User talk:Anon1777

October 2021

Hello, I'm Equine-man. I noticed that you recently removed content from Sahih International without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. If you have an issue with an article, you take it to the talk page with well referenced sources to back you up. You don’t just delete stuff because you disagree with it. Equine-man (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adequately?? I even used up all the available space, what are you talking about? I explained clearly with evidence for why it was removed. Anon1777 (talk) 08:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is not counted as evidence. Evidence is backed up by references from reliable sources. I invited you to take the issue to the Talk page, and all you did was push your POV on the talk page as well. Equine-man (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page is using bogus references such as Laleh Bakhtiar. And you’re talking about “evidence” don’t make me laugh.

Laleh Bakhtiar: “Mohammad Ashraf, head of the Islamic Society of North America (Canada), said he would not permit The Sublime Quran to be sold in the society's bookstore of ISNA because Bakhtiar had not studied at an accredited Muslim institution. "This woman-friendly translation will be out of line and will not fly too far", he commented. "Women have been given a very good place in Islam."[17]”

“Khaled Abou El Fadl, Islamic law professor from UCLA, said she "has a reputation as an editor, not [as] an Islamic scholar",[3] and that three years of Classical Arabic were not enough.[3] El Fadl also "is troubled by a method of translating that relies on dictionaries and other English translations."[3]” Anon1777 (talk) 09:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m still to see any reference from a reliable source. Equine-man (talk) 09:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear brother, let’s get the first point sorted out first, I’m not saying ISIS doesn’t use the same translation, what I’m saying is that it isn’t relevant to point that out in the page. Anon1777 (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it’s there to make it an unreliable source of information by linking it to ISIS how are you not seeing this? While in reality it is used by Muslims and non Muslims around the world, one of the most common translations. Anon1777 (talk) 09:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]