User:Uniteuponhaqq/sandbox

My playground
note this contains bias purely for the sake of experiment

Why did I create this account?
For one thing, I noticed in the explanation of a popular Islamic book "Kitab ul-Tawhīd that the explanation of Isa ibn Maryam (AS) as "Ruẖullah" does actually not appear and is a heretical statement which should be avoided. Out of curiosity I googled Ruhullah and the first result was from wikipedia. The article which covered the Names of Jesus in the Quran contained false information regarding the term Ruhullah appearing in the Quran a near dozen times. I began to edit after enquiring on the Discord server about this issue, whereby community members advised me as to what edits should be made, and what to write in my summary of edits.

My personal issue with Wikipedia
I've always viewed wikipedia as a valuable source of open-input information from people worldwide which can be ammended by enthusiasts of the topics covered on here, however when it comes to certain religious views pertaining to Islam, there is an array on misinformation which goes unchecked due to the nature of the religion. For context, Egypt has a reported 65 Million native Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) speakers, yet their dialect of Arabic compared to Fusha (Quranic Arabic) is so vastly different they can be seen as two entirely different languages. Since the usage of Fusha in everyday conversation is more restrained to the upper-class of Arabs and those who are in some form of Islamic education, many of whom wouldnt think to go on Wikipedia for information, the errors of the Arabic language which is extremely delicate, precise and complex are likely vast when written by amateurs of the Arabic language. To put this into even further context, the English Language reportedly has around 170,000 words, whereas Arabic contains over 12,000,000.

Despite what we would assume is common knowledge, many people use Wikipedia as their primary-secondary source of information which I personally wouldnt advise, since it's inevitable biases and propaganda creep into the articles on here without the necessary amount of maintenance. When it comes to Islam, the information availible is largely correct on the main pages, e.g Quran, Islam. But the issue is with the many subcategories in the Islam portal, a lot of the content on the less popular pages contains either blatant lies, perceivable only to those with a basic foundation (in Arabic language and Islamic creed), or unpopular misinterpretations of the religion amongst its scholars and various sects.

The connotations of the reason I joined this site, the "Ruhullah" issue, is that it affirms trinitarian concepts of Allah having a spirit which is seperate to himself, which manifested in the flesh of Jesus Christ, which we believe to be heretical. An entire portion in the names of Jesus in the Quran was dedicated to comparing his names to Greeko-Christian concepts either through completely fabricated names or translations of the Quran which dont exist. Another issue is that the citations on the article include verses of the Quran which can be found on quran.com, which contained footnotes on the website which contradicted the claims of the original author. I suspect the author was either a Christian, pushing their Pauline perspective of Jesus into the Quran hoping noone would notice their blunders, and possibly to confuse the readers as the verse from Surah An-Nisa, directly contradicts the claim that Jesus is the Spirit of God, and openly refutes the claim of the Trinity. I only speculate this way due to the section which rambled on about "Logos" concept being present and many of the citations being from christian sources.

People who use wikipedia as a primary source of information can alreayd be assumed to be lazy or incompetent, and take the fact that there are citations and references at face value without verifying the sources. I went back on the history on the page as far as possible and it included this blunder from its very inception. If a Non-Muslim, most likely a Christian was to stumble across this page and read these blunders and lies, they would surely become confused about a religion which claims to be easy to understand, and clear. None of the references pertaining to interpretations of verses in the Quran and Hadith pertaining to these matters were from actual books from scholars, rather WordPress articles.

I will personally be paying close attention to the page, ensuring that only the linguistic facts and scholarly accepted interpretations are included in this page, allowing a non-Muslim or even an unknowledgeable Muslim to read only the facts from the Quran and Sunnah, which will allow them to make a fair judgement of the religion, despite my advice being to read the Quran directly, along with a Tafseer to have context of the verses and explanations of the linguistic miracles, eloquence and complexities of the Quran.