Talk:Criticism of Islam/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

New article

Criticism of Islam is entirely on-topic in this article, however, editors will be bound by scholarly and encyclopedic standards. Such a standard is set by the Catholic Encyclopedia, which attributes all opinions to scholars. It is alright to say that Martin Luther called Muhammud a devil, because Martin Luther is a notable early modern Christian author and theologian. Unattributed rants or essays have no place here, or anywhere on Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 12:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, nice work Dab! Zora 13:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Dab, I agree with you about the 'rant' part. But you seem to be purporting the point that only mainstream scholars be allowed to be cited as sources, as you well know, it is very difficult to find ethical criticism of Islam, that meaning the Quran itself, in mainstream intellectual circles most likely because of the fear of being accused of being a racist, ergo, I would just like to clarify, are you against unattributed work, or against work attributes to scholars you haven't heard of?

Biased nature

It is important to recognize that borrowing large sections of this particular article from the Catholic Encyclopedia is precisely the reason why this particular article is full of biases. JuanMuslim 17:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Thats all very well and good, but it's so easy to simply do a nice little race or religion card hatchet job on the source, without having to question any of the Source's content. If you genuinely wish to raise specific questions regarding the Source, then give clear examples of content you disagree with, and provide evidence for a counter-argument. --GreekWarrior 01:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Why would counter argument matter since the fact that the book is utterly biased. There is no need to see evidence for bias can be decribed from writers and books.

More sections

I don't want to add anything because I fear my own writing... but, I was thinking of these two opposition to Hadith. This comes from Qur'an aloners that believe you need nothing more than the Qur'an for guidance (and is relatively non-notable since you wanted good sourcing I am not sure if you want this included) and from scholars Muslim and non-Muslim alike who question whether hadith are accurate representations of what Muhammad could have said. Hadith#Western_academic_views_of_hadith will be a good basis for that section. I also wonder if we should add opposition to Islamic society... which of course would come from a stance of "a society based on Islam is violent"... Although I don't typically think of him as sensationalist Robery Spencer seems to typify that view. I also know that Fazlur Rahman critiques what he thinks of as stagnation in learning at Al-Azhar before the reforms and how he doesn't appreciate how Muslims scholars would analyze analyses instead of creating new work. We also need opposition to liberal Islam because there has been plenty of that with Amina Wadud and female imamizing. gren グレン 17:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

hey, I don't own the article, go ahead. if people don't like it, they will challenge it, and you should then be prepared to either back it up or remove it. Most of the anti-Islamic Ali-Sina type of criticism is directed at society, so I guess that is pretty much part of an anti-Islamic attitude. Although even critics of Islamic society are fond of making remarks about Muhammad the pederast every now and again. dab (ᛏ) 20:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I added Qur'an and hadith sections with mostly information from hadith and higher criticism. My problem is that I haven't read many suitable articles about hadith / Qur'an criticism. I know that some argue against the Qur'an from an internal coherence viewpoint but I don't know which authors do that without it digressing into a diatribe. gren グレン 09:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

This article to should be moved

I think the article should be titled "Criticisms of Islam," not "Opposition to Islam." Opposition is active, criticism is passive. This article appears to be about intellectual criticism, not real-world opposition. --Zeno of Elea 06:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the title should stay as Opposition. Opposition to Mormonism already exists and is working well. On another religion, the Baha'i Faith had a problem on how to deal with criticism, and a page called Baha'i criticism got voted for deletion for being too POV. If it's titled criticism, then it invites people to put in their own opinion. A new page was made for Baha'i apologetics and that seemed to work well for that case. Cunado19 07:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the move. Unfortunately, Criticism of Islam was already blank-protected, because of an Islamophobic diatribe that had been vfd'd there. I think it's nonsense to vfd articles based on content. Content can be changed, what is deleted is invariably the title. This article is aspiring to document academic/theological/political criticism, not to be a critique itself, and has therefore every right to be at Criticism of Islam. If you put this article on WP:RM, I will support the move. However, this is not important. Focus on improving the article first. By improving, I mean obsessive detail in citation and documentation, not heaping up of Islam bashing websites. dab (ᛏ) 07:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticism is broader and as of now this article has criticism and opposition. Ali Sina is definitely opposition so that could become a sub-article if this gets large enough. I agree with the move... well, Criticism of Islam not criticisms I think. gren グレン 09:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

This page should be move to one titled: "Alleged unsubstantiated critcisms of Islam by Infidels." How dare anyone call the Holy Prophet Mohammed (pbuh), a devil!!? The Prophet was the last messenger of Allah. Would have Allah blessed him with many victories in battle if he was a devil? I think not! Saduj al-Dahij 20:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It is not substantiated that the Koran or Allah is real and the prophet is not a fabricated figure. So stop trying to create the illusion that Islam is the only perfect thing in the world.

Lots of people have won battles who aren't considered very nice, eg. Genghis Khan.

I am sorry Saduj al-Dahij but you have given a ridiculous argument. The article makes it clear that the criticisms are alleged, and whether they are substantiated are up to the reader to decide if we write the article to conform with WP:NPOV, though I think they are. I think most people who are critical of Islam would be proud, rather ashamed, that you call them (us) "Infidels". Regarding your question How dare anyone call the Holy Prophet Mohammed (pbuh), a devil!!?, you might be surprised to learn that in free societies people are able to freely speak their mind without fear of retribution. You claim that we should not criticise Islam because The Prophet was the last messenger of Allah, but what you can't see is that you assume that Muhammad was a prophet and then base everything on that assumption, rather than using logic and evidence to determine whether he was. Would have Allah blessed him with many victories in battle if he was a devil? I think not! This logic is ridiculous. By that same reasoning, whatever the US does in Iraq or Afghanistan militarily must be legitamate and God-ordained because if the US were infidels, Allah would not allow them to occupy Muslims countries. I don't think you would ever claim that, however. Yid613 00:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Chem1's revision of Qur'an section

Chem1 revised the Qur'an section to read that Uthman imposed the Quraish dialect and suppressed all other dialects. This is an explanation of the differences in proto-Quranic texts that is found in Islamic apologetic literature (it turns any differences into minor matters of dialect, which do not challenge the "uncorrupted Qur'an" belief), but it is not supported by what we DO know about the proto-Quranic texts. The Islamic records (the three variant Qur'ans held by Ali and (I forget their names!)) and the Sana'a texts seem to be converging here, in that the Sana'a records indicate that the Islamic records might be correct in their assessment of the differences. The differences were not ones of dialect, I gather, but just a few words here and there, and verse order. The Qur'an article covers this. Zora 22:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

If only I had time to rewrite this article. Unfortunately I'm too busy studying. --Zeno of Elea 00:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

let me guess. Your "rewrite" would plunge us into endless edit-wars and circular discussions? Maybe contributing, with some caution, rather than wholesale rewriting would betide better results, in cases such as this? dab (ᛏ) 20:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes thats what I meant. contribute. --Zeno of Elea 21:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

History

Zeno, I saw your history edits... it seems pretty correct as far as I can see... except... I am not sure about the Muhammad-Antichrist link. The rest is almost common knowledge (well it should probably be sourced but it's not as important since it's rather general) but the antichrist reference I do not know about and would like to see sources if you have any. From this search Apparently Eulogius called Muhammad a praecursor Antichristi because he rejected Christ's divinity. From the first source it seems that he is the precursor antichrist... which makes sense since it surely wasn't end times (and I don't think most Christian theologians of the time thought it was).... it says that Augustine believed there were many antichrists (those utterly opposed to trutH) and those who called Muhammad such were writing in that tradition. Perfectus a Martyr of Cordova thought Muhammad was the false prophet announced in Matthwe 24:24.

This comes from Saracens: Islam in the Medieval European Imagination. by John Victor Tolan. - Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231123337 pages 90-92. I can't speak for its credibility except for to say that it's Columbia University Press... which... is rather notable. Of course around the Crusades and year 1000 apocolypse claims were on the rise -- I attended a lecture on that actually... the belief among many christians that they year 1000 would bring the end of the world. In any case, that surely brought resurgence in thinking Muslims were an anti-christ-like force... but, I'm not sure how specific they got.

Image

I have an interesting proposition. I was looking up information for the above section and I found Reading Medieval Images: The Art Historian and the Object edited by Thelma K Thomas, Elizabeth L Sears. University of Michigan Press - ISBN 0472067516 -- On page 56 it shows a rather interseting image which at my first glance appears to be a little image of Muhammad in a Christian text... this also talks about him as the Antichrist and other interpretations... all of this is available at http://print.google.com/ for anyone wanting to see (copyright issues with the image unknown). gren グレン 12:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Undeletion

This article is no longer the mere "collection of links" that it was, in June, when it was vfd'ed before. It is substantive.

I suspect that advocates of Islam are trying to suppress its contents, for the purpose of promoting Islam. So I'm putting this page on my watchlist.

All religions should be appraised. It is an historical scholarly tradition (at least in the West) to do so.

To be fair, we must delete all articles which criticise any religion or (better yet) keep them all.

The same thing happened with a series of articles user:IriskPunkTom was trying to create on religious persecution. He was trying to organize available knowledge about how followers of each of the major religions have perscuted those of other religions. That attempt in no way violates NPOV, and neither does the present article.

I suggest a series on "opposition to X" articles - one for each major religion. Uncle Ed 17:02, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I am not an advocate of Islam, nor am I Islamic. This article was VFD'd. Recreation of VFD'd content satisfies CSD. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 17:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

N.b. IrishPunkTom's series was an attempt to get round any chance that an anti-Islamic article created by Germen (on an anti-Islamic crusade) survived VFD. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 17:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

"I suspect that advocates of Islam are trying to suppress its contents, for the purpose of promoting Islam. " That's not really a very NPOV thing to say is it?

I could equally say "I suspect that haters of Islam are trying to slander it, for the purpose of supressing Islam. " ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 17:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

"I suspect that haters of Islam are trying to slander it, for the purpose of supressing Islam." This sums up Ril's reasoning for trying to delete this article. He is here to defend Islam from "slandering" because he thinks that this article is "supressing Islam." --Zeno of Elea 08:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Moved from top of page

from the old talkpage {{deletedpage}} Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Islam

— since the previous article was deleted due to its content rather than due to its title, there is now the suggestion to move Opposition to Islam to this title. dab (ᛏ) 11:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I hope I haven't made a mess of this now. This talk page should probably be moved to Talk:Criticism of Islam now, to coincide with the article title. sorry. dab (ᛏ) 06:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Ril, you are completely off track here. Nobody is suggesting that this article be deleted. The stuff you moved from the top of the page relates to the old article, and was just put here for reference. You know, like, transparency, so that there is a link to the old vfd. That was about a completely different article. This article is fine, nobody will suggest it be deleted, ok? dab (ᛏ) 17:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

ah, wait, I see you are suggesting deletion? lol. you think this is a recreation of deleted material? let me quote some of the stuff that was deleted:

The True Meaning of Islam

There is no denying it, for one who has actually read the Qur'an that Islam influences peace and solidarity, that is why men and women from all around the world have come to accept this faith.

   * Islam is the worlds most rapidly growing religion in prisons
   * Islam has 1.2 Billion followers

Then why is it that many refer to it as a religion which promotes hatred. If so are we  admitting that over a sixth of the worlds population are supporting terrorist movements,   just as many American News Agencies have claimed before. *In this world their exists 21  nations that are based on Islamic law.

   * 48 nations are predominanetly Islamic
   * Millions of Muslims exist in many other countries in some cases forming over 40% of  their population.

Medieval Prejudice

After the Crusades Anti-Islamic propaganda started to develop

   * When the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem 40,000 Muslims were killed
   * At the time the Muslims were far more powerful and technologically advanced than their Christian counterparts
   * Without the Crusades Western society would have never succeeded throughout the ages
   * Europeans recovered from a period of Barbarianism after they succeeded into using the advancements of their enemy
   * As a report by Karen Armstrong suggests:

and so on. then, this essay was cut down to a collection of links, which were then deleted as without content. Later, I created Opposition to Islam, paralleling Opposition to Mormonism. Then we decided to move it to Criticism of Islam. It's a new article, not a recreation of deleted material. Are you saying the same article would be fine at Opposition to Islam but not here, because someone happened to write a pov essay under this title at some point in the past? I thought not. dab (ᛏ) 18:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you cut it off please? People are trying to write an article here. Which part of the above statement did you not understand? dab (ᛏ) 18:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD speedy deletion

If someone wants to recreate the article, please go to Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. Unilaterally recreating a VfD-deleted page, no matter how much bluster and special pleading and attacking of one's critics goes with it, isn't acceptable. (See also: Wikipedia:requests for arbitration#Ed Poor.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

that's so much nonsense. nobody wants to recreate anything, what would we be doing on vfu? very well, so I moved it back to 'opposition', since apparently common sense seems in short supply just now. dab (ᛏ) 18:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Mel if there is a policy at Wikipedia which forbids creating a NEW article with the same title as a deleted one, please quote it.

This is a worthy topic, and the material in it is fresh. Please indicate on this talk page which policy the current content of the article violates, and we'll discuss how to fix that. Don't say "it was rfd'd before", because that's irrelevanet. Uncle Ed 23:11, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

great, now the edit history is lost. Ril, you have been told by three different people now that it is not a speedy. stop adding the template. read the talkpage. You are just being disruptive at this point. dab (ᛏ) 07:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The edit history seems to, for some bizarre reason, be at Criticism of Islam, the redirect. If you want, after this mess settles down, I can merge the page histories. --cesarb 11:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Detailed criticism

There are essentially no details of the criticisms made against Islam, here. I'm thinking of starting with expanding on the "Muhammad" section by creating subsections such as "Early Life," "Military Career," etc., etc. in order to elaborate on the specific criticisms. Anyone have any suggestions? --Zeno of Elea 08:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

just make sure you attribute every statement to a notable author. If you want to concentrate on the opinion of a particular author or book, it may be worthwhile to create an article about that for greater detail. Muhammad has been criticized for 1400 years now, and we must aim at giving a balanced picture of that here. dab (ᛏ) 10:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Why would it be neccessary to attribute every criticism to a specific author? Muhammad has been criticised for 1400 years, but all of the criticism is based on the contents of the Sira, hadith and Qur'an. For example, nearly everyone famaliar with Muhammad's life has read about the Banu Qurayza. This incident is commonly leveled against Muhammad in criticism of his deeds. Another simple example is Aisha. According to most of the traditions, Muhammad had sex with Aisha when he was around 50 years old and she was around 9 years old.

Just because it's always repeated does not make it right. She was not 9 but 6. (There was a very good article from the Ahmaddiyya, I think, proving that.) People in this discussion who are always the first to doubt everything, are ready to rely on one hadith orally narrated for generations to make such a claim!

This and other of his relations are commonly criticized. Do we need to say "such and such author critizes Muhammad for beheading an entire tribe of 900 Jewish men - they were asked if they want to be judged by Islamic law or by their own Jewish law. They insisted on their own law... and having sex with a 9 year old girl?" What does it matter which authors reference these criticisms - there are literally thousands of authors that could be said to reference these particular points about the Banu Qurayaza and Aisha in their criticisms. Muhammad might have been ciriticed for 1400 years, but there is only a small finite amount of actual information about his life upon which criticisms are based. There are many thousands of books of publication which criticize Muhammad, but there are certain common and well-known themes that permeate criticisms of Islam and Muhammad that are based on the history of Muhammad as known from the earliest sources. You seem to be trying to impose an arbitrary limitation on the extent to which detail can be described in this article. And no I don't want to turn this article into a collection of book reports. --Zeno of Elea 10:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Not at all, it is certainly permissible that these things are are mentioned as 'common' criticisms levelled against Muslims, I would have no problem at all with such an edit. However, saying that Muhammad was involved in the beheading of 900 men itself does not amount to 'criticism'. After all, the episodes are exclusively transmitted by his adherents, and are certainly not intended as such. 'Criticism' means contrasting these actions with his own laws etc. If you do not attribute the critical remarks to authors, you'll end up writing an essay. It will also be interesting, how this criticism formed during the Christian Middle Ages. Who was the first Christian theologian who discussed the Aisha case, that sort of thing. We are not interested in contemporary Muhammad-bashing so much as a study of the history of that pursuit. dab (ᛏ) 10:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I suppose that the affair of the Banu Qurayza comes under allegations of genocide, as in this case the seed of an entire clan was deliberately killed. The affair of this clan is part of Muhammad's wider effort to expell all Jews from Arabia after what historian critics commonly refer to as his "falling out with the Jews" after he failed to convert them. The other allegation of genocide leveled against Muhammad is the eradication of pagan Arabs, a civilization of which virtually no trace is left except for what Islam adopted of the Arab paganism. --Zeno of Elea 11:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

sure, this can all go on Banu Qurayza. For the purposes of this article, we are interested how the event was used in criticism. When was it used to question the character of Muhammad, in Jewish literature and in Christian literature? Before the Crusades? After the Crusades? Only in modern times? These are the references we need, what exactly happened is a matter for the main article. Here, we want to know how the event was portrayed by individual authors for the purpose of criticizing Islam. To drive the point home, this article is not a "criticism of Islam", any more than the Islam article "is" Islam. The only article that is what its title says is Main Page, the others are about the topic of their title. This one is about criticism of Islam, i.e. we need to talk about the critics, their views, and the history of their ideas. dab (ᛏ) 11:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

"When was it used to question the character of Muhammad, in Jewish literature and in Christian literature? Before the Crusades? After the Crusades? Only in modern times?" This is irrelevant. It only concerns the history of criticism. I do not understand this Judaeo-Christian centricism. When was the first time that Christians read Ibn Ishaq's Sira and then wrote critical historical analysis of it? I don't know, and I don't see why I have to know such minute historical details in order to describe the commonly criticised stories of the well-known classical book "Sirah Rasul Allah" by Ibn Ishaq. Maybe you would like to research the obscure history of when was Ibn Ishaq's Sirah first criticized by Christians, Jews, Hindus, atheists, Buddhists, Taoists, Deists, etc. etc. I personally think that it is quite irrelevant. Once again, I refer you to the simple example of Aisha, who "consumated her marriage" with Muhammad at age 9 when Muhannad was around age 50. This is clearly a criticism that is commonly and undeniably made against Muhammad. Does it matter who the first Christian was to criticize Muhammad for his marriage with Aisha? I don't think so. I think it's quite irrelevant. What IS an interesting question is the general historical question of when did different civilizations first become aware of all of the Islamic literature, such as the Sira, hadith, Quran, etc - who were the first non-Muslims to critically analyze this corpus of literature? That seems like a mildly interesting question that is relegated to the "history" section of this article.

"Here, we want to know how the event was portrayed by individual authors for the purpose of criticizing Islam." Once again, you are attempting to impose your arbitrary rules and edicts. Why should we be interested only in how particular events were portrays by individual authors? Again, I refer you to the issue of Muhammad's relation with Aisha. This common criticism is beyond the theory of some particular individual, it is widely repeated by thousands of authors in electronic, print and other media, both in the past and in the present. If you are interested in the obscure history of criticism of Aisha's relation with Muhammad then please feel free to research this issue and add the historical information you find. But it would be quite absurd to write down a list of all the individual authors who criticize Muhammad for his relation with a 9 year old Aisha. We ARE talking about criticism of Muhammad when we reference the story of Aisha. We do not need to track down the first person to ciriticize Muhammad for having sex with a 9 year old in order to acknowledge that it is a common criticism of Muhammad (and after all this article is about common ciriticm of Muhammad). --Zeno of Elea 11:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

sure, I agreed such criticism is "common", and that you should mention it. Far from irrelevant, the history of this "commonality" is notable. Muslims have "common" answers to all these "common" criticisms, and they all go to the main articles. You can of course cite contemporary authors making such criticism, but they will only be a tiny part of the discourse. Muhammed lived in the 7th century, so surely 7th (or 8th) century criticism would be far from irrelevant, it would be the most relevant of them all. 21st century criticism is also relevant, but only by authors who are not as naive to ignore the 1400 years preceding them. dab (ᛏ) 11:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

7th or 8th century criticism of Islam? Such as? Maybe you should read a book about the history of this subject first, dab. You don't sound like you have expertise in this subject, yet you are intent on sounding like you do. I would recommend reading "Saracens: Islam in the Medieval European Imagination" by John V. Tolan (Columbia University Press 2002). This is to say nothing of your unfounded claim that the older criticism is the more "relevant" it is to an article about such criticm. --Zeno of Elea 12:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Zeno, I was making a point here. I know there is no '7th century criticism of Islam'. If you won't bother to listen to my point, I won't bother explaining it to you further. Just make your edits, I am sure they will be scrutinized for fairness. dab (ᛏ) 12:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Protection?

If -Ril- keeps wrongly marking this for speedy deletion, editors might want to have the article protected against vandalism; if so, let me know. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't do that. I think anything blocking this opposition to Islam article will construed as bias and will cause unneeded hassle. If -Ril- keeps on doing that (which seems to be more or less vandalism at this point) then either he can be dealt with or the minor effort of removing the speedy can be done. gren グレン 08:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

if Ril keeps going, I will start to issue short blocks for disruption, rather than protecting the article (which is still in its formative phase). dab (ᛏ) 10:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, don't do it yourself (you're involved in editing the article); either go to AN/I or ask me. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I will; but the case seems to be closed now anyway. dab (ᛏ) 08:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Is Salman Rushdie a Muslim?

As far as I know, if you get yourself takfir'd, you are essentially 'excommunicated', i.e. not considered a Muslim anymore. Is it possible that whether Rushdie is a Muslim is a disputed question (I don't know)? dab (ᛏ) 19:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Rushdie does not claim to be a Muslim, as far as I know. --Zeno of Elea 01:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

No, he's not a Muslim.--JuanMuslim 15:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Ethical criticism

Here follow's Germen's section

Main article: Islamic ethics

Contemporary ethical criticism on traditional and islamist islam focuses on several points.

• Lack of reciprocity. The Golden Rule, "Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you", does not occur in the Qur'an. In the 40 hadith collection of Nawawi, there exists an incarnation of this rule, but it is valid exclusively regarding brothers, i.e. Muslims (as the Qur'an forbids considering a non-Muslim as a brother). [1] [2]
• Human rights. Islamic law contradicts the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights at several points, e.g. regarding the freedom of religion, slavery, treatment of homosexuals, treatment of women etc. Many Muslims regarded this as a problem[3]. In order to address this problem, the Islamic Conference has published a separate Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in 1990, which is compliant with Shari'ah. [4].
• Discrimination of women and non-Muslims. Critics argue that women have less rights than men and that infidels have less rights than Muslims. Muslims argue that men are the protectors of the women (Qur'an 4:34) and that infidels must return the favour of the protection by the islamic state.
• Ethical priorities. According to islamic ethics, violating dietary rules or sexual indiscretions are as bad as violation of the human rights of others. For example, killing an infidel does not carry a death sentence[5], but illegal sexual intercourse does[6]. The Qur'an considers worshipping other gods besides Allah as a sin which is worse than any other sin (Qur'an 4:48).
• Glorification of war and violence. Critics state that islam regards armed jihad as a religious duty. Muslims stress that armed jihad is only one of several kinds of jihad.
• Human right violations by adherents of islam. See main article Historical persecution by Muslims.

The ethical criticism on traditional islam has led to reform movements within islam, e.g. liberal islam movements and the Qur'an only movement.

End of his section

Germen. You make many unsourced assertion and much of it is original research. Firstly... I don't think many liberal Muslims will tell you that "ethical criticism on traditional islam has led" to their reforms... also, they'd capitalize Islam. The Golden rules stuff from Ali Sina is nothing... when we made this dab specified respectable and notable sources... that is not. "Islamic law contradicts the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights" is, as you should know by now, a worthless statement as there is no cohesive Islamic law... also you might want to state who is claiming it contradicts the UNDHR... and you talk about such thing as a general compliance with sharia that does not exist. Sharia is Islamic law has different instantiations. Cite a critique of women's rights in Islam or Islamic lands... use print.google. There are also many region specific case studies like apllication of sharia in Sudan... because, Sudan has law that they call sharia... As you should also know by now quoting hadith is not quoting Islamic doctrine, it is a source for it and must be weighed and put into context by those interpretting it... which incidentally isn't you in an encyclopedic source. Also not citing sources that gloss over the jihad question is not good... I believe there is stuff you can take from jihad probably. Religious conflict and Islam is the correct article and I'm sure that can be linked. Just to remind you... (beause Dutch might be like French) we captialize relgion's names (well, proper nouns) in English so please keep that in mind. gren グレン 16:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Gren, I added several sources. All of my statements have been sourced, so I cannot understand why you term it original research. You can allege that I concentrate on content of the criticism rather than on names of critics. The reason of this, evidently, is that facts are more relevant than names. It is not highly informative to read the opinions of a group of people. It is more informative to read a summary of the criticism on a point-to-point basis. I have added now more than 20 references, so I think the "original research" epithet, if ever warranted, has been made obsolete by now. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

For instance you say "Frequently cited, e.g. by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer and Ali Sina are"... you have to use what they say, and cite it from their books / webpages. What you do is say they cite certain things... where do any of them (besides Ali Sina, which there is great contention about whtether or not he is legitimate) quote Islamonline or Islam Q&A? or Afrol news? No, it is original research to presume that they complain about those exacy sources. You must cite what Robert Spencer says, not attempt your own synthesis... because that is original research. Look at what Sorna added, it's cited with no original research. The thing is, you are citing various Islamic doctrines that you disagree with and calling it opposition... You cannot cite, on opposition to Islam, hadith and then say that it is opposed... I'm sure it is opposed... but by whom / what groups?, and do they say that they oppose that hadith... or do they cite something in general. That is what this article is about... not showing something that should be opposed and calling it opposition. As dab said to be, there can be deep criticism of Islam.... but it has to be sourced and done better than this Germen. It has gotten better... but, this is not up to standards... and please, stop citing hadith unless someone refers specifically to it. gren グレン 12:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello viewers of talk page ~ I added a paragraph on Jihad and Human Rights for the Ethics section. It is strictly paraphrasing from the Robert Spencer source, which I think is probably the main idea behind this and other highly controversial Islam articles (using sources). Let me know if this is what you were looking for, and suggestions, etc. Thanks. Sorna 19:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Germen, Wikipedia:Footnote3. Read it. Do it. You screw up the links to every other reference when you don't follow the page's footnote format. Any link in "[ ]" ruins the numbering scheme. gren グレン 11:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, woah, FFI is down. DOS attack or something? gren グレン 12:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, probably the action of a hasanat junkie. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

yeah, Germen, at least get the format right. Controversy is bad enough without you forcing people to clean up your formatting after you. dab (ᛏ) 13:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Cleaned up. Note that imho the benefits of this footnote standard do not warrant the extra work. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Understandable and for websites it is not worth it. But with the addition fo Sorna's section we were referencing texts... which is the way this article should go. If you wish to use one of the other footnote styles then feel free to but this style seems to be the most prevalent of late. gren グレン 20:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

POV tag

Gren, can you please indicate which points in this section are POV accordng to you?--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Vote for deletion

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 01:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Satanic verses

Why no mention of the satanic verses - not the book by Salman Rushdide, but the actual verses themselves?

Why SHOULD they be mentioned? There's an article on the Satanic Verses and they are mentioned in the article on Muhammad. It's not as if Wikipedia were trying to hide them. If they were mentioned, I suppose it would be as one of the standard criticisms of the character of Muhammad (Islam is bad because Muhammad was bad and then a laundry list of criticisms). Zora 05:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

"Why SHOULD they be mentioned?" because they are a standard criticism of Islam. What you refer to as a "laundry list" happens to be the subject matter of this article. --Zeno of Elea 07:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Why do non-Muslims feel as if they have to post every criticism available? And why do Muslims feel as if they have to respond to every criticism? --JuanMuslim 15:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Move

Can we move this to Criticism of Islam now, without trolls jumping out of the woodwork? This article passed VfD now, and I think there was consensus for the move. If there are no objections, I will move it in a few days. This will not be an opportunity for another VfD. dab (ᛏ) 06:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me... in fact, it makes more sense. gren グレン 08:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

done :) dab (ᛏ) 17:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Germen

I am hoping you will fix up your mess before others have to. Blanet quoting Islam Q&A is not proper, it is obviously not criticism and it is original research to add that as you do. So do not, it is just bad. You do not need to bold everything either. Remove Sorna Doon's section was a bad idea. Sorna is a better writing than you and actually sourced her assertions to criticisms from the books she read... not citing Islam Q&A and opposition. They might have criticisms of Islamic sects but those do not represent that. Here is her section:

• I think the current list is much more readable and informative than the previous information. Accusing me of OR is ridiculous because I provided 75% of all links in this article. It seems you apply different standards for different people. But why does this not surprise me. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 16:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

===Jihad and Human Rights=== Critics such as [[Robert Spencer]] believe that it is not only extremist Islam that preaches the violence encompassed in Jihad, but also Islam itself, though deep within the Qur’anic text. He argues that though Islam does not explicitly preach the violent form of Jihad, the primary problem lies in moderate Muslims' denial that violence practiced by extremist Muslims can indeed be read in the Qur’an. According to Spencer, a move toward human rights and peaceful assimilation in the west calls for moderate Muslims' rejection of traditional aspects of Islam such as jihad, [[dhimmitude]], and shariah. {{ref|Spencer2}}

• This part does not belong here. This is not ethical criticism but political criticism. There are more critics than Mr Spencer only and they regularly cite those points. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 16:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

You have also stopped using footnote3 style, which I recognize is hard considering the number of changes but, maybe if you don't make such rash edits that will need to be changed constantly it will work out better. Right, and laundry lists don't make for good articles. gren グレン 08:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Indeed. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 16:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Definition of Islam

It is a problem when Islam is defined by its opponents (and I count myself among its opponents) that we perceive the worst, the extremist and wahhabi as being representative. By listing criticism of verses of the Qu'ran under Criticism of Islam we are endorsing the definition of Islam that violent extremist muslims offer, and opposing that which moderates offer. Similarly intolerant and violent passages can be found in the Bible but most people would give credit to mainstream christian excuses for these verses.

The opening paragraph attempts to clarify this with limited success. The problem is that criticism, to hit home, should be specific. What we have is a collection of different kinds of criticism of a non-specific Islam. That there is an internal debate within Islam is mentioned once, yet this is a critical perspective on the criticism of Islamist extremism. Oddly it appears under Political Criticism, where I expected to find the most damning criticism of the Islamist political movement.

Would it be better to organise criticisms in sections according to the specific ideas or problems with Islam that they criticise, rather than by type of criticism?

As most of the criticisms can be applied to many other religions, perhaps a Criticism of Religion page is also called for. But I may edit this page later if see a good way forward. --ExtraBold 20:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Well said, ExtraBold. It seems to me too that accepting the Islamist's version of Islam as the "real" Islam is exactly the sort of thing that the Islamists want.

A large part of the problem, it seems to me, is the Sunni Muslim abhorrence of "fitna", or conflict. Sunni Islam has been defined as an "orthopraxy" rather than an "orthodoxy". As long as you say the shahada and profess to be a Muslim, you're accepted (in theory). Which allows for enormous variations in doctrine, and even allows Sunni Muslims to kill each other in the name of Islam, with both sides insisting that "We are the REAL Muslims" -- no one anxious or able to excommunicate either side. This allows the critics to insist that jihadi Salafis do represent the REAL Islam. Zora 21:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I am in full agreement and that is what we are trying to do. As dab said, there is "hard hitting" criticism of Islam, but it's not in the article. I think there are some notable people against Islam as a whole, but it should be noted that their criticism is a mix of defining Islam and pointing out that their definion is correct through historical events. If we can make criticisms as you seem to want to make and source them then we might get a good article. We need someone interested in dealing with some of the crap you have to take on these articles... if you can do that I'd be very pleased :) gren グレン 22:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

OK I have had a go at the introduction. I think it is better, but I am still not entirely happy with it. The problem is perhaps that although Islamism isn't Islam, it can't be divorced from it either. Islam should take some (POV amount) of the blame for Islamism. Criticism of Islamism still to come... --ExtraBold 13:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I think I might agree with the point you make but the wording as it stands no. Some brand(s) of Islam obviously influenced Islamism. However, if we cross the line (as I feel some users do) of defining (violent/misogynist) Islamist goals as inherently Muslims then you get the problem. Viewing all forms of Islam from above as a whole then we cannot and should not escape dicussing Islamism in its social/political/religious context. So, in that sense it can't be divorced from it -- but, your average Sunni can complete divorce himself from it. Is that what you were saying? gren グレン 14:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the concept of Islamism is totally bogus. It's a word that is used by very few Muslims. Most I've spoken with reject the concept all together. The term was developed by several terrorist experts to differentiate between the various Muslims. So the way the term was used at the beginning was very awkward. It assumes that Islamism is necessarily linked with terrorism. Maybe, if a the article could begin by specifying the flavor/methodology of Islam that they are criticizing.--JuanMuslim 02:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

We really need to be wise about this. In the future, for example, there could be a Criticism to Liberal Islam another about Criticism of Traditional Islam another for Criticism of (choose a word) Islam. --JuanMuslim 15:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

POV

This article is too one-sided. It needs to be rewritten to provide a more balanced view about Islam. --JuanMuslim 02:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, this article, while it can have responses to criticism, is going to seem very crtical. That's just the nature of the article. Just like Islam isn't going to have everything explicity questioned on it even when many of the tenets are crticized. Sorna Doon 17:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

That's one of my concerns. The title could be "Criticism of Islam" and another article could be "Support of Islam" or "Benefits of Islam". The problem is that regardless it will be POV by the essence of such an article. Criticism never ends. And criticism doesn't end at legitimate concerns. True, false, opinions, etc. It would be ideal if only legitimate concerns rather than falsehoods are discussed as criticism when in reality then are just plain inaccurate. When people read an encyclopedia, they expect accuracy, consistency, and a degree of professionalism. I'm concerned that's just not happening many times. --JuanMuslim 01:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

"another article could be "Support of Islam" or "Benefits of Islam"" JuanMuslim, I don't think you really understand that you are editing an ENCYLOPEDIA, not a Dawah pamphlet or an Islamic personal website. Obviously articles with titles like "Benefits of Islam" are not appropriate as Encylopedia content. --Zeno of Elea 18:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

That's my point. What's the opposite of criticism though? From [7], antonyms for criticism include commendation, approval, compliment, praise, raves, defense, and praise. So articles can be both about criticism of something as well as its opposite. --JuanMuslim 20:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Go write an article in praise of the brutalization of women and the spreading of terrorism caused by islam. Be sure to highlight 9/11, Beslan, and other islamic atrocities that are buidling in intensity and frequency. Also, there's getting quite a bit more information that the alleged 'advances' claimed by islamics during the middle ages were in fact India/Hindu based and European. Typical of islam, it'll try to take over territory (Israel) or ideas (Algebra) and claim it as islamic. Constantinople is another example. --monty2

I hardly believe the attacking of a religion is solving anything on the pursuit for more reliable information. To also be condescending (in this case to religion) is close minded to the wise and brilliant to the ignorant. -- Evil Twin, 23 Decemberr 2005

Muhammad

what happened to the section about Muhammad? Critics of Islam typically begin by heaping abuse on Muhammad, so I thought that was an important part. It appears to have been cut out of the article, but I don't see any reasoning on talk. dab (ᛏ) 08:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The article was vandalized by an anon and the vandalism was not reverted properly, so not only the Muhammad section but also sections regarding History, Hadith and even the external links had been removed. I've been working on restoring the content that was vandalized. -- Karl Meier 23:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

"Critics of Islam typically begin by heaping abuse on Muhammad, so I thought that was an important part." Heaping abuse on Muhammad? dab, I don't think that you have any sort of neutral approach towards criticsm of Islam. In this instance, you are acting as if there is no logical or reasonable criticsm against the character of Muhammad - any criticsm of The Prophet (PBUH) is "heaping abuse." Seeing as how this is your attitude towards the subject of Criticism of Islam, I don't think that you have the even-handed point of view required to constructively approach this article. --Zeno of Elea 18:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Muslims believe that if someone attacks Islam on Muhammad's pedophilia or the violence of Islam then they (the Muslims) can justify all that by simply citing something similiar in the West. For example if you tell a Muslim that Muhammad was a pedophile he will immediately tell you that "12 year old girls get pregnant in the USA". Or when you tell them Islam is violent they will mention the Crusades. They really believe that if they point at something similiar in the attackers own camp (Muslim believe that anyone who is criticising Islam must be a westerner Christian) then the attackers argument is NULLIFIED and the bad act about Muhamamd or Islam is JUSTIFIED. But they are not aware what they argue is a recognized logical fallacy called ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM. When you tell them they are committing a logical fallacy they can't understand you either. They will just go on rambling the same stupid shit. Ohanian 14:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Read wikipedia policy on No personal attacks and please learn to space your paragraph correctly. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Nobody likes abuse.

So tell me, since when was Prophet Muhammad a contributor to wikipedia. Ohanian 06:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Please look at your comment before you respond. Your attacks are against Muslims as a whole. Here is an example of one: "They will just go on rambling the same stupid shit." I am glad that you read the policy, though. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 10:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Islam/Islamophobia

The whole section "Anti-Islam/Islamophobia" looks like original research to me, and I think it should be removed if it doesn't improve. What is something like: "Anti-Islam is the criticism of the Islamic religion based on alleged mischaracterizations, stereotypes, and negative prejudices." based on, and where does this defintion of "anti-islam" come from? -- Karl Meier 23:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The section is based off the article entitled Anti-Catholicism:

Anti-Catholicism is religious or political opposition to the Roman Catholic Church, particularly of a kind employing alleged mischaracterizations, stereotypes and negative prejudices. Anti-Catholicism typically applies only to those instances in which Roman Catholics are persecuted or discriminated against for their beliefs by other Christians; Roman Catholics may also be the target of persecution of Christians generally. --JuanMuslim 23:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Karl, I see your point... but I also see it's a road you don't want to go down. If that gets deleted then half of "Ethical Criticism" will get deleted as well. Stoning of married adulterers you mention is "mandatory in all five schools", which isnt' exactly true (and it would require more than your severely limited sourcing). The Saudis are Wahhabi and don't follow a traditional school, etc. Islam Q&A is not mainstream Islam... Severing of thieves hands has conditions added onto it by all. If I'm not mistaken the hadith says that if you steal more than the value of a shield and most rulings talk about habitual stealing. So many generalizations. Not forgetting that you are citing Muslim sources which, once again, is not "criticism of Islam" but the Muslim viewpoint. You have to show the critics and what they cite, not whomever wrote ethics (Germen?) citing Islamic sources and then saying in passive voice, "this is criticized". Juan's section needs some help I think, but if that is removed, the ethical section which suffers from similar problems must be removed as well. gren グレン 19:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point, you made. A person who steals food out of hunger is also an exception. There are actually several exceptions or various viewpoints that aren't represented. Islam is a comlex religion just as Christianity and Judaism. --JuanMuslim 04:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you serious Gren? Do you want to say something like that if I delete "your" unsourced, original research crap, then you'll retaliate by deleting what you believe is "my" unsourced, original research crap? I wonder if that is the way they make neutral articles at EB... Anyway, to make it clear, it isn't me who has been writing the "Ethical Criticism" section, and it also seems to include descent references for almost all of the information that is included. More references is allways nice, but the criticism that is mentioned in this section, is in many places is in many places so obvious and well known that a reference isn't strictly needed. (See: "The Fatwa against Rushdie was heavily critizised", "Death penalty for practicing homosexuals" has been critizised, criticism of "alleged discrimination against women and non-Muslims and so on..) Another thing is that your claim that "islam Q&A is not mainstream Islam" is just your opinion and not very interesting. If you want to add responses to the criticism, then please do that and remember to use proper and well known references. The new word "anti-islam" and it's definition that was pulled out of the thin air is not going to stay. There is no substance in that part of the "Muslim Responses" section. I am sure other editors can do better than that. -- Karl Meier 12:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Karl, so there's such a thing as anti-Catholicism but not such thing as anti-Islam? A keyword search on anti-Islam using Google returns 207,000 articles. --JuanMuslim 04:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Ethical SectNPOV

Just to clarify Germen, nowhere near addressing my (and others) POV concerns. Your addition says more than "one dinar" what was your source for that? Hadith say the value of a shield. Some sources say you can steal for necessity legal. Other says don't cut off hands unless habitual. Some say don't cut off hands. You didn't address in the least the issues of using Islamic sources and passively saying "this ruling is criticized" nor the fact that you over generalize. You can't really think that quoting a Fatwa from Islam Q&A is criticism of Islam? Now, if you have any intra-Islam criticism that might work, but, you are not doing that. gren グレン 02:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

"Some sources say you can steal for necessity legal. Other says don't cut off hands unless habitual. Some say don't cut off hands." gren, this is not the appropriate place for such absolutely ridiculous apologetics for Islam. The Qur'an very clearly commands the Mohammedans to amputate hands as a punishment for theft. Yet you are claiming that "some say don't off hands." WHO says this? They obviously aren't Muslims, since they would be directly contradicting the Qur'an and about 1400 years of Islamic legal tradition. And this claim about "habitual" stealing? What is the source for that? You seem to be very active in demanding sources for anything that could be seen as criticsm of Islam, and yet you don't seem to think that your silly apologetics need be accompanied by any kind of citation. I don't see how you are capable of even knowing whether or not this article is NPOV. --Zeno of Elea 18:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

They obviously aren't Muslims, since they would be directly contradicting the Qur'an and about 1400 years of Islamic legal tradition. That is a ludicrous assertion. Really, whether it contradicts majority legal precedent or what you see as being in the Qur'an is irrelevant, if they're claiming to be Muslim then they are Muslim. I realize I have not cited my sources and I feel no need to yet as I am not writing in the article unlike the sections that are there. I would duly source my material if I added it to the article. Also, the burden of proof is on the person that says "All Muslims believe", not on the person asking them to prove that claim. I want you to fix up the crap that is there now. I don't deny that a large number of Muslims scholars have fallen on the side of amputation, however most also follow hadith which put limitations on this. You will find that the Qur'an alone Muslims (at least the free-minds brand) reject the cutting off of the hands and explain the Qur'an verse as having a more metaphoric meaning and they are not the only ones to have believed that. I know this is not sourced but I am not writing in the article as of now. I will bother to cite a greater diversity of views which you fail to cite but you still managed to ignore the cruxt of the issue.

That is, your sources are not critiques. You sourced an Islamic site saying that cutting off of hands was legal/necessary. Besides this not showing anything about being indicative of Islamic views as a whole it shows no sign of any active critique. Hence, the critique is coming from the author of that piece, whom I believe was you. You must cite a critique, it's amusing because the section Alleged lack of reciprocity is the best cited section in Ethics. It shows an active critiquing party (Ali Sina) talking a flaw within Islam, or some aspects of Islam. So many of the sections lack that. I know there are tons of credible sources (Amnesty International for one) that would be appalled by amputation of the hands of thieves, so, perhaps find talk about a specific case of a law in a Muslim country that is claimed to be inspired by Sharia. Or find one of the many critics of Islam who say that Islamic law calls for this, cite them as the critique, not the "Islam is often critiqued" wording we have now which is a way to avoid actively citing these issues. I know you typically find critical view of Islam and add that and, if you can source them with something credible that is more than fine with me. We also have some Muslims who typically disagree with you, they will hopefully source their attempts to balance you and we'll produce something about the third grader's paper we have now. You always attempt to portray apologetics in a negative light but the response to the attacks (criticism) of the sources that you must cite are necessarily apologetics. Because they are responding to attacks. It would be nice if you could use that word in some normal sense instead of always in a pejorative manner. Remember in your response, please lay out your opinions about directly citing critics and not just citing issues and saying they are criticized -- because that has been my main issue with this all along. gren グレン 01:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

POV template

Karl, please do not delete the POV template. -- The article is not up to Wikipedia standards. Dude, why don't you start working on the Criticism of Christianity article? Clearly, your intention is to give people a biased, distorted, prejudicial view about Islam. Otherwise, you would work on both sides of the issue - criticisms and responses to criticism. The article will fail to meet Wikipedia standards as long as it continues to be one-sided. And, unfortunately, most attempts by other editors to make the article non-POV is met with animosity.--JuanMuslim 04:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Runnymede Trust usage: Eight features attributed to Islamophobia:

1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
2. Islam is seen as separate and 'other'. It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.
3. Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.
4. Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a 'clash of civilisations'.
5. Islam is seen as a political ideology and is used for political or military advantage.
6. Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.
7. Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
8. Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal

Why are you making bad faith accusations against me, Juanmuslim? I am not opposing that common muslim responses to criticism should be included, but I do oppose your PoV editing and the fact that you insist on including original research in this article. There is nothing wrong with that, so please aviod any personal remarks directed towards me in the future. Another thing is that I dont know why you are copying the whole Runnymede Trust usage of "islamophobia" into this talkpage. Could we stick to the topic please? - Karl Meier 10:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of anything. I am stating reality. According to the Runnymede Trust usage, the current article is Islamophobic. I wish you would with every criticism add a response to the criticism. That would be nPOV. --JuanMuslim 19:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written according to NPoV, not according to the opinions of some islamic organization, that promote the view that criticism of islam is what they call "islamophobic". Also, as I already said, you are welcome to expand the section with the muslim responses. Just aviod any original research and PoV editing. Actually, I even think the responses to the criticism should have their own article at some point (with a link to that article from the lead section). -- Karl Meier 20:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you in this Karl but that doesn't sidestep the issue that a bunch of the ethics section is original research already. You will notice that stoning of adulterers, for example, is backed up by Muslim views, not criticism of stoning. It also ignores the depth of Islamic opinion on the subject, it is not just a clear statement that it is supported because by all five schools, especially not with modern interpretations of those schools. That is why this article deserves the tag, not because it's "Islamophobic".

I'm against separating responses being on a separate article because it will inherently create a Muslim POV and a Anti/Un-Muslim POV... instead of a discussion between the two. I'd rather see this break down to Criticism of Hadith, Critcisms of Qur'anic origina, etc. before I saw it Criticism of Islam and Responses to critcism of Islam. gren グレン 01:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Muslim critics

The Muslim critics within the Critics of Islam section is needed. But, the Muslim critics could also have been Muslims with an entirely different methodology/viewpoint. --JuanMuslim 15:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

This gets very very intricate. You have the reformers (within each sect), the minor differences (among the four Sunni madhhabs which are played down as being critical of each other in modern times), the huge differences (Ahmadiyya, Sunni, Shia, Druze (which is contentious even calling them Muslims)), you have the rather large differences (Salafi, Deobandi, Wahhabbi, Sufi, Liberals, Progressives all within the vague sense of Sunnism). We need to define on what terms we are taking this before we start on such a vast endeavor, and we need explicit criticism... not just, "they aren't us so that's bad". gren グレン 01:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that the article needs to begin by stating the methodology/idea about islam that is being referred to primarily. Or it should have a different name. Or it should have a more extensive description of the different flavors of Islam. The first thing a particular Muslim would say is "I don't believe in that particular things stated at all" or "I do believe in that but you don't understand why." or other statements. I mean wouldn't it bother you if such an article discussed Christianity using theology or standpoint of a Christian sect you don't agree with. You make a good point. This article has all the complexities that the article entitled Criticism of Christianity has. I think we could learn a lot from that article on how to write this article. --JuanMuslim 21:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Zeno's recent edits and User:AE's reverts

I have added a good amount of information to the history section. This article is far from complete and Criticism of Islam is a very broad subject that covers a wide and disparate variety of events, subjects, historical periods, literature, etc. User:Anonymous Editor has reverted these edits, describing them as a "frenzy." I believe that describing another user's edits and good faith efforts as a "frenzy" is an example of a Negative personal comment, in violation of the policy against personal attacks.

User:Anonymous Editor is claiming that:

• (a) he is "adding content from the old article" which I removed
• (b) that i replaced "95% of the article"
• (c) that my edits are "POV"
• (d) that my edits are a description of "so many irrelevant events and aspects"
• (e) that i have done my edits to create an "anti-Islamic" article
• (f) that i went on a "frenzy"

My responses, respectively are:

• (a) I removed very little content in my edit. Mostly I removed statements such as "which Muslims reject." This article is about Criticism of Islam. Muslims reject virtually all criticm of Islam. Does this mean that everytime we describe a specific criticism of Islam we must note that it is "rejected by Muslims?" Clearly not. In any case, if User:Anonymous Editor feels that I have removed something important, he can do a diff and add whatever he thinks is important. Reverting all of my edits is an outrageous action on the part of User:Anonymous Editor. The section which I edited contained serious factual errors, for example it claimed that the earliest historical criticism of Islam came from Church writings, when in fact this is not true (there are critical poems by non-Muslim contemporaries of Muhammad that are older).
• (b) I did not replace 95% of the article. I only edited the history section, and in fact I replaced/deleted very little content - I mostly ADDED content, as the diff will show. ADDING is not the same as REPLACING.
• (c) If Anonymous Editor feels that my edits are POV then he should first explain WHY before reverting. An article titled "Criticism of Islam" is clearly going to cause some people to become confused about what is POV and what is NPOV. I ask Anonymous Editor to recall that is understood by consensus that this article is about the POVs of people who are critical of Islam. The purpose of this article is to describe a specific POV (i.e., critical thought on Islam) in an NPOV manner.
• (d) If Anonymous Editor feels that my edits are merely "irrelevant events and aspects" then he should elaborate in the talk page and explain what exactly his concern is BEFORE plunging the article into a revert war.
• (e) Anonymous Editor has violated the "Assume Good Faith" Wikipedia policy by suggesting that I am editing "to create an anti-Islamic article." According to the policy, such comments can be deleted on sight. Therefore it is not a justification for reverting.
• (f) Describing another user's edits as a "frenzy" is a negative personal comment, i.e. a personal attack. I fail to see how such a comment can justify Anonymous Editor's reverts. -- Zeno of Elea 11:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that if someone makes frenzy decisions then that's just an observation not a personal insult. We should also avoid overreacting. I mean we should all be aiming to make the article nPOV and accurate, etc. That way we can become a functional team. --JuanMuslim 16:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I note that JuanMuslim is further insisting on joining his fellow coreligionists Anonymous Editor in making personal attacks against me by describing my edits as a "frenzy." -- Zeno of Elea 23:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Since when is saying "frenzy" a personal attack? I would have said the same thing if it was a Muslim editor. What is closer to a personal attack is stereotyping by saying that all my "coreligionists" are going to take my side and make personal attacks against you. Please read wikipedia policy for more details. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Zora has also entered the revert war, siding with User:Anonymous Editor. Her reason for reverting is:

• "this is not a forum for attacking Islam"

Zora, I am aware that Wikipedia is not a forum. Perhaps you mean to patronize me, or question the good faith of my edits my suggesting that I am turning this article into an forum for attacking Islam. We must be very precise about what we mean in this case. The article is called "Criticism of Islam". In less formal words this mean that the article is about "written attacks against Islam." I was specifically editing the history section. I corrected a serious factual error which stated that the earliest criticism of Islam is from the Church writings, which is clearly incorrect as my edit demonstrates. Furthermore, I added missing information about the history of Criticism of Islam. In other words, my edits were a description of the history of "attacking of Islam" (as you put it), i.e. the history of criticism of Islam. Zora's claim could just as well have been "this is not a forum of Criticism of Islam." Well what does that mean? Are we to refrain from describing Criticism of Islam in an article titled Criticism of Islam? Perhaps Zora is working under the VfD theory, i.e. the idea that Criticism of Islam can just be deleted away - there have already been a series of failed VfDs against this article, so that won't work. Maybe Zora can elaborate on the reasoning behind her supporting Anonymous Editor's revert war? --Zeno of Elea 11:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I have not been following this article closely, but I was bothered by Zeno's recent edit. It is true that Muhammad's opponents criticized him; however, that could have been conveyed in a sentence, or a short para. Zeno had to quote all? most of? the poem, and then add a POV essay about how Muhammad believed in murdering people who criticized him. The intent was clearly NOT a survey of critical attitudes, but criticism, pure and simple. If Zeno's material is to be salvaged, it should be split between the 7th century (this is what Muhammad's opponents said of him) and the 21st (this is what contemporary critics say re Islam and free speech).

I didn't have the time last night to rewrite the article, and I certainly didn't today, what with going to see Serenity and all <g>. I'll see what I can do about salvaging some of Zeno's material tomorrow. Zora 08:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Zeno, you seem very keen to blame others for reverting your massive edits. But one question: Why did you start the discussion after a "revert war" was started? It seems if you were going to replace so much information with other material (much of it pov) into an article that has always been the topic of controversy, you should have discussed your edits before you reverted fully 3 times. Also, like Zora said, you did write a pov essay and also attempted to tie in everything in history that you could possibly think of and turn it into criticism (example, the schism). But, once again I repeat, the discussion should start before you involve yourself in a revert war. Remember it takes more than one player in a revert war. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Page protected

An admin has protected the page after User:Irishpunktom and User:Zora joined User:Anonymous Editor's side of the revert war, while User:CoolCat and User:Karl Meier joined my side. I would like to reiterate CoolCat's statements to Zora in the edit history: "please explain large removals on talk. and do it slowly instead of one go". Neither the person who started this revert war (User:Anonymous Editor), nor those who have supported him, have bothered to explain ANYTHING in the talk page. Now the article has been protected and the revert warriors still refuse to engage in discussion, despite the fact that I have been calling for discussion for a long time now, as can be seen here. I hope the people who are deleting my edits will finally come forward to explain their reverts. -- Zeno of Elea 23:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, they had more important things to do today than to sit in front of a computer explaining themselves to you. Patience is a good word.--JuanMuslim 07:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

If you want to remove very large sections, you are atleast supposed to explain yourself Juanmuslim. If you don't have time to explain why you want to delete most of the article, then you shouldn't do it at all. The way it has been done here with Anon editor inviting users such as Zora to his revert war, by leaving a message that is in violation of Wikipedias rules regarding no personal attacks ("Zeno of Elea gone crazy again.") is surely not the way to do it. -- Karl Meier 09:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Karl, if one is going to replace entire sections on an already controversial article in the first place, then he/she needs discussion to explain his/herself more than the person who removes/reverts. Zeno should have started discussion when she started making the edits; not after a full 3 reverts had been done by her. JuanMuslim is correct in saying that I had better things to do with my time, when Zeno did not discuss her edits in the first place. Btw, Karl I did not invite Zora or Irishpunktom; they came at their own free will and they had every right to. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why you're accusing me of deleting large sections. I'm not like you who deleted the entire section on Islamophobia. I also find it problematic how you intimidate wikipedians from contributing, though I know that isn't your intention. This is a good suggestion on how to handle personal attacks based on no personal attacks: "If you are personally attacked, you may remove the attacks or may follow the dispute resolution process or both. In extreme cases, the attacker may be blocked, though the proposal to allow this failed and the practice is almost always controversial." --JuanMuslim 10:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I provided you with a valid explanation for removing your original research, so there was nothing wrong with that. You can't just make up your own definition of a word and expect it to be included here. And it's not that I oppose, that Muslim responses should be included. For instance, did I oppose what BrandonYusufToropov wanted to include? Did I delete all of it? I sure did not. I tried to edit what he had contributed and address a what I believed was PoV problem here and there. If things are done properly I will not oppose it. Also, I didn't remove a whole section, so I don't know why you accuse me of that. Regarding the personal attacks I think the best way to "handle" them, is simply to avoid them. -- Karl Meier 11:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

You did delete the paragraph about Islamophobia. Refer to the section again. You didn't allow anything about Islamophobia to be mentioned. I didn't make up the term. You're just unwilling to allow people to see a difference between reasonable criticism and Islamophobia. I also explained it as well, and I guess it doesn't matter what I say anyway. I'm getting very tired of the reality found in Criticism of Wikipedia. I just don't have enough time to give this much commitment to Wikipedia. And, everyone thinks they're an expert; they deal with accusations by ppl who don't know anything about you; they provide a narrow viewpoint; they take a nPov article and make it POV; they fear adding/editting for fear their time will be wasted; no respect for one another. And this criticism applies to me as well.--JuanMuslim 12:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Um, Anonymous Editor and I are kinda on the outs right now (he wanted some wording in Muhammad that I thought was too pious) and he didn't invite me to the revert war. <sob> I've had this article watchlisted for ages and only felt moved to intervene when I saw Zeno's addition. So don't blame AE for my presence. Zora 11:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not taking sides. My protect request was strictly based on large (over 6k) and constant removals/additions to the article. I have not read either version. --Cool Cat ^Talk 13:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Zeno, the protection of this page is fully adequate to resolve the current disputes. There is no reason start crying, that your version was not the one protected or that you did not get a chance to continue the revert war. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

you should not remove large sections from an article without discussion, provided that they contain text that has been arrived at through discussion, and an emerging consensus. Similarly, you should not add large sections of text to a contentious article without discussing them, particularly if you are in one of the 'camps' in contention. You add large swathes of text without discussion, they will be removed without discussion. You have a point to make? Beat out a consensus on talk. Baad 18:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Badd (a.k.a dab) for clarifying what I said before. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Changes to introduction and history section

Following is a justification of the edits that I have made to the article.

Introduction paragraph

Analysis of current version

The current version reads:

Over the centuries, many people have offered criticisms of Islam and the actions of its followers. Critics of Islam have included philosophers, academics, journalists, scientists, and other people from all walks of life. This article outlines some of the major criticisms that have been offered through the years. As with any religion, various critics have found fault with Islam for theological, ethical, and political reasons. Any criticism of a religion may arise from three points of view: From a secular viewpoint, which is not limited to atheism. From that of another religion. From within the religion itself, such as from sectarian differences and smaller movements within.

Objections:

• The introduction paragraph used to begin with "As with any religion, various critics have found fault with Islam ..." This was deleted by an apologetic editor. Why? It is an important that criticism of Islam is not notably unique from criticism of any other religion. All relgions come under criticism and that is an important point to note. This has been replaced by the sentenced "Over the centuries, many people have offered criticisms of Islam and the actions of its followers ..." This article is not about criticism of Muslims (i.e. "followers"), this article is abotu criticism of Islam. Also, the phrase "over the centuries..." is very vauge and, to be perfectly honest, starting an exposition with the phrase "over the centuries ..." sounds like a average, high school freshman style of writing. Important information about the commonality of criticism of Islam with criticism of other religions has been deleted from this article. I ask again, why? IN my opinion, the only reason that someone would delete such information from this article is because they want to portray criticism of Islam as some sort of unique phenomena which indicates belief in the idea that Islam is a very unique (read: "divine") religion that is uniquely under attack in a "war on Islam" - an idea that is commonly promoted by Islamists.
• The paragraph claims that criticism of Islamic arise for theological, ethical, and political reasons. This is not completely true because it conveniently fails to mention many other types of criticisms of Islam, specifically scientific and pragmatic reasons.

Proposed changes

Something along the lines of:

As with any religion, various critics have found fault with Islam for theological, ethical, scientific, philosophical and practical reasons. Critics of Islam has existed since the earliest times of Islam, some 1400 years ago, recorded in the poetry of Arab pagan contemporaries of Muhammad. Criticsm of Islam forms a class of literature that has grown and developed over the course of 14 centuries and has involved people from all walks of life. This article described the major kinds criticisms of Islam, notable authors in this class of literature, the history of critical thought on Islam, and the Muslim response to criticsm of Islam. There are three general sources of criticism of a religion, arising from three points of view: From a secular viewpoint, which is not limited to atheism. From that of another religion. From within the religion itself, such as from sectarian differences and smaller movements within.

Comments

Hmmm, while I don't understand all of your reasoning I only object to some. I personally don't think "over the centuries" is too good, but I think it's better than starting with "as with other religions" because, well, that really has nothing to do with this article... and personally I found that to be more apologetic. You think how it is now is trying to make Islam sound unique while I was thinking it was trying to hit home the point that "Christianity had slaves too" and other things that Muslims say to try to make Islam not look worse than Christianity, etc. In any case, if you really prefer that I wouldn't argue too much.

"Criticsm of Islam forms a class of literature that has grown and developed over the course of 14 centuries and has involved people from all walks of life." --I don't like that sentence. Criticism has not exactly developed. Certainly some has but I think that conjure imagery of a mass of works... like, science, getting more and more accurate -- which, I don't think is the case, at least not from a neutral viewpoint. It may be that many critics think that it is developing into a foolproof case -- but, that's of no matter.

For, "Critics of Islam has existed since the earliest times of Islam, some 1400 years ago, recorded in the poetry of Arab pagan contemporaries of Muhammad", I would change to "Critics of Islam have existed since the rise of Islam, some 1400 years ago, recorded in the poetry of Arab pagan contemporaries of Muhammad" -- although, I'm not sure if there was any early Jewish/Christian direct literature against Islam -- as from the Jews in Medina? If so, that could be quickly appended. Of course later with Sassanid and Byzantine interaction you get a lot more writing about Islam since they were more literate people.

Those are my opinion -- I don't see a huge difference (besides that one sentence) so, if you can get others to agree, I wouldn't really mind having it changed some. gren グレン 10:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind changing parts of the current version to add that. But fix the numerous spelling errors, grammar errors, change "found fault" to "criticized", and remove this sentence: "Criticsm of Islam forms a class of literature that has grown and developed over the course of 14 centuries and has involved people from all walks of life.". Also please source your assertions on Pagan poetry that criticized Islam. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 13:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

History section

The history section is very important. As is the normal format of Wikipedia article, the history of the subject is described immediatly after the introductary paragraph, under a section titled "History." Criticism of Islam has a long history, over 14 centuries of history to be precise. It is important to fully grasp what 14 centuries of literature regarding the second largest religion in the world. Islam is vast, its history and practice is vast, and the critical literature surrounding all this is also vast. This is an encylopediac subject that deserves as thorough an exposition as any other encylopediac subject on Wikipedia. The subject of this article is regularly stereotyped, by certain Wikipedia editors, as being "Islamophobic," "anti-Islamic," and certain users regularly attempt to stereotype critics of Islam as "rednecks," racists, etc. - one Wikipedia user (who I would rather not name) once went around trying to portray a critic of Islam as a Christian from the Southern United States when in fact it was not known where the critic is from or what his religion is. Criticsm of Islam is an article about a detailed, encylopediac subject, just like Islam is. That this needs to be said is evidenced by the fact that articles under this title have been voted on for deletion many times, and have occasionally been deleted from Wikipedia.

Having said that, a thorough exposition of 14 centuries of criticism of Islam, from all over the world, is a very big undertaking. Entire monographs are written about this subject concentrating on only a few centuries and specific countries. It follows that the "History" section of this article will not be small and will cover many places, times and events. The story of Criticism of Islam begins with poetry written by Muhammad's advesaries and covers a vast amount of time and space outlined by the vastness and endurance of the Islamic empires and the modern Muslim nation-states.

Objections to current version

• The current version of the article asserts, "The earliest non-Muslim sources of criticism and opposition to Islam are found in the medieval ecclesiastical writings of Christians such as John of Damascus..." This is factually incorrect. The earliest non-Muslim sources of criticism of Islam were not ecclesaistical writings, they were poems written by Muhammad's advesaries.

• The issue of Muslim responses to criticism: The history section (and indeed the whole article) are full of resposnes from Muslim websites and quips that "some Muslims reject [insert specific criticism of Islam]." But no where in the article to the violent resposes to criticism made by Muslims. The only NPOV way to go about this is to include ALL kinds of responses from Muslims, including militants and not just apologists. This is especially true in light of the history of Muslim responses to crticism, as told by the early Muslim sources, i.e. killing of poets by Muhammad who were critical of him.

• The article asserts "The earliest records of explicit criticisms and oppositions to Islam are found in the early Muslims' writings about their pagan Arabian adversaries and the Jewish inhabitants of south Arabia at the time, particularly the Jewish tribes of Medina, who claimed their scriptures were misquoted by Muhammad. Muslims, by contrast, have argued that the Qur'an, as divine revelation, is corrective of Jewish and Christian scriptures, and that discrepancies between the two are to be understood as evidence of corruption of the earlier texts." First of all, not all of these exlicit criticisms are found in Jewish writings they are also found in pagan Arab writings. Furthermore, the comment that, "Muslims, by contrast, have argued that the Qur'an, as divine revelation, is corrective of Jewish and Christian scriptures, and that discrepancies between the two are to be understood as evidence of corruption of the earlier texts" is completely irrelevant. YES, we all know the Islamic polemic that the Jews and Christians corrupted their own religious texts. But this article is not about "Islamic criticism of other beliefs and religions," this article is about "Criticism of Islam."

• The current history section makes many large ommissions and is by no means complete. Shiah criticisms of Sunni Islam and vice versa are completing missing, and no description of the history of the schism between Shiahs and Sunnis is given. Nor is there any description of the responses to criticism between these two sects. Also missing is a history of the post-Islamic philosophical criticisms. NONE of the modern criticisms of Islam, or their history, is mentioned in the article, except for a passing mention of "orientalists" whose work has supposedly led to "talk of a clash of civilizations" and the (questionable and unsourced) claim that as result of academic criticism of Islam, "criticism of Islam and Islamic practices have increased markedly, especially in the non-Muslim media." Here we have the all to common quip at the "non-Muslim media" which is supposedly "markedly more critical" of Islam, a claim commonly parroted by Islamists. Also COMPLETELY missing are the historical criticisms of Islam from the political sciences, e.g. the claim that Islam is incompatable with democracy and secularism and that negative consequences have resulted from this. There is no mention of the historical rise of Islamist conflicts and terrorism and the fact that critics commonly suggest a causal relation between Islamic teachings and the proliferation of violent conflicts, terrorism and dictatorial regimes, perpetraded by radical extremists and militants. Etc. etc., in my opinion the history section makes very large ommisions that are very convenient for liberal Muslim apologists who are no doubt horrified to see a secular, encylopedia article about Criticism of Islam.

Proposed change

My changes can be seen through the diffs of the revert that occured before the article was locked. Since the History section covers a wide range of topics, as I noted, and this should be organized by sub-sections according to the chronology and sources of criticism. I can describe all of my changes in more detail, but I think this is futile because despite every effort to ask those waging a revert war to delete my additions kindly explain their objections in specific terms on the talk page, they have ignored all requests and refused to comment on the talk page.

Comments

[please insert relevant comments here]

Page protection

I realize that my edits are extensive and this may cause confusion or information swamping. Therefore I propose that the page be unlocked, and I will make my changes little by little, subject to consensus on the talk page and editing by others.

-- Zeno of Elea 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Can we just wait until there is discussion about the aspects of your big post? It may take a few day but discussion there first will be of great help. gren グレン 22:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Gren. Any major action will not benefit your case. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Question for Zeno

With all respect: If it's not POV to reference, in the introduction, that a) other religions have, as a matter of history used violence to quell criticism...

... and it's not POV to reference, in the introduction, that b) Islam in particular has, as a matter of history, used violence to quell criticism...

... why is it POV to reference, in the introduction, c) faiths other than Islam that have, as a matter of history, used violence to quell criticism? BrandonYusufToropov 10:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Section - Political Criticism

From: --JuanMuslim 23:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the following should be moved to the political criticism section. This is better described as political criticism. This is common political criticism of islam....

Human rights issues

Frequently cited, e.g. by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer, Qur'an-only Muslims and Ali Sina are:

Stoning of married adulterers

This is mandatory in all five Shari'ah schools ^{[8] [9] [10]} and is practiced in countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and local Shari'ah courts in northern Nigeria. Critics regard this punishment as cruel and barbaric.

Severing the hand of thieves

According to mainstream Islam, the severing of hands of thieves which stole more than a dinar value of goods is prescribed by the Qur'an in sura 5:38 ^[11] but this is denied by Qur'an-only Muslims. Critics again regard this punishment as cruel and barbaric.

Death penalty for practicing homosexuals

According to traditional Islam, men (and sometimes women) who engage in homosexual acts must be executed ^{[12] [13] [14]}. Critics regard this as intolerant and cruel.

Alleged discrepancy between Islam and the UN Declaration of Human Rights

According to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer and several others, there exists a discrepancy between orthodox Shari'ah (as codified by the five madhabs) and the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and several Muslim-majority countries such as Malaysia and Saudi Arabia have refused to ratify the Declaration. Many Muslims regard this alleged discrepancy as a problem ^[15]. In 1990 the Islamic Conference published a separate Cairo Declaration of Human Rights compliant with Shari'ah ^[16].

Alleged discrimination against women and non-Muslims

Critics argue that in Islam women have fewer rights than men and that infidels (non-Muslims) have fewer rights than Muslims. Muslims argue that men are the protectors of women (Qur'an 4:34) and that infidels must 'return the favour' of the protection given by an Islamic state.

Human-rights violations by adherents of Islam

See Historical persecution by Muslims.

It could be moved, but really, why bother? These offensive regulations are steeped in Quranic doctrine. One can perceive these to be tantamount to political criticism because of Islamic countries' reliance on the Quran as a legal base, but they appear to be fine in their current context on the page. IMHO, of course. --Michaelk 05:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Because politics, laws, regulations, and punishments falls into the realm of the political - country. Death penalty is by a country. The list falls into the political category. --JuanMuslim 03:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, implementation of any laws (including religious) are by country. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Modern laws are mostly not religious -- they claim to be based on religious law... which is fine, but what they are based on is important. The criticism of the law itself is not exactly a criticism of Islam unless the one writing the critique expresses it as such. However, the five sharia schools are important theology. I think this section generalizes about them (hence my NPOV insistence) however, it does belong here. Everything must be put in context, etc. gren グレン 06:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The issue isn't about deleting the information about stoning of..., etc. That's not the debate. But rather about which category the info should be found. Is the information better described as political or ethical? Clearly, its political. --JuanMuslim 15:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Hindu criticism of Islam

Since we have a section of criticism of Islam from other religions, we can (as I had tried) have a section on Hindu critiques of Islam, based mostly on 19th century critics, including:

1. Swami Dayananda Saraswati, the founder of Arya Samaj in his critique of modern religions Satyarth Prakash devotes a whole chapter to Islam. Ref

2. Swami Vivekananda's (arguably the best known spokesperson of Hinduism in the West) critique of Mohammed and Islam from the viewpoint of Yogic spirituality.

3. Best known is the Vedantic criticism of Islamic absolutism in religion and morality, and there are many books on this.

4. 19th century theological debates between Islamic and Hindu scholars

5. Aurobindo's critiques.

Other possible sources (I just spent 15 minutes on finding these sources, I am sure there are many others.) I had tried including some of it which was later deleted. An editor believes this should not be included because the scholars mentioned above are "Hindu Fundamentalists" and incompetent in English.

Actually what I said was that it is a copyviolation of this site:[17] and it is clearly, which you later admitted. I was happy to edit the section beforehand, until I found out that it was copied and pasted. I told you that is unacceptable in wikipedia and vandalizing articles as your history showed may get you blocked from editing.

Secondly I asked you whether you have any sources which tell about Hindu critics of Islam and you gave me the five things you listed above. I said that so far the only one out of these that I have actually seen criticize any aspect of Islam is Dayanada (the ONLY one you sourced) and he spells the Qur'an about 5 different ways throughout his document. He barely seems like an academic on the subject either as his source shows. He also uses derogatory and childish language. He just takes line by line from the Qur'an disregards any other interpretation and attempts to use derogatory language as a rebuttal. Barely an academic on the subject. I thought Pat Robertson had a foul mouth, but this guy is totally insane.

And in response to your question on why it was removed I told you that it was a copy and paste job. I have already rationalized why it has been removed; it is your job to come up with rationalizations and accurate academic sources to why it should be inserted, especially since you believe it is so necessary. I also said that if it is fundamentalists who are criticizing then that will be indicated in the article. Lastly I would like to point out once again that the article is not about just religious differences between religions (which would be infinite between hinduism and Islam), but it is about specific criticism. Thanks. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

If copyvio was the only problem, I hope you will in principle agree that this section should exist, and help us rewrite it. I thought we are here to edit an encyclopedia and this article was meant to provide objective information on criticism of Islam, rather than pushing personal judgements on who is a scholar and whose language is childish. The fact that Arya Samaj is well known to hundreds of millions of people and has millions of members, and that Satyarth Prakash is considered to be the Bible of Arya Samaj, is sufficient. One might hold the view that the Q'uran is the most derogatory and unscholarly book ever written and Muhammed was a criminal, but that does not justify the deletion of any articles on Islam on wikipedia. Perhaps you can point out what vandalism you are refering to (i am pretty sure i was involved in none), and what significance does it have to this discussion. I am not terribly interested in this article anyway and fortunately have better things to do. I hope you don't also delete stuff on the talk page.

Oh I agree that it should exist in principle and as I said before that I might help write a short, non-copyvio version. But you have to provide better sources on where exactly these inviduals criticise Islam. If you are just here to attack different elements of a religion, that will not be a productive manner to edit this article. One can easily conduct from the only source you gave on what type of "academia" this guy represents and I will let others determine that for themselves. There is a wide space between scholarly criticism and blatant attacks on a religion without interpretation. Notice how I am not attacking Dayanada's religious beliefs (seems to be a misconception with you), but rather his ability to criticize without any interpretation. You also said "Satyarth Prakash is considered to be the Bible of Arya Samaj": Is this guy a hindu or not or is it a sect of hinduism? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The original copyvio material added is here: [18]

Oh yes, Arya Samaj can be described as a Hindu "sect". It would help if you try to look at "Hinduism" not as an organized religion, so you can be a strict atheist (see Carvaka) and a devout Hindu at the same time. It might also help to know that Swami Dayananda did not know any English at all. Also, please note the spelling of his name, and that fact that your judgement of the quality of his critique is irrelevant. I would also like to point out that to millions, a remark like yours on Swami Dayanand might sound equivalent to what any insult to Muhammed might sound to Muslims.

Okay thanks for clarifying that. But his critique will still need to be be observed, because according to your logic, anyone can start a sect of religion and then criticize a completely different religion without any real academic study on that religion. I once again point out how I am not attacking Dayanada's religious beliefs (seems to be a misconception with you), but rather his ability to criticize without any interpretation. Considering negative remarks, it was probably not nice to say that "Muhammed was a criminal" on your part. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

First, thanks for stopping to accuse me to be a vandal. Second, everyone can see that I did not say anything about Muhammand. I just pointed out that individuals can have justified or unjustified judgements about other religions or famous persons. But these personal judgments are not relevant in an encyclopedia, nor is somebody's ignorance about Who's Who in Hinduism.

Ofcourse you have to check the importance of a person's status when you are talking about adding him/her to an article based on another religion, I thought that would be easy to understand. This is especially the case when that person considers himself qualified enough to criticize a completely different religion from his practice. As dayanda's work shows there is a lack of interpretation and rather criticism based on personal opinions regardless of academic study. Like I said before, there is a wide space between scholarly criticism and blatant attacks on a religion without interpretation. As for vandalism, you vandalized the Islamophobia article resulting in its protection; just don't do it again. Thanks and hope that has settled this issue. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

In what way did I vandalize Islamophobia? I recommended it for a vote of deletion, which I think is fully justified. In fact, IMHO getting a page on a VfD locked is a serious breach of wikipedia policy. I am only moderately surprised that you don't know about the importance of Swami Dayananda's status, because I doubt you know anything at all about Hinduism. In that case, it would be wise to not act as an authority on this subject.

"anyone can start a sect of religion" Within the framework of Hinduism, absolutely anybody can start a "sect." In fact, some would argue that there are as many "sects" of Hinduism as there are Hindus, because each Hindu has his own unique perspective of religion and God.

"and then criticize a completely different religion" You have repeated this "competely different" argument again and again. I still do not see why since Hinduism and Islam are very different, Hindus cannot criticize Islam. To me it appears that higher the contrast between two religions, more is the scope for criticism of one by the other.

"without any real academic study on that religion." No. And if you are implying that Swami Dayananda did not do any academic study of Islam, then this is your personal judgement, and perhaps this judgement can be better informed by, for example, reading the biograpy of Dayananda, or even reading the Satyarth Prakash without any prejudice.

I am absolutely not engaging with any discussion with you on this. I brought the issue here so that other editors can think about it. I could have talked to you on your own talk page if I thought it was worth my while.

In general, (I dunno about this specific case), I agree with the user:Anonymous editor that Wikipedia should be very careful with adherents from one religion criticizing the other religion. The reason is that I have seen and heard blatantly ignorant and biased criticism of Hinduism by Christians, and ditto by Muslims. They do not know and understand and do not want to know and understand. Andries 18:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes Andries is correct when stating that just not anyone can insert criticism on a religion. Look, it isn't dayananda's status in Hinduism that I doubt, it is his qualification for criticizing Islam. I was using the example that if I were to start a religious sect, completely unrelated to hinduism, I would have the ability to criticize hinduism but that still does not make me qualified enough to add my criticism into an encyclopedia article if I haven't any academic scholarship in Hinduism. Once again, the article is about criticism and not just differences between religions. I also want to give a chance for other editors to comment as you fail to understand what an encyclopedia should include.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, I am afraid that a person like the Christian Martin Luther must be mentioned because he was influential, however the article should explicitly state that he had no credentials to do so (I think, please check, that Luther hardly had knowledge of Islam and had not read the Koran, and probably not even met a Muslim in his whole life). Andries 19:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Well Andries, although Dayananda was just one reference, and my original content wasn't even based on his critique, I must point out that as a reformer he had a lot of influence on hundreds of millions of people, and unlike Martin Luther, he had debated with a large number of Islamic scholars of his time. The 130 years old Arya Samaj has chapters in India, United States, Canada, Guyana, Surinam, Trinidad, Mexico, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, South Africa, Malawi, Mauritius, Pakistan, Burma, Thailand, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Australia. I think we ought not be judging the quality of one's critique on our own: first we might not be competent enough to do that, and second, a personal POV has no place on wikipedia. We can possibly use the influence of the critique in deciding what is important enough to be in the article. In early 20th century, the direct influence of Dayananda's work was the launch of Shuddhi Movement [19] in India that reconverted thousands of Muslims (and Christians) into Hindus, and had major political implications. Again, to make matters clear, let me point out that I am not a member of Arya Samaj, nor do I personally give a damn to what Dayanand said, but I cannot emphasize more that this is not relevant while we write ths encyclopedia article.

No one ever doubted that dayanand's sect does not have adherents, the issue was that it still does not make him qualified to have his personal criticism added to an encyclopedia article. Please source any of these debates he had with Islamic scholars. The importance of a critique and how common it is are very important in an encyclopedia article or otherwise any single person can add what they think about a religion into an encyclopedia article. This would not be an encyclopedia according to that logic. Read my comments in the section below about what makes up common criticism and the need to source it. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Only academics can criticize?

I don't think that is right. We need to cover BOTH academic theories, and common stereotypes, misconceptions, and slanders. Not all of them, just the common ones. Zora 12:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but what separate's common criticism and somebody's personal opinion? What allows a particular person with almost no credentials for criticising another religion to be included. There are no sources which claim that, in this case, one person's criticism is what is a common stereotype, misconception or slander. If a person lacks apparent effort in analyzing common interpretations of a religion and criticizes with derogatory terms then they should not be added. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I must add that academic criticism and theological criticism are two different things, and we do have a section on theological criticism. I think it is always a bad idea to debate the quality of theological theories since they may or may not based on rationality. All criticism that is not "academic" is not a slander or a misconception. This note has nothing to do with my comments on Dayanand above. Okay, for example, religions like Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism that consider Ahimsa to be the biggest dharma criticize Islam from their POV, pointing out how Islam (atleast sometimes) tends goes contrary to what THEY consider the most important ingredient of being religious. Where do you put such criticism? To me, all criticism of any religion is inherently POV, the only thing to be ensured is that we present these POVs from a neutral perspective.

Emphasis on religious difference is not criticism necessarily. All religions are different and just because they are different does not mean that every element of criticism must be added between the adherents of two religions. Yes, common stereotypes, misconceptions and slander may be added but with a source that shows that this is common criticism coming from one religion. Personal opinions of one person of a religion (example Dayanand) does not mean that all adherents commonly criticize the same aspects. Only common aspects of criticism that are sourced properly should be added. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Some people are thoroughly confused here. What is Islam? Personal opinions of Mohammed? It will be impossible to find out ANY belief on ANYTHING AT ALL that is common among all Hindus, Hinduism not being an organized religion. Hinduism is all about freedom of religious opinion, and the diversity of opinions arising out of it. This doesn't mean that no Hindu criticism of Islam is worth presenting in this article. All I can say is that Dayanand has millions of followers who would most probably accept his criticism of Islam. I think any emphasis on religious difference with the assertion that the Islamic point of view is unacceptable is a criticism of Islam. How else do you define criticism?

Include Female circumcision and slavery in human rights?

Female circumcision#Cultural background states that female circumcision / genital mutilation is referred to in reliable hadiths. Would a reference to this be worth mentioning in the human rights issues section?

It may also be worthwhile referring to Religion and slavery#Slavery in the Qur'an and hadith about slavery. Andjam 04:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree as both subjects are not unique to Islam. Svest 04:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

It is true that Islam isn't the only religion to tolerate (to a degree) slavery. But that doesn't make it un-noteworthy. Regardless of whether or not Islam is the only religion to condone FMG, it is noteworthy that it does so.

I've heard that Christians, Animists and others practice FGM, and that the practice existed before the time of Mohammed, but if you're aware of religious texts or religious rulings outside of Islam explicitly condoning FGM, I'd be interested to hear about it. Andjam 04:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

You are totally right. The problem about condoning the practice is that no single religion talks about the subject clearly and therefore there is no explicit religious endorsement or rejection. Some info:

• The most radical form of female circumcision (infibulation) is known as the Pharaonic Procedure. Stewart, Rosemary, "Female Circumcision: Implicaitons for North American Nurses, " in Journal of Psychosocial Nursing, vol. 35, no.4, 1997, p. 35
• It is common knowledge that in some countries like Egypt, female circumcision has been practiced by both Muslims and Christians... In the meantime, this practice is not known in most Muslim countries including Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. [4] This leads to the conclusion that female circumcision is connected with cultural practices rather than with Islam itself as a world religion. Haqa'iq Ilmiyya Hawla Khitan Al-Inaath (in Arabic), Jam'iyyat Tanzeem Al-Usrah, Cairo, 1983, p.8.
• No mention of female circumcision is to be found in the Qur'an either directly or indirectly. There is no known Hadith which requires female circumcision. Some argued, however, that one Hadith, while not requiring female circumcision, appears to accept it: "Circumcision is a commedable act for men (Sunnah) and is an honorable thing for women (Makromah)." Al-shawkani, Nayl Al-awtar, Dar Al-Jeel, Beirut, 1973, vol. 1, p. 139.
• Female circumcision is not associated with any one religious group. It is practiced by Muslims, Christians, Jews and members of indigenous African religions. Chelala C, A critical move against female genital mutilation, Populi, 1998, 25(1):13-15.
• Circumcision: A Jewish Feminist Perspective by Miriam Pollack from Jewish Women Speak Out p. 171-185, Canopy Press 1995. -- Cheers Svest 21:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Bro, you seen the ignorant, one-sided criticisms mentioned in this article? What difference does it matter whether or not these two subjects are mentioned? I'm surprised that crazy talk about Muslims worshipping a Moon God isn't mentioned. lol. I've heard it all. This article could include even more criticism. If you're concerned just go down the article addressing the concerns? Well, maybe, you're concerned that the editors of this article are intent on keeping this article totally POV. Otherwise, they would make a decent effort at addressing both sides of each criticism. --JuanMuslim 05:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The idea of female circumsicion wouldn't fit well in this article. Common knowledge states that Islam isn't a celibate reigion and, in fact, promotes non-celibacy. Female circumsicion would promote celibacy which would contradict Islam. In the end, if female circumsicion does exist, it would be related to culture rather than to Islam. -- Evil Twin, 23 December 2005

Warning

This article provides knowledge of the current known criticisms of the religion Islam. A criticism is a point of view of a critic. General criticism of a subject are the general point of view of the critics of the said subject. Readers are warned not to insinuate that any criticism written below as being correct (or wrong) merely because it has appeared in this article. Readers are reminded that a criticism is still a criticism even if it later turns out to be wrong.

In short, this article only lists the criticisms and their supporting arguements. It should be treated as the general point of view of the critic(s) which may or may not turn out to be correct. Ohanian 11:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

yes? so? this Criticism has a notable history, so its discussion is encyclopedic. The Criticism is not pertinent enough to Islam itself to be treated on the main Islam article. what's the problem? 81.63.114.127 18:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Zwemer

What's wrong with the statement that Zwemer (1907) evaluated Muhammad

by the new law of which he pretended to be the divinely-appointed medium and custodian

to make it deserve the quotes, and the addition "(an assessment that stands in stark contrast to that of the vast majority of Muslims throughout history)". In my understanding, Muhammed did pretend to be the divinely-appointed medium and custodian of a new law. What is controversial about this? Maybe the verb 'pretend' which is today often used to imply a claim is false? Replace 'pretend' with 'claim', then. Again, what is it Muslims contrasting to? The notion that Muhammad was divinely appointed? That's ridiculous, that's exactly what Muslims believe. 81.63.114.127 18:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Plagarism

I am quite interested in the exact passages in the Quran which were lifted from other sources. I proved the Book of Mormon to be false to a friend of mine by pointing out the plagarism. It made him question whether Joseph Smith was really a prophet. If we can find plagarism in the Quran, then I am sure Muhammed will likely have his prophet status criticized. - ProgressivePantheist

Well... no? Islamic tradition believes that the Qur'an is the same (basic) book as the Gospels, Torah, and a few others.... they were just corrupted by human elements. So, "plagiarism" would merely be interpreted as a part that former traditions had not bastardized. Also, since there is really no limit to prophets (I think 30,000 was a number given somewhere) even if the source is "pagan" it would be a sign of corruption of that. Since, I think it's a belief that Adam had gone to the Kaba'a area when the stone came down, etc., yet they became pagan again. I'm also not sure how you proved the Book of Mormon to be wrong, but.... in any case, it is a claim levelled at Muslims, I just gave you a normal response. gren グレン 13:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not just looking for Torah and Bible passages, but other writings as well. What are some famous Arabic pre-Quranic writings? It is highly likely that Muhammed wasn't stupid enough to blatantly plagarize like Joseph Smith. If he did plagarize though, it would likely draw some skepticism about whether an angel really dictated all this to him or not - ProgressivePantheist

The only problem with plagarizing with Muhammud is the fact that it is well accepted that he was non-literate who can't write. If you can very much prove that he was a literate man who could write then you might have a case. I said might because the other problem you might also have is the arabic language. The earliest form of Arabic can be traced back as far as early 500 A.D. Now you can try to find origins of the arabic alphabet and find text that relate to those original alphabets. Whatever you do, you have a long journey ahead of you. Evil Twin, 23 December 2005

Avoid tag pollution

Please note NPOV/inaccurate sections as such. Most sections are up to standard. It is not necessary to label this whoel article as such. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 08:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Up to standard. Ya, right. This article is still tooo one-sided. It has improved though. Thanks to the Muslims. I wish editors would make a better effort at thinking nPOV. It doesn't make sense to add lots of confusing nonsense and hope that someone else will come explain the other side of the argument. Take the time and look for info on both sides of the argument and consider the complexities of each issue. --Juan Muslim 08:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Contemporary Critics

The list of critics of Islam is limitless. lol. It wouldn't make sense to add this sort of list for Christians and Jews. This section would be better if it were listed as a link rather than as a section. --Juan Muslim 08:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Edits and Questions

This article is so horribly messed up with all kinds of links/references added. In many places those referenced works(highly questionable themselves, as it is) themselves don't support the criticism levelled in this article. I started editing with intention to make only one edit on apostasy, but then looked around a little bit and found it's a big mess. Just two examples below in which the way so-called 'references' are misused here:

a) Under tolerance: The article claims:

Treatment of apostates

All five Shari'ah schools regard the death penalty as obligatory for those ex-Muslims who do not repent from their apostacy within three days. The Al Azhar institute has proposed to extend the period of repentance to the whole life of the ex-Muslim, thus effectively annulling the death penalty ^[20]."

I was surprised when I read this, as I know this is not the case. But not to give somone a chance of accusing me of POV, I read that referenced link. That article states: "'Some commentators'(hmm!) have drawn the conclusion that ...the punishment for the mere renunciation of faith is death." This is referenced using another article(duh!)[21] from some Islamic scholar who 'actually argues against this' same point(he makes a case against existing murky Malaysian laws reg apostasy - note, not anti-apostasy but regarding apostasy - and takes up some case law). Amongst all the other things which the first link states, only one line cites a Hadith and all Hadiths is not Shariah. Infact this Hadith is itself considered to be weak amongst Muslims (aka, not to be trusted). Later on the first article goes on and somehow just decides that, well, references and links are all fine and dandy(and they don't support our POV), so we might as well, just like that you know, ascribe 'death penalty to Shariah'. Wowzie, pulled off a good one here! Someone pls tell me, how come this reference is used to say that all five Shariah schools support the death penalty? Horrible misrepresentation at best. BS at worst. I have removed it. But clearly this is not enough.

When I uncovered this blatant misrepresentation, I started to look around for more. So I observed that Ali Sina is cited and thrown around like a used couch pillow all over the article (almost as if he was a sponsor here). So I went around to see, who Ali Sina is, and you don't even have to read his articles. Just one look at his headlines[22] and you'll know he is the epitome of Islamophobia+rhetoric+diatribe 3in1 discount package. However let's not stop here. Go and read this article where he tries to paint Zakir Naik as pro-terrorist[23] and see how deftly he puts his own words in Zakir Naik's mouth. Now, I am not too much into Zakir Naik or his IRF, but I do know that even the most staunch critics of Islam will think twice before name-calling him. Infact he is one of the advocates of modern-liberal Islam, consistently attracting the educated upperclass cream of Muslims in his fold, and is infact attacked by some orthodox Muslims in India for veering away from traditions (case in point, his western dress for which he's consistently attacked)

Now I don't have the time to clear up this article, nor the experience/expertise to do so. I am a newbie here(so I don't know, just how 'bold' WP wants me to be), hence this discussion here. If someone more experienced is willing to do it, pls clean it up. It clearly seems like someone had a bunch of POV rejects lying in his garage and since the local charity won't accept it, this collective output POVs gathered all over the years in WP was dumped here. Or maybe someday when I have the time, I will call the garbage truck.

btw, the existence of this topic by itself, as discussed at the start, is POV, innit? Whateverdude 10:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

You have posted a huge POV rant against a referenced fact, attacking the wrong reference, and the irony is that you have not bothered to give us a single reference of your own. The article states, quite rightly, that certain schools of thought in Islam believe that if apostacy is not repented to within 3 days after the authorites demand repentance then the penalty for the apostate should be death by beheading. You have come to provide your own huge legal theory on why this well known Islamic law is not true and you havent even come with a reference of your own - you have merely asserted that the article is wrong, that you are right, that some hadith is weak, and that all this "death to apostates" stuff in Islam is just a lie invented by Ali Sina, and you didn't bother to back up your arguments with sources. Now you expect to be able to delete whatever it is that your POV does not agree with. A new POV mujahid.

btw, the existence of this topic by itself, as discussed at the start, is POV, innit? You are not the first Muslim wikipedian to demand the deletion of this article. All have ultimately failed. -- Zeno of Elea 10:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey Whatever_Dude, I agree with your comments and I have added a POV tag to this article. Certain editors keep removing this tag even though it has been argued for dozens of times. If you could keep the tag on the page it would be appreciated. Zeno, I think you need to stop your personal attacks such as calling people "mujahids" and "ramadan-crazed". A few more and we could be going to arbitration. Yuber^(talk) 15:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

calling people "mujahids" Let's be clear here. I called Whateverdude a "POV mujahid." Translated into english this means "POV warrior," and term that occurs on wikipedia frequently enough. Whether or not this is a personal attack is not clear.

and "ramadan-crazed" this is probably a personal attack, but as I explained, I wrote this while I was drunk after the POV war at Dhul-Qarnayn which I abandonded. make of that what you will.

we could be going to arbitration That would be interesting, if only because I'll find out who "we" is. -- Zeno of Elea 18:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

---

You have posted a huge POV rant against a referenced fact, attacking the wrong reference,

what wrong reference? I've clearly explained the flaws in the reference which is used in apostasy section. The first reference[24] starts off with 7 points which one would consider as not supporting what is written in this article. The last point is an article from Mauritian Constitution, which I'm afraid, doesn't make Islamic law. Later on in the Overview section it states that: Some commentators have drawn the conclusion that ...the punishment for the mere renunciation of faith is death.. Now this statement is actually cited or referenced from another article[25] where some Ahmad Faiz is making some points about Malaysian laws regarding apostasy. If you read the whole of that second reference(based upon which the claim here is made), you'll know that he is actually reasoning against the apostasy=death sentence claim and tries to explain the same. Pray, tell me, how come the reference(s) cited are themselves not supporting the claim in this WP section?

and the irony is that you have not bothered to give us a single reference of your own.

No irony there. Claim X is made. It should have references. It is not incumbent on me, to get a reference for counter-claim X'. If X cannot be supported with valid sources, it should go, simple. As a newbie WPidian this is what I understand. I'll appreciate any help if that is not the case.

The article states, quite rightly, that certain schools of thought in Islam believe

Even if we(we=you and me, just incase if you are confused) were to set aside other points, the actual irony now is, that you are now claiming 'certain schools of thought', and this section states, 'all five Shariah schools'? Please explain what is this contradiction called in wikinology?

you have merely asserted that the article is wrong, that you are right, that some hadith is weak, and that all this "death to apostates" stuff in Islam is just a lie invented by Ali Sina

Again, nice job trying to fudge up two points and putting words in my mouth. I never claimed the above reg'g Ali Sina. Ali Sina's comment was in terms of the heavy references which are cited all throughout this page. And I gave another example supporting my claim how he takes what Zakir Naik said, and clearly tries to misattribute to him things which he didn't say. Clearly this article comes across as some sort of a mirror of Sina's views. As for the weak hadith claim, again, read the same reference[26]. I won't keep requoting parts of that link. Just read it for yourself.

Now you expect to be able to delete whatever it is that your POV does not agree with.

No, I didn't asked it to be deleted. As I've said earlier, I am a newbie and learning. So I was merely asking whether it's a POV. I never asked for VfD. Don't put your biases in my mouth. When I understand WP enough, and if I can later make a case for VfD, I will.

A new POV mujahid.

Probably the only thing funny in yr response. It made me chuckle, really :) Someday, I will hopefully graduate to be a POV Nazi.

You are not the first Muslim wikipedian to demand the deletion of this article. All have ultimately failed.

So instead of reading my comments, you were busy searching some religion mapping service, and figured out that I am a Muslim? Wowzie. Or are you in Secret Services? Who is biased here?

I called Whateverdude a "POV mujahid." Translated into english this means "POV warrior,"

Fact check. Read the wiki on mujahid.

and "ramadan-crazed" this is probably a personal attack, but as I explained, I wrote this while I was drunk after the POV war at Dhul-Qarnayn which I abandonded.

So, you did a big favor by getting drunk. Any reasons, why I should not assume that you might be drunk even in this debate?

Zena, having answered all yr points, let me add, I am not here to get you by ganging up with someone. For God's sake I am a two-bit newbie and this is my second major edit. I don't even know all these people here. I just happen to stumble across this page, so starting off from here. And as far as I understand this article does come across as having serious issues with POV and quite absurd that it has contradictions between the references and the claims made, which is even worse than a POV issue Whateverdude 09:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, my alias is Zeno not "Zena." Secondly, you have once again removed the fact that according to some schools of law in Islam apostates are executed. Please stop removing this well known fact from the article. -- Zeno of Elea 18:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry abt that mistake in alias. I didn't mean it. And I've already answered your second question twice. Next time please try to read the complete reply before circling around the same questions. Or perhaps, you are really not interested in it. I think this is my last reply to you on this topic.Whateverdude 07:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

As alluded to on Wikipedia:Content forking, "Criticism of X" titles are inherently non-neutral, because they present the debate one-sidedly and imply that the only discussion of a subject is negative. See Talk:Criticism of Christianity#Rendering_this_article_neutral for the many examples of where "Criticism of X" articles have become perennial and unresolvable neutrality disputes, and a discussion of how to address this. Uncle G 03:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I remember this didn't evolve as a POV fork. There were many issues on Islam that were not core issues and since we tend to want to stay around 32kb were not nearly the most important 32kb. So, this was created in order to discuss some issues. I don't think this has to carry a POV even though I think it does. I remain a little mixed because I do think critiques of hadith should just remain in hadith to a great extent. The ethical criticism (by far the worst section in my opinion) doesn't really fit elsewhere unless we want to delve into Islamic ethics which would be a nightmare. POV magnets always are and I don't think many of the Islamic article editors around really have the expertise to right well about different conceptions of Islamic ethics. Plus, it's a huge subject. I see your point Uncle G, but I'm not really sure... gren グレン 06:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Greek Warrior's edits

Firstly, nothing is cited. I am sure there is a critique along those lines but it must be from a verifiable source. Also, Muslim doctrine doesn't say the Christian view of Jesus is what Muhammad viewed as a prophet. I don't know what Muhammad thought Jesus was like... but, he could have thought Jesus was brutal and liked it... so, there doesn't have to be any contradiction. There are people who claim it... but we don't want your personal opinion or any podunk website saying that. There needs to be something academic or at least something from Falwell or someone relatively big on this issue. gren グレン 17:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I gave a citation from the Quran, I also gave quotes from the New Testament, the reason I didn't reference them is because the phrases 'Turn The other Cheek' and 'Pray for those who persecute you' are so well known there is no need to. And Sorry, as I have explained a thousand times, I judge my entry on it's content, not on who wrote it, if, as you allude, the person who wrote it is so bad, then why is it not hard to disprove the content of what he says? Rather than Character Assasinating him?--GreekWarrior 01:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The Qur'an and Bible are both primary sources each have been interepreted in the most violent and peaceful of ways. Quoting them is meaningless. Read about verifiable sources before editing again. You or I may both be profoundly capable of expounding upon this subject... but, no one cares about us. We are not verifiable. Cite your sources and don't do original research as you have been. This is not a medium to interpret primary texts. gren グレン 02:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, interpretation has nothing to do with what I posted. The verse from the Quran is quite simple in what it commands, and that command is fighting. I do not need to expound upon that, the Quran makes it perfectly clear that Muslims must 'kill the infidels wherever they find them', that it is permissible to beat up women, that it is acceptable to commit genocide and that the murder of 8 year old schoolchildren by shooting them in the back is perfectly legitimate way of fighting the evil kufr Russia as well. --GreekWarrior 03:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

And Also, here are the references for which you selected: Sina on Christianity and Turning the other Cheek:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina50827p2.htm

Sina on Islam's opinion of Christ's peace:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/comments/MComments/14.htm

Hi Greekwarrior, I don't think that this website meets the criteria of our policy on citing sources. A reference to an academic or other recognised authority would be preferable, or a selection of citations from newspapers or suchlike could also be taken as evidence that such a view is widely propagated. Palmiro | Talk 04:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Intepretation has everything to do on this subject. I have read your sources by the way, and I read this part that just stuck out.

"In nutshell, one day I decided to read the Arabic Quran from cover to cover using an English translation as dictionary. It was then that the stupidity of this book became manifest to me and I realized we are dealing with a dangerous and evil cult. This was, about 11 years ago and I started my online campaign of helping Muslims see the truth and leave Islam about seven years ago."

Your source specifically says he used an English translation as dictionary. By default this source is defunct because he believed that the english translation is sufficient. Every language has specific words that can't be translated into English because english doesn't have a matching word. With that in mind, words are the key to intepretation and translation because they are filled with culture and history. Because the source knows very little about the Qu'ran with its culture, history, and language it is unreliable. I promote all wikipedians to read this source to see for yourself and if we can all determine that this source is unreliable then we all know what should be kicked out. -- Evil Twin, 4:01 23 December 2005

So now nobody can comment on a text unless they read it in the original language? That is an incredibly silly assertion. RussianBoy 19:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sectional bibliographies?

This article is more or less dismal and yet it is a diverse and important subject. I figured we could have critical works of some renown about each of the subsections. Nothing too long but something that the interested person could use. I believe "Islam and Human Rights" by Ann Elizabeth Mayer is rather well known and the stuff by Ibn Warraq. I am sure there are even more academic and influential crtiques out there. Remember to keep Wikipedia:Verifiability in mind. Only the most notable, most influential should be included such as large university presses. I figure maybe directing people to the best resources will in part make up for our failure. gren グレン 13:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What is the isnad of this hadith, and how important is it in Sharia?

(I don't want to know whether it's in Dawud, I want to know what contemporary assessments of its authenticity are, and whether it is of any judicial significance. If it's weak, and/or of little or no significance, it does not belong here.) BYT 21:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

A slave woman paid for her criticism of the prophet Muhammad with her life.[23] The Hadith of Abu Da'ud, narrated by Muhammad's cousin, Abdullah ibn Abbas states, "A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet was informed about it. He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up. He sat before the Prophet and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her. Thereupon the Prophet said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood."

Muslims claim of corruption of Bible

I added the following passage to the article but Ulayiti said it is unreasonable. Here is my evidences:

The passage: "Muslims try to find some seemingly corrupted passages in the Bible but then use the corruption of one passage to defile and discredit the whole. While Quran claims to be based on the Bible, even approves the Bible and frequently mentions it, Muslims do not study Bible together with Quran. They are usually unaware of some of the details and lessons of the work of God throughout the history, i.e. history of Israel."

Evidence 1: For the sentence "Muslims try to find some seemingly corrupted passages in the Bible but then use the corruption of one passage to defile and discredit the whole."

http://www.answering-christianity.com/contra.htm says "We must first of all know that the entire Bible is corrupted and unreliable and is mostly filled with man-made laws and corruption!" If you go on and read the article, you'll see the article takes some passages and proves that they have been corrupted but then concludes that the entire Bible is corrupted.

Muslims should note that even the prophet of Islam only says that if in a matter, bible differs from Quran, take the Quranic account. But he never says that the whole Bible is corrupted! Muslims say that. Because of that they tend to ignore the whole bible. There are passages in the bible that whoever reads can realize that this should be the saying of a prophet. Unfortunately muslims usually do not study bible.

Evidence 2: Thomas McElwain (a Muslim theologian) in his book "Islam in Bible" in chapter 12, "negative considerations" says that "Muslims may consider corruption of one passage to defile the whole."

Evidence 3: Honestly, how many muslims know that Israel people were wondering in desert for 40 years. How was the first king of Israel? How many wives did Solomon have?

Now, why this is a criticism: see http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Bible/

Evidence 1 = Original research. Further, using that single source as evidence of "Muslims try to find some seemingly corrupted passages in the Bible but then use the corruption of one passage to defile and discredit the whole" is wrong. "Muslims try" - Muslims represent close to a quarter of the population of the planet. Anything that starts with "muslims try" is usually POV and wrong.

Evidence 2 = You can add that quote by Thomas McElwain, say it's by Thomas McElwain, give it's source and maybe your point will have been proven. but Thomas McElwain does not make all Muslims.

Evidence 3 = The Qur'an states the first King of Israel was Talut[27]. Read the Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an article. Assuming a lack of knowledge for close to one in every four people based solely on their religion displays a bigotry on your part. --Irishpunktom\^talk 00:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Irishpunktom. I agree that the passage was not fair. I give up the discussion But there was some truth in my argument. I think Muslims are missing a valuable source. Bible contains a great amount of religous experiences which can be of use to them (history repeats over and over). Anyway, still I think Muslims traditionally do not study Quran together with Bible.

Stoning of married adulterers

I added the following passage to the article but Snakes said it is POV and unneutral. I wonder why?

My passage was this: Muslims also argue that the aim of the law is more to frighten people not to get close to adultery rather than to apply punishment. Their reason is that the punishment is applicable only if two witnesses have observed the action of sex with their own eyes (even sleeping nude on each other does not prove having sex). They argue that this is very unlikely to happen.

As far as I know many muslims say that. It is a practical fact. In practice, it is really hard to prove adultery. There is a harsh punishment but it can not be easily applied. If I want to have sex with someone, I go to some private place, Don't I? Maybe one person accidentally see me, but two persons is less likely. We are here to be factual. Explicitly let me know which part of which sentence is wrong. Thanks.

Muslims argue? Who? Did I? When did I make this argument? --Irishpunktom\^talk 00:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Good! You are right. How is this paragraph:

Some also argue that the aim of the law is more to frighten people not to get close to adultery rather than to apply punishment. Their reason is that the punishment is applicable only if two witnesses have observed the action of sex with their own eyes (even sleeping nude on each other does not prove having sex). They argue that this is very unlikely to happen.

Honestly, I have heard this frequently. It logically makes sense. It is hard to prove adultery. Also, I have heard that the punishment should be in public to frighten people not to get close to the sin. I am looking forward to see your feedback. Thanks.

It sounds reasonable, but, it is unsourced. Find out Who makes the argument, then add it, sourced with an actual reference. Right now it is just hearsay.--Irishpunktom\^talk 00:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Do not worry zalimun and infidels, I have created a new page on this. See: Stoning in Islam. عزل 01:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Perversion of intent of article

Various Muslim editors seem to have been working over this article, turning it from an account of criticism of Islam, into a vindication of Islam. Some sections lack even the tiniest hint of criticism; they're just a recititation of Muslim dogma.

I'm grotesquely over-extended. I'll work on this article if I get a chance. However, I beg non-Muslim editors, if any are still reading this talk page, to take matters in hand and return this article to its stated purpose. Zora 02:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Move all Muslim arguments, keep them STRICTLY to responses to criticism (not dawa in general), and make sure that they're not longer than the criticisms to which they're responding. Zora 07:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Was Muhammad sinless, and other issues with current edition / Part I

Please note that Sunni Muslims do not believe that Muhammad was sinless. Only Shia Muslim believes that Muhammad was sinless WITH a particular definition of sin. When we are using the English word “sin”, we think about a larger class actions not identical to what shia Muslims DEFINE. There are verses in Quran that God tells Muhammad to ask forgiveness for his sins. Ali in Supplication of Kumeyl is only asking for forgiveness of sins and that is the content of lots of Shia’s prayers.

1. According to Quran, Muhammad was sinless in the sense of transferring the message that was revealed to him: Quran (69:44-47): And if the apostle were to invent any sayings in Our name, We should certainly seize him by his right hand, And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart: Nor could any of you withhold him (from Our wrath).

2. (12:53) (Prophet Joseph said) "Nor do I absolve my own self (of blame): the (human) soul is certainly prone to evil, unless my Lord do bestow His Mercy: but surely my Lord is Oft- forgiving, Most Merciful."

3. The Quran teaches that God does not treat men according to what they deserve, but according to what befits him; If God were to punish men according to what they deserve, He would have wiped them all out. (Quran 35:45, 16:61).

4. Muhammad advised: "Do good deeds properly, sincerely and moderately, and rejoice, for no one's good deeds will put him in Paradise." The Companions asked, "Not even you O Messenger of Allah?" He replied, "Not even me unless Allah bestows His pardon and mercy on me." (Reported by Aboo Hurayrah & 'Aa'ishah & collected by al-Bukhaaree (eng. trans. vol.8 p.315 no.474)

Aminz 18:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay. 129.12.200.49 12:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Next, 129.12.200.48 changed "... the transcendent quality of Muhammad's revelations and insights whenever ..." to "... the transcendent quality of Muhammad's visions and insights whenever ..."

Please note that Muhammad's experiences was mainly "hearing" something. Of course, he had visions sometimes as well. I have noticed that chrisitians are usually unaware that Muhammad's experiences was mainly "hearing" something and not mainly "visions". Maybe because according to them Muhammad is like other false prophets and the false prophets they know had mainly experiences of the type "vision". So, let's use the more accurate word. Revelation is not incorrect. Aminz 18:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I am always learning! 129.12.200.49 12:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Next, 129.12.200.48 reverted my edition on the sentence: "In Islam Muhammad is considered the final and greatest prophet, messenger of the final and greatest revelation, the Qur’an."

Quran is the final revelation. Fine. But what does greatest revelation means? According to Muslims, all revelations were the same but some parts of some of them were shifted later (please note that Muslims do not claim that people intentionally changed the scripture but actually it may happened naturally). Quran, everywhere, has a greatly positive view about what God has revealed to previous prophets. The word “greatest” should be removed.

Muhammad is the final prophet. Fine. Jews call Moses to be the greatest prophet. Christians call Jesus to be God. Muslims call Muhammad to be the greatest prophet. Fine. It is interesting that Jews have a justification for their belief from Torah, Christians show us passages indicating close relationship between Jesus and Father and that Jesus sat on the right hand side of Father. They believe that Jesus is God himself. But I don’t know how Muslims justified their claim based on Quran (We expect that there should be some Hadiths. Don’t we? :D ) Maybe somebody can show us a passage from Quran. Anyway, let’s say “Muslims consider Muhammad as” instead of “In Islam Muhammad is considered”. Aminz 19:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As for Muhammad as the greatest prophet, the creed of Islam is that there is "no God but God and Muhammad is his prophet". There is no reference to Moses or Jesus in this. In my opinion, Muhammad is implicitly the greatest prophet.

I think that the Quran is arguably considered the greatest revalation. If it differs from the previous revelations (as originally revealed), and is considered the complete and perfect revelation for all time, then it follows that it is better than the others, on which it is presumably an improvement.

Nonetheless, I think that the text can probably be changed to your liking without affecting the criticism. 129.12.200.49 12:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Finally regarding the sentence: “Muslims believe that Muhammad was chosen for his goodness and holiness”

First of all, the main responsibility of a prophet is to deliver the message to people. There are several requirements for this, not just goodness or holiness. People should listen to the prophet. If the prophet is from the lowest class of society, nobody will hear him. Moses maybe was the only one who was able to meet Pharaoh. So the social position is also important. Muhammad was from a respectful family in his society. The problem is more complicated. Next, goodness and holiness are relational. Muhammad was not the absolute goodness or holiness. Anyway, the sentence should be changed to something like: “Muslims believe that Muhammad was good and holy” We can discuss more if you like.Aminz 19:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, I think that my statement was fair, but the point is arguable, and I think that your change is absolutely fine. 129.12.200.49 12:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

---

There is one more thing. My blood presure was increasing when I read it. Please! please for the sake of God be honest. The sentence:

"However parts of his life appear to show an immorality which does compares poorly with the judaeo-christian prophets Muhammad claimed to supercede."

1. When did Muhammad said that he supercede the previous prophets??

2. If you are familiar with the accounts of biblical prophets, you know that David did adultery. Daughters of Lot did adultery with him. Solomon had 1000 wives and at the end of his life became worshipper of false Gods. Moses killed a person unintentionally. Similar to “massacre of Jews of Medina who opposed him”, at the time of Moses, God killed several thousands of Jews because of their disobedience (I don’t remember the account correctly but you can find it in Torah).

God didn't massacre the hundreds of Jews in Yathrib, Muhammad did. Regarding the sins of other prophets, I think the whole point is that if Muhammad were the "final" prophet to humans, as Muslims often say "a mercy to mankind", just like his revelation would be the ultimate revelation, his actions would transcend the faults of previous peoples. I don't think that a prophet has to be perfect, like Christians claimed Jesus was. I took think that is ridiculous. But it is not too much to ask to expect that someone who claims to be the final messanger of God backs it up in his actions. Yid613 00:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the massacre of Jews, There are two possible assumptions:

1. Muhammad was not a messenger of God: Then there is nothing more to discuss.

In this case, yes there would still be something to discuss. Just because someone is not a messenger of God, it doesn't mean it's ok for him or her to commit genocide. Would you point to all the other people who have committed genocide, and say it was ok for them to do so, since because they're not or didn't claim to be messengers of God they don't have to live morally? Yid613 03:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

2. Muhammad was a messenger of God: Then still the massacre of Jews is hard to explain as it is hard to explain many other things. God has created us and he has the right over our lives. God's Judgment for adulterer is harsh. Adulterer doesn't seem to be deserved to be put to death. In fact it is people who apply the punishment. God's punishment is severe. If one assumes Muhammad was a messenger, it is possible to reconcile with this event. No one can deny that from a human point of view, there exist issues that are hardly explained. But I agree it is a criticism and that’s why it is mentioned in this article.

Yes, "If one assumes Muhammad was a messenger", then "it is possible to reconcile with this event." But the whole problem is that assumption. Instead of assuming that someone is a prophet, like Muslims do, and then using that to justify all the bad deeds he commits, I think that the deeds themselves rather prove that he could never be what he claimed to be. Yes, you have pointed out that other prophets committed sins. Perhaps because they were all humans. Regular humans have flaws and do bad things. But some people do extra disgusting bad things. An average person who does some bad things once in a while because he is human is not the same as a person who exterminated native people who had lived in the land for hundreds to thousands of years before he arrived, used religion to conquer vast portions of the known world, and through his legacy maintained a fascist police state in an even larger area for the next 1400 years that continues to exist to this day. Yid613 03:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Muhammad, well, I don't know what kind of picture of Muhammad, Yid613 has in his mind. I don't have a negative picture of him or of his character. Quran states that he is a fully human being like us only with the difference that he receives revelation. He was a man of his time. To my mind, a prophet needs to be patient even at the expense of death, should have deep conviction and be sincere and active in preaching his message. There is a book called Quran that I can read today. This means that Muhammad has done his responsibility well (if he was a prophet). I don't understand why the last messenger has to transcend previous prophets. He was of course much better than me. If one wants to make an article on my actions and sins, it will become much much longer than this article. --Aminz 01:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That you acknowledge that he is completely a human being vs. the Christian conception of Jesus doesn't mean we should just ignore all the evil deeds he committed and assume that the religiously-based evil deeds of many of his followers have no relation. Yes, there is a book today that we can read called the Quran. When one reads it one finds terrible and horrendous things and there are two options - one can either justify them using the faith that they are from God, or use their reason to reject them. I think both you and I have made our decisions. I find it extremely hard to believe that Muhammad was really a better than you. How many people have you killed murdered? And there is no reason to write an article on your actions and sins - because a billion people do not claim that you are the final prophet to mankind. Yid613 03:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yid613, People within every religion have at times done wrong things. But of course, I agree that religion has great impact on culture,...

If in a certain case the religion in question encourages and teaches people to do things wrong either directly or by example, than that religion is a different case seperate from "every religion" that can not be dismissed with generalizations like the one above. Yid613 07:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yid613, I am like you a human being, and believe that I may think right as much as you may think right. If you have arrived to the conclusion that Islam is a false religion, congratulation! If I have arrived to a different conclusion and if I am wrong, I hope that God will have mercy on me. Your description of Quran is only "Your description" of Quran. I agree with your way of thinking in general. But please note that there are many things that may convince a person that a religion is true. It is possible that even a story, a saying or a text convinces a person that a religion is true. The same thing may not convince another person. Personal experiences are also important. You may not believe in Jesus, but some of his sayings have had an effect on me that has made me to believe in him. You may have your own reasons to reject him. And similarly for Islam (for example I remember when I was reading the Supplication of Kumeyl (http://www.duas.org/kumayl.htm) my tears were flowing). Yid613, every person has his or her own resonance frequency. Just please don’t think all Muslims are fool or they don’t have any reason to believe in Islam. Take care--Aminz 03:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

and if I am wrong, I hope that God will have mercy on me. Why? Don't you think that if God is loving and just, than God will care only about the nature of your deeds and not send you to hell or reward you based on whether you believe a certain way? I think it is religions that teach that you have to believe in them in order to find favor with God that constitute one of humanity's biggest problems, for if all religions were pluralist, there would be no rational need for religious war or conflict (not like there is anyway).

Your description of Quran is only "Your description" of Quran. So? How does that minimize its validity? Are you telling me that you don't find a book that has a god that sends unbelievers to hell "terrible and horrendous", as I had earlier put it??? please note that there are many things that may convince a person Do you think that perhaps such a person is thinking irrationaly? The same thing may not convince another person. That's the whole point. It shouldn't convince another person. You seem to recognize that the standards to justify one's own belief are not as high as the standards to tell another person that they should believe the same thing. So if Muslims and Christians will admit that their beliefs are based on faith, why do both of their religions believe that other people, if not all other people, should join them? That is the problem, not whether or not Islam is right. People can believe whatever they want, whether or not it is true. But if something is wrong, and the people who believe in it not only try to get other people to believe in it but kill to get others to believe on it, then the result is something that borders on evil. I believe that it is Goethe who said "There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity.", where I would admit that if people keep stupidity to themselves, they should feel free to believe in it.

Personal experiences are also important. Well, the meaning that people give to their personal experiences within any religious context is usually based on what they want to be true, not any rational determination of what is true. Just please don’t think all Muslims are fool or they don’t have any reason to believe in Islam. I don't think that. I think that only ones who are fools are the ones that think that all people should also become Muslims. Thanks and take care. Yid613 07:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

“and if I am wrong, I hope that God will have mercy on me. Why? Don't you think that if God is loving and just, than God will care only about the nature of your deeds and not send you to hell or reward you based on whether you believe a certain way?”

Of course God is the most merciful and the ever merciful. I know that God does not disappoint those who have their only and last hope in his mercy. You are right that God cares about our motivations but I fully know myself. I know how often I have disobeyed his law. I only hope that he accepts my apology.

I didn't say God cares about our motivations. I said that God cares about our actions. Or at least that's what I believe. I wouldn't claim that our motivations are meaningless, but still, it seems clear that people should be judged by what they do rather than what they believe, and at least what they do itself is more important than the motivations and intentions.

I agree that our actions are important but I believe that the motivation of an action specifies whether it is good or not. If I want to help someone but I unintentionally harm him, I have not done a bad deed in the sight of God (although I must apologize for my action). Also, the ending of the actions are also important. If I help someone and later tell him: “Do you remember I helped you.” This will destroy the whole value of my action.

Well then I would of course disagree with you. The position that you have just taken is one of Teleological ethics - in other words, actions should be judged by the end, goal, intention, or result of the action, rather than the ethical quality of the action itself. My ethical beliefs, however, and those of the religious tradition in which I was brought up in, are a form of Deontological ethics - certain actions are instrinsically good and some are instrinstically bad. While motivations and intentions do have some weight - for example, in a criminal sentencing procedure the fact that a person did not want and was not planning to kill someone but did anyway could mitigate their punishment. However, I believe that the the action itself should be judged and neither the intention not the result. Regarding your examples above: they are pretty vague, so I might not want to join you in generalizing. However, if you harm someone and the action in which you harmed them is wrong, I believe that you have done something wrong even if you didn't intend to. Likewise, if someone helps another person and then asks him to remember it, he maybe be rude, but that doesn't change the fact that he still did a good deed. I think it is teleological ethics that causes a lot of the problems I see in many religions. For example, if you believe that if you base your actions on the desire to satisfy God then both the action will be justified and you will find favor with God, and therefore you kill people with that intention, it doesn't matter that you had a good intention or motivation. The person who has done this has committed murder, and it is not mitigated by their intentions. I would say that this is plain and simple. Yid613 10:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

“I think it is religions that teach that you have to believe in them in order to find favor with God that constitute one of humanity's biggest problems, for if all religions were pluralist, there would be no rational need for religious war or conflict (not like there is anyway).”

Your argument makes sense.

Your description of Quran is only "Your description" of Quran. So? How does that minimize its validity? Are you telling me that you don't find a book that has a god that sends unbelievers to hell "terrible and horrendous", as I had earlier put it???

Sorry, I think I misunderstood you. It should be only added that Quran also teaches that God is extremely merciful. He may change his mind in punishment of the sinners in the Judgment day.

It appears that I misunderstood you as well. My above comment referred to what (at least I percieve) are either immoral or ridiculous actions of Muhammad or content in the Quran, not the issue of mercy and judgment.

As I said before, THERE ARE ways to justify those actions of Muhammad that you perceive "immoral or ridiculous". In the other words, these actions does not DISPROVE that Muhammad is a messenger of God. That is you can not use your arguments to 100% conclude that Muhammad was a false prophet. There are other actions that if Muhammad had done, you could confidently reject his claim of prophet hood (e.g. inviting you to worship gods which you know not, or prophesying something that would not happen...). There are instances of Muhammad's life that show how he was devoted, confident, merciful ... One should consider everything together. The final decision is personal of course. By the way, let’s use the appropriate terminology in our discussions. When you explicitly call the action immoral or ridiculous, you are presuming that your personal understanding of the matter is true and trying to force it to me.

Yes, there are illogical ways to justify the actions, namely circular reasoning and similar things. But as stated before and on the article, this can only justify the actions for Muslims - for someone who already believes in Islam, and therefore is by no means a universal justification, and because of its illogical nature I would say that such arguments are not justifications at all. No, the immoral actions of Muhammad do not disprove that he is a messanger of God. What they do tell us is that if he is a messenger of God, than God is immoral and teaches and supports immorality. Given the lack of certainty for both sides, I have to go by what is most probable (with the reservation of course that it might not be true). If it is assumed that God is good, than I would have to conclude that Muhammed is not his messanger. Don't claim that I'm trying to force you to reject Islam because I'll state it right now: I don't think that you shouldn't believe what you already believe. But in the talk page of "Criticism of Islam", if I have criticism that is reasonable and sound, you bet that I'm going to mention it. Does my insistence that rape, murder, genocide, etc. are immoral consititute me trying to "force" something on you? Fine. Label it what you will. Yid613 10:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I meant that this is not the appropriate language we should use in our discussion. You response shows that you disagree and I have no way to prove my opinion. I think we have already written all our arguments. If you would like to add anything please let me know, otherwise let's peacefully end the discussion here. --Aminz 21:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. Yid613 03:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

please note that there are many things that may convince a person Do you think that perhaps such a person is thinking irrationaly?

Yid613, if one wants to be completely rational, he or she can not even prove the existence of God. I have thought about the human cognition a lot. I ended up that when something makes sense to me or I have a positive feeling about something, there should be some truth in the matter. That is the best I can do. I can never be certain that what I conclude is true. There is no way to prove that I am able to discover the truth. Because I can never use my mind to prove that my mind works well. We hope that we will be able to discover the truth since our mind is part of the nature itself. In answer to your question, I can say I don’t know and I can never know. I should have my own ideas. The only being who is eligible to judge about people is God.

Of course no one can rationally prove the existence of God. That is why we people who believe in God should not expect others to believe the same and kill or oppress them if they refuse, and more specifically, since by extention the individual religions can not rationally prove themselves to be correct, members of those religions should likewise not expect others to believe in their religion and kill or oppress them if they refuse. That much is (at least rationally) obvious. I highly admire you and your statement that I can never be certain that what I conclude is true. There is no way to prove that I am able to discover the truth., because not only is that the truth, but that is the truth for all of us. However, that we can not be rationally certain of things like this, doesn't mean we should throw away reason all together. It's like this: spaceship and airplane flight are based on the same principles of aerodynamics and physics. Yet an airplane can not fly into space. So let's take ourselves back to them time when airplanes, but not spacecraft, were in existence. Once I realize that the spaceship can not take me into space, should I give up on the principles by which their flight is based and try to float into space after jumping off a balloon? Or should I continue to study the principles of flight in hope that I might someday be able to develop a better craft that is like an airplane but can take me into space? Thank goodness we decided to do the latter rather than the former. If someone did the former, because of the basic principles which he denies (gravity being one of them) he won't get even close to space but will just fall and die. But we did the latter instead. At a certain point we could fly in the atmosphere but not go into space, but instead of abandoning the principles of flight because of this frustration, we studied them more and more until we were able to go into space. Likewise, just because we can not rationally be certain of certain things, such as the existence of God or the truth of a certain belief system, does not mean that we should abandon reason altogether and tolerate illogical superstitutions as the guiding factors in our beliefs. Like the person jumping of the balloon who dies from abandoning (actually denying) physics, if we deny reason we will die intellectually. Rather, despite the fact that we can not be certain of certain things, we should still use reason to guide our beliefs.

I completely agree with you. I only meant that not everything can be formulated in a completely rational way. If I hear a song and I like it, it would be enough for me to believe that the composer is a master. Although I may not be able to mathematically formulate my feeling. If I read a text and I like it, it may be enough for me to believe in its writer. This is not a non-rational thing to do.

The same thing may not convince another person. That's the whole point. It shouldn't convince another person. You seem to recognize that the standards to justify one's own belief are not as high as the standards to tell another person that they should believe the same thing. So if Muslims and Christians will admit that their beliefs are based on faith, why do both of their religions believe that other people, if not all other people, should join them? That is the problem, not whether or not Islam is right. People can believe whatever they want, whether or not it is true. But if something is wrong, and the people who believe in it not only try to get other people to believe in it but kill to get others to believe on it, then the result is something that borders on evil. I believe that it is Goethe who said "There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity.", where I would admit that if people keep stupidity to themselves, they should feel free to believe in it.

Nice! I think here one should study Christianity and Islam separately. There is no doctrine of original sin or a similar concept is not in Islam. Islam does not say that only believers in religion of Islam go to the Garden. First of all, the followers of Islam are called Muslims but the term Muslim in Quran has the general meaning of one who submits himself or herself to God. So, based on this definition, Abraham was a Muslim. It is possible that a Jew or a Christians be also a Muslim. The worst deed, according to Quran, is covering or denying what one thinks is truth. If I tell a lie with the motivation to gain money, I have done the worst possible deed. According to Islam, if one understands that Islam is the truth and rejects it, he or she has done the worst possible deed. One more thing: According to Quran, it is important not to worship idols. Islam claims that those who worship idols are covering or denying some truth.

I understand that Christianity and Islam should be studied separately, and of course know that there is no original sin or human worshipping in Islam, but my statement applied only to the specific issue of both requiring people to believe in it. And regarding your implication that although Islam requires all people to be "Muslims", Jews and Christians are also considered "Muslims" and therefore are accepted by Islam - this is only partially true and is deceptive. There are Qur'anic verses that state that a believer and a Muslim is only someone who accepts all the revelations (of Islam) and all the prophets (of Islam). Granted that I don't accept all the prophets and revelations of Islam, I am neither a Muslim, a "Muslim" nor a "muslim", but I am a "disbeliever among the Jews and Christians", and just a disbeliever in general. And you know what the Qur'an says happens to disbelievers. :) Yid613 10:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of verses in Quran that explicitly state that people should have freedom in choosing their own religion. There are a lot of them. It should be also added that outside the Quran, there are some quotes attributed to Muhammad which prescribe death punishment for "apostasy".

Yes I know that there are a lot of them, but that doesn't mean that Islam actually believes that. My question to you is this: what does the Islamic concept of abrogation mean to you? Yid613 10:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your argument. Regarding your question, to be honest I have never had a chance to study the concept of abrogation. --Aminz 21:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well the concept itself is based 2:106: "Such of our revelation as we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof." Anyway, many Islamic scholars explain that the ayats in the Qur'an that encourage toleration for other religions and peoples were revealed during the "Mecca period", when Muhammad was militarily weak and vulnerable, and later during the "Medina period", when Muhammad had many more more followers and much more military successes, these verses were abrogated, or replaced, by the commonly cited verses encouraging the killing of disbelievers. Muslim scholars throughout Islamic history have themselves admitted that the actual final doctrine of the Qur'an is that of the later, intolerant verses, though obviously to them it is not such a bad thing. Contrast, for example, 109:6 ("To you be your religion, and to me my religion") with ("Whoso desires another religion than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him; in the next world he shall be among the losers."). this explanation provides many more examples and cites the explanations of a few Islamic scholars (Dr. M. Khan, Dr. Sobhy as-Saleh, Zarkashi, Nahas, Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi, etc.) who agree that the intolerant verses have authority and that the tolerant verses have been replaced and are therefore no longer in effect. Yid613 03:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I could say stuff off the top of my head, but i prefer to study first and get back to you later. I really don't see any contrast between 109:6 and the other verse you mentioned. If “Muslim scholars throughout Islamic history have themselves admitted that the actual final doctrine of the Qur'an is that of the later” is true, then at least one person before you should have told me about it. I am raised in a Muslim country (and have come to US to pursue my studies). I feel tired, and am currently busy with school. Thanks for bringing up the topic. I’ll get back to you soon. Thanks and Take care, --Aminz 03:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

How can you not see a difference between the two verses? Even if you can claim that "It is possible that a Jew or a Christians be also a Muslim", as you have done above and I have heard from other Muslims as well, it doesn't change the fact that one verse implies (or at least is claimed by defenders of Islam to say) that different people should be left alone to believe in different things and that therefore Islam believes in religious pluralism. The second quote clearly states that it is unacceptable to follow a religion other than Islam, no matter what that means (since it obviously doesn't include all beliefs, like those that practice idolatry). As for the question of Islamic scholars, see the link I provide above: I understand if you don't want to read Ali Sina's opinions since he is openly anti-Islam, I just mean that you should read the Islamic scholars that he cites in his essay). Don't worry about rushing to find an answer. As I have a midterm this Friday (you guys use the semester system but we use the quarter system), I too will be busy. We can continue whenever you have the time. Thanks. Yid613 06:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The context of the second verse is hereafter and the context of the first verse is this world. I think the first verse says that in this world everyone is free to choose his own religion. The second verse says that God will not accept other religions in hereafter. I see it as something like being free to do sin in this world and being condemned in the hereafter. That is the way the verse appears to me. Your readings of the text may be an alternative. --Aminz 06:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting...very interesting indeed. I did not expect this. If your interpretation that "The second verse says that God will not accept other religions in hereafter... like being free to do sin in this world and being condemned in the hereafter" is correct, than that means that according to the Qur'an, following a religion besides Islam is a sin that is worthy of being condemned in the hereafter. For clarification, is that what the Qur'an and Islam believe? Yid613 07:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I am not an Islamic authority. All I say is my personal understanding of Quran and Islam which is changing. Secondly, My English is not good (I am not a native speaker) and I may make mistakes. Now, I want to write my own understanding: My answer is "yes" and "no". Quran states that those who reject this message, when the truth of the message has reached them, are promised to be doomed to a fiery hell on the Day of Judgment (Quran 29:68). According to Islam if someone is not convinced that Islam is the true religion then the truth of the message has not reached him. Okay, you may disagree but this is what Islam claims. There are verses in Quran that make it clear that the criterion for entering the Garden is believing in God, believing in Judgment Day and doing good deeds. That's it. Quran 2:62 reads " Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." I should add that unlike the Christian doctrine that if one enters the hell, he or she will remain there forever, In Islam it is believed that the Hell fire has sin purification functionality and that those condemned to enter the Hell are eligible to go to the Garden after being purified a later time if they "had an atom's worth of faith in them". I think Jews believe that people stay in hell at most more a few years. Is that right?--Aminz 08:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you may disagree but this is what Islam claims. I'm sure I do disagree, but right now I'm just confused. When you said that Islam states that "those who reject this message, when the truth of the message has reached them, are promised to be doomed", my understanding of this is that it is a concept similar to one that exists in Roman Catholicism: that (yes,) a person who rejects the religion is condemned to hell, but of course only if they have first been told about it. So I understand that concept, whatever I happen to think about it. But then this statement completely throws me onto another path: According to Islam if someone is not convinced that Islam is the true religion then the truth of the message has not reached him. If I interpret you correctly, then this means that Islam believes that if someone (like a Jew or Christian) has heard about Islam but rejects it, it is considered that they haven't really been given the "message", because if they have, they would have accepted it. So this second belief, besides not making sense (since people like me obviously have heard "the message" but not accepted it), confuses me in light of the first statement.

Yes, That is what Islam claims. I think it should be somehow close to the belief in Roman Catholicism. Please note that "reaching the truth of Islam" is open to interpretations. --Aminz 02:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Ok. I think I'm still a bit confused though: one statement implies that some people hear about the message and reject it, and the second implies the opposite: that the only people who reject the message are those who actually haven't heard about it. Put together, those two do not make any sense. Perhaps I am reading you wrong? Yid613 04:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yid613, Here is my understanding: If someone finds out that a religion is true, it will become a responsibility for him to believe. It is not enough that people acknowledge the truth, but they should also believe in it. God sent clear signs to pharaoh but he rejected them in arrogance, though he saw clear signs of the authority of Moses. He had the responsibility to believe because he saw the signs. I know you have some reasons that Islam is not revealed by your God. You seem to be very knowledgeable. I guess you have read some chapters of Quran. I can say if you think Islam is not true then it is your responsibility (and not optional) to reject it and vice versa. Now, the question of whether my understanding faithful to the text and whether it makes sense can be discussed. --Aminz 07:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

That does not make logical sense. If one found out that a religion is true (I mean if one actually did, rather than just thinking he/she did), then he/she would know that the religion is true. By definition one can not both know something is true and also believe it is true - belief means accepting something as true or likely to be true in the absence of concrete knowledge. What do you mean when you mention a distinction between acknowledging a truth and believing in it? As I explain above, if one were to acknowledge a truth, then literally the thing is actually true, and if it were actually true and a person has the ability to ackowledge its truth - to know that it is true, then he can no longer believe in it. Obviously, we also take the opposite, in that if a person knows that something is false, then he or she can not possibly believe in it either. And even if we were to change the wording, your statement still brings up many things. So let's say that Pharoah saw signs of God. If they were really and truly signs of God, then we can say that he knew that God is true and existed. So Pharoah knew about God and he refused to acknowledge him. Fine. You're forgetting that there is no connection or relevance to the question or whether it is appropriate for Islam to require humanity to believe in God (whether in general or according to Islam's conception). Why? Because we don't know that God exists. Neither you or I have recieved signs or proofs that God exists or any particular religion exists. Therefore, until God comes to either of us and shows us a sign, all we have to evaluate what is right is our reason. And rationally, if something can not be rationally proved to be true (such as Islam, by your own admission), then it is absurd for you to say "I don't know that this is true, but still I think that you are morally obligated to ackowledge it." What people that believe in religions that claim that people are obligated to believe a certain thing (Christianity and Islam) always fail to understand is that the standards to believe something oneself are not the same (much lesser) than the standards to expect another person to think the same thing. If Muslims can not prove or know that God or Allah are true or exist, then it is absurd and rationally incoherent to say that all of the peoples of the world are obligated to think the same thing. And what if you say that we should put our reason aside and believe in Islam to avoid hell? Personally, I'll take my chances. Yid613 10:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you may disagree but this is what Islam claims. There are verses in Quran that make it clear that the criterion for entering the Garden is believing in God, believing in Judgment Day and doing good deeds. Ok, yeah I do disagree. Both my religious tradition and I believe in religious pluralism religious pluralism. But as we have discussed before its obviously fine for us to believe different things, and obviously there's no rational way for me to decisively conclude that it is wrong. Also, if you were wondering what Judaism would say is "the criterion for entering the Garden", however, then the answer would be that the first two (believing in God and the Judgment Day) are not required, and the third is, though what is required is not actually good deeds as much as much as it is commandments.

Thanks for the information. I have a question: Belief in God is the first commandment, isn't it? so, at least belief in God is a requirement according to the law.

Nope, not true. The first commandment is "You shall have no other gods besides me." The prohibition (negative) of following other gods is not the same thing as an injunction/commandment (positive) to believe in God.

Yid613, You know your holy scripture much better than a Non-Jew. But it is strange to me to hear that God in Judaism does not care if his people forsake him. He only wants them not to go after other gods but it is okay if they forsake their God. It is strange that Judaism does not require people to believe in God. The relationship between man and God is not required. What is then the goal of creation in Judaism if it is okay for people to live as an atheist? --Aminz 07:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, you're putting words in my mouth! Who said that it was ok to "forsake" God in Judaism?! What I said is that it isn't ok to "forsake" God (it's condemned over and over in the Bible) - by following other gods. Have I done a bad job at explaining the difference between that and a positive commandment to believe a certain thing? I'll tell you why there is no commandment to believe in God in Judaism - because, EVERY SINGLE commandment in Jewish law regulates ACTION, not thought or belief (the only exception might be the prohibition of coveting one's neighbor). We believe that God cares what we do - not really what we believe or think (except how what we believe or think determines our actions). Don't you think that an atheist who is morally good is a better person than the monotheist fundamentalists who kill but yet maintain a strong faith (and kill because of their faith)? You have clarified that in Islam motivations are of extreme importance - something I already expected. Do you really believe that an atheist who does good things but does them for reasons other than pleasing God deserves hell but suicide bombers who commit murder to please God are good people? Isn't this a ridiculous, absurd and inhumane ethical system? Do the facts that a billion people believe in something and it has been called a religion make it one, or make it automatically and by default worthy of respect? I don't think so. And I don't think that a doctrine that teaches that people should be judged by anything other than their actions deserves respect. And even while its not ok for Jews to commit idolatry in Judaism, Judaism's prohibition of idolatry doesn't prohibit other peoples from following their own religions. Both Judaism and Islam think that the concept of the Trinity is horrendous and disgusting. But while Judaism believes that Christians who believe in the Trinity but do good things are good people nevertheless, the Qur'an states that anyone who believes that Jesus is God will be sent to hell (Qur'an 5:72). It is not strange that Judaism does not require people to believe in God. What is strange is the absurd thought that a good God would punish people for thinking for themselves rather than ascribing to a specific doctrine, especially one as irrational as Islam is. Let's say that I realized right now that the Allah of Islam is really God and actually did create the world and everything in it. Does that automatically mean that I should worship him no? In fact, even if I thought that Allah was God, I would still not worship Allah. Why? Because my reason tells me that I should only worship God if God is good. If God were not God, then God would not be worthy of worship. You ask: What is then the goal of creation in Judaism if it is okay for people to live as an atheist? Very simple. The goal of creation in Judaism is that people live in peace with each other, that people serve God -through their actions, that people live morally and with rigeousness, that people follow the Golden Rule. Surprising? To Muslims, maybe. But simple enough. No dogma required. Yid613 10:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

When the earthly punishment for going after other gods is stoning, how can God be neglectful about this point seeing that he is a jealous God.

Probably God isn't neglectful of idolatry, but as I have stated above the prohibition of idolatry is not the same as a commandment to believe in God. Therefore my statement that according to the Bible or Judaism, "the first two (believing in God and the Judgment Day) are not required", was worded very carefully, since I expected that this would come up :). In the Bible and Judaism, there is no commandment to believe in God, nor a universal commandment to worship God. My point is this is how it is different than Christianity and Islam, and at least a bit more tolerant and pluralistic. Yid613 04:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are a lot of things that Muslims and Christians should learn from Jews. --Aminz 07:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are some relevant verses from Quran that clarify the islamic perspective: (18:102-106)"Do the Unbelievers think that they can take My servants as protectors besides Me? Verily We have prepared Hell for the Unbelievers for (their) entertainment. Say: "Shall we tell you of those who lose most in respect of their deeds?- "Those whose efforts have been wasted in this life, while they thought that they were acquiring good by their works?" They are those who deny the Signs of their Lord and the fact of their having to meet Him (in the Hereafter): vain will be their works, nor shall We, on the Day of Judgment, give them any weight. That is their reward, Hell, because they rejected Faith, and took My Signs and My Messengers by way of jest."

If I read this verse correctly, it is saying that even if people do good deeds, it won't matter if they don't believe, and just for that they will burn in hell. I could say a lot about this, but I am trying very hard to be respectful, so all I'll say is that besides explaining many things both historical and current, it is verses like this that prove to me that I could never believe in Islam or Allah.

As I mentioned before, According to Islam, if one realizes his or her God but does not believe in him, he or she will have troubles in the hereafter.This is the Muslim's belief. --Aminz 07:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we should clarify our use of some terminology. What do you mean - how can one "realise" God but not "believe" in him? Furthermore don't you think that a just God would care more that people are kind each other and treat each other with respect and dignity then believe in one specific ideology? And what does that tell you about the faith of Muslims? Is most of it actually based on a "fire insurance" policy ("I believe because I don't want to go to hell") instead of its actual validity? Do Muslims follow Islam because it makes sense, or beacause they are afraid of going to hell? Yid613 09:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Quran 4:123-125:" Not your desires, nor those of the People of the Book (can prevail): whoever works evil, will be requited accordingly. Nor will he find, besides God, any protector or helper. If any do deeds of righteousness,- be they male or female - and have faith, they will enter Heaven, and not the least injustice will be done to them. Who can be better in religion than one who submits his whole self to God, does good, and follows the way of Abraham the true in Faith? For God did take Abraham for a friend. "

Quran 2:214. Or do ye think that ye shall enter the Garden (of bliss) without such (trials) as came to those who passed away before you? they encountered suffering and adversity, and were so shaken in spirit that even the Messenger and those of faith who were with him cried: "When (will come) the help of Allah." Verily, the help of Allah is (always) near!

To clarify, Do Jews believes that those who go after other gods are the same as those who worship God?--Aminz 02:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Depends on what "go after" means. (I have assumed that "are the same" means "are morally equal") If it means worshipping, then no. If it means believing, then yes. Note the difference. However, there is still a difference between Judaism and Christianity and Islam in that Jews don't believe that other people have to believe in or follow Judaism to be good people, "enter heaven" (though that is actually considered to have little importance), etc., since if people follow the universal laws given to all humanity, they are judged to be good people based on their actions alone, regardless of belief. Yid613 04:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The Islamic term for the universal laws is "fetrat". Muslims however believe that belief in God is included in "fetrat". Thus they say that if one really works according to his or her "fetrat", he or she will not reject God.

See this statement as to why it is absurd to claim that a requirement to believe a certain thing could possibly a universal law. Yid613 10:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Jews believe that people stay in hell at most more a few years. Is that right? Well not really, but your understanding is based on something that is right, and I think it just got a little confused. First of all it has to be noted that there is no standard and uniform belief in the afterlife in Judaism. Some sources believe that there isn't an afterlife, others believe in heaven (but not hell), and others believe in reincarnation, etc. What you are referring to is a tradition that does exist about Gehenna. It is not a "hell" (and as such there is no concept of hell in Judaism), but rather a form of Purgatory. And the maximum time spent there is not a few years but rather no longer than exactly one year. It is very similar to the Islamic concept of purification mentioned above. A difference is that in the Jewish belief in Gehenna, souls would supposedly be redeemed if they have completely been purified within that time, but if they have more things to resolve they would be Reincarnation#Judaism and Kabbalah. Thanks. Yid613 09:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information --Aminz 02:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way the Yusuf Ali translation of 2:106 reads "106. None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar". --Aminz 05:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that reading of the verse doesn't imply that abrogation isn't part of Islam. It is only called "Naskh" ("abrogation") because of the word in that particular verse - "nansakh" (abrogate). The concept of Naskh obviously exists in Islam and is related to this verse, as you can read on its article. The verse clearly states that Allah has substituted some revelations for others. (Note: if your comment above didn't imply that abrogation didn't exist in Islam, then I apologize for this lengthy response. I just don't know whether or not you implied that, since the difference between speaking to someone and writing/typing to them is that here it is often hard, with no sense of tone, to understand what people mean. Thanks) Yid613 06:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I just meant that your translation of the verse is different from what I've seen. Of course, the concept of "Naskh" does exist in traditional Islam. But I remember in school they told us that it only refers to a few verses of Quran such as drinking wine. Your argument was new to me. I would like to thank you a lot for the clarification. Good Luck on your midterm exam! --Aminz 06:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Regarding how Naskh is used, the Islamic scholars quoted in this essay claim that it also applies to the tolerant verses in the Qur'an. And thank you. Yid613 07:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the link I'll look it up--Aminz 02:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

All the following is written from an Islamic point of view (I don’t write the words claims, alleged, etc. because it is faster) The Quran was revealed to Muhammad during 23 years. Within these 23 years some verses according to the situation or the questions that were asked or the events, verses of Quran were revealed to Muhammad. The Quran were first of all directed to Muhammad and then to other Muslims. For example verse 9:6, “fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them” if you read it in the context says: “3. And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith. (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. “(9:3-6)

I thank you for using this passage because it perhaps most effective proves the point that I have articulated a couple times in this section and in the Ali Sina section. You stated somewhere that according to Islam (through two verses in the Qur'ran, "in this world everyone is free to choose his own religion... God will not accept other religions in hereafter." I will explain now how the passage you quote above, Qur'an 9:3-6, proves that Islam does not alow everyone hte freedom to choose their own religion in this world. I do realize that the verse must be read in context. In this particular case I think the context actually proves my point, that Islam does not (either in its conception of the afterlife or in how it treats other people in this world) tolerate other religions. (Your statement that the first verse states that "in this world everyone is free to choose his own religion" refers not to physical liberty but to acceptance under law, since the verse in question stated "To you be your religion, and to me my religion", and refers obviously to how people should act, not an observation of what people physically can do.) Verse 3 states that "Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans." Now it can be inferred that Muhammad had treaties with the pagans, for if not there would be nothing to dissolve (it is also stated in verse 1 that the Muslims and pagans have "contracted mutual alliances". Now Muslims defending the atrocities of Muhammad often claim that it was the Jews or pagans that violated their treaties with Muhammad. But read surah 9 very carefully, Aminz, and think about it. Think about the standard of morality here, and maybe you might just say that Ali Sina's statement "According to Muslims it is not the Golden Rule that defines the good and bad but it is Muhammad who does it. They believe what is good for Islam is the highest virtue and what is bad for Islam is the ultimate sin. This is the ethos of all cults." is correct after all. There is no evidence that the pagans broke the treaty with Muhammad. Rather it is Allah who dissolves the treaties. That is the whole point. You may claim that Allah has power to do whatever Allah wants, but I remind you that the source as to how we know what Allah wants is Muhammad. And isn't it coincidental that the person who delivers Allah's decision is also the person who benefits for Allah's decision?!?! Amazing. Therefore if you're a Muslim, you can use circular reasoning all you want to avoid having to think about the faults of your religion. However, if you don't already believe in the authority of Allah and therefore that circular argument doesn't work for you, this surah is basically Muhammad breaking his treaty by renouncing himself from it after recieving the benefits. When Muhammad made the treaty he was in Mecca and didn't want to be attacked by the Meccans, so he made treaties with them. But when he was powerful and came back to Mecca, surah 9 was "revealed". Can't you see what's going on here? Muhammad makes treaties when they are beneficial to him but he breaks and renounces them when he no longer wishes to honor them. This is why Ali Sina is right. This is why Islam is a rejection of the Golden Rule, and why the Golden Rule rejects Islam. Now what does verse 3 say? If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith. . What this clearly tells us was that "sin" that the pagans committed was not violating any treaty, but rather believing and worshipping as they did and refusing to convert to Islam. Allah's proclamation states that if the pagans repent, they will not be harmed. What this tells us is that the reason they would be harmed by Muslims in the first place is because they are pagans. Likewise, that verse also states proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith. Could this be any more direct? You said that a verse indicated that (and therefore Islam believes) that people should be left alone to be as they are in this world. Qur'an 9:3 shows that that is wrong, because the Muslims are told to penalize those who reject faith (going into the realm of semantics, we know that their offense is "rejecting faith" because if not there would be no reason to mention the fact that they "reject faith"). Likewise, verse 5 says "fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them... but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them." This is about as direct as it can be. The fact that the pagans are absolved of their "crimes" if they "repent, establish regular prayers and practise regular charity", in other words, convert to Islam, indicates that their crime was their refusal to convert to Islam. My analysis of the passage that you chose to quote reveals, therefore, two things: (1) that Islam does not respect the right of other people to believe in their own religions within any context, but rather prescribes execution and slaughter for those "who reject Faith" and then sends their sould to hell after they are massacred, and (2) compatabile to my analysis of Islam as being based on a form of teleological ethics, and Ali Sina's writings, there is no standard and fixed concept of morality in Islam. Rather, what is good for Islam is considered morally right, even if the action itself is horrendous and terrible, and what is bad for Islam is considered morally bad, even if the action itself is good and respsectable. This is why I can not take Islam seriously as source of moral behavior, and it seems to me that the above two points are more damning of Islam then anything else in the article. Yid613 10:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, some verses are general. As you said the situation of Muhammad in Mecca and Median was different. I don’t see any problem in the difference between the behaviors of Muhammad in Mecca and Medina. Now, Muslims today are living in a different situation. This does not mean that the Quranic verses are not useful to them. They can be seen as a set of some problems and answers. They can be useful to them. Many of the verses are of course general. The job of the Muslims is to extract their proper responsibility. Many of course may make mistakes. --Aminz 08:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Naw, I didn't really mean that the problem was one of internal consistency between the Mecca and Medina verses. I didn't mean that they're differences caused a problem - what I meant was that the reason why the Mecca verses are tolerant was because Muhammad was in a disadvantaged position. What I meant is this - if, for example, your enemies have captured you and will take your life if you offend them in any way, or even if (in the case of Muhammad in Mecca) that you are vulnerable and you fear an attack by your enemies if you insult them, you are probably not going to (or at least you won't if you're wise) curse them out because of those very reasons. You are more likely to do that, however, when you are the ones in power, because you have no fear of reprisal. My point in showing the distinction between the Mecca and Medina verses was that the Qur'an says tolerant things in the Mecca period because Muhammad was too weak at that point to defeat his enemies and Mecca and therefore appeased them and calmed them down. During the Medina period, when Muhammad was militarily victorious, intolerant and hateful verses were inserted into the Qur'an, and as the Islamic scholars quoted in the Sina article state, the latter verses abrogated the former verses. The conclusion that I draw is that the intolerant verses, but not the tolerant verses, are representative of Islam. Yid613 07:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal experiences are also important. Well, the meaning that people give to their personal experiences within any religious context is usually based on what they want to be true, not any rational determination of what is true.

It may be true in some cases but I disagree that it is always true.

Just please don’t think all Muslims are fool or they don’t have any reason to believe in Islam. I don't think that. I think that only ones who are fools are the ones that think that all people should also become Muslims. Thanks and take care.

Thanks. I never had a chance to chat with a Jew. Good night and Take care my friend, --Aminz 10:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh, good night indeed. Your user page says you go to UC Berkeley, and I go to UC Irvine. So, (since we are in the same time zone), that means that both our edits were written between 2 and 3 am. Wikipedia probably isn't good when one is sleep deprived. So as stated above I'll finish tomorrow. Thanks and take care. Yid613 10:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah! We are in the same time zone. Thanks and take care. --Aminz 23:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I think it would be fine to say Muhammad was in succession to the other prophets, rather than superceded, if you prefer.

As for comparison, I beleive neither David nor Solomon are considered prophets in Christianity, (David was anyway strongly criticised and publicly repented; Muhammad is not recorded doing the same for his alleged major sins) while Moses killed unintentionally. Lot may be an exception, but the only one off the top of my head, and i am not sure whether either Christians or Jews define him as a prophet (I think he is not on the traditional Jewish list of 55 prophets). The other prophets lead holy lives, and i think that on the basis of the (Disputed) facts of Muhammad's life, a comparison is fair. Please note that the recognised prophets in the Jewish tradition may be different, for instance I think that both Solomon and David are.

I think that it is fair to consider the comparison disputed, as is expressed in the current version (21st february) which i think takes an even-handed approach.

129.12.200.49 12:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Was Muhammad sinless, and other issues with current edition / Part II

Yid613 wrote:

That does not make logical sense. If one found out that a religion is true (I mean if one actually did, rather than just thinking he/she did), then he/she would know that the religion is true.

Yes, he knows but he may refuse to accept it due to fear of losing social position or gaining money or other interests or difficulties. Don't underestimate my point. I may know that I should not waste paper since the trees are cut because of it, but because of my arrogance and laziness I do it. And a funny example: many people know that it is not good to kill animals but they don't want to become vegetarian because they love meat (I personally think everyone should become vegetarian at least to a high extent).--Aminz 08:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Read my statement above more carefully. I didn't say that it was impossible for one to know something is true and not accept it, rather I said that it was impossible for a person to know something is true and believe in it. You are answering a claim that I never made (even though you posted my original statement right above mine), and as such the reference to the paper example is not relevant to anything we are talking about. If I was unclear about what my statement meant, then here it is again: it is impossible to both know something and believe it because belief means accepting something as true or claiming that it is likely true in the absence of actual knowledge or proof of whether it is true. If you will then say "belief" in Islam is different, then that will be just below, and I will just state that my statement above regarding knowledge and belief defines "belief" the same as how the believe. In all of the definitions and examples given there, one can see where I defined belief as "accepting something as true or likely to be true in the absence of concrete knowledge." In other words, in the examples given in the dictionary, a person believes an external source of information, another person, has confidence, has trust, or supposes something, but in neither of those cases does the person know it to be true. Refuting an argument that I didn't make, if done unintentionally is a misunderstanding, but if it was done is a Straw man argument, and logically invalid. Yid613 06:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

By definition one can not both know something is true and also believe it is true - belief means accepting something as true or likely to be true in the absence of concrete knowledge.

I THINK the Islamic understanding of faith is different. The Arabic word for believe is "eaman" which is derived from "amn" meaning to "become secure" (I THINK).

What does that mean - "become secure"?

1. I could only assume it means something like "be secure of the truth", as in have knowledge of the truth. But let me assure you, a "believer" is not someone who knows that something (Islam) is right and a "disbeliever" is not someone who does not follow Islam and only thinks that it is wrong. Even if that is the definition in Arabic that is used in the Qur'an, it does not that mean believing means "being secure" but it only means that the person claims or thinks that what he says is true. Another example using this same reasoning: the name "Islam". I have heard Muslims claim that it is impossible for Islam to be unpeaceful because the name of the religion means "peaceful". Whether or not Islam is indeed peaceful, I hope you see that this is a stupid argument. Likewise, if I named myself "smart", and someone called my stupid, and I answered with "I can't be stupid because my name is smart", it would be just as ridiculous. So, (a note: this whole paragraph is based on my assumption that "to become secure" means to be sure of the truth, since no explanation was given there or below), just because the Arabic word implies that "belief" is knowing something is true does not make it so, and even confirms my definition that states that "belief means accepting something as true or likely to be true in the absence of concrete knowledge." Yid613 04:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

2. If "become secure" does not mean to know something to be the truth, then disregard paragraph 1. In that case, however, your statement is ambiguous and unclear.

3. If "belief" as translated from Arabic does not mean the same as "belief" in the English language, it is apparent that the translators of the Qur'an should choose a word other than "belief", since if you are right, they are misleading people. Yid613 06:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The definition: "belief means accepting something as true or likely to be true in the absence of concrete knowledge." seems foreign to me(Again I am not an Islamic authority). The Islamic belief in God is not for example based on "belief" with your definition.

Then see my 3. above. The definition I gave is the definition in the English language. If the Arabic word from which this is translated means something else, then a better English word should be found for the Arabic one to avoid misleading people. The Islamic belief in God is not based on accepting something (Allah, Islam) as true in the absence of concrete knowledge? All that means is that Islam claims that it is true. Let me assure you, Muslims do not know that Islam is true, nor do either of us know that God exists. There's nothing wrong with not knowing. It is just that it takes a rational person to admit it. Yid613 07:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have enough knowledge to exactly explain how the concept of "belief" is viewed in Islam. Examples:

2:28 How can you deny Allah and you were without life and He gave you life?

But the person who reads this verse does not know whether Allah exists or not. Neither you nor I know that God exists. The Qur'an says here that Allah exists and is true, but it still doesn't prove it. Therefore the person is left to accept it or not, despite the fact they don't know for certain. I am coming to see that in reality there isn't a difference between the Islamic concept of belief and the English concept of belief, with the sole exception that Islam thinks it is the absolute truth. Big news. But that doesn't make it the absolute truth, nor does it necessarily make it true at all, and does not change the fact that one who "believes" in Islam or anything else is one who accepts it without concrete knowledge, and that it is impossible to both know and believe something. Yid613 07:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The following saying is among my favorite. I think it makes it clear how faith in God and hereafter were viewed in the early Islam.

"I wonder at the mentality of a miser, fearing poverty he takes to stinginess and thus hastily pushes himself head- long into a state of want and destitution, he madly desires plenty and ease, but throws it away without understanding. In this world he, of his own free will, leads the life of a beggar and in the next world he will have to submit an account like the rich."

I wonder how this is at all relevant.

I wonder at the arrogance of a haughty and vain person. Yesterday he was only a drop of semen and tomorrow he will turn into a corpse. I wonder at the man who observes the Universe created by God and doubts His Being and Existence. I wonder at the man who sees people dying around him and yet he has forgotten his end. I wonder at the man who understands the marvel of genesis of creation and refuses to accept that he will be brought back to life again. I wonder at the man who takes great pains to decorate and to make comfortable this mortal habitat and totally forgets his permanent abode."

So this is what you've made clear: the Islamic conception of belief is that (1) Islam is true and Allah is God, and therefore (2) "belief" is simply recognizing and accepting that fact. Therefore belief is "knowing" that something is true, because since it has been assumed that Islam is true, then following Islam is not what I described as accepting something as truth without knowledge but rather knowing that it is true. I hope you can see that this is circular reasoning, and rather ridiculous. What is wrong with someone doubting the being and existence of Allah, if it is not obvious and proven that Allah exists? Note that the fact that it is not known that something is true does not it is necessarily untrue, and claiming that "lack of proof is proof of lack" is also illogical, and therefore I am not claiming that Islam is untrue because it is not known to be true. However, again, you are right when you say that the Islamic conception of belief is different then the definition I gave, but after reading your explanation, what I now say to you is that the only way in which they differ is that Islam believes that following it is knowledge because it obviously claims to be true, but in the real world, or rather the world in which logic and reason are allowed to enter, since Islam and Allah are not obvious or proven to be true, belief, even in Islam interpreted through reason, is still what I described as "accepting something as true or likely to be true in the absence of concrete knowledge."

It seems to me that: the creation of heaven and earth has made it clear to them that God exists.

But that's wrong. The "creation of heaven and earth" may have convinced them that God exists, but it did not give them knowledge that God exists. They simply accepted God/Allah as existing without knowing whether God/Allah does or doesn't exist. I'm surprised that you even said this, "the creation of heaven and earth", as if it were some commonly accepted scientific fact!!!! Don't you think that you're skipping a step or two here?!?! :) Yid613 07:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, it is interesting that the example of "nature" is provided as a "sign" for the existence of God and not as a "proof". I was reading the book of Job in bible and felt his belief in God was of the same sort(through reflecting in nature) {if I don't make mistake}. I hear your definition of belief more from Christian when I ask them about trinity and they can not answer. God knows best.--Aminz 08:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph is a little be incomprehensible, but I think I can gather up a response. What you're getting at here is stuff relating to intelligent design and creationism, and you're trying to argue by assuming that "nature" is a "sign" of the existence of God. Since you wanted to wrap up this discussion, I will honor that request but not going into debating Creationism with you, but what I will say is that "nature" being a "sign" of God is, as I guess you admit, nothing that can be proven or known but only believed, and that I don't see the connection with Job to that example, since at least according to the story, Job was personally talked to be God. Yes I agree my definition is shown in how a Christian can not explain the trinity but insists on it being true anyway. Yid613 07:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean when you mention a distinction between acknowledging a truth and believing in it? As I explain above, if one were to acknowledge a truth, then literally the thing is actually true, and if it were actually true and a person has the ability to ackowledge its truth - to know that it is true, then he can no longer believe in it. Obviously, we also take the opposite, in that if a person knows that something is false, then he or she can not possibly believe in it either. And even if we were to change the wording, your statement still brings up many things. So let's say that Pharoah saw signs of God. If they were really and truly signs of God, then we can say that he knew that God is true and existed. So Pharoah knew about God and he refused to acknowledge him. Fine.

I think I have already written my opinion regarding this part of your comment. I would like to repeat that my English is not good so sometimes I may use the words in wrong meaning. I apologize here for any possible miswriting I may have.

If so, my reponse is also above, and there is no reason to apologize.

The whole point is not to rejecting what we know is true. If one understands that a religion is true but takes it as jest, he'll have a hard time in the hereafter.

I would say that "what we know is true" is neither the existence of God nor any particular religion, and that I do not believe that a person who "understands that a religion is true but takes it as jest... [will] have a hard time in the hereafter", because (noting that the existence of "the hereafter" is also not something that we "know is true") because I have not been convinced that there is a moral need or obligation to have true ideas.

I assure you that as long as you are honestly doing what is right in your opinion; you'll be fine according to Islam.

That's why I don't believe that Islam can be seriously called moral or ethical. What your statement has just confirmed is what I said earlier about Islam's ethical system being teleological. I think the concept that "as long as you are honestly doing what is right in your opinion, you'll be fine" is ridiculous and true, and therefore I do not trust your assurance. First of all, your assurance that "I'll be fine" assumes that just because you care about the hereafter that I will too. This will surprise you very much, but both Judaism and I place little, if any, importance on the afterlife. What of "what is right in my opinion" involves actions that are wrong - cheating, stealing, murdering, in other words all unconsenting nonmutual relationships, to get back to the idea of the Golden Rule - are they morally justified because I think they are. I laugh at such an idea, which besides being untrue allows people to justify their misdeeds by claiming that their "opinions" need to be respected, even if it infringes on the rights of others to their lives and property. Not only am I not worried nor am concerned about if I'll "be fine" in the afterlife according to Islam, but I assure you that moral subjectivism, which you have just claimed is legitamate, is not only dangerous, but more importantly, it is false. Yid613 07:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Quran 17:35-38 says "Give full measure when ye measure, and weigh with a balance that is straight: that is the most fitting and the most advantageous in the final determination. And pursue not that of which thou hast no knowledge; for every act of hearing, or of seeing or of (feeling in) the heart will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning). Nor walk on the earth with insolence: for thou canst not rend the earth asunder, nor reach the mountains in height." Now consider the situation that the signs of God are presented to someone but he or she does not accept it because of his/her interests in worldly matters; then he will have troubles in the hereafter. Please don't assume all people do what they think is right. Many kill humans knowing that it is bad. --Aminz 08:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Then if you read my response all the way at the beginning of this section (or my series of responses to it), you will see that (1) I never talked about or adressed a dichotomy between belief and overt acceptance, (2) if a "sign of God" is presented to someone who can neither believe nor disbelieve in it because he knows it, regardless of whether he accepts it, (3) that the equation of being treated well "in the hereafter" and the concept of "right" with "accept[ance]" of a religion shows the perversion of Islam's conception of ethics. Also, I say that killing humans is not necessarily wrong, only murdering (and manslaughtering) them is. I'm also surprised you try to use the Qur'an to prove something like this after I've mentioned circular reasoning over and over. And lastly, I don't care whether there's a discrepancy of what people do with what they think is right, but rather I'm only concerned with the relationship of what people do with what is right. Yid613 08:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You're forgetting that there is no connection or relevance to the question or whether it is appropriate for Islam to require humanity to believe in God (whether in general or according to Islam's conception). Why? Because we don't know that God exists. Neither you or I have recieved signs or proofs that God exists or any particular religion exists. Therefore, until God comes to either of us and shows us a sign, all we have to evaluate what is right is our reason.

Yid613, The judgment in the hereafter will be personal. I would like to stress that if it is not possible to prove God, it is not also possible to prove that his non-existence as well. Moreover, believers in God have traditionally mentioned many proofs for the existence of God but they are not considered valid since they are not precise enough. Our standard of precision has been changed over the history. The proofs have become more and more abstract. Today, we say we can prove something if a computer can check it. Well, with this level of precision, a few statements can be proved. My point is that saying that the traditional proofs of existence of God are not precise does not mean they are invaluable.

Re first sentence: First of all, you speak of "the judgement in the hereafter" as if it is known to be existent or we both assume that it is existent, which doesn't work logically. Second of all, if you say that it is personal, and therefore none of any other person's business, why does Islam go around telling people to believe in it so that they will have a good judgment? Re second sentence: Yes, of course. "Lack of proof is not proof of lack" is logical and something I already knew before comeing here. However, despite being true, your statement is irrelevant because the issue was never anyone trying to prove or claiming that God doesn't exist. Re third sentence: It is not as much that the proofs are not precise enough but more that they are not logical. This doesn't necessarily mean that they are illogical, although they could be. Rather, it only means that they can not be measure or analyzed by reason and therefore can not function as "proofs". It is good if our level of "precision", as you call it, increases and as a result "a few statements can be proved". I think that this is a great thing. It prevents people from saying stupid things and getting away with them without other people realizing that they are irrational. Re last sentence: your point is valid but what is its relation to the question of whether one can be logically expected or obligated to believe something? Just as lack of proof does not equal proof of lack, lack of proof of lack does not equal proof. :) Yid613 08:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The idea that the truth can be written on the paper traces its origin back to Greece. In many cultures, especially Asian cultures, people believed that in order to reach the truth one should travel a path. I agree that we should use our reason but maybe we need to also purify ourselves by doing charity, good deeds and helping other people (knowing that reasoning alone doesn't help us know if God exists or not).

I agree 100% (though I would disagree 100% if you added belief to the list). Are you admitting good actions are of ultimate importance, higher than belief?!? :) If not, just say so, because I shouldn't get my hopes up and then be disappointed. Yid613 08:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't think that it would be easy for someone to deny existence of God, at least for me. Even if one says that it is absurd to use logic, I can not prove to him that he should use his mind. But God, his creator can. Your argument only says that in this world I can not expect others to believe in God but in God's eyes the situation can be different. I think the only being that is eligible to judge people is God. People will be personally judged. --Aminz 08:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but since we are in this world, and since we don't know that "the perspective of God" exists, our reason and mind are the only things that we have. I am suddenly happy that your statement above seems to agree with that, even if just a little. Yid613 04:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

And rationally, if something can not be rationally proved to be true (such as Islam, by your own admission), then it is absurd for you to say "I don't know that this is true, but still I think that you are morally obligated to ackowledge it." What people that believe in religions that claim that people are obligated to believe a certain thing (Christianity and Islam) always fail to understand is that the standards to believe something oneself are not the same (much lesser) than the standards to expect another person to think the same thing. If Muslims can not prove or know that God or Allah are true or exist, then it is absurd and rationally incoherent to say that all of the peoples of the world are obligated to think the same thing. And what if you say that we should put our reason aside and believe in Islam to avoid hell? Personally, I'll take my chances. Yid613 10:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you are missing a point. The fact that I can not prove the existence of God, does not prove that from the perspective of God, people can have whatever faith they want. I can not prove someone that he should use his mind and think, but that does not mean that he will not be responsible for not using his mind before God. Likewise, I can not prove someone that a particular action is bad, since it is not always possible to define good and bad. But God can judge, since nothing is hidden from him. He knows whether I really understand that some action is bad or not. Thanks --Aminz 09:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not that I miss your point, it's that I understand your point but just disagree with it. Taking what you say, that we can not prove the existence of God but yet God does not allow people to believe whatever they want, my question is this: isn't it unfair, cruel, and (since there are afterlife implications) sadistic for God to not provide us logical proof for his existence or truth but yet judge us based on whether or not we believe in something that is likewise unproven and unknown? That is why I stand by what I said earlier, that it is impossible for there to be a universal commandment to believe in something. Thanks, and take care. Yid613 08:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Yid613 wrote: Whoa, you're putting words in my mouth! Who said that it was ok to "forsake" God in Judaism?! What I said is that it isn't ok to "forsake" God (it's condemned over and over in the Bible) - by following other gods. Have I done a bad job at explaining the difference between that and a positive commandment to believe a certain thing?

Actually, I think my understanding of ("forsake" God) is different than yours and the Bible's. I didn't want to put words in your mouth. My understanding was that denying God means forsaking him but seems that Bible's understanding is different.

I think there are some similarities though between our definitions. If someone denies God, even if he does not worship idols, his god will actually become money, worldly achievements, personal interests, etc. He or She will serve his or her own desires. There will be no reason that he or she should serve God or even care about him. --Aminz 02:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Biblical understanding of "fosaking God" refers only to idolatrous acts and never to beliefs. Your point is a valid one, and one that I have heard before. However, in the legal sense, or more specifically in Jewish/Biblical Law (since that is what is being discussed), idolatry is only overt and explicit acts, whether physical (worshipping an idol), or non-physical (praying in the name of another god), and therefore things such as atheism which can be interpreted as serving another "god", as you have explained above, are exactly because of their implicit nature not idolatry. To make it more simple, legally only acts, and not thoughts, beliefs or motives, are prohibited and worthy of being called "sin". Yid613 23:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll tell you why there is no commandment to believe in God in Judaism - because, EVERY SINGLE commandment in Jewish law regulates ACTION, not thought or belief (the only exception might be the prohibition of coveting one's neighbor). We believe that God cares what we do - not really what we believe or think (except how what we believe or think determines our actions).

Interesting, I didn't know about that.--Aminz 02:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think that an atheist who is morally good is a better person than the monotheist fundamentalists who kill but yet maintain a strong faith (and kill because of their faith)?

Whoever kills unjustly someone, be he a monotheist or an atheist, will be condemned and will be responsible for his action. Being a monotheist will not save him from his evil acts. But regarding an atheist who is morally good, I can not say a general statement. God, the one who knows him well, will be the judge. God knows if it has become clear to him/her that he should serve God. If no, then he or she will be called "mostaz'af" in the Islamic terminology (If I am right) and will not be responsible for his/her disbelief. But if enough evidences have reached he/her and despite that he/she has not decided accept (believe) in God, he will be condemned in hereafter. You may ask what about other good deeds he or she has done. I don’t know. I know that only those who have fought with the truth (i.e. not only rejected what they think is true but actually have fought with it) will remain in the hell forever. The rest will enter Garden a time later after being purified. --Aminz 02:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, your mention of "justice" is unconvincing because as we have demonstrated repeatedly, in Islam what is "just" is determined by intentions rather than the actual circumstances. When I think of an unjust killing vs. a just killing I think of intentional murder vs. shooting someone who is attacking you and is going to kill you any moment. What makes one killing just and another unjust are the circumstances involved. However, what you have shown by your explanation of Islam is that in Islam an unjust killing vs. a just killing would be killing someone to steal their money vs. killing someone to serve God. The difference here is only in intention, and I would say that both are murder and both are unjust. What is unjust is the concept in Islam that you explain to me right here: But if enough evidences have reached he/her and despite that he/she has not decided accept (believe) in God, he will be condemned in hereafter. This concept is Islam exemplifies what injustice is, or in other words this concept is quite clearly not fair. Why is Allah so harsh on those who "fight with the truth". Think about this carefully. If the "truth" is really true, then it would be there for anyone willing to see. If the truth were really true, it would not be affected or its reputation damaged by ignorant or wrong people telling lies about it. That Islam condemns people for opposing "the truth" only makes one doubt the suggestion that Islam has the truth at all - since the "truth of Islam" can not stand on it's own by answering criticisms but rather simply silences its critics by sending them to hell. That is how fascistic states work. The leader is right because nobody dares to say otherwise. Yid613 09:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You have clarified that in Islam motivations are of extreme importance - something I already expected. Do you really believe that an atheist who does good things but does them for reasons other than pleasing God deserves hell but suicide bombers who commit murder to please God are good people?

Regarding the atheist, I should say that if someone does good to gain money for example, he or she has received his/her reward in this world. He has tried for something and he has gained it. If one does good just in order to please God, his or her reward will be with God. Now, the suicide bombers are special cases. God of justice will judge among them. I think many of them are young people fooled by others. Some of them are dogmatic. When I deeply think about this, I end up that nobody besides God can judge. He will judge everybody justly.--Aminz 02:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, why do you assume that whenever an atheist does something good it is likely to be for material benefit? Because your whole argument is based on a faulty assumption, it falls apart from the very beginning. What is your idea of atheists based on - knowing or talking to some, or what your Islamic background tells you about them? The whole point of natural law is that one can use one's mind to figure out what is right, and therefore a concept of morality can exist even if someone believes that morality exists independently from God (while I believe that it is from God). Most atheists believe in the concept there being moral standards just as much as religious people do. Consider a situation in which an atheist donates $500 to a charity and a religious person donates $500 to the same charity. First of all, there is no apparent material gain from donating to charity, as you are giving away your money, and so your assumptions that attempt to casually dismiss the good deeds of non-religious people fails. Second of all, let us assume as per the above discussion that the atheists donated the money because he believes it is the moral thing to do (though he believes that God has nothing to do with it) and the religious person donated the money to please his god. It is incomprehensible that the religious person did a better deed then the non-religious person just because of his/her motivation, and that the atheist either has done less of a good deed or even sinned for doing something for something other than God. That is ridiculous. We are returning to the same things. Ok, I realize that it is your belief that this is how God works and that it is not for you to question. But it is relevant because Islam expects the other peoples of the world to follow Islam. But again, the standards for justifying one's own belief are much higher than those for expecting other people to think the same thing. Since when the Islamic conception of ethics has been shown by now to have no basis in reason and then you say "well this is what I believe", then your faith is good enough for your own belief but because of its irrationality, you can not tell other people to believe the same thing and that they are morally obliged to do so. Technically I can not prove that Islam is false, because you can always retreat to faith as you are now. However, what I have proven is that Islam's belief that other peoples should become Muslim is wrong. And what about the suicide bombers? Your response above is basically avoiding a response. You have so much faith that Allah will punish the suicide bombers as they deserve and you will accept whatever that judgment is as right. But don't you say how everything you say here is so circular? You assume that what Allah says and does must be what is right and therefore re-shape and mold your beliefs, views, conceptions, everything regarding how you see things based on what that is, which of course revealed to you by Islam. However what if your reason tells you something difference? You naturally say that that reason is of course inferior to Allah. But you forgot that your whole conception of Allah was based on faith and assumptions! Statements such as yours in which Islam dismisses all the good deeds of atheists as unworthy but fails to say anything about people who do evil continues to make me doubt Islam's credibility as an ethical system. Yid613 09:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this a ridiculous, absurd and inhumane ethical system? Do the facts that a billion people believe in something and it has been called a religion make it one, or make it automatically and by default worthy of respect? I don't think so. And I don't think that a doctrine that teaches that people should be judged by anything other than their actions deserves respect.

Well, you have your own opinion and I have mine. As much as you think that only actions are important, I think what happens inside us is also important.

I should go now, but my answers regarding the rest of your comment will come soon. Thanks --Aminz 02:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

And even while its not ok for Jews to commit idolatry in Judaism, Judaism's prohibition of idolatry doesn't prohibit other peoples from following their own religions. Both Judaism and Islam think that the concept of the Trinity is horrendous and disgusting. But while Judaism believes that Christians who believe in the Trinity but do good things are good people nevertheless, the Qur'an states that anyone who believes that Jesus is God will be sent to hell (Qur'an 5:72).

Verse 5:72 in Quran is parallel to the following verse from Christian scripture:

"23 So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables: "How can Satan drive out Satan? 24If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27In fact, no one can enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house. 28I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." 30He said this because they were saying, "He has an evil spirit."

Now my understanding of that verse is that Quran wants to warn those who say Jesus is God. There are many other verses in Quran that have a warning nature. I think many Islamic scholars would agree that the Christians to whom the warning of worshipping Jesus has not reached are considered "mustaz'af". This will be considered in their judgment. One more thing, if God promises to rewards someone, he'll definitely do that. However, if God promises to punish someone, he may still change his mind and show mercy since he is the most merciful. It is undeniable that Quran strictly rejects trinity and gives strict warnings to Christians.

It is not strange that Judaism does not require people to believe in God. What is strange is the absurd thought that a good God would punish people for thinking for themselves rather than ascribing to a specific doctrine, especially one as irrational as Islam is. Let's say that I realized right now that the Allah of Islam is really God and actually did create the world and everything in it. Does that automatically mean that I should worship him no? In fact, even if I thought that Allah was God, I would still not worship Allah. Why? Because my reason tells me that I should only worship God if God is good. If God were not God, then God would not be worthy of worship.

Yid613, I have a different view. I don't say that mine is better than yours but here is my view: God has created me and I am nobody before him. How can I set-up my own criterion? I agree that I can hope my mind works well since God himself has created it and he himself has given me the standards and he has probably given me the proper tools to know him. But it maybe possible that something seems bad to me due to my ignorance, through my arrogance. He is my master and I am his slave; how can I say that I don't like this characteristic of God. If I don't worship him, there will be soon that he will produce people who will love him and worship him. It is I who need him. He doesn't need me at all. I prefer to try to learn about the personality of God rather than trying to force my own standards on his personality. Instead of asking whether God is worthy to be worshiped, I prefer to ask "Am I worthy enough to worship him?"

You ask: What is then the goal of creation in Judaism if it is okay for people to live as an atheist? Very simple. The goal of creation in Judaism is that people live in peace with each other, that people serve God -through their actions, that people live morally and with rigeousness, that people follow the Golden Rule. Surprising? To Muslims, maybe. But simple enough. No dogma required. Yid613 10:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Quran mentions two goals for creation. 1. He created us to have grace upon us 2. He created us to serve him. We agree that serving God is a goal of creation. But I think having personal relationship with God is also an important part of serving him. We disagree on this point.

Do we disagree on that point? Sort of yes, and sort of no. It's not that I don't believe in that it's not necessary to have a "personal relationship with God" in order to serve God. Indeed, I do believe that it is necessary to have a personal relationship with God in order to serve God. The difference, rather, is I believe that all that is necessary in order to have such a relationship with God is following his commandments. Then, even if the person does not actually acknowledge or believe in God, the relationship is still "personal" in that God giving us commandments and humans responding by their actions is sort of a personal, two-way dialogue. Yes, God commands certain things, but they are more than just orders. They are also God calling on us, talking to us, telling us to do what is right. You think that "shutting God out" would be not worshipping God or a specific version of God. However, I would say that "shutting God out" would be refusing to respond back to God's call by doing whatever we want instead of what is right. The understanding of this in Judaism is very well shown in the second to last verse in the book of Ecclesiastes: "The end of the matter, all having been heard: fear God, and keep His commandments; for this is the whole man [i.e. the whole purpose of man]." "Fearing" God refers not to belief but to obedience. Yid613 04:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually there is one big difference between human and other creations of God. Human can learn the Names, i.e. they are more advanced in terms of language and having linguist relationship. Although there bad things about man but he has this unique capability.

I agree completely. I would add something else though: another difference between man and other creations (but that is still related to the use of language, which you mention above) is humans are the only creation capable of reason. Reason tells us what is right. I, a spiritual humanist, believe that reason comes from God. Others, such as secular humanists, atheists and agnostics might believe that reason is independent of God. In the end, I think the difference really doesn't matter, because it is not what we think or believe but what we do which is important. Yid613 02:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

In the Quranic version of the story of Adam and Eve we read:

"Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." They said: "Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?- whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?" He said: "I know what ye know not. And He taught Adam the Names of all things; then He placed them before the angels, and said: "Tell me the Names of these if ye are right." They said: "Glory to Thee, of knowledge We have none, save what Thou Hast taught us: In truth it is Thou Who art perfect in knowledge and wisdom." He said: "O Adam! Tell them their Names." When he had told them, Allah said: "Did I not tell you that I know the secrets of heaven and earth, and I know what ye reveal and what ye conceal?"

Ok. Your examples do help me understand the perspective. Likewise, in part of the Biblical version of the story of Cain and Abel, Adam and Eve's sons, we read (verse 7): "Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it." In other words, God created us giving us free will - the choice of whether to what is right or not. It is our choice and entirely up to us. What God cares about is whether or not we do what is right. A just God would not punish or penalize us for believing or thinking a certain way or failing to believe or think a certain way. This also states that "forgiveness" or "repentance" does not mean suddenly believing the right thing or following the correct religion, as you applied the term below refering to the pagans of Mecca, but rather forgiveness abd repentance come from doing the right thing. Yid613 02:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Now my question is this: If the goal of creation is just having a moral life then why did God create human at all. There were angles who were serving him. Is there anything special about this human that distinguishes their way of serving God from other creatures? Please note that some angles have free will (e.g. Satan) --Aminz 11:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

(Given the structure of your text, my responses will be in reverse order) In Judaism at least, angels do not have free will. In fact, that is one main distinguising factor between angels and humans, beyond immortality and all that other stuff. Regarding Satan, the idea of Satan being a rebelling angel that rebelled against God is a concept found in Christianity and Islam but not Judaism. In Judaism, Satan tempts us to do bad things and tries our moral integrity, but in doing so is merely in service of God. That conception of Satan is based on his only lengthy mention of him in the Tanakh, the Book of Job. Satan is believed to be the prosecutor in the court of God, who accuses us of our misdeeds and brings us to account for them. The concept of Satan being the same as "The Devil" was developed by Christianity and absorbed by Islam. I have no idea which is correct, but because my account is different from yours, your attempt above to state that Satan has free will as a fact and therefore use it in a larger context can not be applied. Therefore, continuing to give my responses retroactively, I would say that angels do not have free will, and to answer your preceding question, what is special that distinguishes humans in the way they serve God is that free will. Free will gives us the choice, and what tells us what to choose is reason. Therefore, my answer to your first question remains: God created humanity so we could by our own will, given the tools that God has provided us, make the world a good place. In Jewish mysticism, it is believed that the reason we are created is to make the earth a "habitable" place by God, in that when we do good things God becomes part of us and part of the world, while when we do bad things God retreats and becomes isolated from us. That is what I meant when I said that a personal relationship with God can be attained by doing good. Yid613 02:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I thank you for using this passage because it perhaps most effective proves the point that I have articulated a couple times in this section and in the Ali Sina section. You stated somewhere that according to Islam (through two verses in the Qur'ran, "in this world everyone is free to choose his own religion... God will not accept other religions in hereafter." I will explain now how the passage you quote above, Qur'an 9:3-6, proves that Islam does not alow everyone hte freedom to choose their own religion in this world. I do realize that the verse must be read in context. In this particular case I think the context actually proves my point, that Islam does not (either in its conception of the afterlife or in how it treats other people in this world) tolerate other religions. (Your statement that the first verse states that "in this world everyone is free to choose his own religion" refers not to physical liberty but to acceptance under law, since the verse in question stated "To you be your religion, and to me my religion", and refers obviously to how people should act, not an observation of what people physically can do.) Verse 3 states that "Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans." Now it can be inferred that Muhammad had treaties with the pagans, for if not there would be nothing to dissolve (it is also stated in verse 1 that the Muslims and pagans have "contracted mutual alliances". Now Muslims defending the atrocities of Muhammad often claim that it was the Jews or pagans that violated their treaties with Muhammad. But read surah 9 very carefully, Aminz, and think about it. Think about the standard of morality here, and maybe you might just say that Ali Sina's statement "According to Muslims it is not the Golden Rule that defines the good and bad but it is Muhammad who does it. They believe what is good for Islam is the highest virtue and what is bad for Islam is the ultimate sin. This is the ethos of all cults." is correct after all. There is no evidence that the pagans broke the treaty with Muhammad. Rather it is Allah who dissolves the treaties. That is the whole point. You may claim that Allah has power to do whatever Allah wants, but I remind you that the source as to how we know what Allah wants is Muhammad. And isn't it coincidental that the person who delivers Allah's decision is also the person who benefits for Allah's decision?!?! Amazing. Therefore if you're a Muslim, you can use circular reasoning all you want to avoid having to think about the faults of your religion. However, if you don't already believe in the authority of Allah and therefore that circular argument doesn't work for you, this surah is basically Muhammad breaking his treaty by renouncing himself from it after recieving the benefits. When Muhammad made the treaty he was in Mecca and didn't want to be attacked by the Meccans, so he made treaties with them. But when he was powerful and came back to Mecca, surah 9 was "revealed". Can't you see what's going on here? Muhammad makes treaties when they are beneficial to him but he breaks and renounces them when he no longer wishes to honor them. This is why Ali Sina is right. This is why Islam is a rejection of the Golden Rule, and why the Golden Rule rejects Islam. Now what does verse 3 say? If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith. . What this clearly tells us was that "sin" that the pagans committed was not violating any treaty, but rather believing and worshipping as they did and refusing to convert to Islam. Allah's proclamation states that if the pagans repent, they will not be harmed. What this tells us is that the reason they would be harmed by Muslims in the first place is because they are pagans. Likewise, that verse also states proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith. Could this be any more direct? You said that a verse indicated that (and therefore Islam believes) that people should be left alone to be as they are in this world. Qur'an 9:3 shows that that is wrong, because the Muslims are told to penalize those who reject faith (going into the realm of semantics, we know that their offense is "rejecting faith" because if not there would be no reason to mention the fact that they "reject faith"). Likewise, verse 5 says "fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them... but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them." This is about as direct as it can be. The fact that the pagans are absolved of their "crimes" if they "repent, establish regular prayers and practise regular charity", in other words, convert to Islam, indicates that their crime was their refusal to convert to Islam. My analysis of the passage that you chose to quote reveals, therefore, two things: (1) that Islam does not respect the right of other people to believe in their own religions within any context, but rather prescribes execution and slaughter for those "who reject Faith" and then sends their sould to hell after they are massacred, and (2) compatabile to my analysis of Islam as being based on a form of teleological ethics, and Ali Sina's writings, there is no standard and fixed concept of morality in Islam. Rather, what is good for Islam is considered morally right, even if the action itself is horrendous and terrible, and what is bad for Islam is considered morally bad, even if the action itself is good and respsectable. This is why I can not take Islam seriously as source of moral behavior, and it seems to me that the above two points are more damning of Islam then anything else in the article. Yid613 10:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yid613, many times in our discussions, you called my arguments to be absurd or accused me for doing circular reasoning. But I always tried to first accuse myself for misunderstanding or lack of knowledge rather trying to attack on your arguments. But this time, I tried to go over your comment several times, but was not able to do it. Your comment seemed very biased, unjust and irrational. I decided not to reply you immediately hoping that I would be able to write you a mild answer. The reason that I am writing these things for you is to just let you how I felt when I read your comment. Actually after reading your way of reading and interpreting the text, I feel I can now understand how some terrorists can read and interpret the text. I would like to write my answer to this comment and request you to finish all our discussions here as I think God has created our minds differently. We are both somehow aware of the early history of Islam and we both read sura 9, but end up in totally different understandings. God will judge us.

If I called your arguments absurd, then I explained how they were absurd instead of just saying they were. Furthermore, I never "accused you" of "doing" circular reasoning, but rather mentioned that your arguments used circular reasoning. It is logical to separate arguments from the person giving them. I may or may not be biased, but even if I am biased it has no effect on the validity of my arguments. This is where we are going back to forms of argumentum ad hominem. In a court of law, when a witness gives testimony about what has happened in an event, and the opposing lawyer claims that the witness is biased, the point is a valid one. The reason why is because the witness' testimony is a primary source to what happened, and if a witness benefits from giving a certain testimony, it is valid to point out that that bias may affect the accuracy of his testimony. When a witness testifies his bias is important because he is being trusted simply on good faith to tell the truth. However, if you or I are biased, it does not affect how valid our arguments are in any way. You and I are not the primary sources but rather our writings are secondary sources, in that we are analyzing the evidence and making our own conclusions. Therefore, our backgrounds and predispositions do not have any effect on the truth of our arguments because we are not the sources but rather the analyzers of the sources. We do not have to "trust" each other to be right, because our arguments can be scrutinized instead. Since our claims can be measured by reason and by the evidence, our background and bias can not be used logically to dismiss our claims. Do you think Aminz, that you are not biased? You are just as biased as I am, and I would say that you are even more biased because your religion is Islam but my religion is not "anti-Islam", or in other words, the validity of my own beliefs and worldview does not depend on the validity of Islam, but your beliefs and worldview do. Nevertheless, the reason why I don't imply that your bias means that your arguments are invalid is because that is an illogical use of argumentum ad hominem. So I agree with you. I am biased. My question is: so what? What does that mean? Does it have an effect whatsoever on any of this? The answer is of course no. Lastly, since the rationality of my arguments can be analyzed and measured, you can not just call what I say "irrational" and then leave at that, thinking that you have made a complete argument or response. If I have established a preponderance of evidence, then I should not doubt the truth of my arguments just because you call them irrational, though I should do so when you attempt to show how they are irrational. There is no reason for me to consider your statement that my comment is irrational to be valid unless you analyze my arguments using the language of rationality. Until that is done, you calling my arguments irrational can have no effect either on me or my arguments' validity. Also, if you felt offended my what I claimed, it does not necessarily mean that either what I claim is offensive or that it untrue, for even if something is offensive, if what is offensive happens to be true, we should not hide the truth because of its offensiveness but rather reconsider how we measure ideas (thereby leaving the realm of "offensive" and "unoffensive"). If I present logical arguments, and you are distressed by them, it does not mean that I should not say them, apologize, or change my mind. If anything, what you seem to be going through is cognitive dissonance. When what you have previously accepted as true or correct is conflicted by new arguments or truths, you will likely feel "offended" and distressed, and at this point you will begin talking about how you "feel" about my arguments, but the reason you feel so is because what you previously thought is being challenged. In the realm of logic, reason, and rational arguments, "feeling" can have no part, or at least has no effect. I hope that you understand that. So ok, you understand that the way I interpret the text is similar to the way terrorists interpret the text (with the difference that the terrorists follow Islam and I don't). Does that mean that my way of interpreting the text is wrong? No. Yes, terrorists are wrong, but that doesn't mean that they interpret Islam in a wrong way. What if terrorists interpret the Qur'an correctly? Will God judge us? Perhaps. But in this world, without anything else, all we have left is our reason. I am always welcome to discuss things with you using that means. Yid613 23:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: I thank you for using this passage because it perhaps most effective proves the point that I have articulated a couple times in this section and in the Ali Sina section. You stated somewhere that according to Islam (through two verses in the Qur'ran, "in this world everyone is free to choose his own religion... God will not accept other religions in hereafter." I will explain now how the passage you quote above, Qur'an 9:3-6, proves that Islam does not alow everyone hte freedom to choose their own religion in this world. I do realize that the verse must be read in context. In this particular case I think the context actually proves my point, that Islam does not (either in its conception of the afterlife or in how it treats other people in this world) tolerate other religions. (Your statement that the first verse states that "in this world everyone is free to choose his own religion" refers not to physical liberty but to acceptance under law, since the verse in question stated "To you be your religion, and to me my religion", and refers obviously to how people should act, not an observation of what people physically can do.) Verse 3 states that "Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans." Now it can be inferred that Muhammad had treaties with the pagans, for if not there would be nothing to dissolve (it is also stated in verse 1 that the Muslims and pagans have "contracted mutual alliances". Now Muslims defending the atrocities of Muhammad often claim that it was the Jews or pagans that violated their treaties with Muhammad. But read surah 9 very carefully, Aminz, and think about it. Think about the standard of morality here, and maybe you might just say that Ali Sina's statement "According to Muslims it is not the Golden Rule that defines the good and bad but it is Muhammad who does it. They believe what is good for Islam is the highest virtue and what is bad for Islam is the ultimate sin. This is the ethos of all cults." is correct after all. There is no evidence that the pagans broke the treaty with Muhammad. Rather it is Allah who dissolves the treaties. That is the whole point.

You said: “There is no evidence that the pagans broke the treaty with Muhammad.” read sura 9 carefully:

9:4 (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.

9:7-8. How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous. How (can there be such a league), seeing that if they get an advantage over you, they respect not in you the ties either of kinship or of covenant? With (fair words from) their mouths they entice you, but their hearts are averse from you; and most of them are rebellious and wicked.

9:12-13. But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained. Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe! --Aminz 08:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You may claim that Allah has power to do whatever Allah wants, but I remind you that the source as to how we know what Allah wants is Muhammad. And isn't it coincidental that the person who delivers Allah's decision is also the person who benefits for Allah's decision?!?! Amazing. Therefore if you're a Muslim, you can use circular reasoning all you want to avoid having to think about the faults of your religion. However, if you don't already believe in the authority of Allah and therefore that circular argument doesn't work for you, this surah is basically Muhammad breaking his treaty by renouncing himself from it after recieving the benefits.

Please read the history of Islam carefully.--Aminz 08:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will. But unless you can specifically show how my arguments are contradicted by the history of Islam, that you tell me this should not cause me to doubt my arguments and is not a response but rather just a lack of one. Yid613 01:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

When Muhammad made the treaty he was in Mecca and didn't want to be attacked by the Meccans, so he made treaties with them.

Muhammad himself went to Mecca for pilgrimage not for fighting. They made treaties between them that was allowing Muslims to come back next year for pilgrimage. But later Meccan broke their treaties. They expected that Muslims will massacre all of them however Muhammad forgave them all, something they didn’t expect at all. No blood was shed in the conquest of Mecca. Unlike many other cities, Meccans always remained faithful to Islam after the death of Muhammad. --Aminz 08:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

But when he was powerful and came back to Mecca, surah 9 was "revealed". Can't you see what's going on here? Muhammad makes treaties when they are beneficial to him but he breaks and renounces them when he no longer wishes to honor them. This is why Ali Sina is right. This is why Islam is a rejection of the Golden Rule, and why the Golden Rule rejects Islam.

You arguments are quite insufficient and illogical. You just want to conclude something and justify it. --Aminz 08:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, like my statement at teh beginning of this section, if my argments are insufficient and illogical, given the nature of what logic is, you should be able to show how. Simply stating and claiming it, as you have done above, does not constitute a response, and therefore I have nothing to respond to. Yid613 01:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Now what does verse 3 say? If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith. . What this clearly tells us was that "sin" that the pagans committed was not violating any treaty, but rather believing and worshipping as they did and refusing to convert to Islam. Allah's proclamation states that if the pagans repent, they will not be harmed. What this tells us is that the reason they would be harmed by Muslims in the first place is because they are pagans.

No, because if they repent, God is merciful and will accept their repentance. How unjust are you!--Aminz 08:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course God will. But as I have shown, in this surah repentance means accepting of Islam. You are only supporting my claim that Islam does not tolerate other religions. Am I unjust? I don't think so. After all, I believe in and try to live by the Golden Rule as shown to be both by reason and the ethical standards of my religion, which includes the notion that you can not treat people differently or treat them however you want because they believe something different than you. The Golden Rule tells first of all that each person has valuable rights that must be protected, and secondly because each person has those rights, we are not allowed to simply do whatever we want. We have the right to do anything we want unless it violates the same right of someone else, and if we do violate the rights of others we must be punished according to the act, but who we are and who they has no part of it. That is why Hillel said "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." This is also why every religion but Islam says the same thing. That is the Golden Rule, and that is justice. Throughout all our discussions, something I've demonstrated over and over, and something you've never logically responded to or refuted, is that it is Islam that is unjust. In this context, the very fact that Islam considers paganism a "sin" is injustice. Yid613 01:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, that verse also states proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith. Could this be any more direct? You said that a verse indicated that (and therefore Islam believes) that people should be left alone to be as they are in this world. Qur'an 9:3 shows that that is wrong, because the Muslims are told to penalize those who reject faith (going into the realm of semantics, we know that their offense is "rejecting faith" because if not there would be no reason to mention the fact that they "reject faith").

Read the verse in context please. --Aminz 08:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, verse 5 says "fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them... but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them." This is about as direct as it can be. The fact that the pagans are absolved of their "crimes" if they "repent, establish regular prayers and practise regular charity", in other words, convert to Islam, indicates that their crime was their refusal to convert to Islam. My analysis of the passage that you chose to quote reveals, therefore, two things: (1) that Islam does not respect the right of other people to believe in their own religions within any context, but rather prescribes execution and slaughter for those "who reject Faith" and then sends their sould to hell after they are massacred, and (2) compatabile to my analysis of Islam as being based on a form of teleological ethics, and Ali Sina's writings, there is no standard and fixed concept of morality in Islam. Rather, what is good for Islam is considered morally right, even if the action itself is horrendous and terrible, and what is bad for Islam is considered morally bad, even if the action itself is good and respsectable. This is why I can not take Islam seriously as source of moral behavior, and it seems to me that the above two points are more damning of Islam then anything else in the article. Yid613 10:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don’t want to answer your sentences one by one since I am afraid that my language becomes offensive. All I can say, I have my opinion, you have yours. I am not interested in continuing our discussion. Have nice times --Aminz 08:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Apolegetic Edits to "Criticism from the biblical point of view"

This statement: This criticism is largely invalidated by the Muslim belief that the Bible has been distorted, and that therefore the Qur'an need not agree with it. Any difference between the Bible and Qur'an is therefore explained as biblical error, either intentional or unintentional. This standpoint is entirely coherent within the overall intellectual position of Islam, and offers no theoretical problems to Muslims. is not only a logically poor argument but is POV for the same reason and can't be added. The criticism is not invalidated "largely" by this Muslim belief that the Bible has been distorted because such invalidation rests on the assumption that the Bible has been corrupted. Therefore, this Muslim belief refutes the criticism of Islam only for those who already believe in Islam. But logically and publically, it does not "invalidate" the argument because the claim that the Bible has been corrupted remains just a claim. Whether or not the argument is sound (it isn't), the fact that it was presented in a POV and apolagetic manner ("This criticism is largely invalidated" vs. "Muslims believe that this criticism is largely invalidated") makes it an inappropriate addition. Yid613 19:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that the argument offers no problem to muslims. It was arguing that Muslims must explain how the Quran is not the same as the Bible, when they explicitly beleive the Bible to be unreliable. Any serious academic can see that the criticism was poor.

The criticism of the criticism is sound. Anyone can see that criticism which first requires complete belief in the veracity of the bible does not constitute a decent criticism.

I also think that Yid613 contributions are often poor quality and attempt to supress adequate muslim responses. 129.12.200.49 19:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That's the whole point. Yes, the argument offers no problems, to Muslims, because Muslims here are able to use illogical arguments to explain away already illogical beliefs. But arguments must not be judged by how much illogical people like them, they must be judged by their compatability with reason. You circular argument fails the test. Regarding: Anyone can see that criticism which first requires complete belief in the veracity of the bible does not constitute a decent criticism. Can't you see that that's the exact same problem with arguing that the criticism is invalid because of a prerequisite Muslims belief in the Quran? Regarding what you think of me or my contributions: usually I would care less, but you should note that I have made no such judgment of you. My problem is not with the quality of your contributions, it is with the POV phrasing of that one paragraph. I would advise that you read a user's best contributions, like those to Secular Jewish culture and Show Boat#Racism and Controversy, before making unwarranted judgments. In terms of supressing adequate Muslim responses: I don't think there's much there to supress. :). Since our disagreement here regarding the actual validity of different arguments has little to do with how they should be presented on Wikipedia, your paragraph has been kept but I have added "Many Muslims respond that..." to the beginning of the sentence. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view before considering changing it back to its original form. Thanks. Yid613 20:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the "criticism" is the circular argument; My argument is not: My argument is that the 'criticism' is simply not a valid criticism.

The "criticism" essentially argues that Islam is false because it does not agree with the book of Christianity (& Judaism). That is simply not an argument, except in the most circular sense.

Nor is there a question of neutrality, I am not Muslim, as an examination of my many edits will demonstrate.

Please consult an academic on the questions of circular arguments, validity of arguments, because I feel you could further develop your understanding of dialectics.

As for the quality of your edits, those which i have seen on this page do not appear to be useful. However I accept I have only seen some, and accept that others, especially on other pages, are probably much higher quality.

129.12.200.49 21:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The criticism is not as circular as its response. While the historical accuracy of the Bible may of course be put into question, the difference between the Bible and the Quran is (regardless of its accuracy), is that the Bible is a historical account of the events in question, while the Quran can only be claimed as such by Muslims who already believe in its validity. In other words, not addressing whether it is accurate or not, and leaving out the religious perspective, the Tanakh is or attempts to be a source on ancient Semitic history. On the other hand, the Quran, written thousands of years after the fact, can only be such to someone who already believes in its accuracy. So a "criticism" [that] essentially argues that Islam is false because it does not agree with the book of Christianity (& Judaism) is of course circular. But what you are leaving out is that a different argument can be made: an argument that doesn't require the Bible to be true, but simply asserts that whether or not it is true, the writer(s) of the Quran took the Bible and altered it to fit their own religious perspective. That is not circular. You assume that the only argument that can arise based on the Biblical perspective is one that assumes the validity of the Bible, and no, that is not the only one, and the other ones are not circular.

My question of your edit's neutrality has nothing to do with you it has to do with the edit itself, as I have shown that if you state that the criticism is "largely invalidated", without reserving that it is only largely invalidated to people who already believe in the Quran, you are stating it as fact. I never assumed you were Muslim, because whether you are or not has nothing to do with your edit. Stop focusing so much on the editors as much as on the edits. Therefore, the issue of neutrality is still valid because it was never based on the assumption of you being Muslim, it was based on the edit, and the issue of neutrality was never applied to you but only to the edit.

No offense, but I don't need your help or any "academic"'s help to improving my dialetic ability. Ironically, even while we are speaking of logic and dialectics, your insistence that I "consult an academic" seems to be an example of an Appeal to authority, another logical fallacy. :) Yid613 22:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken! :) 129.12.200.49 11:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yid613 writes No offense, but I don't need... any "academic" 's help... your insistence that I "consult an academic" seems to be an example of an Appeal to authority, another logical fallacy.

If you consider it a logical fallacy to refer to authoritative academic opinion, you should not contribute to an encyclopedia project.

It is not a logical fallacy to refer to academic opinion. It is is only logical fallacy to assume that academics have authority just because they are academics. Likewise, if you aren't willing to use your brain and think for yourself, perhaps you should not contribute to an encyclopedia project.

(In case this is not glaringly obvious to you, note that the 'five pillars of wikipedia' refer to using "authoritative sources... especially on controversial topics".)

There's one problem: my retort was to your insistence that I consult academics for my own personal understanding of logic and dialectics, not to any insistence that sources be used in articles, which was never addressed, and is only being introduced by you know to decieve whoever you can. Do you really think that you can misrepresent what I said (by claiming I said something that I didn't) to make me look bad and that I would be just too stupid to notice and say anything about it??? Please, grow up.

(Furthermore, if you think you are above considering authoritative academic opinion, you are incredibly arrogant.)

If you think that academics have authority just because they have been awarded the title of academics, you are incredibly stupid. It seems like it is only you who has to work on "develop[ing] [a] understanding of dialectics." Sorry, nice try.

129.12.200.49 N-edits 15:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yid613 19:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Nashooz

This Islamist website says that "The expression Nashooz نُشُوز occurring in the above Ayaah آيه means disobedience of husband. The word is derived from ‘Nashaz”, which signifies rising. In other words, if the wife rises above the limit that Allaah has laid down for the obedience to husband, she will be treated as disobedient." However, Aminz's edit summary and edit claim that it refers to any generally wicked act. Therefore, my question is: do you think it is fair to mention in the article that some Muslims believe this refers to disobedience and some don't, without just simply deleting any reference to the belief that it refers to disobedience? Seems best to me. Yid613 06:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I agree that it is fair to have it both ways. If there is no objection by anybody, please go ahead and apply the change. Thanks --Aminz 08:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Scientific criticism of the Qur’an

Can anyone give a few examples of scientific inaccuracy in the Qu'ran, because this is not being specific. Thanks --Faz90 20:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This anti-Islamic website (answering-islam) claims that three scientific errors in the Qur'an are the assertion that the sun sets "a well full of water and mud", that thunder and lightning are angels, and that the earth is flat. Other critical articles can be found here. Perhaps we can delienate both some of the main accusations and the Muslim responses to them, which are surely to be found in the wealth of Islamist websites in the internet. Yid613 22:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea! However it maybe be better to make a new article titled: "Islam and Science" or something. How is that? This article is already long enough I think. --Aminz 01:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well Islamic science already exists. Perhaps we should add critiques and defenses of science and the Qur'an to that article? As for this article, it doesn't strike me as too large. Each section is relatively small, moreover. Yid613 03:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Stoning Images

I have some images of a woman being stoned in Iran for commiting adultery. An example can be seen here. I also have sources for the story. Is it possible to add it to Domestic violence section. Or perhaps add a new section. Suggestions?

Consult with Zora or Anonymous Editor. I have personally no objection. --Aminz 08:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Nor do I. A suggestion, however: when we add such an image and write a caption for it, if the caption either only describes the picture or says that there is an association of the event with the Qur'an or Islam, then the caption will reflect an anti-Islam POV. Therefore, the caption must note that it is claimed by critics of Islam that human rights violations like those in Iran are associated with Islam. Yid613 09:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

A counter-criticism could be that incidence of adultery is much smaller in Islamic countries, especialy when initiated by women. (after all a few stones splitting your skull, is quite more painful than divorce)

Lol.... Yid613 22:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing up the caption. --LordRahl 01:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Please direct me to reliable statistics on that one. The only statistics I have from Islam countries is unfortunately not reliable nor verifiable.DanielDemaret 14:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It was a joke - just like Islam itself...--LordRahl 19:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

LordRahl, Please stop being offensive. The statistics will be removed until reliable and verifiable sources are provided. --Aminz 21:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)