IslamicBoard
Thread: Anti-Islamic article on Wikipedia!
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | PHP 8.4 patch for vBulletin 4.2.5

Fishman

IB Expert
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
724
Gender
Male
:sl:
I just saw this anti-Islamic article on wikipedia! Can you refute it please?
:w:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I read it, i didn't like what i read.. It must have been an attempt to brainwash masses in those days, pretty much what's happening today..As for the contents of the Doctrino or whatever, it's total nonsense and doesn't deserve any sort of refutation..
 
I don't get it? Just looks like typical nonsense used as a response to Islamic history, I wouldn't bother
 
:sl: bro,
Fishman said:
:sl:
Can someone like Ansar please refute it?
:w:
Click to expand...

:uhwhat

I prefer if people just ask questions rather than link to articles or post writings requesting a response. Most of the allegations against Islam you will find are simply rehashed old material that has long been refuted, so it is unncessary to respond to them over and over again. Just ask the question or mention the topic and someone can always direct you to the Islamic response, inshaa'Allah.

Anyway, I see you've found an answer so that is good alhamdulilah.
:w:
 
SirZubair said:
As bad as it is (i dont know how bad it is,the link has been removed),im sure it cant beat allahuakbar.net at being unislamic..
Click to expand...
:sl:
It is basically claiming that the whole of Islamic history is wrong, that Muhammad was actually Judeo-Arab preacher and that the Jews and Arabs were allied against the Byzantines. It is rediculous really, as three biased non-Muslim sources do not refute thousands of possibly biased Muslim sources.
:w:
 
Asalamulaikum fishman.

Ur only 14 if i remember correctly but ur so intelligent u sound like ur 35. are u sure ur 14
 
Fishman said:
:sl:
It is basically claiming that the whole of Islamic history is wrong, that Muhammad was actually Judeo-Arab preacher and that the Jews and Arabs were allied against the Byzantines. It is rediculous really, as three biased non-Muslim sources do not refute thousands of possibly biased Muslim sources.
:w:
Click to expand...

I disagree. Wikipedia has an article about some writings that “basically claims that the whole of Islamic history is wrong”. Wikipedia makes no judgment on whether the writings are correct of not. Wikipedia makes no claim except the fact that the writings exist.
Hardly Anti-Islamic.
That would be like calling Wikipedia Anti-Christianity because they have an article about the “Gospel of Judas”, and making no judgment about it.
 
wikipedia is a good source of finding what has been written about a subject. As long as it is used simply as a tool to find out what has been said, it is handy.

However, the fact that something that has been written does not mean it is correct.


To use wiki as a resource for fact, anything a person finds should be verified through other sources, before accepting it as being accurate, correct or true.
 
well.....What is this anti islam article....I have had just abouts enough of winkipedia....Thanks to them, I got a 'X' all over my work.....

If you are ever using Winkipedia, always cross check with other sources too
 
Woodrow said:
wikipedia is a good source of finding what has been written about a subject. As long as it is used simply as a tool to find out what has been said, it is handy.

However, the fact that something that has been written does not mean it is correct.


To use wiki as a resource for fact, anything a person finds should be verified through other sources, before accepting it as being accurate, correct or true.
Click to expand...
I don't understand, again we are in total agreement. One should always check out multiple sources. Also check out if there primary purpose is other than supplying unbisas facts.