User talk:Rami

From islamWiki...
Jump to: navigation, search

Thank you for contributing. One thing I would like to add is that looking at the title of your article, it kind of feels inappropriate. This in-turn made me realise the article title "Bestiality in Islam" sounds inappropriate too. I was thinking the titles should be like "The issue of camel urine" and "The issue of bestiality", i.e. take "Islam" out of the title in cases like these. What do you think? --AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2016 (SGT)

You're welcome bro. I understand what you mean, the only reason i added Islam was to draw attention for more critics/muslims to click the link and realize the truth. Should i just call it Camel Urine ?
In other news, I am working on more articles, I'm not really sure what to begin with as i currently have drafts (Aisha r.a hitting puberty, Muhammed pbuh not splitting the moon etc.) unlike several others i will try to prove it with solid empirical evidence and no "pseudoscience."
P.S This might sound stupid as i know this is a wiki and anyone could edit. But is there anyway i could protect my pages? As i've desperately slaved for about 25-30hrs with a lot of errors during the process.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rami (talkcontribs) 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I think "The issue of camel urine" should work. As hopefully, other people will join this endeavour in the future, there might be more than a few who will take offence on such a title.
Regarding articles which have a significant difference of opinion among Muslims themselves, such as "Muhammed pbuh not splitting the moon", the present idea is to make a separate category of such articles. In these articles, there will be a section that lists all the evidences in support for such theories and another section which enumerates all the arguments against such interpretations. It will be left to the reader to decide which iinterpretation he/she believes to be closer to the truth or more reliable.
Don't worry about your work getting lost. MediaWiki is designed in such a way that each and every revision made to the article is kept behind-the-scenes (unless specifically "deleted" by someone having high enough access on the Wiki such as the administrator). At any time literally any past revision can be accessed. Also, questions related to Wiki technicalities should be asked to User:WikiSysop as that user deals with such things.
Some additional points for working on this Wiki:
  • Try to keep discussions limited to the same page, i.e. when I commented on your talk page, reply on the same page so that things do not get confusing.
  • To inform me that you have replied,
  • You can either edit my talk page and write: {{Talkback|Rami}} OR {{Tb|Rami}} to inform me that my comment has been replied to.
  • Or in your reply at your own talk page you may add at the beginning of your message: {{reply to|AhmadF.Cheema}} OR {{re|AhmadF.Cheema}} OR {{ping|AhmadF.Cheema}}.
  • Remember to sign your comments by adding four tildes (~) i.e. ~~~~ at the end of your comment.
--AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2016 (SGT)
@AhmadF.Cheema: I hope this is how i reply. I'm not used to this wiki platform it confuses me lol. I changed it to "Camel Urine as a Remedy" is that legit or does it sound too "Apologetic." So what you're saying is i make 1 article which lists views that are for vs. against?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rami (talkcontribs) 16 October 2016 (UTC)
You forgot to sign your comment again. In any case I am "watching" the page so any edits on this page should make the Wiki send me a notification. No I don't think the new title sounds apologetic. Regarding your third sentence, as islamWiki endeavours to be an objective source of information, the articles have to represent an objective view. Giving one position more weight than the other hurts the legitimacy of the website. It should be left to the reader to come to his/her own conclusions. --AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2016 (SGT)


@AhmadF.Cheema: My apologies as i just woke up. I understand, i will present my objective views against on the article and might leave the "for" section empty for anyone else to endeavor, as i heard there was this document of this Indian king who supposedly saw it split, not sure how reliable the testimony is but maybe a brother could bring forth the evidence. Out of curiosity, any topics you're currently working on ?Rami (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2016 (SGT)

Also, Didn't Osama Abdullah already deal with beastality proving Hadiths where the prophet himself stated if anyone sleeps with an animal, kill him and kill the animal? The Quran also says "And those who guard their private parts." 70:29

"And who guard their private parts." (23:5) " the men who guard their private parts and the women who do so, and the men who remember Allah often and the women who do so - for them Allah has prepared forgiveness and a great reward." 33:35

Aren't these sufficient enough to prove the Qur'an clearly tells us to guard our sexuality in general by any means ?

Or does the Qur'an have to be specific and describe the the mass of the Milky Way is 5.8×1011 solar masses (M☉) for the critics to be pleased?Rami (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2016 (SGT)

If you are apologising for being late in replying, don't. Wikis aren't really supposed to work like instantaneous chats. Regarding the Indian king, as far as I know aside from the claim there is no further evidence to show the reliability of the claim. Maybe the king was sincere, maybe he was just trying to get some benefit out of it. It deserves a mention, but I don't think it is enough to be used as "proof".
Regarding "bestiality", first of all, it would be better to keep the discussion related to articles on those articles' talk pages, to keep the discussion centered and also so that potential future users can be aware of them too. Some Sahih narrations that I was able to find, were inserted in the article, the narrations Osama Abdullah used were in Arabic and, if I remember correctly, at-least some of them not from Kutb-al-Sittah so cannot be used for reliability purposes. Additionally, there are narrations that contradict the capital punishment for the crime, possibly because of which, in classical Muslim law this punishment was generally not considered part of the Shariah. The "guard[ing of] their private parts" cannot be used for absolute proof, because the simple argument can be made that even in the presence of such verses humans are allowed to be intimate with other humans, so why not with animals?
Unfortunately, I'm not working on any articles at the moment as I don't get enough free time.
--AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2016 (SGT)

Asslam-o-Alaikum, just wanted to ask that wouldn't it be better if the articles are written in a more objective manner, i.e. in statements like: "This verse is enough to refute such baseless claims made by Christians and Jews", instead of using names of specific groups, terms like "critics" could be used? In-fact, it would be better to completely do-away with such statements. As this site "endeavours" to be more like Wikipedia, articles should represent a neutral tone. It is our responsibility, only, to represent information in a sincere objective fashion, not to make judgements on others. Additionally, personal statements like: "If only they used such rigorous methods of empirical research against their own religion." should also be done-away with. It might not feel like it from a Muslim's point-of-view, but from a Christian or Jew's point-of-view these are likely to sound incredibly insulting and implying a superiority complex on behalf of the Muslims.

Regards, TheOrthodoxLiberal (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2016 (SGT)

@TheOrthodoxLiberal: My apologies, Will get to to it right now. I've been editing articles for too long i just copied one of my drafts forgetting to set an objective tone.