PDA

View Full Version : Are there any wikipedians or anyone understands wikipedia?



Anwarica
09-03-2007, 04:41 AM
:sl:
I've some questions about the English wikipedia, kindly if you are a wikipedian or know how to solve those issue, I will be glad for your help :)

1. If there's an article without citation [citation needed] can I delete that paragraph because it doesn't have any citation? deleting because I don't agree with it :)

2. Regarding Islamic articles, can I provide an Arabic citation to English Islamic articles?

Jazakum Allah khairan
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
جوري
09-03-2007, 04:53 AM
Anyone can re-write, makeup, conciliate whatever they want on wiki... I can't tell you how many times I have done it..
To me it is not a credible cyclopaedia.. I am not sure why people choose to cite their articles from that source?.. it has almost become the mcdoanlds of the cyber world.. a one stop for all your quick learning needs
read this akhi
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm
I get rather furious when I see it as a source at the end of some charged piece.. an article after the next crescendoes.. and then I spot wiki at the end.. I stop reading, and I lose respect for the poster.I am actually rather grateful for those who post it in the beginning of the page rather than the end, since they save me the trouble...
Anyhow I hope insha'Allah I didn't say anything upsetting? I am sorry I couldn't be of more help, but I don't think it would make a difference whether a citation is there or not, and the whole site should be binned!
:w:
Reply

Anwarica
09-03-2007, 08:45 AM
Nothing upsetting, I agree with you about the credibility of wikipedia, here's another site that disclose some facts:
http://wired.reddit.com/wikidgame

Most people depend on wikipedia and that bothers me when some articles are biased without proper citations :)
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
09-03-2007, 01:00 PM
CIA tampering with wiki :confused:
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
جوري
09-03-2007, 05:40 PM
Originally Posted by Anwarica
Nothing upsetting, I agree with you about the credibility of wikipedia, here's another site that disclose some facts:
http://wired.reddit.com/wikidgame

Most people depend on wikipedia and that bothers me when some articles are biased without proper citations :)
I agree with you.. al7mdlilah someone sees it from my point of view :smile:

Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
CIA tampering with wiki :confused:
Oh yeah.. and that is only what they are willing to admit to.. only God knows about their little cyber soldiers out there and what they choose to keep classified.
Reply

Science101
09-03-2007, 05:51 PM
Originally Posted by Anwarica
:sl:
1. If there's an article without citation [citation needed] can I delete that paragraph because it doesn't have any citation? deleting because I don't agree with it :)
From what I understand there is an automated system in place to prevent someone from making deletions without a good reason for it. Not even the CIA has that much control on the information and may in fact help balance out the content since they are history buffs and people who know a lot about what is going on in the world.

If you can be more specific as to what you want to remove and why then I might be able to better judge your chances of getting others to approve of your change. They can easily put it back in, if that does not happen automatically.
Reply

جوري
09-03-2007, 06:12 PM
I'll be posting a series of articles on wiki for those who like to keep a clean spirit and observe integrity in a debate!
Golfer Fuzzy Zoeller sues over vandalized Wikipedia page
Submitted by Layer 8 on Thu, 02/22/2007 - 7:20pm.
Pro golfer Fuzzy Zoeller is suing to track down the author of what Zoeller says is a defamatory paragraph about him on the Wikipedia site.

In an Associated Press story Zoeller's attorney, Scott Sheftall, said he filed a lawsuit against a Miami firm last week because the law won't allow him to sue Wikipedia. "Courts have clearly said you have to go after the source of the information," Sheftall said. "The Zoeller family wants to take a stand to put a stop to this. Otherwise, we're all just victims of the Internet vandals out there. They ought not to be able to act with impunity."

The Smoking Gun Website says Zoeller, 55, found his Wikipedia profile tainted in late December from a computer with an IP address that he tracked back to Josef Silny & Associates, a Miami law firm. In a Florida Circuit Court complaint filed last week, Zoeller - who is identified as "John Doe" - notes that his Wikipedia page was altered to include his alleged admission to alcohol and drug problems. The Wikipedia entry in question has been purged.
http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/11769
Reply

جوري
09-03-2007, 06:14 PM
here is another
Fake professor in Wikipedia storm

Volunteers write and edit the site's thousands of articles
Internet site Wikipedia has been hit by controversy after the disclosure that a prominent editor had assumed a false identity complete with fake PhD.
The editor, known as Essjay, had described himself as a professor of religion at a private university.

But he was in fact Ryan Jordan, 24, a college student from Kentucky who used texts such as Catholicism for Dummies. He has now retired from the site.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia open to all, written by volunteers worldwide.

'Trust and tolerance'

Under the name Essjay, Mr Jordan edited articles and also had the authority to arbitrate disputes between authors.

In his user profile, he said he taught both undergraduate and graduate theology, and in an interview with the New Yorker in July 2006, was described as a "tenured professor of religion".

His real identity came to light last week when the magazine added an editorial note to the piece highlighting the deception.

"At the time of publication, neither we nor Wikipedia knew Essjay's real name," the note said.

Essjay told them he hid his identity because "he feared personal retribution from those he had ruled against online", the magazine's note said.

Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, writing on the site on 3 March, said that Mr Jordan was apologetic, but that Wikipedia was "based on twin pillars of trust and tolerance".

"Despite my personal forgiveness, I hope that he will accept my resignation request, because forgiveness or not, these positions are not appropriate for him now," he wrote.

And in a post the next day, Mr Jordan announced his retirement from the site.

"I hope others will refocus the energy they have spent the past few days in defending and denouncing me to make something here at Wikipedia better," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm
Reply

Science101
09-03-2007, 06:32 PM
The golfer story is an interesting "he said she said" story but from that there is no way to tell who is telling the truth.

Fake PhD's are also very common all over the internet, especially with Christian Creationists. No surprise Wiki had one too. The good thing is that Wiki took care of it but that is not the case with all the others still using diploma mills to trick people into thinking they are an authority on something they don't even understand.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
Reply

جوري
09-03-2007, 06:36 PM
I suppose the only licit thing left to do, is go to wiki and let it define the 'truth' for us!


peace!
Reply

Science101
09-03-2007, 07:06 PM
No matter where you go there is no way to tell who's truth you're reading. I have found Wiki to be surprisingly accurate.
Reply

جوري
09-03-2007, 07:09 PM
Pls don't take this possibility of favorable combination and circumstance and sneak in the talkorigins.. this has nothing to do with evolution or creation or diploma mills... not every thread needs to do down that path.. especially when persistent unresolved ailments have been pointed out to you in each and everyone of such discussions-- this has to do with the credibility of wiki as a source-- and I believe an article after the next has defined that for us so that it is crystal.

You want to go ahead and use it, no one will stop you..many people still do, however your believability might be on the line. And I don't believe you'll be engaged on a full-bodied level, when the very foundation of your disputation is troubled at the roots!

peace!
Reply

Anwarica
09-03-2007, 07:16 PM
Since last year, I've been depending on wikipedia regarding articles about international cuisines only :D not any other articles :)
Reply

Science101
09-03-2007, 07:43 PM
PurestAmbrosia, No encyclopedia is 100% perfect, or complete. And compared to the internet at large, Wiki is far more balanced than all the websites that are out there twisting the truth. As someone who has had to deal with outright misinformation on the web, I see people falling for it all the time. Wiki has a much higher standard than that.

If you have a better free encyclopedia then post a link. But I doubt you'll find one. And I found Britannica to be very incomplete so even the ones that you have to pay for have problems.

I would like to challenge you to find one entry that can be easily proven to be false. Not an article claiming one is, but one commonly used entry from Wiki that is obviously not true. If it is bad as you are claiming it is then you should have no problem finding numerous errors to show as examples. Your believability is now on the line.

And I must add that you still don't know what the person who started this topic wants to delete. Why wasn't that one of your first questions? How do you know they don't want to erase something that is true and important? I'm not saying that they do, but how do you know you're not part of the problem you're now describing, instead of part of the solution? I asked them for more information, you didn't.



Anwarica, I have found their science content very helpful. Only source that is usually up to date.

And you must let me know what you want changed. I'm just curious.
Reply

جوري
09-03-2007, 07:56 PM
Originally Posted by Science101
PurestAmbrosia, No encyclopedia is 100% perfect, or complete. And compared to the internet at large, Wiki is far more balanced than all the websites that are out there twisting the truth. As someone who has had to deal with outright misinformation on the web, I see people falling for it all the time. Wiki has a much higher standard than that.
I don't use FREE encyclopedias, call me old fashioned but I still think books and libraries and proper references have a place in this free fast world of ours!

If you have a better free encyclopedia then post a link. But I doubt you'll find one. And I found Britannica to be very incomplete so even the ones that you have to pay for have problems.
I have a subscription to the online Britannica, it comes courtesy of upgrading your books, not meant as a sole source! encyclopedia's are meant to give facts NOT OPINIONS--even if to remotely evoke them~!
I would like to challenge you to find one entry that can be easily proven to be false. Not an article claiming one is, but one commonly used entry from Wiki that is obviously not true. If it is bad as you are claiming it is then you should have no problem finding numerous errors to show as examples. Your believability is now on the line.
I found plenty of articles that are false, including some of very basic suras in the Quran, which I had to go in and fix.. how would you judge it to be true or false, Are you an exegetical expert? I was sitting there with an ibn katheer tafseer to try to correct some immense errors. How much do you know about fiqh and tafseer to make that challenge? Further, I find it sort of laughable your quest, after the three above articles that I have posted! Are you kidding me? or would you like a presidential address?

And I must add that you still don't know what the person who started this topic wants to delete. Why wasn't that one of your first questions? How do you know they don't want to erase something that is true and important? I'm not saying that they do, but how do you know you're not part of the problem you're now describing, instead of part of the solution? I asked them for more information, you didn't.
I don't understand what your point is with this affirmation.. if something is confutable in part it is confutable as a whole..
Would you take a medication that has been recalled even though a few bottles have been tainted and not the whole lot?
Again it is really up to you... but what works for you, doesn't work for everyone.. Some folks value and guard their credibility
peace!
Reply

Science101
09-03-2007, 08:21 PM
I would not even want to edit religious topics. They are usually open to interpretation and can be fought over forever. I can just imagine a topic on the "the one true God". You would change it to Allah, someone else would change it to Jesus, an Atheist would claim there is none, and back and forth that one would go. I cannot be sure if that's what you ended up in a dispute over, or not, but it's not a clear example of Wiki being a bad source of basic information. Whenever I need it to show others of something that I remember happening it's what I recalled being true. Biggest problem I found is it being incomplete, but otherwise it's still much better than nothing.

My mentioning your not asking for more information is simply good practice. It's hard to be helpful if you don't know what it is the person wants to do. For all you know it could be something that you wrote that they want to delete.
Reply

جوري
09-03-2007, 08:31 PM
Originally Posted by Science101

My mentioning your not asking for more information is simply good practice. It's hard to be helpful if you don't know what it is the person wants to do. For all you know it could be something that you wrote that they want to delete.
I have nothing to defend.. everything I have corrected was properly cited from illustrious and recognized sources!.. though, I later came to accept, that it was a waste of my time.. Since not everyone out there has the most noble of intentions! and I believe I have adequately certified that from various sources!
Anyone who is decent and wished to acquaint and engage his audience, will at some point figure out what is trash and of no great value... and what has been labored upon for verity and will withstand the test of time long after such sites have been closed down!

peace!
Reply

Anwarica
09-03-2007, 08:46 PM
Originally Posted by Science101
Anwarica, I have found their science content very helpful. Only source that is usually up to date.

And you must let me know what you want changed. I'm just curious.
For instance, I created this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_hip_screw
It looks like a stupid page, yet it's important for medical students who study orthopedics to know Garden's classification and DHS .. yet the pics were removed due to copyright? although I selected the right copyright options after a while :)

Anyway, have a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_L._Moore
It's about Keith Moore, the one who witnessed that prophet Muhammed is the messenger of Allah (That's a video for him saying so) .. in such article, how could they provide this funny link:
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-myths-embryology.htm and they describe it as a site claims errors in Quran .. well, it's too much! 1st it's Not a scientific site .. 2nd it's called bible.ca means it's not scientific again :D .. 3rd they have absurd articles which can be considered stupid/funny .. they are talking about daughters of God in Islam?? how on earth could someone cite such a site? I think they only should cite it for humor! and it's even offending to use it as humor.

The page I wanted to edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_...quest_of_Egypt
Formerly (18 August) they wrote: gradual forced conversions to Islam .. it was even without a citation! .. now, someone edited it and provided the citation to be: the gradual conversions to Islam .. as you notice, one word could turn the meaning into something else! :)
Reply

Science101
09-03-2007, 08:47 PM
It looks like this debate could go on forever! Some people consider a source like Dr. Kent Hovind to be "properly cited from illustrious and recognized sources!" but the Wiki community would know that what he said is probably just unsupportable junk he fabricated in his own mind. But I'll believe that you had better references than that.

Like I said, Wiki is not perfect, but it often comes in very handy. It's not my only source of information. And in time it will improve. I see no reason to trash it.
Reply

Science101
09-03-2007, 09:07 PM
Originally Posted by Anwarica
For instance, I created this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_hip_screw
It looks like a stupid page, yet it's important for medical students who study orthopedics to know Garden's classification and DHS .. yet the pics were removed due to copyright? although I selected the right copyright options after a while :)
That is an excellent thing to add! Hopefully it will be made even better.

Originally Posted by Anwarica
Anyway, have a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_L._Moore
It's about Keith Moore, the one who witnessed that prophet Muhammed is the messenger of Allah (That's a video for him saying so) .. in such article, how could they provide this funny link:
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-myths-embryology.htm and they describe it as a site claims errors in Quran .. well, it's too much! 1st it's Not a scientific site .. 2nd it's called bible.ca means it's not scientific again :D .. 3rd they have absurd articles which can be considered stupid/funny .. they are talking about daughters of God in Islam?? how on earth could someone cite such a site? I think they only should cite it for humor! and it's even offending to use it as humor.
Yes, I recognise the source! It is only humourous to consider them a reliable source of science. It's like I mentioned earlier to PurestAmbrosia. Religious topics can go back and forth forever.

Here's how Wiki handles it. I do have to say that providing both sides of the issue is not a bad idea. There are other ways this information being claimed was unknowable at the time could have been known. You might disagree with them, but they have a right to challenge the conclusions. Best to see both sides than let one side write what they want.

Moore is frequently quoted by Islamic-oriented websites seeking to validate the divinity of the Qur'an:

The Quran on Human Embryonic Development
Embryology

and by websites seeking to refute it's divinity, or which take a more neutral stance:

Scientific errors and the myth of embryology in the Koran
Embryology in the Qur'an
Originally Posted by Anwarica
The page I wanted to edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_...quest_of_Egypt
Formerly (18 August) they wrote: gradual forced conversions to Islam .. it was even without a citation! .. now, someone edited it and provided the citation to be: the gradual conversions to Islam .. as you notice, one word could turn the meaning into something else! :)
That's another religion charged topic that could be in dispute for ages to come. But if you can cite verifiable manuscripts written in that period that would prove it either way then it would be hard for anyone to challenge.
Reply

جوري
09-03-2007, 09:51 PM
Originally Posted by Science101
I see no reason to trash it.
I see plenty--and have linked to plenty and continue to see plenty wrong-- will take more than 'I averred its eternal verities by my word which is law' to convince us that it is anything but just that-- trash!

And again I welcome you to use it.. I have no quarrels with you.. I have stated my reasons as to why I don't, and why I advise anyone serious enough about their work not to! I've presented articles.. You have come and declared some covert objectives. I am not quite sure for what intent?--I hardly think a testament to signify massive approval. Or that people will really go by either objectives.. on some level it is insulting to people's intelligence!

Anyhow.. I get tired of debating back and forth to what seems to me a point of view rather than a fact-- and I see this played successively on various topics.. sometimes a person should just know when it is time to quit!

peace!
Reply

Science101
09-03-2007, 10:41 PM
WikiPedia has an excellent entry on Evolution. Seriously! It's one of the best discussions on the internet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

:happy:

P.S. I couldn't resist that one!

My point is that some (notice I said "some") of their entries are very good, even if you think they are trash.

Anyway, I'm done arguing. But if you want me to post another good entry that makes Wiki look good then let me know. :D
Reply

Anwarica
09-03-2007, 11:46 PM
Originally Posted by Science101
Here's how Wiki handles it. I do have to say that providing both sides of the issue is not a bad idea.
I agree, but only when you provide a reasonable site :) .. how does it make sense when I access a site about the bible talking about scientific issues in Islam and even doesn't provide proper scientific data in this issue nor in other issues :D
This makes me wonder, shall I create a personal site and write whatever I want and cite it in wikipedia in many topics? :)

Originally Posted by Science101
That's another religion charged topic that could be in dispute for ages to come. But if you can cite verifiable manuscripts written in that period that would prove it either way then it would be hard for anyone to challenge.
well, we do have the evidence already:
Quran (2:256) There is no compulsion and coercion in regard to religion.
Also, we can use live evidences in Indonesia (did any army went their and forced them to convert to Islam?) .. that word "forced" was put not for a religious issue, but rather for a political issue :)
Reply

Science101
09-04-2007, 03:28 AM
Originally Posted by Anwarica
I agree, but only when you provide a reasonable site :) .. how does it make sense when I access a site about the bible talking about scientific issues in Islam and even doesn't provide proper scientific data in this issue nor in other issues :D
This makes me wonder, shall I create a personal site and write whatever I want and cite it in wikipedia in many topics? :)
I just did a little investigating. Their story holds water. Here's a book that describes the human embryo, notice the date of the author:

Claudius Galen (129-210 A.D.) writes the book "On the Formation of the Foetus" in Rome, describing the placenta and embryonic membranes.
http://alexandria-respectlife.org/embryogenesis.aspx

I could not find the text of the book, but the title is specific enough that we can assume that it includes what is found in the Quran. In this case there is credible evidence to back up their claims. To be fair, it must be included. But not all of their material passes review, some of it has no credible evidence to back it up.

Originally Posted by Anwarica
well, we do have the evidence already:
Quran (2:256) There is no compulsion and coercion in regard to religion.
Also, we can use live evidences in Indonesia (did any army went their and forced them to convert to Islam?) .. that word "forced" was put not for a religious issue, but rather for a political issue :)
You would need better evidence than a scriptural passage. Good ones would be numerous diaries of people who converted explaining why they did so, letters from people explaining the situation, and other eye witness accounts. Without them, the actual events are anyone's guess. And yes, religious issues are often used for political purposes. It's very annoying. Normally all sides of a religious issue do that.
Reply

Isambard
09-04-2007, 03:47 AM
I personally like wikipedia. Sure its not a scholarly source, but its a great introduction to a subject I may next to no knowledge about. I also use it to get a feel for certain books/movies/games I am thinking of buying and then go to amazon.com to see the reviews, prices etc.

I think that although its not as credibile as a book, there isnt man options for e-debates especially to open forums. Lets face it, if I wrote a 12pg article and cited some scholarly papers (ones I use tend to be around 15-100pgs) ppl will most likely ignore it or just make a single comment and not bother reading it. Its happened before and its incredibly irritating. I perfer then to use wikipedia (after reading the articles and comparing it to the info I have) as a layman's sumup of the pts I am trying to make. In that way anyone can follow along even if the info is a bit basic.

That aside, I see folks using numerous questionable sites to promote their viewpoint. As Science101 mentioned, this is typical of creationists and political extemists. Same goes with quoting material from psedo- Dr.s. Typically folks on an open forum wont bother to investigate beyond what has been presented. At least with wiki, everyone can follow along and not be lost by the language specific to a particular subject and trying to discern who is a legitamite scholar in a particular subject and who is just full of BS.
Reply

wilberhum
09-04-2007, 04:49 PM
Late breaking news from www.conspiracytheory.com

In a CIA sponsored coup, wikipedia was overthrown by Encyclopedia Britannica.

The spokes person from Britannica said they expected to have all the errors removed wikipedia within 6 weeks and then it should become a trusted sight.

:D
Reply

Anwarica
09-04-2007, 06:07 PM
Originally Posted by Science101
I could not find the text of the book, but the title is specific enough that we can assume that it includes what is found in the Quran. In this case there is credible evidence to back up their claims. To be fair, it must be included. But not all of their material passes review, some of it has no credible evidence to back it up.
I think it's not a problem to know there's a placenta :) .. but did anyone ever wrote the steps of embryonic formation correctly? if there's someone, Dr. Moor wouldn't have said this Quran is from God ..
Quran 23:14 Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create!
Have a look at congealed blood, did anyone expect this? :)

Originally Posted by Science101
You would need better evidence than a scriptural passage. Good ones would be numerous diaries of people who converted explaining why they did so, letters from people explaining the situation, and other eye witness accounts.
That's really easy :)
For this particular Article, can a recording of the optic church be enough when they say 80:200 Christians are converting to Islam every day? :)
or posting videos of new Muslim converts? individuals and families of course.
Reply

Science101
09-04-2007, 08:17 PM
Originally Posted by Anwarica
I think it's not a problem to know there's a placenta :) .. but did anyone ever wrote the steps of embryonic formation correctly?
That's what the title of the book suggests, and the link says.

Originally Posted by Anwarica
if there's someone, Dr. Moor wouldn't have said this Quran is from God ..
Chances are, he might not have known about it.

Originally Posted by Anwarica
Quran 23:14 Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create!
Have a look at congealed blood, did anyone expect this? :)
I have studied embryology enough to know the basics. Hate to say it, but that is not accurate. One sperm cell enters the egg, dissolves, releasing its 23 chromosomes into the egg that also has 23 to make a full set of 46 chromosomes which makes a viable cell with the ability to divide into many more cells. The cell divides into a free-floating mass called a blastocyst as shown below (four of them are shown).



There is no blood in it. This blastocyst implants itself like a seed planted into the ground, then later grows blood vessels like roots to share the blood of the mother for oxygen and nutrients. It's not a blood clot, or made of sperm, it's a mass of cells that gets its nutrients from the egg cell they develop inside. Like a chicken egg, there is yolk inside, but no hard shell because it's not needed.

Bones are formed last. Cells that will divide to become bone find a comfortable place in the mass of cells but there is no bone formation until there are arms, legs, head, etc..

The Quran would at least have to explain what I just did for it to be a convincing description of a developing embryo. But there is no mention of sperm implantation, number of chromosomes in sperm and egg, or other important things one needs to know to understand the basics of embryology.

Originally Posted by Anwarica
That's really easy :)
For this particular Article, can a recording of the optic church be enough when they say 80:200 Christians are converting to Islam every day? :)
or posting videos of new Muslim converts? individuals and families of course.
What is happening now or a statement from a religious leader would not be evidence due to their often saying things for political purposes. It would have to be from the time period in question and directly address why they are converting without the possibility that facts are not included. That's why you would need something like diaries of people who converted to find out if they were truly converting because they wanted to. It's very possible that they were being pressured to do so. Didn't they have to pay a special tax if they did not convert? Someone who could not afford that tax or other punishment would still be forced to convert against their will.
Reply

Anwarica
09-05-2007, 04:25 AM
About the clot issue
The third meaning of the word alaqah is “blood clot.” We find that the external appearance of the embryo and its sacs during the alaqah stage is similar to that of a blood clot. This is due to the presence of relatively large amounts of blood present in the embryo during this stage4 (see figure 4). Also during this stage, the blood in the embryo does not circulate until the end of the third week.5 Thus, the embryo at this stage is like a clot of blood.
Even the third meaning isn't wrong :)

As for the conversion to Islam in Egypt, if there's any documents or citations to be provided I think the ones who wrote "forced" are required to prove not us! :)
History shows you no campaigns went to the south east of Asia and not even immigrations .. how could all those countries turn to Islam? .. the same in Egypt, only 500 Arabians stayed .. how can 500 turn into Muslims? :)
My grandfathers are 100% Egyptians as I trace them, they were orthodox from upper Egypt .. there's no history of forcing into Islam, even forcing is against Islam!
Originally Posted by Science101
It's very possible that they were being pressured to do so. Didn't they have to pay a special tax if they did not convert? Someone who could not afford that tax or other punishment would still be forced to convert against their will.
That tax is called Jeziah, it's a very small tax .. even smaller than the tax they had to pay before Islam reaches Egypt .. let's not forget that if someone thought to turn to Islam for that reason he will lose actually :giggling: because he will have to pay Zakah and will have to join the Islamic army..
Moreover, by the time of Caliph Omar Ibn El-Khataab, he found a man asking for money because he can't pay for Jeziah, the caliph ordered to cancel the jeziah for non Muslims who can't pay and even to give money for that man and for other non Muslims who are in need.
Economically speaking, I would rather stay Christian because I won't pay for zakah or risk my life in a war!
Reply

Anwarica
09-05-2007, 06:26 AM
Off topic//
Can we provide this CNN page in wikipedia to prove that Islam is the fastest gowning religion in the west? because that's what I understood from the article :)
Reply

Science101
09-05-2007, 11:37 AM
Originally Posted by Anwarica
About the clot issue
Even the third meaning isn't wrong :)
I see what you are saying. Problem is that it's not really a clot, only looks that way. At this point I think we would need to read that book to see how it's described there.


Originally Posted by Anwarica
That tax is called Jeziah, it's a very small tax .. even smaller than the tax they had to pay before Islam reaches Egypt .. let's not forget that if someone thought to turn to Islam for that reason he will lose actually :giggling: because he will have to pay Zakah and will have to join the Islamic army..
Moreover, by the time of Caliph Omar Ibn El-Khataab, he found a man asking for money because he can't pay for Jeziah, the caliph ordered to cancel the jeziah for non Muslims who can't pay and even to give money for that man and for other non Muslims who are in need.
Economically speaking, I would rather stay Christian because I won't pay for zakah or risk my life in a war!
In this case I think that would be evidence that it was not "forced" (in the true meaning of the word) conversion.

I think that the fastest growing religion would be disputed. I have seen the same thing claimed of Christianity and Wicca. In this case it's how the numbers are compiled that leads to confusion. For example, in Muslim countries with a high birth rate the numbers would grow, but not because people are converting. Another group would not consider that a valid indicator and only include numbers who are converting. In the states numbers are used by Christians even though the people being counted never go to church or are active, they only picked a religion when asked to choose which one they are.

The CNN article would be evidence. But I would expect other groups would find evidence for their side too.

I just found something in Wiki about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_...owing_religion
Reply

Anwarica
09-06-2007, 01:07 AM
Originally Posted by Science101
I see what you are saying. Problem is that it's not really a clot, only looks that way. At this point I think we would need to read that book to see how it's described there.
I don't see a problem when you have 3 meanings and even the third one isn't wrong to use as a description :)

Originally Posted by Science101
For example, in Muslim countries with a high birth rate the numbers would grow, but not because people are converting.
I agree with you that Muslims have higher birth rate, but they can only count the "new converts" :) .. I was thinking how could the name Muhammed become the second most popluar name in the UK .. I don't see birth rate is involved here, but if they want to estimate the number of new converts, they can do that (simply, doesn't the person change his religion in ID when he converts?) :)
Reply

Science101
09-06-2007, 02:53 AM
Originally Posted by Anwarica
I don't see a problem when you have 3 meanings and even the third one isn't wrong to use as a description :)
From what I can see, it is a relatively good description based on observation. An embryo would appear to be a "leechy thing" that attaches itself then drinks blood.

The problem in claiming that nobody could know that, is that there is evidence people did. It does sound like a description based on observation. And there is no mention of chromosomes or other things that would have clearly been impossible for them to have seen like an explanation of how the DNA code works.

I'm not trying to be negative or discourage you in any way. Just want to give you my honest opinion.

Originally Posted by Anwarica
I agree with you that Muslims have higher birth rate, but they can only count the "new converts" :) .. I was thinking how could the name Muhammed become the second most popluar name in the UK .. I don't see birth rate is involved here, but if they want to estimate the number of new converts, they can do that
I think the explanation they gave here is logical.

The name's increased popularity is thought to be partly because more young Muslims are having families.
Originally Posted by Anwarica
(simply, doesn't the person change his religion in ID when he converts?) :)
I'm not sure how one could change their religion on an ID in the UK. Here in the US the parents can declare one on a child's birth certificate if they want. But there is no ID that I know of where religion is required, in fact, many people would object to that if it were on a drivers license or other common ID.
Reply

جوري
09-06-2007, 03:17 AM
I don't want to interrupt a good thing here, but I enjoyed that whole 'observation' bit.. considering the time, the place and the size of our subject matter....I mean how big is a zygote? How big is an embryo even at 8 weeks?
Great.. when was the first microscope invented? what is that? around 16th 17th century you say? interesting.. when did pathology and autopsy become incorporated fully in medicine? or did women just offer their body for experimentation to be incorporated in a holy book?
Did prophet Mohammed have such a leisurely life? man o man
some embryology, some geology, some high altitude hypoxia, some anatomy, some pathology, some economics, some law, some jurisprudence all poetically written.. it is a wonder at all he never slept on a full stomach three days in a row, and slept on harsh leaves that left lash markings on his body... he should have been a king after all that....
Sob7an Allah on the lengths some people go to, to make a moot point!

carry on and forgive me for my interjection, I really couldn't help myself!
Reply

Science101
09-06-2007, 05:28 AM
Actually, a "hanging drop" magnifier was here before humans. Are you saying you never noticed that after a rainstorm you're surrounded by magnifiers hanging off plants? Or are you saying it's impossible to see an embryo when it is large enough to be seen? For example, the size of a leechy thing? Or are you saying that prophet Mohammed could not read a book or have heard about it?

Seeing we're back to science but still on-topic, might as well add this. As you will see, even a child can make their own microscope.

http://www.mada.org.il/website/html/eng/6/6-13.htm

And to answer the next thing you might say, a thin reed or other flexible plant fiber can be substituted for the wire. A basket maker can make one real easily.

I must also add that I saw this thing on TV where they were claiming that it was impossible for some ancient people to have drawn a picture of a tiny insect that lives where it is normally wet because they had no microscope to see it with. That was so funny!
Reply

جوري
09-06-2007, 05:55 PM
Hmmmmn even more interesting... i

Prophet Mohammed was illiterate-- but now that you've put it this way.. I am sure he used a magnifier after a rain storm ( in the deserts of Arabia) on a woman who had just recently conceived and died, in her first trimester donating her body to science in the process to be incorporated poetically in the Quran...
thank you, it is all clear now =)
Reply

Science101
09-06-2007, 09:09 PM
You should have read the previous posts.

I just did a little investigating. Their story holds water. Here's a book that describes the human embryo, notice the date of the author:

Quote:
Claudius Galen (129-210 A.D.) writes the book "On the Formation of the Foetus" in Rome, describing the placenta and embryonic membranes.

http://alexandria-respectlife.org/embryogenesis.aspx

I could not find the text of the book, but the title is specific enough that we can assume that it includes what is found in the Quran. In this case there is credible evidence to back up their claims. To be fair, it must be included. But not all of their material passes review, some of it has no credible evidence to back it up.
Reply

جوري
09-06-2007, 09:16 PM
Yup that is the 2nd theory, he plagiarized Galen... Gutenberg's printing press was in action and libraries and books were abounding in Arabia, and even more amazing to plagiarize and integrate when you are illiterate.. Now all that is left to do is find alike accounts for the rest of the scientific facts in the Quran. And you can publish your thesis having decrypted all its secrets!
peace
Reply

Isambard
09-06-2007, 10:10 PM
Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Yup that is the 2nd theory, he plagiarized Galen... Gutenberg's printing press was in action and libraries and books were abounding in Arabia, and even more amazing to plagiarize and integrate when you are illiterate.. Now all that is left to do is find alike accounts for the rest of the scientific facts in the Quran. And you can publish your thesis having decrypted all its secrets!
peace
Alot of it has already been debunked on other sites. That and the curiously bits of missing info confirming Qur'anic divinity is missing *cough* injeel
Reply

Science101
09-06-2007, 10:31 PM
Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Now all that is left to do is find alike accounts for the rest of the scientific facts in the Quran. And you can publish your thesis having decrypted all its secrets!
peace
I have no interest in proving the Quran, either way. I'm only interested in helping Anwarica. And if there is something else coming from this discussion, it's along the lines of prophet Muhammad possibly being more of a scientist than most probably realized, scientists often have good insight. From what I know about him he was a very intelligent man. More so than even you might be giving him credit for.
Reply

جوري
09-06-2007, 10:38 PM
Originally Posted by Isambard
Alot of it has already been debunked on other sites. That and the curiously bits of missing info confirming Qur'anic divinity is missing *cough* injeel
NONE OF IT HAS BEEN debunked.. will take more than the nonsense generator to challenge the divinity or the science of the Quran!
Go ahead and bring your proof in lieu of bunk of no meaning. The Quran communicates its own divinity irrespective of *cough* other books...
really look forward to your apocryphal interpretation of millennium old text. Which makes even your ego seem so trivial!
Reply

جوري
09-06-2007, 10:44 PM
Originally Posted by Science101
I have no interest in proving the Quran, either way. I'm only interested in helping Anwarica. And if there is something else coming from this discussion, it's along the lines of prophet Muhammad possibly being more of a scientist than most probably realized, scientists often have good insight. From what I know about him he was a very intelligent man. More so than even you might be giving him credit for.
I don't know what you by that?... sort of offensive to speak of credit or noncredit I issue to إمام الهدى و سيد المرسلين سيدنا محمد Mohammed (p)
I just think if you are going to engage in a project to make your point, assert it with some proof.. otherwise there is really no reason to engage in a topic that is understandably outside your sphere of expertise. In other stay on track with no digression, if you are to engage in a digression make sure you have your bases covered....What do you think?

peace!
Reply

Anwarica
09-06-2007, 11:26 PM
I'd like to thank everyone who helped me :thumbs_up

Also suggest having a new thread about the debunked Islamic topics that Isambard referred to .. what do you think? :)
Reply

جوري
09-06-2007, 11:39 PM
Originally Posted by Anwarica
I'd like to thank everyone who helped me :thumbs_up

Also suggest having a new thread about the debunked Islamic topics that Isambard referred to .. what do you think? :)
been covered here extensively.. they all get their 'debunking' from the same site anyway... but take us for chumps-- and wish to 're-educate' us!
I think they should use the 'search' feature, and if they have a sincere question. I.e one of them actually bothered read and had a question then can they pose it if it hasn't already been answered... that of course is never how it works out.
I have questions all the time and I direct them to scholars.. a few months ago I was confused about a verse in suret Ad dukhan, I read about it looked for an exegesis then asked a scholar.
The day one of them does that, is when hell freezes over and all the devils go ice skating...
fasten your seat belt and prepare to be bored witless...
:w:
Reply

Science101
09-07-2007, 12:54 AM
Originally Posted by Anwarica
I'd like to thank everyone who helped me :thumbs_up
You're very welcome! It was fun and I learned a few new things. Hopefully you feel better about the way Wikipedia accommodated both sides.

Originally Posted by Anwarica
Also suggest having a new thread about the debunked Islamic topics that Isambard referred to .. what do you think? :)
I might read how the debate is going but don't think I would participate. What PurestAmbrosia said about it being a rehash of the usual claims might unfortunately be true.

I would be more interested in a thread that looks into the possibility that prophet Muhammad was an early scientist or at least interested in the science that was around at the time. From what I know, he was a wealthy merchant that did an above average amount of traveling. May have very well been in contact with the scientists of that era. What he learned would then show up in his "vision".

There might not be enough information on the internet to piece together a clear picture of what he knew and where it learned it from, but it would be interesting to read about.
Reply

جوري
09-07-2007, 01:09 AM
for a 'wealthy merchant', it is a shame he worked for his first wife.. slept on harsh palm leaves and hungry!
Perhaps you speak of a different Prophet Mohammed (p) than the one authenticated by history?

peace!
Reply

جوري
09-07-2007, 01:11 AM
might want to start here for your search?

peace!
Reply

ranma1/2
09-07-2007, 06:57 AM
Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
I suppose the only licit thing left to do, is go to wiki and let it define the 'truth' for us!


peace!
cause you asked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

The meaning of the word truth extends from honesty, good faith, and sincerity in general, to agreement with fact or reality in particular.[1] The term has no single definition about which the majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree. Various theories of truth, usually involving different definitions, continue to be debated. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; how to define and identify truth; what roles do revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute. This article introduces the various perspectives and claims, both today and throughout history.
Reply

Anwarica
01-29-2008, 01:42 PM
Originally Posted by Anwarica
Also suggest having a new thread about the debunked Islamic topics that Isambard referred to .. what do you think? :)
I think it's time now to discuss that after providing those videos in this new thread.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-07-2009, 11:28 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-02-2007, 07:17 PM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-26-2007, 07:56 AM
  4. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-30-2006, 11:59 AM
  5. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-06-2006, 06:01 AM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!