wiki. By that, I mean you may want to create articles about Muhammad, the history of Islam, famous terrorist attacks, terrorists, etc.--Wanderer 00:19, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

Thanks for your input. MuslimWikipedia seems more like to me "Dubai's construction projects". It is also copying a lot of material from Wikipedia, e.g. [1] and [2] - these articles are very similiar. We could do the same but we want to focus on creating unique articles and features first. Otherwise the copying job would be an endless task. We've just started and have a lot to do. Right now we're just a handful of editors (i.e. the ones who are regular) and we work on our own chosen topics from time to time. We need help in creating articles about all the topics you mentioned and in time they will be created. For example, one of the next plans I have, is create a place where former Muslims can write their own testimonies and experiences with Islam. Right now, we have some very unique pages that are not found on the internet anywhere: Quotations on Islam, Audio on Islam, Rebuttals to Zakir Naik, Farsideology, List Islam, Hundreds of Questions to Ask a Muslim, Quotations from the Quran and the Hadith, Islam in Numbers and many others. With time, we'll have more and more unique features and articles.--Whale 06:35, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

I was looking at the articles [3] and [4]. It seems that the wikipedia took its article from the muslim wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fred (talk • contribs) (How to sign your posts)

Its probably the other way around. --Whale talk contribs 04:54, 16 May 2007 (PDT)

You might also want to create articles about famous former muslims.--Wanderer 20:02, 16 May 2007 (PDT)

Thanks for the suggestion, yes those will also come in time. Thanks for your work on Muhammed to get that article out of stub status. --Whale talk contribs 07:49, 17 May 2007 (PDT)


[edit] Made News link template

I made this template which now also shows the location of the news event and the date it occured (2 important aspects of a news event): Template:Newslink. Any comments? Hopefully it doesnt look like an overkill. --Whale talk contribs 07:40, 9 May 2007 (PDT)

I think it might be a good idea to have the name of the country instead, because the primary purpose is to know which country this event happened in. It takes some time for the brain to process that information from the flag, but not from the text so I'll change this to text.--Whale talk contribs 14:16, 9 May 2007 (PDT)

[edit] New stuff

I suggest we create a page for new article, template, etc. proposals.--Wanderer 20:22, 8 July 2007 (PDT)


[edit] Today's Islam advocates beating women

In some parts of the Middle East and other areas of the Muslim world, a woman may be beaten severely by her husband or male relatives for something as ridiculous as not having dinner prepared on time. It is a common theme amongst some male Muslims to beat their women whenever they think it is deserved and they can rest assured that the entire Islamic Scholars will be right behind them for support.

Although this may sound bizarre, the Muslim Scholars have told people that God has ordained in His holy book that women may be beaten if their male counter-part is not pleased with them. The verse that Muslims claim gives a green light to commit violence against their women-folk is the following:

[Yusufali Translation]: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear "Nushooz" disloyalty and ill-conduct , admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) "Idribuhun" beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)." (4:34)

If indeed God had commanded men to beat their `disloyal` women, then we have no course of action but to `hear & obey`...However, there is more than meets the eye in accepting the common interpretation of verse 4:34 which is the subject of this article.

The Quran is best studied by placing all similar subject words/verses together (this approach is called `Tarteel` and has been advised by the Almighty in 73:4).

There are two key words that are central to deriving the correct meaning for this topic:

Nushuz (translated above `disloyalty & ill-conduct)

Idribuhun (translated above as `beat them`).

The first word `Nushooz` will give us an understanding of what the subject is all about...Is this about a woman who is disloyal and in ill-conduct (an adulteress or temptress perhaps?) Or, has this word been mistranslated based on a backdrop of social ignorance and male domination?

Nushooz means: `to rise / go above`.

This can be seen clearly in 58:11 where people are told to `Nushooz` from the place of gathering/sitting.

[Yusufali Translation]: O ye who believe! When ye are told to make room in the assemblies, (spread out and) make room: (ample) room will Allah provide for you. And when ye are told "Inshuzoo" *to rise up, rise up Allah will rise up, to (suitable) ranks (and degrees), those of you who believe and who have been granted (mystic) Knowledge. And Allah is well-acquainted with all ye do." (58:11)

  • Notice how our translator [Yusufali] has given the correct translation in the verse, whereas in 4:34 it was all about `disloyalty & ill-conduct`.

Therefore, the issue we are dealing with here is not adultery or some other act of immorality, but rather it is the subject of a woman `rebelling / going against` her husband (going above them, not acknowledging the other, not listening, deserting them, etc.).

Let us read what the Quran tells us to do when it is the man that is doing the `Nushooz` and not the woman:

[Yusufali Translation]: If a wife fears cruelty or "Nushooz" **desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best; even though men's souls are swayed by greed. But if ye do good and practise self-restraint, Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do." (4:128)

    • Again, we see our translator [yusufali] magically giving the correct meaning by translating `Nushooz` as `desertion` when it just happened that the male was the subject matter!

The Quran tells us that if the man is the one who is doing the `Nushooz` then the couple need to reconcile or part since he obviously has rebelled against his wife (can't stand to be with her, finds himself wanting to leave from her presence, etc..)...The verse does not say that the woman should `beat` the man into submission or bring her men-folk to do so in order to knock some sense into him...It says they should talk, and reconcile, since obviously this is an issue which needs people to come-back into respecting and loving one another, or part ways.

Now to move back to the verse where the woman is the one doing the `Nushooz` using the correct translation:

"The men are to support the women by what God has gifted them over one another and for what they spend of their money. The upright women who are attentive, and keep private the personal matters for what God keeps watch over. As for those women from whom you fear a "Nushooz" desertion, then you shall advise them, and abandon them in the bedchamber, and "Idribuhun" Beat them?; if they obey you, then do not seek a way over them; God is High, Great.` (4:34)

If we look at the subject matter, it is of a woman who cannot stand her man and therefore has rebelled from him...As with the example of the man being the one rebelling, there are steps to `calm things down` and to bring harmony into the marriage...Beating a woman if she can't stand her man and has rebelled against him will only make her hate him more (not exactly a logical or practical solution to the problem).

Obviously now that the subject has been better understood, it is the second word "Idribuhun" which needs examination in light of the Quran.

"Have you not seen how God puts forth (Daraba) the example of a good word is like a good tree, whose root is firm and its branches in the sky." (The Message 14:24)

"For the poor who face hardship in the cause of God, they cannot go forth (Darban) in the land; the ignorant ones think they are rich from their modesty; you know them by their features, they do not ask the people repeatedly. And what you spend out of goodness, God is fully aware of it." (2:273)

Daraba (in its natural state) means: `to put forth`

The only reason this word can sometimes mean hit/strike is because a person is `putting forth` his hand when striking someone (see 8:12, 8:50, 47:27).

"And if you could only see as the Angels take those who have rejected, they "Yadriboon" strike their faces and their backs: `Taste the punishment of the blazing Fire!`" (8:50)

Looking back at 4:34, we see that the context of the verse (solving the wife's rejection of her husband) leads us to choose the natural meaning of "Darab" which is: `to put forth` and not the alternative meaning of `strike`.

"The men are to support the women by what God has gifted them over one another and for what they spend of their money. The upright women who are attentive, and keep private the personal matters for what God keeps watch over. As for those women from whom you fear a desertion, then you shall 1) advise them, and 2) abandon them in the bedchamber, and 3) "Idribuhun" let them go forth; if they obey you, then do not seek a way over them; God is High, Great." (4:34)

The approach of choosing the `best` understanding and/or meaning is both logical and, more importantly, in-line with the guidance for study we are given by God:

"The ones who listen to what is being said, and then follow the BEST of it. These are the ones whom God has guided, and these are the ones who possess intelligence." (39:18)

What we have now is a comprehensive list of steps in order for a man to deal with his wife who wants to desert her husband and can no longer stand to be with him...

Talk about it. This is obviously the simplest and healthiest method since it opens the communication channel between both parties.

Abstain from sharing the same bed. This is the 2nd approach the man is advised to use if they are unable to reconcile their problem as the lack of sexual contact may lead to the wife to cool down as intimate contact may simply inflame the situation if she is unable to stand her husband.

Separate from each other. The 3rd and final line of advice is designed as a 'cooling-off' period and is mainly designed to help the wife re-think and examine the situation closely without the physical presence of her husband.

The logic and clarity of the above steps are a far cry from the wife beating and bashing claims which this article started off examining....

As for those who have been promoting the evil inherited from their forefathers while claiming falsely it was from God...

"And if they commit evil acts, they Say: `We found our fathers doing such, and God ordered us to it.` Say: `God does not order evil! Do you say about God what you do not know?` Say: `My Lord orders justice, and that you be devoted at every temple, and that you call on Him, while being faithful to Him in the system; as He initiated you, so you will return.` A group He has guided and a group have deserved misguidance; that is because they have taken the devils as allies besides God; and they think they are guided!" (7:28-30)




Questions / Issues

Below are some arguments/questions which have been presented in support of the understanding to `beat women` as claimed is the true meaning in 4:34.

In Arabic, the word for `separate from them` is `IdribuANhun` and not `Idribuhun` as used in 4:34. Therefore `beat` is the correct meaning.

The people who raise such linguistic obstacles fail to notice that God uses the very same word `Darab` such as in 14:24 without any prefix.

"Have you not seen how God puts forth (Daraba) the example of a good word is like a good tree, whose root is firm and its branches in the sky." (The Message 14:24)

Would they claim by the very same linguistic argument that God is `beating` an example? Or, will they accept that without any prefix the word can mean to `put forth`?

The word `Idrib` means `beat` if applied to a living object/thing and can mean otherwise if applied to a non-living object/thing.

This is mainly an argument put forth by groups who have preconceived notions and wish to keep believing that Islam is a mindless and barbaric system. The argument holds no merit based on linguistics or Arabic grammar. In-fact, the usage of the word `Idrib` as applied in verse 24:31 puts an end to this argument as the women are obviously not being commanded to `beat` their bosoms with their shawls, but rather they are commanded to `put-forth` their shawls:

"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and keep covered their private parts, and that they should not reveal their beauty except what is apparent, and let them put-forth (YaDribna) their shawls over their cleavage..." (24:31)

[edit] 2 WOMEN= 1 MAN?

According to today’s Muslim scholars and leaders, women are not fit to rule or hold any office of significance because God has indicated that they are deficient when compared to men. The Muslim scholars will tell you that in the Quran God has made the testimony of ONE man equal to that of TWO women because women are forgetful and emotionally driven.

Any sane and rational person who has worked or studied with women will know that they can be just as smart, if not smarter, than most of their male counterparts. At the same time, I have yet to find this fictional woman who forgets or whose memory is weaker than a man’s (we all wish this was the case sometimes). Let us examine the verse where all these unequal and sexist conclusions have been drawn:

"Oh you who believe, if you borrow until a delayed period then you will write it amongst you, and let he who is an official record keeper write between you, and let him not refuse to write as God has commanded it. And when he writes, let he who has borrowed give the details of the transaction and he shall fear his Lord God and not omit anything. If the one who has borrowed is not fit, or if he is weak, or if he can’t complete the information; then let he who is responsible for him fill-in on his behalf. And you shall have TWO witnesses from your men, and if they are not two men then let them be ONE man and TWO women from those whose testimony you accept, so if one of them is mis-guided <Tudhil>, then one will remind the other….." (2/282)

The word used in 2:282 which has caused the misunderstanding of the witnessing requirement is 'Tudhil'.

-Khalifa has translated this as: 'biased'. -Yusif Ali used: 'errs'.

There are also a few translations which used: 'forgets'.

The word for 'forgets' in Arabic is 'Tansa/Nasi'...Thus we can rule out this possibility from the start.

'Dhal' is used in opposition to 'Huda' (guidance)...Thus its prime translation could be 'Misguided'.

"You guide (Tahdi )whom you will, and you misguide (Tidhil) whom you will'.

Its derivative is also used in Sura # 1, Al-Fatiha (Al-Dhaleen) - Those who are misguided.

Another diravitave is 'Dhilal/Dhil' which means 'Shade' (area without complete light).

Thus, looking at 2:282 we can say:

"If you cannot find, then one man and two women FROM WHO'S TESTIMONY IS ACCEPTABLE TO YOU. If one of them is 'Tudhil', then one will remind the other..." (2:282)

Please note that the issue of 'honesty/Biastness' is not at question since the choice of witnesses has to be of people who are already acceptable or honest.

We also said that 'Forgetfullnes' is not a possible translation.

Tudhil = Becomes Misguided / Lost / Shaded.

A clearer undertsanding of 2:282 taes place when we analyze the steps involved:

1. If there is a finacial transaction involving debt between two or more parties and whose repayment will be at a later stage, then it must be documented.

2. The documentation of such a transaction is to be done through an official record keeper or institution.

3. The one who has borrowed the debt will be the one giving the record keeper the details of the transaction as he/she will put his signature or print on the document.

4. If the one who has borrowed is incapacitated for any reason from giving information, then his/her guardian shall take such responsibility.

5. Two witnesses are required to seal the transaction.

6. It is preferable that the two witnesses be males, but if that is not possible then one man and two women will suffice.

7. At the time of testimony ONLY TWO witnesses are required, if one of the women is incapacitated then the other must take her place.

The question we should all ask ourselves is "What would cause one of the women to be 'mis-guided' in her testimony?".

The answer is obvious: the key difference between men and women is their physiology. Women give birth and men don’t, women must rest for a lengthy period after child birth while men don’t, women as mothers must suckle their children while men don't, women have menstrual cycles which incapacitate there movement somewhat while men don’t. These differences exist as a matter of physical fact and have nothing to do with intellegence or will.

It is obvious from the Quran that God calls on TWO witnesses to be present (this is clear from the sequence of words in the verse). God being the knower and creator of all things knows that having one man and one women as a witness is not practical since on the day they are called the women may be incapacitated while the man may not, and since God calls on TWO witnesses, then the chances of having both present becomes much higher when TWO women and ONE man are selected so at the time of calling there are three people to choose from (please note that had God meant that the testimony of ONE man equals TWO women then He would have continued the verse and said: If TWO women and One man are not available then you shall select FOUR women).

This precious Quran speaks of nothing but fairness and equality for both men and women, yet it is the evil wishes of those who have corrupted the religion to turn It into a book that serves their own purposes and desires.

Please note: Other than 'future financial transactions' listed in 2:282, the testimony of 1 woman = 1 man as can be seen:

"If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way." (Verse 4:15)

"And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors;-" (Verse 24:4)

In-fact, there is even one instance where the testimony of a woman OVERRIDES that of a man!:

"And for those who launch a charge against their spouses, and have (in support) no evidence but their own,- their solitary evidence (can be received) if they bear witness four times (with an oath) by Allah that they are solemnly telling the truth; And the fifth (oath) (should be) that they solemnly invoke the curse of Allah on themselves if they tell a lie. But it would avert the punishment from the wife, if she bears witness four times (with an oath) By Allah, that (her husband) is telling a lie; And the fifth (oath) should be that she solemnly invokes the wrath of Allah on herself if (her accuser) is telling the truth." (Verses 24:6-9)

[edit] Ali Sina asks: If Allah is almighty, can he make a rock so big that he can’t lift it?

My Answer would be: Could I be a bachelor who buys my wife flowers every day?" It's meaningless: If I was a bachelor, I wouldn't have a wife. If I had a wife, I wouldn't be a bachelor. It indicates an error in the thinking of the person asking it.


Are you listening Ali Sina? 

                                Mistakes in the Quran.

The big question for Muslims and for non-Muslims is not Muhammad's some 43 (Muhammad Ibn Ishaq) raids mainly to rob caravans and villages, it is not his child wife Aishah - married 6 years old and sex started 9 years old (and Muhammad some 57 years old) (hadiths Al-Bukhari), it is not his raping of Raihana bint Amr or Safiyya bint Huayay (Ibn Ishaq), it is not his murdering of the peace delegation from Khaibar (Ibn Ishaq), it is not the murdering of all men (some 700) and enslaving all children and women in Khaibar (Ibn Warraq), it is not even his institutionalizing of Al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) or his slogan "war is betrayal" (Ibn Ishaq) or his telling that robbing, enslaving and killing is "lawful and just" (Ibn Ishaq and others) or a lot of other things.

The really big question is all the mistakes in the Quran: 1. At least some 1000 places with mistaken facts - included details and repetitions (www.1000mistakes.com - based on A. Yusuf Ali (it is a good one - make links if you like it). No omniscient god use mistaken facts. 2. Uncounted, but MANY logically invalied "signs" and "proofs" - invalid because they in relity are just statements or claims based on thin air or on other not proved statements or claims. No omniscient god makes invalid signs or proofs - not to mention that a few of the proof are wrong ("1000 Mistakes in the Quran" (partly on Internet as www.1000mistakes.com and free for anyone to use)). 3. A disputed number of gramatical errors, but something like 100 or more perhaps. 4. A similar number of ortographical errors. 5. Quite a number of differences compared to the Bible (and other books). Here one of courde can discuss which one is wrong and which one is right, but at least for a number of points one knows that the stories in the Quran are taken from apocryphical (made up) scriptures (like f. ex. The Gospel after Thomas and different so-called Child Gospels), from legends (like The 7 Sleepers) and folklore, and concequently are wrong.

Especially the mistaken facts and the invalid "signs" and "proofs" are easy for anyone with some education to find.

The Quran claims the Quran has no mistakes. Muhammad claimed the Quran had no mistakes. Islam claims the Quran has no mistakes. Muslims claim the Quran has no mistakes. But what do all those claim help, when anyone who uses his/her knowledge and brain - not only the eyes - when reading, has god to find numbers of mistakes?

No omniscient god makes mistakes or use invalid signs or proofs, etc., as mentioned.

That means if there are mistakes in the Quran, it is not made by a god - not to mention kept by a god as a revered Mother Book (like the Quran itself claims) in Heaven.

And if it the Quran is not made by a god - what then is Islam?

[edit] Ali Sina says Big bang theory was accepted before the advent of Islam

Can some one approve this?

Yes. See http://www.sullivan-county.com/x/science.htm and http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/ep/bang.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by userper (talk • contribs) (How to sign your posts)

[edit] Ali Sina should have sex with his Mother

Why doesn't Ali Sina have sex with his mother when he does not believe in God and any punishment. is it sin if he has sex with his mother since he does not believe in Sin, so why he does not have sex with his mother. does he have an answer for this?

I'm new here but have had my own website debunking Islam, etc. for years. That is at http://www.sullivan-county.com/main.htm
I have steered a number of Muslims away from Islam and got plenty of threats in the process. My question is are we here to promote atheism or get Muslims to move to a far less violent belief system, etc.?
This comes back to the question for Ali Sina whom I admire. As a classical Deist my view is we need to use those parts of any faith that don't advocate murder, terror, etc. and also reject obvious nonsense. Like it or not a large part of our culture originates from the Bible, etc. Spare me the part about how religious people are all crazy killers when we have the French Revolution, socialism, Nazism, etc that were secular horror stories. French atheists were beheading people just like the Saudi Wahhabis do.
So in my view that without some moral underpinning there is nothing to stop one from having sex with children, mothers sisters, etc. because it might feel good. Do we just vote on it? Empty philosophy may not cut it.
What exactly in Greek philosophy says one can't have sex with kids? (sick in my view) I lot of pagan Greeks did just that. We can slam Mohammed for marrying a child but all kinds of people used to do that.
St. Augustin was going to marry a 10-year-old. Romans and Greeks often slept with their sisters, etc. Christianity and Judaism put a stop to that. (I'm no Christian.)
This is just for discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by userper (talk • contribs) (How to sign your posts)
See this article by Ali Sina: Morality vs. Ethics. If you want to comment on that article though, you should join the FFI forum. This is a page for discussion about WikiIslam. --Whale 15:09, 4 August 2009 (PDT)

[edit] Comment on site

This site is totally anti islamic who fears islam wich is the most peaceful relegion.Please the site owner and others are requested to study about islam without prejudice. the page contains total false . You are fearing the truth ... and also the fastest growing relegion in the world? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 116.68.80.108 (talk • contribs) (How to sign your posts)

See Fastest growing religion. --Whale 12:21, 8 November 2009 (PST)
This site is totally anti islamic
116.68.80.108

Please read this page : Islamophobia

who fears islam wich is the most peaceful relegion.
116.68.80.108

Please read: History of Jihad, Persecution of Ex-Muslims, Persecution of non-Muslims, Persecution of Homosexuals and The Ultimate Message of the Qur'an

Please the site owner and others are requested to study about islam without prejudice.
116.68.80.108

Unlike most Muslim apologists, we use authentic Islamic sources such as Sahih Hadith, Qur'an, Tafsirs, Sira etc. So I request that YOU do as you preach and study Islam without prejudice.

Please read: Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Main Page

the page contains total false
116.68.80.108

Rather than making baseless claims, show us where we're wrong ad we'll correct the mistake.

and also the fastest growing relegion in the world?
116.68.80.108

That's a logical fallacy. Please read: Argumentum ad populum, Statistics - Populations Growth Rates and Fastest growing religion --Gabe 12:29, 8 November 2009 (PST)

Nice reply Gabe! --Whale 12:38, 8 November 2009 (PST)


I was going to try and corrct all your mistakes but I realised you're just going to delete them. And to be honest I don't have the energy or time to waste on you. So you don't believe in Islam: that doesn't mean you should demean the faith or the people. So you left the faith: that doesn't mean you should stop other people from accepting it. Please don't advertise your site as the 'truth to Islam', it's clearly not. If you were so confident in your views you'd allow rebuttals on th actual page. But you don't. I hope you realise what exactly you're doing and I pray that my Prophet SAW doesn't hear a word of what you're saying. La ilaha illAllahu, Muhammadarasool Allah.

[edit] Help

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.18.223.124 (talk • contribs) (How to sign your posts)

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)

[edit] Cats

Gabe, since the FFI site is down right now I'm just gonna write here: We could put "Category:Muslims" for all the Muslims and then put "Category:People" inside the muslim category. That way critics of Islam wont be mixed up with Muslims; hows that? Let me do an example. --Whale 09:55, 23 November 2009 (PST)

Oops I did more examples than I should have. So what do you think? I thought we can keep Muslims separate in their own category and then the Muslims category (Category:Muslims) would be a sub-category of People (Category:People). --Whale 10:03, 23 November 2009 (PST)
Cool! I didn't know you could make sub-categories like that. Gabe 10:12, 23 November 2009 (PST)
I think there should be a sub-category called "Non-Muslims" to go alongside "Muslims". This way we can get to everyone from that one "People" page. For example; Karen Armstrong, Michael Jackson etc were/are not Muslims or critics of Islam. We should still keep the "Critics of Islam" cat, but remove it from the "People" cat, as the people in "Critics of Islam" would then already be covered under "Non-Muslims". Gabe 11:03, 23 November 2009 (PST)
Hi Gabe sure I agree with the non-muslims cat. If we had more critics of Islam maybe I'd make keep that additional category (e.g. you have Jihadists, Islamic clerics in the muslim pages) but yea for now we can get rid of it. --Whale 11:47, 23 November 2009 (PST)

Crap, forum's down so I'll just put this here: Oh hai thar! (can delete this comment when done 'cause it's completely OT) Sanitarium 11:30, 23 November 2009 (PST)

Ooo yea I saw that Gamespot thread in the search results too! I was gonna write about it but the site went down. I'm just gonna quote that other guy from there: "It seems you've saved me much work!". It was so good to see you there hehe. Great work there! If you see any additional stuff the pedo article should have, just add it to the tasks list like you did for the orphans verse. --Whale 11:47, 23 November 2009 (PST)
Whale, you already sent me the PM about it and that's why this "sanitarium1" registered there. It's not meee *cough* it's a coincidence and stuff lol! In all seriousness though, yeah I'll see if any new arguments come up. Did you see he apologized to me for the crappy article he copy/pasted? LOL and he sent me a PM admitting he didn't even read it (our article). Sanitarium 11:53, 23 November 2009 (PST)
Oh I see so that PM did get through, either that I forgot if it got sent or not but it was about the time the site went down (still down). Anyway I found it surprising that he said the article he posted was crap (as if he didnt read it carefully before copy pasted), when infact he wrote the thing himself then and there (because I cant find it anywhere on Google). In reality he just didnt know who he was gonna end up talking to. Maybe you could quote that PM in the thread so that everyone will know he didnt read the article. Poor guy - busted! Great job again! I couldnt do it the way you soundly rebutted anything and everything he said. So for one he says privately that he didnt read the original article then he changes his position and pretends that he posted a crappy article (giving the impression he mistakenly copy pasted something and didnt read it, when it was his own thing). Looks like good old Taqiya. --Whale 12:19, 23 November 2009 (PST)
Forgot to say that I think we can safely say he'll probably disappear from that thread now heh. --Whale 12:38, 23 November 2009 (PST)
Aww I hope not! I want more 'apologetic objections' for our article! yeah I couldn't find his article in Google either - maybe we just have crap google skills, or he made it up. If you see anymore threads like that that need refuting and you think I can do it (ie. no history of jihad stuff - that's my weak point) then send me a PM or something he seems nice (in PM) so maybe he's just really ignorant of his religion (big surprise). Wheeee forum's back up (at least for now). I sent you a reply to the PM where you sent me the link - it's mostly redundant now I think though. Sanitarium 12:43, 23 November 2009 (PST)
Thanks, Whale. I'll add the non-Muslim category now. LOL, ghoklebutter got his butt kicked. Gabe 12:49, 23 November 2009 (PST)

[edit] QHS

Sorry guys. I've been trying to PM for ages but that sites impossible. I'm not sure what other quotes to add to the Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Sexuality‎ page. --Gabe 01:12, 7 December 2009 (PST)

Yep TELL me about it LOL. You forgot to copy the actual hadith into the Sexuality page, so I moved it over there and removed them from the temp page. Don't worry about adding some more now if you can't find any, because i have quite a few that I'm going to get translated to add there (seriously nearly ALL the ones missing from the English ahadith collections are either perverted, to do with sexuality or BOTH lol! Sanitarium 01:24, 7 December 2009 (PST)
Cool! I probably should keep a sick-bag handy. I've been reading the reaction to "Christian Prince's" death. It makes me so sad. Those guys are sick.....Did I miss the actual hadith? LOL. <red face here> --Gabe 01:39, 7 December 2009 (PST)
Aww it's okay I thought you were just so disgusted by the commentary you missed the hadith lol. Who are you talking about when you say "Christian Prince"? *THE* CP from the Arabic Analysis vids page? I saw him online only a couple of hours ago!! I'm confused! Sanitarium 01:44, 7 December 2009 (PST)
This page that Whale linked to. The Muslims on there thought Christian Prince and his family were the Copts who got slaughtered in the US. Sick bastards. --Gabe 01:52, 7 December 2009 (PST)
Oh THAT! I thought it was some new info that I wasn't aware of yet. PHEW!!!! Yes I know = they gloat when Muslims murder critics. This is the bankruptcy of Islam though. Sanitarium 01:56, 7 December 2009 (PST)
Yea that was old news in 2005, I still remember it. For the QHS page, we could add a "in Heaven" section and add things from 72 Virgins that have anything to do sexuality: quran 78:33 and 56:36 for virgins and some from here: Numbers of Islam (sexual strength etc.) for numbers 6 (just that one hadith is enough and then we can link to the Aisha page for See More), 11, 30, 72, 100 (can come in a Misc. section as it does relate to sex) and the next two 100's. In a "Muhammad's life" section, we could add the one where he used to have sex with all his wives in one night, 9 or 11, where Aisha washed his semen from his clothes. Until we get more sex specific hadiths, we could add these or whatever you guys think. For section "punishments", we can add the stoning to death and the 100 lashes for the adulterer hadith. Some good ones from Silliness: "Animals", we could add scholars for saying "its not wrong to have sex with an animal" [5] and these: [6], [7], [8], [9]. If you dont know what kinda section to put these hadiths in, just put them in an "Other quotes" section. Thats all I can think of. Oh yea, for "Marital relations", we can put the "go to your wife or angels will curse you" [10] <-- any of those relating to marital sexuality can be copied here. "Rape" section [11], we can repeat some of the important ones (right hand) and then link to the main. Al-Azl (coitus interruptus), link the most important and then just the main. adultery is permitted in Islam. Thats it for now. You must be glad you asked :D. Thats all I can think of and I still feel I'm missing some. edit, homosexuality too. --Whale 04:46, 7 December 2009 (PST)

[edit] FFI

Is it just my computer, or is the FFI forum completely screwed? I can access it, but I can't click on anything or log in. --Gabe 11:33, 15 December 2009 (PST)

Its working for me, try restarting your computer. Maybe its a temp ISP problem at your end. --Whale 11:44, 15 December 2009 (PST)
Thanks! Will do. --Gabe 11:47, 15 December 2009 (PST)
Thanks Whale! Its working fine now. If only I asked a few hours ago :D --Gabe 12:04, 15 December 2009 (PST)
Great. The random quote on Mo's page looked good. --Whale 13:03, 15 December 2009 (PST)
Retrieved from "http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/WikiIslam:Forum"
Personal tools