Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:25, 3 November 2006

Please be civil and assume good faith when dealing with other editors and their contributions. I'm talking specifically of your comments on Talk:The Quran and science. You can argue against Islam all you want, even if the talk page is not for that, but don't insult other users. And be aware that the 3RR does not apply when a user restores content that was removed without good reason and without discussion. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one removing. Arrow740 02:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

you may wish to stop misusing talk pages in the future

i have cited some wikipedia rules to you numerous times (i.e. WP:NOT, WP:TPG), that you are asking for them now suggests you have been ignoring them previously. i don't care much for copy-pasted plagiarised arguments as were seen from you as anon. wrt to your "arguments" and other assorted polemic, to claim "all" have ever been appropriate to articles is ridiculous, as they would never merit inclusion on the virtue of violating both WP:V and WP:OR. in fact much of it (and there are many more diffs) is you promulgating your personal conclusions as a self-proclaimed expert. quite simply, you don't seem to understand talk page guidelines, and you do not realise how a wiki talk page differs from a forum. you committed the same disruptive offence in the section we were previously discussing in, but then pretend to not know what is being alluded to when you are caught out, even though you were warned as anon not to troll (several times). if you continue to troll in the same manner in the future, you will be reported. ITAQALLAH 21:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

thank you for your understanding. of course, while e-mail or another medium would be more preferable for "debate", one can have dialogue with others on user talk pages, but if it is done in a contentious manner it simply denotes battle-ground mentality, although a number of other edits i did not cite may have been from article talk pages. to imply that the article is being deliberately misused by an editor or group of editors is not civil and is a bad faith assumption. the issue is about constant misuse where series of comments are made which do not serve to enable constructive and useful discourse about the improvements of an article. it is important to consider that while one continues to participate on wikipedia. ITAQALLAH 04:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Two things

Can you prove atheism? Also the article The Quran and science may be of interest to you, either in helping with it or weighing in on my nomination to delete it. If you care to respond, please use my talk page.Arrow740 01:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Atheism is the lack of belief in theism. Atheism is proven every time someone does not believe in a Deity. The Quran and science does not interest me, but Science does. religion trys to subjectify the natural world so people don't feel alone and ignorant, however, the more we learn, the more that gap closes up (please see God of the gaps). Somerset219 03:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I meant, can you prove that atheism as (roughly) defined in Theism is true. I.e. can you prove that there is no deity. Thanks for the link to God of the gaps though, that's an interesting article. Arrow740 03:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not up to me to prove that there is no deity. If it were, there would be no need for missionaries. It is standard logic that the one whom makes the claim has to prove it, "extraordinary claims take extraordinary evidence!" As it goes however, it is possible to present natural laws, that happen to explain away "arguments of proof" about Deities (god of the gaps), but there is no way for me to not prove something, like there is no way for you to not prove the exsistance of Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. If you can prove that santa clause does not exsist, then I can prove your deity does not. Then you'll see how rhetorical things can get. Somerset219 03:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Continued on your talkpage. Arrow740 08:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I know it is not up to you to prove that there is no deity; I was merely interested to know if you had a proof. As regards "arguments of proof" of the existence of God, I think that Thomas Aquinas' five ways cannot be explained away using "natural laws." That's not saying that they are all valid, though I personally believe that at the very least, even if there is an infinite regress of causes, there has to be something which causes the chain. By the way, the existence of natural laws cannot be proven. Any natural laws that we have deduced are nothing more than the result of scientists saying, "this appears to be how things work." I'm not saying that they're not right, I believe in science as much as the next reasonable person. I'm just saying that science is based on assumptions. Outside of the realm of science, it is not always reasonable to demand proof. There are some things which, even if false, cannot be falsified. So if you believe in the law of excluded middle, this means that there could be things that, even if true, can't be proven. For example, I didn't demand proof that there is no god, only asked for it (haha). My best friend fed a ganesha idol milk during that day that ganeshas all around the world were drinking milk, and I have no explanation for that. Because of that and other things which I have been convinced are miracles, I believe in the supernatural. I hesitate to call this proof of god's existence, though I hope to find some eventually. Arrow740 06:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

interesting, however science is there to make calculable observations that are repeatable. Its there to help us interact, deal with, and control our environment, it isn't there to give you the meaning of life. What I was talking about was more on giving answers with out proofs. Science is there to "funnel and propel" our knowledge so we can build on those lessons learned (computers).

God of the gaps is a good example of the mentality of religion, which is why I consistantly bring it up. Religion tends to try to explain things that aren't everyday occurances, or what you call supernatural. In other words, I am not saying that science has all the answers, I'm saying that making up a subjective conclusion with out understanding all the variables probably isn't the wisest desicion. A scientist studies the natural world, which is our life. I would rather have a computer technician (scientist) tell me how a computer works (natural world), than a used car salesman (Priest). Just because one doesn't understand the concepts of the natural world, doesn't make any answer for it right. If anything, God is an idea of those things we don't understand, but in no way can you better understand those things by believing it. People want the easy answer, there is none, and believing someones answer with out understanding why is not only stupid but can be dangerous (religious terrorism). Somerset219 23:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

thank you for standing up for me against Aminz's silly assertion. I made my vote according to my understanding of wikipedia policy and was rudely accused of misuse of wikipedia by Aminz. All I can say is "he who smelled it, dealt it." For me it was not a matter of being pro or anti Islamic, but a matter of whether the article merited the space it took up. I spend a lot of my time on the AfD discussions as I adhere to wikipedian deletionism- the belief in strict adherance to wikipedia standards in the articles. If it isn't contributing to the greatness of wikipedia, then it is wasting space. The article in question seems to be proselytizing. Green hornet 03:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

..looks like Aminz was right. ITAQALLAH 23:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The Quran and science

Thanks for notifying me of the deletion debate. After looking it over I agree that the page has serious problems. But I did go ahead and vote speedy keep, because your second nomination was made only a few hours after the last nomination closed. If the page doesn't improve in a few weeks, consider a re-nomination or a mediation. --Alecmconroy 21:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I made a mistake when I accused you of voting twice in that debate. I incorrectly thought you posted CltFn's "speedy delete" vote because I didn't see his name/date thing. Sorry about that. - Lex 19:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

see the relevant talk page. also see The Islamic Medical Association of North America. ITAQALLAH 15:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

--I am sorry but i made Absolutley NO changes. I wrote my opinions on the talk page though. Which you probably read. I have not added anything to this article okay. Where did yuo get that from?MOI 22:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

--Oh! thank you for clarifying that. I was confused by ur 1st mesage.

---Yeah i got confused. I thougth i had put my message in that topic and i really hadnt. SRY!MOI 18:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

---Wait! Why did my message get deleted? I know i had edited it only once but why isnt it there anymore? Or your edit? Why isnt that there?MOI 18:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

---Oh. I think it went into the archives.

want to see full quotes

i would like to see the full quotes, within the context of the paragraphs for these attributions such as for the Needhlam and (i think) Musallam quotes. you have been implying that you have access to the actual materials themselves. so, substantiate what you have quoted and vindicate yourself from suspicions that you have been using certain unreliable web pages. it may not be from our good old Brother Andrew, but it is equally as worse. ITAQALLAH 18:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! furthermore "equally as worse" is expressing that AI is equally as worse (as BA) in comparison to reliable sources, which you should have been able to derive upon reading my comments in context. that is partly why it is very difficult to trust that you will represent sources accurately. ITAQALLAH 19:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

you don't seem to know what vandalism is. the information is simply not relevant to embryology in the qur'an, it is merely an attempt to skew the section through a barrage of non-sequitur arguments. arabic science and its success or failure has nothing to do with statements in the qur'an- that is a difference you must realise. as for your claims about my english (although you may want to take another look at your comprehension skills), it seems that it is now i who is laughing whilst i type. ITAQALLAH 20:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"equally as worse" would be incorrect if i was referring to the exclusive relationship between Brother Andrew and AI (answering islam, where the direct quotes of what you have included in the article can be found). i was not. the Moore part is redundant and weasel wordy, as when discussing Moore's interpretation it says "may refer", by implication not negating other possibilites. ITAQALLAH 20:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

i would consider asking a native speaker, if i wasn't one myself. i think i know the context in which my comment was made, and it has already been explained. ITAQALLAH 21:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 22:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

and here it is. Bucaille says:

It was not until I had learnt Arabic and read the Qur'an in the original that I realised the precise meaning of certain verses. Only then did I make certain discoveries that were astounding. With my basic ideas on the Qur'an - which to begin with were inaccurate, just as those of most people in the West - I certainly did not expect to find in the text the statements that I in fact uncovered. With each new discovery, I was beset with doubt lest I might be mistaken in my translation or perhaps have provided an interpretation rather than a true rendering of the Arabic text.

Only after consultations with several specialists in linguistics and exegesis, both Muslim and non-Muslim, was I convinced that a new concept might be formed from such a study: the compatibility between the statements in the Qur'an and firmly established data of modern science with regard to subjects on which nobody at the time of Muhammad - not even the Prophet himself - could have had access to the knowledge we possess today. Since then, I have not found in the Qur'an any support given to the myths or superstitions present at the time the text was communicated to man. This is not the case for the Bible, whose authors expressed themselves in the language of their period.

In La Bible, le Coran et la Science (The Bible, the Qur'an and Science), which first appeared in the original French in 1976 and which subsequently appeared in English in 1978, I set forth the main points of these findings. On November 9, 1976, I gave a lecture to the Academie de Médecine (French academy of Medicine) in which I explored the statements of the origins of man contained in the Qur'an; the title of the lecture was Données physiologiques et embryologiques du Coran (Physiological and Embryological Data in the Qur'an). I emphasised the fact that these data - which I shall summarise below - formed part of a much wider study.

-- ITAQALLAH 23:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Misplaced Pages has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 01:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

telling editors to "stop snivelling" and "stop whining" (when they are legitimately requesting clarification), as well as continually making bad-faith accusations of vandalism all quite easily constitute as personal attacks. ITAQALLAH 02:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

and as i said, it was a bad faith accusation. i changed it in an attempt to make it more coherent, assuming with it that ibn al-qayyim also endorsed the interpretation. there was no conscious intention to remove the "most commentators" specifically. bold editing or mistakes do not count as vandalism. ITAQALLAH 03:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What happened?

Kya howa dost? What had made you angry? Did I made any mistake? I never intended to offend you. Let discuss Islam. I tell you that why I love it so much and you tell me that why you hate it so much. Okay dost? :) You could also email me at faisal.aslam@gmail.com -- ابراهيم 19:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

We are wikipedia so listen: Muhammad revelations are REAL

Over on Muhammad Itaqallah makes wikipedia say revelations are real without ANY source. He playing games like that with ONE standard here ANOTHER over here. ALL for one POV though. that never change.Opiner 21:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Busy

Hi Arrow740,

I am currently swamped. I'll try to work on it whenever I got free. Cheers, --Aminz 00:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

re: e-mail

i had offered for a discussion over email some time ago. however, i do not believe such discussions would be fruitful anymore, in consideration of what i perceive to be continued personal attacks and constant misrepresentation or misunderstanding of what others (myself mainly) say. perhaps in the future when we both calm down a little i may consider it. ITAQALLAH 01:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Arrow, if you continue in this vein of personal attacks, i may be left with little choice but to report you. in your short editing career, you have already racked up a colorful portfolio of personal attacks. please keep any accusatory bad-faith suspicions that you may have to yourself. per this:

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 16:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Truth

An interesting philosophical point. I myself am a pragmatist and an instrumentalist towards truth. I don't believe truth exists in some external world, or at least there is no way to prove such a conviction. We don't have truths, we just have assumptions that happen to work. Knowledge is, in my view, based on some form of solidarity, consensus with in a group; between groups there is pluralism, a multiplicity of opinions. There is no way to decide which truth is better than the other.

On wikipedia this view is reflected in the way I deal with debates, edit wars and disagreements, I try to remain always oriented towards compromise. As such I can assert what I believe is true, but have to give in when others have other views. For wikipedia is not about truth, but about consensus C mon 23:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Under the sharia? Are you kidding me? Less than 10% of the Dutch population is islamic, their birth figures and levels of religiosity are declining. Such a minority could never grab power; instead, like any good democrat we must respect the opinions of the minority. BTW We have a more serious chance of becoming a protestant theocracy than a Islamic caliphate, seeing we have a theocratic protestant party in parliament since 1918.

What your saying maybe funny if you don't live here. The people who are saying we are in the danger of becoming an islamic caliphate, are part of the problem in the Netherlands as long as islam is not treated with the simple democratic respect, recognized as a part of the Netherland, the segregation between black and white is kept in place and youth in the large cities do not have perspectives to better life, both economically and socially, we are breeding fundamentalism and terrorism, not by our tolerance but by our intolerance. C mon 07:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

First, immigration, both from asylum seekers and family migration (the biggest two sources) has rapidly declined because of government policy, which I don't support: as the majority of asylum seekers is from non-islamic countries and they are treated inhumanely by the Dutch government.

Furthermore, Christianity was as bad: now Christ may not have committed any attrocities, but the pogroms against the Jews, defended because Jews were responsible for the death of Christ and the crusades against the muslims, defended because the Muslims held Jerusalem, the city of Christ, were attrocious. The Old Testament isn't the least violent book on the world either. And I won't go into the wars between Catholics and Protestants which last till today. No people has never been at war for religious reasons. The Islam, sadly, is not different.

Finally, we can all interpret religions the way we want too ("Islam is violent at its core" etc), but we can never know how it is to live in one, unless you do live in one. C mon 08:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to stress that you can't say anything about a religion if you're not in it, how well you have researched it, it still is a prejudice, since you can only understand a belief system if you are in it.

The Central Bureau of Statistics tell me that according to their prediction in 2050 3,458,362 people will be from non-Dutch origin. 1,084,099 will come from Morocco and Turkey. Currently about 700,000 people are from Moroccan or Turkish extraction. Not all these people are per definition muslim obviously. Immigration has fallen from 133,404 persons in 2001 to 92,297 in 2005.Migration from Turkey has fallen from 7,000 to 3,500; Morocco from nearly 6,000 to 2,500. The more than half of the migrants, come from within the EU, the US or Australia/New Zealand.

The "problem" should not be overstated. C mon 09:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It includes all allochtonen, that is upto the third generation.

The sentence "In fact, many Muslims probably do not have a very good grasp of many aspects of Islam." shows the flaw of your argument. How can you not understand your own religion? You can only understand a religion by being part of it. You might call it post-modern, but it is rather obvious, the only people who truely understand Islam are muslems themselves, who live, deal and struggle each day with their own religion.

You can interpret scriptures in a very different way, as long as there are pacifist christians and people who go at war over their own religion, that seems rather obvious. I know Christian who accept evolutionary theory and christians who reject it, on basis of the same Bible.

Materialism and atheism are as unprovable as any religion, because it is based on the assumption that the world out there exists and that the way we perceive it is correct. That is a very useful assumption, but not one you can prove. Personally I'll stick to being a pragmatist (things are true, facts are just useful) and agnost (the question does God exist, cannot be usefully answered), because I prefer to have a philosophical perspective that is not assume things about the world which I can't know. I have no epistemic basis for that (obviously), but I think that this position is most useful.

The majority truth might be more useful, but it is not more true. Especially not from the position your arguing because if your an atheist and materialist, you can't possibly think that moral truths exist. Where are those moral truths? How can you perceive them? Materialism almost per definition leads to some relativist position about moral truths. C mon 09:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The basic assertion of "relativist" philosophers like Kuhn (although he wouldn't appreciate that adjective) is that you can not understand beliefsystems if you aren't part of them. We can't understand the way Aristotle thought about nature, because we live in a completely different world, the same is true for Islam.

Still the whole point is that we can interpret religions in a certain way, if we are outsiders, by looking at their scriptures but we can never fully grasp their meaning. So the islam in your interpretation is aggressive, but the Islam in the interpretation of many muslems is a religion of peace.

My positions may seem to shift, because I have to have two kinds of answers, unlike materialists.

1. How we have knowledge, a question of fact
2. How we should have knowledge, a normative question.

On the first, I think it is becoming clear that knowledge is dependend on groups, paradigms, solidarity etc. Having knowledge is a group process and not objective. So knowledge is always consensus.

On the second, so how do I deal with this subjectivity as an individual: by pragmatism. That is how I personally deal with knowledge.

These two fuse on wikipedia, where knowledge (i.e. things included in wikipedia) is that which is not deleted by the community and therefore our edits have to be pragmatic: by being bold we can include some of our perspective, by removing information we can prevent edit conflicts.

BTW, in Islamic countries I'd be hanged for sodomy, that's the exact reason we (the Netherlands) have to open our borders for those who have lost their faith and those who flee islamic countries. If you have claim to have superior views, you must open your borders to those who agree with your superiority and not close them because you fear those who agree with you. (But this is a very specific European problem). C mon 12:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think are epistemological differences, especially those concerning the ability to understand religions cannot be reconciled. I respect your realism and materialism, although they are a bit naive. We can argue it over and over, but I'm very convinced of the idea that an Islamic (or an Aristotelean) lives in a completely different world, in which words have other meanings (even things which seem unambiguous to you), which one cannot grasp, if you are not in this world. If you don't, than that's a respectable position though. Just like being a pacifist muslem is a defendable and respectable position.

At least, I'm sure that gay people who flee from Iran, because they'll be hanged there, think our society is better for them, but our minister of migration wants to send them back. But that's our problem. C mon 23:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think our positions are to clear: but one final note the Quran can't be wrong, only your interpretations of that book can be negative. C mon 09:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that this is a translation of the original text in to English, (the Quran was not written in English!). I took a Latin and Greek in high school: translation of ancient texts is always a matter of interpretation. As a philosophy student I read Nietzsche and Heidegger: the same thing, you can't just read their German, you have to interpret the text, to understand it, in your own way.

Furthermore religious text are often metaphorical and can be interpreted differently.

Finally if you like me believe that truth depends on group opinion, like I do, than semen comes from your lowerback if you're a muslem, just like if you are an Aristotelean the things fall because they seek their natural place.

There is not one external objective truth, at least for me. C mon 10:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What I really believe is that there is no objective and realist way to tell where semen comes from. Anything goes. Only if you accept certain basic assumptions ("the scientific method leads to objective knowledge") this can be true. Off course I believe in evolution theory (I think this is an extremely convincing theory), but I have to accept that according to some people we were made from clay by God. These people live in a different paradigm, in a different world: a world where some God created the world in seven days, made people from clay and from other people's bones, and sent his son to be crucified. I might not believe in that but Christians do, and how stupid I may think such a perspective is, it is true for them. C mon 10:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The core of pragmatism is that there is no objective way to gain knowledge, so we have to deal with it in another, in this case pragmatic way.

The core of my argument is that all religion suffers from the same problems Islam does, so attacking Islam is arbitrarily chosing one religion and bashing that. And that's very dangerous. You appear to have chosen this group not because their argument is flawed but for some other reason. Why have you chosen to crusade against Islam? The United States could use some atheist missionaries to prevent gay marriage from being banned, end polygamy amongst morms, prevent evolutionary theory to be removed from schools and to end the grasp of the Christian Right within the Republican Party on the government.

Paradigm shifts are inherently problematic. Consider the copernican revolution, for one moment all the people thought the world was the centre of the universe and then the sun was. Their world radically changed.

BTW do you know where semen comes from? Do you know the exact translation of the sentence? If lower back just means "the area above your legs and below your chest" it is a pretty good description.

Although I really don't understand the last sentence, I agree with the previous bit, you can't hold an individual of a religion responsible for his beliefs he is raised that way. Therefore trying to convert them is probably not useful either. C mon 23:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If you don't really care where semen comes from it is very useful to believe that it comes from somewhere down below, you have an answer and you can focus on more important things.

Ahh, the bloody edges of Islam, you do realize that two of the largest conflicts currently were caused by aggressive American (Christianity inspired) foreign policy (Iraq and Afghanistan) and one is kept in a cycle of violence because of American support for one of the two sides (Israel).

And the Old Testament does not sanctify rape and pillage? And as always how well you've read the Quran doesn't really matter, you can't understand a religion unless you're in it. The majority of muslems in the Netherlands do not rape, pillage or make war on a regular basis. Who are you to say that they practize their religion badly? It is there religion!

When Christianity was dominant in Europe 500-1500 Europe was characterized by war, rape and pillage, and Islam was a relatively peaceful and tolerant religion, that actually read and incorporated Aristotelean philosophy in their religion.

What are they supposed to do? "leave their own" what do you mean by that.

C mon 09:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

So group A pillages, murders, invades Iraq and Afghanistan and fares war, but you say "Hey they are not doing what their scriptures tell them, in my interpretation, but they do do the same as the entire Old Testament exemplifies so I wont bother them with that" and group B pillages, murders and fares war and you say "Hey they are doing what their scriptures tell them to, in my interpretation, so I am going to bother them with that". In both cases there is suffering but you chose one and not the other: because you are prejudiced against one of them. In my view both bring suffering.

Furthermore there are good reasons to say that Islam is/was actually the more enlightened religion.

The position of the Jews under Islamic control in the Middle Ages, in Spain and the Balkans was much beter then the way they were treated in the Christian countries. In Islamic countries (you the religion that starts of by murdering thousands of Jews) they have to pay some increased taxes and in Europe they suffered from pogroms, (while their saviour was himself a Jew). Did you realize that the reconquista triggered a huge migration of Jews to outside of Spain, because Islam treated Jews better than Christianity?

When the muslims invaded Spain it was ruled by warlords, when they left, they left cities, trading posts, culture and castles.

About Thomas of Aquinas, Islam incorporated Aristoteles in their religion when it was founded, Christianity only did so 1000 years after it was founded. Which one is the more enlightened religion?

C mon 10:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)