4,542
edits
User talk:Prekladator: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→WikiIslam Revamp Project
Prekladator (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
:: As for my deleted content, I miss my overview of deceptive tactics in [[Muhammad's prophecies]]. It was inspired by a similar part in word count miracles article and I find it useful, because when you have something that has a high quantity (for example scientific miracles, or word count miracles or prophecies), it's not enough to just point out the inconsistencies in every particular miracle. Because there are some things that are wrong in general in the whole topic and it should be summarized. It should be pointed out that there is something wrong with the whole apologetic methodology.I think that a long lists of miracles presented by apologists can be overwhelming and it's good to see that it's actually not amazing, because it all relies on similar strategies. I could handle if it was moved to the purely anti-apologetic part, but it seems it's just deleted and Muhammad's miracles is not in the archive website, the archive is from some old version of Wikiislam. Maybe it's a pity I wasn't in contact with you guys, because sometimes I had a deep thought behind an article, but you see only the article. Not that I want to now cooperate, as I've said, I want to move away from dealing with Islam. I don't see the religion challenging anymore anyway. In times of Zakir Naik and ISIS, it looked like it's strong intellectually and politically. But now with Muhammad Hijab, the religion look pathetic. I don't see new arguments for Islam. It seems that now it's just people in echo chambers slowly realizing the truth. | :: As for my deleted content, I miss my overview of deceptive tactics in [[Muhammad's prophecies]]. It was inspired by a similar part in word count miracles article and I find it useful, because when you have something that has a high quantity (for example scientific miracles, or word count miracles or prophecies), it's not enough to just point out the inconsistencies in every particular miracle. Because there are some things that are wrong in general in the whole topic and it should be summarized. It should be pointed out that there is something wrong with the whole apologetic methodology.I think that a long lists of miracles presented by apologists can be overwhelming and it's good to see that it's actually not amazing, because it all relies on similar strategies. I could handle if it was moved to the purely anti-apologetic part, but it seems it's just deleted and Muhammad's miracles is not in the archive website, the archive is from some old version of Wikiislam. Maybe it's a pity I wasn't in contact with you guys, because sometimes I had a deep thought behind an article, but you see only the article. Not that I want to now cooperate, as I've said, I want to move away from dealing with Islam. I don't see the religion challenging anymore anyway. In times of Zakir Naik and ISIS, it looked like it's strong intellectually and politically. But now with Muhammad Hijab, the religion look pathetic. I don't see new arguments for Islam. It seems that now it's just people in echo chambers slowly realizing the truth. | ||
:: I will continue studying Arabic, but I don't see why I should study more of Islam. It's dead for me. [[User:Prekladator|Prekladator]] ([[User talk:Prekladator|talk]]) 18:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC) | :: I will continue studying Arabic, but I don't see why I should study more of Islam. It's dead for me. [[User:Prekladator|Prekladator]] ([[User talk:Prekladator|talk]]) 18:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC) | ||
Good morning[[User:Prekladator|Prekladator]]. First off I want to take the time to acknowledge your contributions to the site and to the debunking of Islamic apologetics in general. You are completely correct that Islamic apologetic arguments need to be answered and where false debunked. This is important work, and I once again thank you for it. And I understand your frustration with the opaqueness of the process. It is a problem we recognize and are working right now to fix. We do need to be transparent with the community with what we are doing, and I thank you for underlining the urgency of this. Finally I also want to answer your objection to the "WikiExIslam" site idea. I want to reiterate that this is a working title, and it will be changed. I myself am not an ExMuslim and have spent years of my life studying Islam and yes arguing with its proponents. The name of the site is in no way to imply that never-Muslims like you and I have no place in the criticism of Islam. | |||
As for our process, I want to offer some transparency here. The issue is NOT that we are bowing to political correctness in seeking to reform the language and content here. Rather the issue is that we are seeking a degree of academic validity. We want WikiIslam to be a place where specialists - news media, fact checkers and academics who study Islam - will participate, offer expertise and take advantage of the resources here on offer. Although we understand (and perhaps even sympathize with) the reason for the existence of articles such as "The Tragedy of Aisha" or "The Non-Miracle of Solar Flares in the Qur'an" it must be understood that no credible academic will put their name to a project with material such as this, nor would academics consult an encyclopedia with such material. We understand the moral revulsion and incredulity sparked by Islamic scriptures, dogma, doctrine, and claims of revelation and miracles, however, we here at ExMNA believe that the problems inherent Islamic history, scripture, doctrines and beliefs are sufficient to speak for themselves. Invective and inflammatory rhetoric are not necessary to deal with them, but rather make it easier for those seeking to dismiss a critical understanding of Islam to do so. Where polemic or rhetoric might be called for, we will have a site (which will not be WikiExIslam, despite the tentative internal name) which will provide a home to this material. Let me be clear: although we wish to be even in tone, our site will be hosting and making public the devastating historical critiques of the Islamic origin narrative by such luminaries as Patricia Crone, Michael Cook, Gabriel Said Reynolds, and Stephen Shoemaker as well as highlighting original work by various writers, all while continuing to emphasize Islam’s traditional, Arabic sources. | |||
Once again I want to thank you for your contributions to WikiIslam. If you no longer wish to write on the subject of Islam I totally understand, however if you change your mind I encourage you to reach out to me at [email protected] We would love to have your help. All the best. | |||