User talk:Lightyears

From WikiIslam, the online resource on Islam
Jump to: navigation, search

Since you agreed with my take on constellations, how about going ahead with an article on that claim? Will you clear my edits in it when its ready? Saggy (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

I do agree on it as a theological issue, so I'd have no issue with an article on that (I think it should mention that it is also a general problem like with continents, mountains taking a long time to form, plants that we eat to evolve etc.). But I've never actually created a new article on here (people have copied a couple of my articles onto here since I made them under the Creative Commons license) so I don't know how or what the protocols are for doing so. I'm sure someone who runs the site (Axius?) could help.Lightyears (talk) 11:53, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

I asked because you check your own edits. First there's a sandbox , then when finished it will be a article and we will link it.Saggy (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2014 (PDT)
Just in case you mean to link to the new article from the scientific errors page, I don't think the link to the article should be put on there (as it's not a scientific error). I just meant that it's fine as a new article. Maybe there are more suitable places to link to it from. If you were to recreate a section on the scientific errors page to put your link to the new article, I'll leave it to others to decide whether to remove it, but I think you'd have to at least write in such a recreated section that this is not strictly a scientific error, but is a theological absurdity/difficulty.Lightyears (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2014 (PDT)
hi Lightyears, a new page can be made through the help page [1] although I believe the Constellation article is a lower priority. A higher priority for us should be to review the Scientific errors page so we can remove the under review template. Thanks for some of your edits in trying to fix some of these errors in that article.
In addition if you have any suggestions for the site of any kind, anything which you think should be done differently, anything you think would be beneficial for the site let me know. You have as much authority on this site as I do. I like for all of us to make decisions as a team. --Axius (talk | contribs) 15:54, 23 May 2014 (PDT)
OK, thanks. I'll let you know if I think of anything Lightyears (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

I have something I need to do as of today, so won't be able to do any more editing for the foreseeable future in case any one wonders. Lightyears (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2014 (PDT)

Geocentral Quran documents

Someone emailed us a zip file that contained documents relating to the Geocentral Quran. If you're interested in looking at them let me know through our email and I can forward that link to you. --Axius (talk | contribs) 16:25, 27 May 2014 (PDT)

Your Dhul-Qarnayn article helped a former Muslim

Your article was linked here (post #22). Starts from #16 here, saying:

I know a brother on the internet i speak to daily and he seems to have gotten into this kind of doubt as well and is on the edge of apostasy. If he already hasnt apostatized.

What can you advise me to do and help him?

He seems to have issues with certain verses and ahadith containing information that is completely in contrast with current scientific knowledge or even facts.

--- ...

Next thing you know he sends me wikiislam articles, like this one Dhul-Qarnayn and the Sun Setting in a Muddy Spring (Part One) - WikiIslam

. Now i cant deal with the technicalities and the arabic to refute these issues. But now he claims that muslims are just trying to twist the meanings of the verses just to get away with the current facts. So it is going to be hard to refute all the issues as i know wikiislam has a whole list concerning the scientific issues.

Once again great job on the Dhul-Qarnayn articles. --Axius (talk | contribs) 13:57, 4 August 2014 (PDT)

Iconoclasm

Appparently, Wikiislam doesn't cover iconoclasm (especially Muhammad's) or say vandalism, in any dedicated page. Can you correct me if wrong? Saggy (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2016 (EDT)

I think you're right. It could make for an interesting and very topical page given events of recent years if there's a decent amount of material to be found in sahih hadiths, maybe also sirat, tafsirs etc. I've no idea how to approve pages or what the processes are for new pages. The best thing for you to do would be to contact the exmna, who I believe have taken over running the site. It looks like Axius and Sahab might have retired as they've been inactive for quite a while now after an immense effort for some years.
You have another interesting sandbox page on claims of evolution that would be worthwhile if it's not already covered. In the first section you should probably also quote 24:45 as it implies that not just the earliest life, but 2 and 4 legged animals (such as birds or cattle) were created from water too, which has no resemblance to sciencific theories. The repeating creation verses are probably resurrection (Muhammad faced a lot of skepticism about resurrection, as the Qur'an records). Jalalayn and ibn Kathir tafsirs for these verses confirm this, though the flood stuff is still worth mentioning too. The article would also benefit from a brief section on the explicit mentions of special creation of Adam that foil attempts to fit human evolution into the Qur'an regardless of how other verses might seem compatible with it. But before going to much more effort it'd be a good idea to get in contact with whoever is running the site now as I don't really want to take on the committment of doing admin such as reviewing and approving stuff and I imagine they probably have a plan for resuming the performance of such tasks in future.Lightyears (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2016 (EDT)
Most of them are busy with their other work. But you can approve changes right? Then we might take the evolution article further. @ Iconoclasm, i have expanded this topic with some hadith. @scientific errors: what do you think about the mountains created in 4 days error [2]? Saggy (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2016 (EDT)
I approved the Iconoclasm hadiths (except one of them for brevity), good stuff. I don't think the mountains one is a strong enough error because the verse talks about a bunch of things, not just the mountains as happening in 4 days.
[3] and [4] say he put the mountains and also the earth was prepared with crops, plants, food etc in 4 days Even this hasn't happened in 4 days in reality. Then there are hadith which specify that mountains were formed in 1 day. The minimum that we could phrase as an error is: "the author of the Quran is unaware of (or has simply ignored) how long mountains take to form," similar to many other paragraphs in that article. Saggy (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2016 (EDT)
I've added 41:9-10 to the Earth and Heavens created in six days section as the mountain stuff is too vague to merit its own section. The Qur'an itself isn't clear on whether the mountains are placed on day 3 or days 3&4 or 1-4. It weakens the page to rely on tafsirs or hadiths to make a specific error claim. I have however pointed out that mountains continue to rise and fall to this day. It now says as much as we can say on this topic for a Qur'an errors page. It already says that the Qur'an is wrong to say that the heavens and Earth were formed in such short time periods, but I've added some additional commentary on the Earth specifically.Lightyears (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2016 (EDT)

Jordanian cartoonist killed just now for making an ISIS and Allah cartoon

I think we should put this on our front page. With Links to news sites.

The second thing I am looking at currently is Umm Qirfa, listed in our tasks. Where shall I prepare my response to the apologists? Saggy (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2016 (EDT)

I saw this awful story too, and I think it makes as all angry. But I think the old admin guys must have made a decision to stop the Islam in the news stuff on the front page (terrorist attacks etc). It was a never ending task, which is covered by other well known sites which people visit if they want to follow such things. I agree with the decision. I think it diversifies too much to make this a news site.

Regarding Umm Qirfa, I recommend putting such things in sandbox and when exmna eventually start doing admin they can look at it with you. If there's just a few more things you want to do I can potentially approve it, but I don't want to be regularly working on this site and reviewing stuff. I'm just doing a bit of a blitz of work here recently while I have a little time and motivation and then I want to forget about it.

There are only a few other things I intend to do in the foreseeable future: revamp the embryology page (I recently revamped geocentrism), some small improvements to flat earth, and possibly a new page providing evidence that the earliest Muslims believed the Earth was flat (which is useful for flat earth in the Qur'an and sun setting in a muddy spring debates where Muslims sometimes claim with weak evidence that they already knew the Earth was round). My interest in Islam is quite low these days so it's only occasionally I feel like doing stuff here and only on topics I'm interested in and knowledgable about (errors in the Qur'an in etc.). That's also why I'm happy to help with your claims of evolution in the Qur'an page if you finish it and want it approved. I also suggest you add these things from your sandbox: Mountains Stabilize the Earth's Rotation About its Axis & Mountains Absorb Some Waves During Earthquakes

to this page if you're finished with those and I'll approve it https://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Quran_and_Mountains

Lightyears (talk) 08:05, 25 September 2016 (EDT)

WikiIslam:Sandbox/Mosques

I made this new location of interesting hadiths about mosques. do you think it is fit for a QHS? One more topic i want to cover somewhere is torture/punishment in the grave. Saggy (talk) 11:36, 10 October 2016 (EDT)

The torture / punishment in the grave could be interesting and is a suitable topic. Looking at the index list [[5]], the topics seem all to be things that are useful in criticism of Islam. I'm not sure what use hadiths about Mosque building or travelling to mosques have for anyone who might visit this site. Someone clicking the page might wonder, "what point are you trying to make with this page?". Go ahead if you want though, but maybe consider whether the Mosque one is worthwhile.Lightyears (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2016 (EDT)
I find this (relatively) the most important one in that case. Saggy (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2016 (EDT)

Shia quotes

Hi, the previous admins said that adding Shia quotes in a Sunni/general article weakens the article because our online critics can quickly dismiss Shias as non-Muslims and thus laugh at us (lol). How about a separate article for Shia hadith, fiqh, scholar fatwas etc? Saggy (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

I think the old admins have a point when Shia quotes are used to make a point about Islam in general, because for Sunnis the Shia evidence may well be irrelevant. But for a page just cataloguing things for reference like the QHS pages, it might be worth making an exception (with some restructuring) for the very important subject of apostasy, simply so that it is easy to find the Shia rulings (both for ex-Shia Muslims (don't want them to feel forgotten either, and their apostasy laws are even more vicious) and waivering Shia Muslims, and also because it's such a common topic of interest for non-Muslims who often may want an overview of apostasy sources for Islam in general (for them Sunni and Shia may both be important). What I will do though is restructure the QHS page and the section in the main apostasy article slightly. I don't intend to dig out Shia hadiths too (I'm just fufilling requests from ex-Muslims at the moment after I told them on reddit about my recent work), but anyone can also then add a subsection under Shia on the QHS page for hadiths later if they wish (and the Qur'an and sirat quotes are useful for both sunni and shia).Lightyears (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2016 (EDT)
Umm Qirfa task completed, more or less. [6] The major apologetic claims I have addressed now. Saggy (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2016 (EDT)
You can add this to the page for approval, but I don't really want to spend time checking and reviewing things anymore (which requires me to familiarise myself with the topic if I'm to do it properly). I could do so for the evolution page too as an exception.
Where is the page for approval? Do you have any contacts, emails etc of the exmna guys? Saggy (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2016 (EDT)
I assumed you were going to incorporate it into this page [7] (I just googled wikiislam umm qirfa to see if anything was there already). I actually tried contacting exmna recently to let them know that the google analytics tracking ID needs to be changed to UA-2352016-1 somewhere in the folder http://wikiislam.net/extensions/googleAnalytics/ which I don't have access to (Google analytics hasn't been working since the site was moved to another server late last year because there's a Tracking Code Mismatch error). I tried emailing the President of EXMNA to ask who I could contact about this using his email address on the Staff page of their website, but he didn't reply. Earlier I'd tried their [email protected] email address, but it returns some error about google groups permissions. I guess wikiislam must be a low priority at the moment for them. At least for now they saved the site from disappearing which is the main thing!Lightyears (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2016 (EDT)
Victory will be ours. :P Saggy (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2016 (EDT)

Jinns and Science

What are the exact views of apologists on jinns? Is it something like "they are creatures unknown to current science"? Do you have some good apologist sites claiming this about jinns? Saggy (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2016 (EDT)

It's not something I've ever taken interest in. There's a page here with some stuff on them https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Jinn. As for apologetics, I'd imagine there are countless pages of nonsense about them, and lots of exorcism / jinn videos on youtube.Lightyears (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2016 (EDT)
On this, I am thinking of a section in the Scientific Errors article. Jinns were made out of fire, says the quran, which is in fact impossible. (Later I can think of a main article about jinns, or expand this one) Saggy (talk) 05:32, 21 July 2017 (EDT)
Jinns, angels, magic etc, and all aspects of the "unseen" in general is of course pure nonsense. But none of it is seen by Muslims as following the laws of physics or as a scientific matter even in principle. Where they try to explain it they speculate that it means the jinn were made of the fire's energy or it was a magical fire or any fantasy they care to indulge. It's much as how they see miracles in general where anything goes. It's a different matter when it talks about tangible beings and objects like the falsifiable creation stories of humans and mountains now that we know about evolution, genetics, plate tectonics etc. Lightyears (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2017 (EDT)
Something created out of fire has to follow science. How does the error get solved if a Muslim says the laws of physics don't extend to it? (He could have easily said the seven heavens also are imaginary or are some invisible dimensions. how does that make and sense?)
"Jinns were made out of fire" (15:27) is a scientific error. I guess you agree with it. Reason: To make it highly specific, fire is not a material as ancient people thought. Its a combustion process and has only a handful of well studied products (non-living). Now somebody will say they were made out of the gas etc. Sorry, living things are not gaseous. I am not quoting the hadith yet but they do teach that Muhammad saw every little detail of jinn: jinn are anthropomorphic or animal-like in their looks and behavior etc. This rules out any claims about an "unseen" creation. Maybe I will gather everything... Saggy (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2017 (EDT)

Editor rights

I lost my editor rights a few days ago and as a result all the pages have pending changes. Can you ask someone about this? I mean why it happened? Saggy (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2017 (EST)

On the user rights log I can see that you were automatically promoted to editor a few months ago due to your number of edits. In other words, no-one made a conscious decision to upgrade you.
I had nothing to do with undoing your unintended promotion, but the reversal happened at the same time as they changed my rights so that I could fix the templates. I know that the new admin (exmna) were advised on what to do about my rights, so presumably at the same time they noticed your auto-promotion and agreed that your rights should revert back to the previous state and it was the new admin who actually implemented the changes. So what you have now is just a continuation of your previous rights as no-one intended for you to have editor rights.
They give such rights very sparingly based on their trust in the person's decisions and consistent quality of their edits, their arguments, their judgement on whether something is significant enough to warrant lengthening a page etc. The reasons they were not comfortable with you having full editor rights to make changes without review would thus be apparent in any previous discussions or disagreements you'd had with admin in the past, even though many of your contributions were welcome following review. Lightyears (talk) 11:41, 27 February 2017 (EST)

Criticisms

I still wonder where exactly do Muslims criticize this Wiki (in English at least). Their pages are not easily googleable, which itself makes them hard to spot. Can you add some links of those critics in a page here? so that I can see what scientific errors/other erors they are refuting and how. Saggy (talk) 08:03, 21 April 2017 (EDT)

I just happened to see a thread on the reddit Islam sub. I then did a search of their sub and looked through the comments of similar threads on the first page of results, so I soon had a small list of things to sort out. There's no doubt that there are lots of poor pieces of content here and they tend to point out the worst ones they find, so it's a good way to find high priority things that need fixing. As for scientific errors, the weak stuff is pretty much gone now. Hardly any valid, specific criticisms of the page are mentioned by Muslims, which are weaknesses I was aware of but hadn't bothered to change til now. Different people mention the same things after they seem to have scrolled a long way down the page, so these days it seems that they find it pretty hard to come up with significant criticisms of it. In one thread from a few months ago a guy decided not to convert because of that page.Lightyears (talk) 10:02, 21 April 2017 (EDT)
You mean decided not to convert to Islam? Saggy (talk) 10:28, 21 April 2017 (EDT)
Correct, he came close to converting, but saw on the page that there's no way the Qur'an could be divine.Lightyears (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2017 (EDT)
That reminds me, we should restart the apostate testimonies. still locked i guess. Saggy (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2017 (EDT)

Saggy

Hi,

I saw that you blocked Saggy.[8] He is a major contributor of both useful and unuseful stuff. Wouldn't it be better to put put some kind of sanction with regards to topics or editing main articles, instead of fully blocking and revoking talkpage. At least let him edit talkpage to see if he's willing to comply. I believe losing a longtime editor like him would do more damage than betterment.

Thanks,--AAA (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2018 (EST)

Hi, the first part of the block comment relates to a page Saggy was building which had some very inappropriate content and has since been deleted by someone else https://wikiislam.net/index.php?title=WikiIslam:Sandbox/50000_Reasons_for_Leaving_Islam&action=edit&redlink=1
The main problem is that neither I nor currently anyone else has the time to check his edits, which were very numerous and frequent. Admins past and present very much agreed that his edits need approval because while some are helpful and appreciated, many are certainly not for a variety of reasons, while others take disproportionate reviewing time and/or page length for minimal if any benefit. You bear a burden of joint responsibility when approving edits, and all this reviewing (which sometimes requires lengthy investigation) takes a lot of time, and longer still is needed for his arguing about some rollbacks.
The pending edits page only records the earliest 100 pending edits. Further ones do not appear there as the page is now full up (I may work through some of it at some point). So newer pending edits would not be reviewed even if someone has time eventually, except that when people with editing rights edit those pages in future, it is easy to not notice or perhaps care that you're approving a bunch of pending edits at the same time, especially given there was a rapidly growing backlog of pending edits scattered around the site (mainly Saggy's), and increasingly, multiple unreviewed edits to untangle for a page. As for sandbox pages, who knows what one of the many editors may approve and add to the site if asked by him when admins (there aren't any really active) and ExMNA aren't paying attention. I'm not sure if enabling his talk will allow him to make requests of other users and there are things he could change/hide that would hinder another admin from fairly judging whether and when to remove the block.
My opinion, not least after seeing the page I linked to, is that the risks to the site outweigh the benefits of unblocking, at least when there is no ExMNA supervision. I leave it to ExMNA to review the situation when / if they ever get someone for supervising the site and clearing the pending edits backlog. They know about the block, and it seems they were already aware of him given that they had previously reverted Saggy's editor rights when he got them automatically for reaching a certain number of edits. Given the backlog, he must have realised that there was a risk he was wasting a vast amount of time unless he hoped he would find someone to one day give him editor rights again so that he can approve his own edits. That's something I and ExMNA would be unwilling to facilitate for the reasons above.Lightyears (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2018 (EST)
ok--AAA (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2018 (EST)