Talk:Criticism of Islam/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Lack of Reformation in Islam

I think the article could benefit from a section elaborating on the fact that Islam as we see it today hasn't undergone any reformation movement. I.e. the reason many view it as a "car/flag burning cult" is because it has never reformed into a milder, "more civilized" branch. --LordRahl 01:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine, just find a reputable source that makes that argument and insert it. Ashmoo 00:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Is "Reformation" the right word?

I know people love to go on about Islam needing a "reformation" or not needing one, but is this the right word? The Christian Reformation- ie when millions of Christians broke with the Catholic Church to form various Protestant denominations- was marked by masses of bloodshed and warfare (the 30 years war, burning at the stake by both sides etc). People such as Martin Luther also encouraged a much closer and literal reading of the Bible- and a more literal reading of religious texts could be described as a more fundamentalist reading.

Quotes from Ali Sina / Alleged lack of reciprocity

Re part "Alleged lack of reciprocity": It was quoted from Ali Sina that "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...Counting Islam among other religions is a gross mistake...All religions, invariably, are based on the Golden Rule. Islam is not." My argument: This sentence should be removed because 1. Ali Sina has an imperfect understanding of Islam: He says "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.". It seems to me that Ali Sina needs to learn more. He is not speaking at the level of a scholar.

2. Ali Sina says :"Counting Islam among other religions is a gross mistake...". This statement is a little bit funny. Ali Sina says that Islam should not be counted as a religion. Everybody can have his own opinion but wikipedia is not a place for providing non-academic strange opinions of some people.

Feedback?--Aminz 02:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

1. My feedback is that even if you are right when you say that Sina has an imperfect understanding of Islam, it is irrelevant to the issue of whether what he says should be included in the article. There is a difference between facts being right or wrong and analytic opinions such as Sina's statement that Islam is a cult being right or wrong. If a statistic or something else that can be measured and determined to be right or wrong is false, then it needs to be removed. But if a topic is something like "Criticism of Islam", it is not inappropriate to mention or quote criticisms of Islam, even if you think they're wrong, and even if they are wrong. Now that doesn't mean the inclusion or any such quote in any circumstance whatsoever would be appropriate. If we loaded the page with anti-Islam quotes, even if the "so-and-so claims" language is used, it would appear that the article is endorsing the opinion and therefore it would be POV. That does not apply here. In fact, I added this second reference to balance out the "Alleged lack of reciprocity" section so that the Muslim response did not overshadow the actual claim being made. Also, quotes must be directly related to the specific topic being described, and in this case it is. The person who started the "Alleged lack of reciprocity" used Ali Sina's article "Islam and the Golden Rule" as the basis of the section (i.e. the evidence that critics have made such a claim), and the quote was taken from that very article. Finally, since it has been demonstrated that the quote is appropriate to the section, we can lastly ask whether the section is appropriate to the article, and it is. Whether you are right or Sina is right, this criticism is a valid topic for inclusion in the article (unless demonstrated otherwise). So in your 1. above, you basically say that because Sina is wrong, and because you don't think he deserves to be treated as a scholar (which you have not demonstrated) that his accusation can not be included in the article. My feedback is that is not how wikipedia works, and that the inappropriateness of the quote's inclusion has yet to be demonstrated, while its appropriateness has been demonstrated above.

2. I don't think that the statement is funny at all. In his article Sina defined the Golden Rule, defined a religion as a belief that adheres to it and a cult as one that rejects it, evaluated Islam and concluded that Islam is the latter and not the former. I agree with what he says, but even if he is wrong, there is nothing about his article that is "unacademic" or "unscholarly" or that makes its inclusion inappropriate. I think the burden is on you now to demonstrate that it is inappropriate, and so far (above) that hasn't been done.

So to the question as to whether the quote should be removed or kept in the article, and believe as per my rationale above that it should be kept.

Did you also want to actually discuss (on the talk page) the validity of this criticism? Yid613 09:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

---

In Islam, we read: "Islam ... is a monotheistic faith, one of the Abrahamic religions, and the world's second-largest religion. "

Religion is defined as :"Religion (see etymology below) is commonly defined as a group of beliefs concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions and rituals associated with such belief. It is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system."

If you show me any dictionary that mentions the Sina's definition of religion, I agree to keep the quote.

My suggestion is to consult with some wikipedia administrator on the matter.

I think the Sina's quote does not provide any new fact. It only shows that Sina's stress on the point. It can be instead added that this issue is important to some critics. Adding the quote requires a response from the Muslim side which is irrelevant with the main content of this part.

Regarding discussing the validity of the criticism, I need to look up the sources. Besides what is there in the article, here are some more Hadiths that I found on the internet. They should be probably narrated by Ali cousin of Muhammad and appeared in the Shia sources. Maybe Sina has only searched the Sunni collection of Hadiths. This is strange since he is persian and has a shia background. Anyway, Here are the Hadiths:

"A bedouin came to the holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) and asked him some questions.

Bedouin: I wish to be the richest person in the world.

Prophet: Be content and you will be the richest person in the world.

Bedouin: I would like to be the most learned of people.

Prophet: Fear Allah and you will be the most learned of people.

Bedouin: I would like to be the most just of people.

Prophet: Desire for others what you would like for yourself and you would be the most just of people.

Bedouin: I would like to be the best of people.

Prophet: Be good to others and you will be the best of people.

Bedouin: I would like to be the most honorable of people.

Prophet: If you do not complain to any fellow humans you will be the most honorable of people.

Bedouin: I wish to be safe from Allah's Wrath on the Day of Judgment.

Prophet: If you do not lose your temper with any of your fellow humans, you will be safe from Allah's wrath on the Day of Judgment.

Bedouin: What are the worst evils in the sight of Allah?

Prophet: Hot temper and miserliness (i.e. selfishness with money). "

2. I think some variations of the Golden Rule does exists in Quran and Hadith. They are roughly based on the same logic:

• God is not merciful to him who is not so to humankind. He who is not kind to God's creation and to his own children, God will not be kind to him.

• Whoever is kind, Allah will be kind to him; therefore be kind to man on the earth. He Who is in heaven will show mercy on you.

• Who is the most favoured of Allah? He, from whom the greatest good comes to His creatures.

I can quote from the website but I prefer to quote from the source itself. Then one can check the validity of these Hadiths.

--Aminz 10:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

---

1. Regarding the section in the Wikipedia article only: I have revised the section to what I think will be an acceptable compromise, in that it maintains Sina's claim that was already present but removes the quote and therefore avoids unecessary and perhaps offensive rhetoric, as per some of Aminz's comments above. The change can be seen here. Sina's quote claiming that Islam is not a religion has been taken out and replaced by a sentence that states that Sina claims that its lack of adherence to the Golden Rule makes it different from the other religions, an argument that he obviously also makes. Whether one agrees or not, I can think of no objection that can be made to the mention of that claim. The Muslim response to the quote was deleted because there's no point having a response to a quote that isn't mentione. Sina's long quote was removed, and in turn a reference was made to his comment regarding what "brotherhood" means in Islam. I hope that the current version will go without objection. Yid613 07:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Yid613. I have no objection to the current version.--Aminz 08:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Regarding the validity of the critcism. Re Besides what is there in the article: Sorry, but there is nothing in the article, or at least nothing in the "Alleged lack of reciprocity" section. Did you mean the reference 41:34? That verse makes no mention or connection to the concept of reciprocity. It only mentions doing good - but doesn't that has to analyzed in light of what standards of morality the Qur'an sets? For example, the Qur'an commands Muslims to kill disbelievers whever they find them (4:89). Since this is a non-reciprocal standard of morality, it determines what is right and wrong by whether one believes or disbelieves in Islam just as Sina says, it not only means that the verse quoted in the article doesn't necessarily prove reciprocity in Islam, but rather proves that there isn't reciprocity in Islam. I can quote from the website but I prefer to quote from the source itself. Then one can check the validity of these Hadiths. If you could do that, or at least provide the citations so I could check it myself, I would very much appreciate that. It's not that I don't trust the quotes' validity, as I assume that they are valid, but it will likely be revealing to analyze the contexts. Thanks. Yid613 07:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, The verse that says "kill disbelievers wherever they find them " is not 4:89, but anyway if you read the verse in the context, you'll see that it is talking about particular disbelievers in Mecca and not any disbeliever. It was a commandment for Muslims at the time of prophet at a particular period of time regarding particular people. The verse itself later again stresses that this commandment is only for some particular disbelievers. If you don't believe me, ask an Islamic scholar. Moreover, you wrote as the Meccans were not oppressive to the Muslims. It seems to me that you overlook whatever Meccans did to Muslims. The verse 41:34 on the other hand is a general commandment because of its context:

"Who is better in speech than one who calls (men) to Allah, works righteousness, and says, "I am of those who bow in Islam"? Nor can goodness and Evil be equal. Repel (Evil) with what is better: Then will he between whom and thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and intimate! And no one will be granted such goodness except those who exercise patience and self-restraint,- none but persons of the greatest good fortune. And if (at any time) an incitement to discord is made to thee by the Evil One, seek refuge in Allah. He is the One Who hears and knows all things. Among His Sings are the Night and the Day, and the Sun and the Moon. Adore not the sun and the moon, but adore Allah, Who created them, if it is Him ye wish to serve. " (41:33-37)

You can find the Hadiths in the following websites: (search for “Bedouin” in the text)

http://www.geocities.com/ahlulbayt14/SayingsProphet.html

http://kabulvoice.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t52780-800.html

Hope this helps. Thanks --Aminz 08:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Within/Without

Would this article benefit from a division of the entire article into: criticism 1. from muslims and 2. from non-muslims ? DanielDemaret 13:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Muslims more tend to criticize the conduct or particular interpretation of some other Muslims rather than the Islam itself. Maybe creating an article titled "Criticism of Muslims" would be a better idea. --Aminz 22:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverting edits by Ashmoo

Why were these edits reverted? Rationales for his changes were provided, and they are in line with wikipedia policy. Yid613 07:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Because they were implicitly part of the Muslim responses to the criticisms. Those who added these passages to the text may have had this motivation. They are not irrelevant to the criticism. --Aminz 08:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Some other religions, Judaism for example, traditionally prescibed the same punishment. This statement, besides being (1) illogical when used to support an argument(another instance of ad hominem tu quoque), (2) uncited, and (3) completely ignorant of the fact that Jews haven't stoned adulters to death for thousands of years, (4) is not in response to any criticism. If we follow the section of the article, we have: (1) Qur'an orders hands chopped off; practice is rejected by many Muslims. (2) stoning of adulterers is in various schools of Shariah and is common in Islamist countries. (3) Judaism traditionally prescribed the same punishment. Besides being awkwardly placed, what actual criticism does this sentence constitute a Muslim response to? It can't constitute a denial of the claim that Islam mandates stoning of adulterers because it doesn't address that claim (which is why it is illogical). But although we can present illogical opinions in an article about opinions, in general, and despite the fact that Muslims may say this in response, it doesn't change the fact that the sentence isn't actually a response to anything, as well as the other three points above.

(1) It is not an instance of another instance of ad hominem tu quoque. It shows that the biblical God is strict in punishment and takes adultery serious. Okay, I agree that the sentence should be revised.(2) Being uncited does not mean it is wrong. (3) Fine. I'll change it. By the way, I have a question: Why did Jews stop stonning adulters? (4) Okay. I should rewrite the passage. Thanks for letting me know.

(1) I don't follow your logic. Of course it shows "that the biblical God is strict in punishment and takes adultery serious[ly]." I didn't dispute that. But how does that not make it an example of ad homineme tu quoque? It still is. Speaking only of the validity of arguments, the reason why the mention of the fact in that context is illogical because the fact or claim that the Bible prescribes stoning for adultery neither refutes the claim that Islamic law does the same, nor does it mean that Islamic law's prescription is any less worth critisizing. And speaking of whether it is appropriate for the article, being ad hominem tu quoque makes it inappropriate because a criticism of the Bible (or mentioning of something in the Bible that could be taken as a criticism) is outside of the scope of the article (whose scope is limited to "criticism of Islam").

(2) Of course it doesn't. I never claimed that it did. The sentence as a factual statement is true. But that it's true doesn't mean that its appropriate for the article. It is the latter that I was addressing.

(3) The briefest answer would be according to Jewish law (as explained in the Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin, only a certain type of court was alowed to administer capital punishments (excepting cases of treason, a king or priest being condemned, or an entire tribe being condemned). This type of court was the Lesser Sanhedrin, constituting 23 members. Jewish law also specifies that Lesser Sanhedrins can only be established and their members only appointed by the Great Sanhedrin, which had 71 members and was the Jewish Supreme Court. When the Roman Empire destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem and sent much of the Jewish population of Judea into their Diaspora, the Sanhedrin had to meet in isolation and was finally dissolved in 415 CE. Therefore, there was no Great Sanhedrin to establish and appoint members to Lesser Sanhedrins, and therefore there was no body with hte legal authority to sentence adulterers to death. "Sanhedrins" have been reconvened in tthe recent past, one by Napoleon and one present today in the State of Israel, but neither of these were/are universally recognized by Jews as authoritative. The most likely reason is that technically, the Sanhedrin isn't supposed to be reconvened until the Messiah comes. Yid613 09:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I personally don't like the Islamic harsh punishments. --Aminz 09:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That is very good to hear. Yid613 09:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

How is the current edit? --Aminz 10:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Thank you. Yid613 09:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Death penalties for adultery and sodomy have long been practiced by many religions. Only in recent years as a result of modern secular conceptions of human rights has this stopped being practiced. (For example, in England during the early 1900's, sodomy was punishable by death). Introducing Islamic law as an alternative for secular Western law, however, implies reintroduction of those death penalties. Same thing. What specific criticism does this statement constitute a response to? Even though this is an article that describes opinions, it doesn't mean that anything claimed is worthy of inclusion. By the definition of the scope of the article, a Muslim response to a criticism that hasn't been given is POV.

Yes. This may not be an answer to any criticism but describes opinions. Now, Is it worthy of being included? Should we vote for it? How can we know? I personally go for "yes". In anyway, thanks for your comments. --Aminz 09:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"Yes. This may not be an answer to any criticism but describes opinions." You are exactly right. "Now, Is it worthy of being included?" My answer is no, because it describes an opinion but (as you admit) doesn't respond to any criticism. Why is this so important? Because the scope of the article has been limited to "criticism of Islam". Since this statement is not on-topic, its inclusion gives the article just a sentence-worth of pro-Muslim POV. Yid613 09:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Some scholars such as Maurice Bucaille and Muhammad Hisham Kabbani claim that the Qur'an contains numerous scientific facts which were not known until recent times. Likewise, just because Muslims might claim this, it doesn't mean that it is a response to any criticism. Analyzing the article, we see that previously and afterward, the section mentions a criticism that is made that the Qur'an is inconsistent with science. The sentence above does not try to refute this criticism, rather it makes a seperate claim. That is why Ashmoo's edit summary said rm text that was neither a criticism or a response to crit. Since the scope of the article has been defined as discussion of criticism of Islam, any mention of claims unrelated to that topic is inappropriate and their inclusion tilts the article just a little towards that POV. Yid613 09:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

True, These claims are not direct response to the criticism but I think they are indirect responses. The main goal of the criticisms is to show that Muhammad himself is the writer of Quran since they claim that by the light of modern science we find wrong statements in Quran. Now, mentioning the claim "that the Qur'an contains numerous scientific facts which were not known until recent times" aims to response to this criticims at a higher level.--Aminz 09:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well thank you for explaining it. Now I know that it can be considered a response to criticism, but would never have known it from the article because as it is, the sentence is not a response to any criticism but rather an off-topic and pro-Muslim statement. Would it be ok if we added the explanation you just gave me above to the article, therefore making the sentence a direct and undisputed response to criticism (though of course we're not speaking of validity here)? :) Thanks. Yid613 09:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

How is the current version? --Aminz 01:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit, I thought my edits were fairly mild and was surprised when they got reverted wholesale. I find this Criticism article suffers from the same problems as other similar article such as 'Criticism of Catholicism', etc in that someone will insert a criticism and then supporters come in and add a couple of lines refuting the criticism.

I apologize for reverting your edits. From now on, I first discuss your edits here before reverting anything. --Aminz 08:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

As it is, almost ever sentence of criticism in this article is followed by at least a one sentence 'response', and then there is a whole section, which makes up a sizable portion of the article that is dedicated to Responses to Criticism.

There are many criticisms that are not responded in the body of the article e.g. criticism that Muhammad was possessed by Satan, or almost all the criticisms regarding Muhammad, or that Muhammad copied Quran from the Bible or ... The parts that required longer responses were included in the Muslim Responses part. Please note that answering a criticism usually requires more space than the criticism itself.(like a problem and its solution)--Aminz 08:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this article 'Criticisms of Islam' or 'Islamic Agologetics'? I think supporters are just going to have to try to restrain themselves when they see criticisms they stridently disagree with.

Yup. The reason why I started editing this article was because I saw sections that were nothing but Islamic apologetics, just as you imply above. Yid613 09:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should be about reporting what others think, not building a case, or trying to persuade the reader to a position. Regards, Ashmoo 23:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless we mention the Muslim responses, the article will persuade the reader to a position. --Aminz 08:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Perfectly true. But remember that before we started working together (and with N-Edits on the article, the Muslim response section, because it was POV, would have persuaded the reader to the opposite position, see, for example, what was changed or deleted in this edit. Yid613 09:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, you said: Unless we mention the Muslim responses, the article will persuade the reader to a position. I think this is the crux of our problem. But I really think we shouldn't underestimate the intelligence of the reader. This is why it is so important to provide sources for all the arguments. The article should describe Criticisms, not assess their validity. By this token, I think we shouldn't remove criticisms on the basis that they make no sense. Some criticisms of Islam are based on ignorance, and as long as we report the source, these criticism should be reported.

I think that there is a place for responses but if the response is larger than the criticism it should be farmed of to either another section or another page.

I know this is controversial, but I'm interested to hear what other editors think. Ashmoo 23:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that apologetics are obscuring the criticism. Linking muslim responses to each criticism section, rather than interlacing it with criticism seems like a possible way out. We could then have only one section titled Response to Criticism (could be a separate page), with each criticism section linking to the appropriate position.--LordRahl 04:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ashmoo, You can find the list of criticisms everywhere. Answering Islam has a long list of them. Anyway, we can not include all the criticisms since some of them are really out of ignorance and some of them are funny. I disagree. I think this article is good because it is a valuable collection of criticisms and Muslim answers. Nowhere on the internet can you find such a nice collection. Regarding moving Muslim responses to the end, this idea was previously proposed by Zora but was opposed by some editors. I think the current form of the article is good. One more thing, Ashmoo, this article is the result of the hard work of other people. Removing the answers wastes their efforts. --Aminz 09:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, I don't understand what you are trying to say with your first 3 sentences (everything up to I disagree), could you rephrase them, perhaps?

While I agree it would be nice to have a collection of criticisms and Muslim answers on the internet, you must remember this is an encyclopedia, and such a project doesn't belong here. Please go have a read of 'What wikipedia is not' WP:NOT. Lastly, although I am sensitive to the fact that many people have worked hard on this article and may take issue with some of their work being deleted, unfortunately, that isn't a very strong argument for retaining material that is poor style of wikipedia. All editors should know that anything they add to WP will be mercilessly edited or even removed. Peace, Ashmoo 07:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I read WP:NOT many years ago and again now at your suggestion. Could you please direct us to the section there that you feel makes this article inappropriate, and if you think it makes it clearer, perhaps quote the part here that conflicts with that policy, so we can see it a bit easier.DanielDemaret 07:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to come down to strongly on Aminz, or imply they were violating any policy. I think the current structure of the article is acceptable (but can do with a lot of work). I was more worried that Aminz might have an idea of what the article might become that wasn't in line with WP principles. Mostly, 'wikipedia is an encyclopedia' and what they were proposing doesn't sound like something you'd find in an encyc. Also, from [WP:NOT] 'WP is not a FAQ' and 'wiki is not your personal web space'. Ashmoo 08:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You too

Ashmoo omitted the sentence “Some other religions such as Judaism traditionally prescribe death punishment for apostasy and blasphemy (see stoning), but have in practice not executed these punishments for thousands of years. " from the article.

Although this sentence is not an explicit answer to any particular criticism but makes the Christian and Jew reader to think maybe there is some reason that there is such a commandment in the Bible. The answer to that question can be an answer to our criticism. If anybody knows why God prescribed such a commandment in Bible, I would appreciate it. Thanks. --Aminz 09:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, (assuming God did so) how could any of us know why God did that? Second of all, I will do some reading to see what the Talmud (Tractate Sanhedrin) says about it and try to report back to you. But third of all, I fail to see how any reason given by Judaism or Christianity could justify the inclusion of the sentence by backing it a response to the criticism. To state it simply, the criticism is "Islam is cruel and unprogressive because it kills people who leave it". Pointing out that fault in other religions (though it doesn't even exist in the Judaism of the past 2000 years) doesn't respond to that criticism because it doesn't and even doesn't attempt to prove that the death penalty of apostates does not make Islam cruel and unprogressive - rather it just tries to divert attention by getting people to think about the faults in other religions. If that punishment makes Islam bad, and Judaism and Christianity also have that (if they indeed really do), then believe it or not, Judaism and Christianity are also bad. Of course it would make Jews and Christians think - but as stated again, this article is not only a record of opinions, it is an article whose scope is very limited - criticisms of Islam and their responses. Since the critics are the plaintifs here, not the Muslims, the critics are the only people who can decide what criticisms they want to say, and you can't have a response to something that is not said. The criticism that "Judaism and Christianity have the death penalty for apostates" (though not fully true) is a criticism, of Judaism and Christianity - and belongs to another article. In other words, this article can not be a record of a full debate between Muslims in non-Muslims. Its scope is pre-specified. A response can only be given if what it is responded to has been said by the critics. Yid613 06:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yid613, though I can not really digest why Bible prescribes such a punishment, but I am sure that there should be some reason for that. It can be called “trust” in my terminology or “belief” in your terminology.

Your wording is vague and I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Are you referring to "trust" or "belief" by God or by the believers of those religions? Is there a sly implication to your sentence above (that the Bible does not come from God but from man and that is why man's "belief" is the reason for the content in the Bible)? Yid613 09:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I meant trust of believers in God. I can not imagine the other way around. Saying that "God has trust in something" doesn't make sense. I have trust that there should be some reason for such punishment, because God is merciful. It may be something that I may not be able to understand because of lack of my knowledge or understanding. --Aminz 09:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe as recompense, God forgives the sins of the apostate. But these answers have their own problems.

In Judaism, yes that is the general tradition. Yid613 09:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, please note that Christians unfortunately do not follow the Hebrew Bible laws.

Of course not. Christians believe that the New Testament "supercedes" the Hebrew Bible, just as a few Muslims have told me that the Qur'an "supercedes" "the Taurat, Injeel, and Zabur" (although I am aware that yours or other Muslims' interpretations of Islam's view on the Bible may be different).

Quran always talks completely respectful about your holy scriptures. It only criticizes the way that SOME Jews and Christians handle their scriptures. The concept that the Bible has been changed is never mentioned in Quran as many Muslims may think. To me, it is quite un-Islamic work to attack on the bible. --Aminz 09:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Salvation in Christianity is merely based on faith.

Untrue. Like Islam, salvation in Christianity is based both on faith and deeds (and as opposed to Judaism, in which any similar concept is based only on deeds). Yes, in Christianity there is no salvation without faith, as is in Islam. But what you have claimed above is an incorrect understanding of Christianity. Granted, there are some Evangelical Christians who I've heard tell me that salvation is based only on grace, and others (Roman Catholics who believe that both faith and good deeds are necessary. If you want I could easily find websites for both positions on the internet. While I'm hardly the type of person who usually defends Christianity, for what it's worth, the New Testament says "faith without deeds is dead." Yid613 09:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it depends on whom we ask. There are lots of different interpretations. Protestants and in particular their leader, Martin Luther deeply believed that faith alone is enough. In fact, the idea of justification by faith alone can be more seen in the works of Paul. The statement "faith without deeds is dead" however belongs to the episode of James. Martin Luther had a very low view of the episode of James and called it the episode of straw finding little in it referring to the Jesus and his saving work. According to many Christians, Jesus's sacrifice on the cross has paid the whole price for the price for our sins. Anyway, seems that I am more familiar with the protestant doctrine and you are more familiar with Catholic doctrine.--Aminz 09:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the [Second Vatican Council] faith is not such a big deal either. It seems to me that deeds are more important for salvation than what you believe in according to this. DanielDemaret 03:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I would be thankful if you could let me know what the Talmud (Tractate Sanhedrin) says about it. --Aminz 08:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I'll get on it. Thanks. Yid613 09:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

War and Violence

Yid613 added : "critics refer to many Islamic commentators, such as Hanbali scholar Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziya and Abu Fadl, who ..."

I think it should be changed to

"critics refer to some Islamic commentators, such as Hanbali scholar Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziya and Abu Fadl, who ..."

Would you please discuss this. Thanks --Aminz 00:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No objection. After all, the website only listed two. Yid613 05:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, however, you added the sentence It should be noted that most Muslims believe that the non-violent jihad is the "greater jihad" and the violent jihad is the "lesser jihad”. How do we know that "most" Muslims believe this? What source can their be to support this sentence in that particular wording? Would it be ok to change this also from "most" to either "many" or "some"? :) Yid613 06:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just copied the sentence I added from the jihad article. That is what that article says. I have another personal reason (you don't have to believe me of course) that most Muslims believe that 1. I didn't know that the Hadith is actually disputed before I saw your edits. It is a very well-known Hadith and I couldn't guess that it is disputed 2. The Hadith is included and taught in the text books of the educational system of my country.

Please have a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad#Greater_and_lesser_jihad

If you think there is not enough evidence, I will try to find enough evidence. Please let me know.

Technically what you have provided does not prove that "most" Muslims believe that, no. However, this one word is not worth bickering over and in reality has no tangible effect on the neutrality of the sentence, so just nevermind what I have said above. I am fine with saying "most".

I WILL NOT CHANGE "MANY" TO "SOME" in the sentence you added till I get your response. Thanks

--Aminz 08:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I gave my response above. When I wrote the sentence I didn't think of whether I should use "some" vs. "many", I just wrote it. I am fine with changing it. Yid613 08:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The picture added to Severe punishments

Please provide a reference for the picture. It seems to me that this picture is a forgery. Since when someone is stoned, he or she will be completely wrapped. This women's face is not wrapped. Please provide a valid reference for the picture. --Aminz 00:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There are other problems with this picture. It seems to me that this picture is a forgery. It will be removed until a reference is provided for the picture. Thanks.--Aminz 03:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's the link to the article: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16800 --LordRahl 04:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

There are two problems with this picture: 1. The person is not wrapped in a sheet and buried; but here the woman's face is not covered; 2. only male convicts are buried from the waist down; female convicts are buried deeper to prevent the breasts from becoming exposed. Because of these two reasons, this picture should be a forgery. --Aminz 04:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrong my friend - I suggest you do some reading on stoning of women before producing false accusations. Women are buried not as deep as men, to give them a chance of escaping (Islam's twisted logic behind equality of men and women). You can read about this here: http://www.iran-e-azad.org/stoning/women.html --LordRahl 18:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find anywhere in the link you sent saying "Women are buried not as deep as men, to give them a chance of escaping" could you please copy the exact sentence from the link. My information was based on the stoning article. Please have a look at it. In any case, I don't say that stoning is good or anything. I just say that that particular picture seems to be a forgery. I don't have any objection to having such a picture in the article. --Aminz 23:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of this talk page

Hey guys, could we limit talk on this page to actual discussion of changes to the article. Including general discussions on the nature or God, truth, reason etc just make it harder to find the article discussions. Thanks, Ashmoo 03:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ashmoo, They are not general discussions; they are all related to the criticism of Islam. But as you said, they are not related to changes to the article. Actually, I and Yid613 are going to finish our discussions soon. --Aminz 06:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You too; a suggestion

Hey guys,

I wanted to discuss a change to the article. Ashmoo omitted the sentence “Some other religions such as Judaism traditionally prescribe death punishment for apostasy and blasphemy (see stoning), but have in practice not executed these punishments for thousands of years. " from the article.

The article in a few paragraphs later compares Islam's prophet with biblical prophets. "Some critics believe that Muhammad compares poorly to the ethics of the Judaeo-Christian prophets which he claimed to be in succession."

Since the idea of comparing Islam with Judaism and Christianity does exist in the article, I think it would be fair to keep the sentence. Please let me know what you think. Thanks.--Aminz 07:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is important to keep arguments together. In a section that discusses the comparison between Islam and other religions I think the sentence I removed above would be acceptable. I don't think that the mere mention of the 'Muhammad compares poorly..' quote offers carte blanche to use 'they do too' arguments throughout the whole article.

But more importantly, I think we will do better if we insist of cites from notable sources for any arguments. That way we can avoid the problem of editors just putting in their own opinions. Ashmoo 23:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Aminz on this point. N-edits 14:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Remove "totally disputed" tag

It seems evident that this is not totally disputed and the use of this warning is taking a leap from the rational discussion of the content being done recently. Can we please remove this tag? Kyaa the Catlord 04:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I am personally fine with removing the tag. Let's see what other editors involved in this article think.--Aminz 06:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Several sections are not disputed. It is wiser to mark the disputed subsections as such rather than the whole article. This is recommended Wikipedia editing policy as well. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 09:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree. It's better to tag the disputed sections instead. -- Szvest 15:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Scientific Criticism

The scientific criticism section of the article needs citation, that part of the article only speculates of scientific inconsistencies between the quran and the hadith and doesn't provide verifiable sources, please provide reference for these or else it should be removed. your comments are much welcome. Mystic 07:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This section only seems to be having two websites that push their own POV on certain sentences in the Quran that they claim as scientifically inaccurate. There is no scholarly citation to the facts in the references.. The websites are only referencing from the Quran itself. And the websites are not published scholarly work. As is the references are Orginal research, and they cannot be used as references in an encyclopedia article. If this section was to be kept, we need to give better reference with peer reviewed books of scholars who criticize the quran as a scientifically inaccurate document. Mystic 15:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they should have their own POV. They are supposed to be criticial. You can make a new article and discuss the criticisms in more details there. Please consider the point that this section is the result of hard work of many editors before removing a section. --Aminz 19:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree it doesn't seem like hard work here.. I am not being rude but try giving this argument at the Criticism of Christianity article, you sure would be a failure.. Anyway I agree with those editors.. Any reference that you give for an encyclopedic article should be scholarly and must be peer reviewed specially criticizing a religion. When POV could easily effect the quality of the article. I would like to quote a sentence from the section "Critics of Islam, in turn, respond that the Quran does not contain modern scientific facts, but rather Islamic Scholars are themselves translating poetic phrases within the Quran to fit in with modern scientific ideas." Please somebody tell me who are these critics? What is the reference?

"Muslims suggest that the contradictions are the consequences of misreading, mistranslations, or misunderstandings of the text, resulting sometimes from the Qur’an’s complexity and the difficulty of translating it properly without mastery of classical Arabic.

Moreover, some Muslim cite scholars such as Maurice Bucaille and Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, who claim that the Qur'an contains numerous scientific facts which were not known until recent times, to respond to the assertion that the Qur'an was reflects the scientific understanding of 7th century Arabia rather than divine inspiration"

The above section is only a response to critics and it is not criticism. So should be included in response to criticism part. Overall this particular section needs to be re-written by an expert who can criticize the quran on this light with proper reference. P.S Perhaps Aminz could rewrite it. Since he has completed his exams ;-) Mystic 17:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Mystic, 1. You can just add the {{fact}} in front of the sentence. It does not justify removing them.

2. Yes, responses to critics should be at the end and indeed at some moment I wanted to move all responses to the end part of the article but many editors disagreed. In any case, it is good to have the responses within the article since it reduces redundancy.

3. Can you please again show me the material you wanted to add to the criticism of Christianity article. thx. Based on your request, I added some material there. --Aminz 04:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

reference to "sword verse 9:11"

This is a strange reference which i do not understand, and have removed for the time being. I assume it is a Quranic reference, but the Quran, in ch 9 vse 11, reads "But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity,- they are your brethren in Faith: (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand." I do not see any link with violence, but perhaps i have misunderstood what is being refered to. ch 11 vse 9 seems equally irrelevant. Given it is "9:11", this strange reference appears to be disingenuous.

129.12.200.49 18:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You might find this interesting. It should be in the quran: Quran (9:11) --For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah; and there was peace.

Sorry, your sources have told you a lie. --Aminz 03:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this is an urban legend debunked long ago. See Snopes[1] Ashmoo 03:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ashmoo! --Aminz 04:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Sword Verse

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)....." Surah 9:5

What Timothy had done

Hey, Aminz, I just went through and added links. I don't recall having altered any text (?). I didn't consider content. Of course that's only part of the verse.

The thing I don't like about all these links is that they clutter up the article as it appears in the edit box. In this way, templates are far preferable. However, the only template we have requires the display of the word Qur'an before the verse numbers, which isn't always needed, and itself can be clutter, does not allow multi-verse references to display correctly, and requires these ugly zeros before the numbers. I don't think we can do anything about the last point, but the other two can be solved, I think, with alternative templates. I'm working on it. Also, a Bukhari template would be desirable.Timothy Usher 10:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I have misunderstood your edit summary "one guess as to what I've done in this edit". I thought it was a hint for someone to add that this is only part of the verse. I didn't think you have changed the text. Adding the reference for verses was a very good idea and I appreciate it. Thank you. --Aminz 09:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I was just being silly. All my edits were adding references, and it was getting boring writing, "added link" and the like, so I wrote that. I'll be back at it shortly, hopefully with a few alternate templates to supplement my arsenal.Timothy Usher 09:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Your taking care of the templetes is appreciated! --Aminz 10:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

New link

Hey Aminz, I believe that adding this one internal link from Criticism of Islam to Terrorism is appropriate, and I dispute your characterization of its addition as vandalism. In case you haven’t noticed all of the terrorist attacks of late have been by Muslims, and I think that the apparent propensity of Muslims toward the use of terrorist tactics can be construed as a valid criticism.

Unless of course it's simply your intention to use Wikipedia to force your POV down the throats of myself and everyone else who would read this article. "How dare you have the audacity to link Muslims to Terrorists! In real life Muslims are always peaceful! Muslims are NEVER Terrorists!!!"

Right?

Look, I'm not trying to start a revert war, nor I am vandalising your precious muslims pages. I just honestly feel that any article that discusses muslims in the real world should at least touch on the subject of terrorism. Seanr451 11:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Seanr451, I am sorry for giving you a {{test1}}. You know many editors do distort the article in bad faith and I had mistaken you with one of them. (Just have a look at the history of page Allah for example).

I still think your addition to the articles Islam and Criticism of Islam as you did was not proper since by the same standard there should be a link to anti-Judaism from Christianity article (Have a look Martin Luther and the Jews). Yes, there has been a period of time that the some adherents of a religion have misused their religion but this does not qualify adding the tag to the article of that religion. These issues have their own article. (e.g. Islamic extremist terrorism).

As to the article "Criticism of Islam", what you linked is more related "Criticism of some Muslims" rather to criticism of Islam. Thanks --Aminz 19:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that there should be a link from the Christianity article to the Salem Witch Trials and the Crusades. Fair is fair. I'm not picking on the Muslims, I'm simply trying to add a LINK to an article. Since you're all not interested in allowing me that (cause apparently you own Wikipedia now) I am instead going to write a small section on Islam and Terrorism and add that to the article. Given the recent history of Islam and Terrorism you'd have a hard time justifying deleting that section from the article. I thought that just a simple link would be enough, but your actions have proven otherwise to me. Seanr451 19:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Seanr451, I replaced your terrorism link with Islamic extremist terrorism here. I don't own wikipedia. And you are always welcome to write a section but the wikipedia has its own rules, so you should prepare your write up carefully enough so that it does not get removed by other editors. Also, if you feel I am unfair, you can always contact wikipedia administrators. I am an editor just as much as you are. If you feel I am unfair, then you must contact a wikipedia administrator at least in order to prevent me from doing the same thing to other editors. Again, we have exactly the same rights here. Thanks. --Aminz 20:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. At least you are acknowledging that there is a link (no matter how tenuous or undeserved) between Islam and terrorism. That was all I wanted to do. In the future you might think a little bit before you kneejerkedly delete something that you don't agree with and slap a "Do not Vandalise" warning on someone's talk page. Seanr451 21:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that there is a link from "Some interpretations of Islam" to "Terrorism" and that I acknowledge that I made a mistake in giving you a {{test1}} warning on your talk page. My impression of your addition of "Terrorism" link to "Islam" article was that you are making a link from "Islam in its general sense" to "Terrorism". I apologize for my misunderstanding. --Aminz 23:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Since this is, after all, the criticism page, it seems like a more reasonable place to put it than Islam, as discussed on that talk page.Timothy Usher 01:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant Qur'anic quotes removed

I removed five Qur'anic quotes - the first appeared after a passage about the death of Muhammad's son, but didn't have anything obvious to say about it, while the other four were in their own section and called "relevant", but as no other text was in this section, it was impossible to see what they were said to be relevant to.Timothy Usher 01:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, why were they irrelavant? I spend much time finding these verses. The are supposed to show that Muhammad was not a liar. Could you please explain. --Aminz 02:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't get that at all. I can see this with ^{[Quran 10:17]}, but the others weren't obviously about this to me. Actually, even that one seems irrelevant. I'll take another look. Feel free to restore them if you like.

However, considering that one part of Muhammad being thought a liar is that he might have lied about part of the Qur'an, I can't see how quoting the Qur'an really helps anymore than if he'd simply said, "I'm not a liar."Timothy Usher 03:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Timothy here, Aminz. Quoting the Qur'an (which its critics would say was written by Muhummad) isn't a very strong way to prove that Muhummad isn't a liar. That is, the only people who take the Qur'an as 'proof' of a point already believe that Muhummad didn't lie. Or am I misunderstanding what you are trying to say? Ashmoo 03:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, that section is supposed to argue that Muhammad didn't tell lie about recieving revelation. Maybe the subtitle should make it more precise. Ashmoo I chose those verses in order to show Muhammad's sincerety + the difficulties of his mission and his patience. I'll restore them since I spent much time on selecting them. --Aminz 03:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Befriending the Christians or Jews

This section of the article needs serious attention.. As this section doesn't have any scholarly reference. Its only quoting from the primary source and not providing any scholarly reference that critcizes Islam in this way. Please provide proper reference otherwise this section should be removed. Thanks  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 06:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Agree, This section should be removed. --Aminz 20:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Karl, please provide references for this section, otherwise it will be removed. --Aminz 20:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Mystic, honestly, I don't personally support removal of the second section ("Alleged lack of reciprocity"). --Aminz 20:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Alleged lack of reciprocity section also doesn't provide any sources, that criticize Islam this way. And it should be removed.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 07:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I updated this section and now there is a source for the criticism that is made in this section, and the criticism has been attributed to this source. -- Karl Meier 15:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Alleged lack of reciprocity

This section has no reference whatsoever, so the section is removed.. It had been on the article long enough for someone to add reference, if there are so many sources as claimed by User:ProhibitOnions, I kindly request the editor to add the section back with his/her "so many" scholarly sources. But as of now it is orginal research. And has no place in wikipedia. Any experienced editor in wikipedia knows that you cannot just quote from the primary source and arrive at your own conclusion, when your article is about that source. You need to provide, peer reviewed, published, secondary sources that actualy criticize Islam in this way. Because anyone can claim, that "Ali Sina said this", "Ali Sina said that.." I can also add a section saying Ali Sina (I dont know whether I spelt this guys name correctly pardon me for that) denied all what he said at a later stage. If I cannot prove this with a proper published work it wont be true isn't it?. I would also like to learn the wikipedia policy that states, removing sections of an article, in the pretext of no reference is vandalism. If there is any.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 06:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a web link to a criticism like this is not sufficent, is Ali Sinai an expert on Islamic theology? Is this argument of his been published by anyone as a peer reviewed publication?

These criticisms will only undermine the credibility of this article and wikipedia as a whole, especially when there are hundereds of hadith supporting the so called "Golden Rule" I quote some hadith from Sahih muslim here.

Chpater 18

Book 001, Number 0072:

It is arrested on the authority of Anas b. Malik that the Prophet (may peace and blessings be upon him) observed: one amongst you believes (truly) till one likes for his brother or for his neighbour that which he loves for himself. Sahih Muslim, 1:72

Book 001, Number 0073:

It is narrated on the authority of Anas that the Prophet (may peace blessings be upon him) observed: By Him in whose Hand is my life, no, bondsman (truly) believes till he likes for his neighbour, or he (the Holy Prophet) said: for his brother, whatever he likes for himself.Sahih Muslim, 1:72

Chapter 19: CONCERNING THE PROHIBITION TO HARM NEIGHBOUR

Book 001, Number 0074:

It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace and blessing be upon him) observed: He will not enter Paradise whose neighbour is not secure from his wrongful conduct.Sahih Muslim, 1:74 also see

• Sahih Muslim, 1:75
• Sahih Muslim, 1:76
• Sahih Muslim, 1:77
• Sahih Muslim, 1:78

These hadith prove beyond doubt “Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you” is there in Islam, Adding nonesense sections to this article will seriously undermine the credibility of wikipedia. So keep away nonesense from it..  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 19:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Gotten better

This article has gotten much better. It still needs much more work, but I wanted to thank the Muslims who have been working to make the article a neutral POV. It's difficult for Muslims and even non-Muslims who have studied religion to read this particular article. It's full of inaccuracies.

On more than one occasion, the Prophet said, "Could any of you beat his wife as he would beat a slave, and then lie with her in the evening?" (Bukhari and Muslim).

--JuanMuslim ^1m 23:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

JuanMuslim, can you please provide references for this? Thanks and your helps with the article will be appreciated. Please help reducing the inaccuracies. Thanks --Aminz 23:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You can do searches on haddith at Search Haddith Online

With reference to the haddith I mentioned earlier...Vol8 Bk73 Nu68

--JuanMuslim ^1m 22:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's another from Abu Dawd

Abu-Dawud Book 11, Number 2138: Narrated Mu'awiyah ibn Haydah: I said: Apostle of Allah, how should we approach our wives and how should we leave them? He replied: Approach your tilth when or how you will, give her (your wife) food when you take food, clothe when you clothe yourself, do not revile her face, and do not beat her.

--JuanMuslim ^1m 23:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

So, why don't you add it to the article yourself? Please enrich the article whenever you found a sourced material. Just noticed (Bukhari 7:67:449) is about beating animals, shoot! place replace it with your above quote. --Aminz 04:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Islam and Terrorism

Why is their not a specific section dealing with what must be the most relevant criticism of Islam, that is breeds harbours and defends terrorists.

Why is this "the most relevant"? While such criticism is widespread, some would argue it is not particularly relevant to the religion of Islam. In any case, if you can find reputable sources discussing such criticism (which <http://www.thereligionofpeace.com> is not), we could start work on such a section without violating the policies of no original research and verifiability. --Lambiam^Talk 08:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Per recommendation, propose the following section and preliminary material and citations:

---

===Islam and Terrorism=== New Section

“The September 11, 2001 World Trade destruction and high frequency of jihadists classified as terrorists have inspired numerous examinations of Muhammd'sMuhammad’s life and Islam for their causes. Criticism of Muhammad’ character or actions can be highly explosive and result in a fatwa, riots, and/or murder. See: Rushdie, Muhammad Cartoons. Some trace this to Muhammad’s strong objection to criticism and approval of the consequent murder of those critics. See: Al-Nader, Ocba, Asthma bint Marwan, Abu Afak. Mark A. Gabriel details the worldview and basis for jihadists. Don Richardson (2003) points to strong differences between major principles of the Judeo-Christian Civilization from the Bible with those of the Qur'an, and to Muhammad’s character. Daniel Pipes reviews jihadist attacks. He finds the jihadist minority converting moderates to radicalism, but moderates not changing radicals to moderation."

---

--DLH 14:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC) --DLH 14:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism... Where?

Did a jihadist write this or what? There is no criticism in this article. It simply refutes every criticism. The entire article needs to be redone, everything. (Anonymous User) May 23, 2006

I agree with your concerns. The article is almost noting but apologist POV nonsens, and it has also been polluted by more general discussions of subjects that is not directly relevant to this article. I've deleted some of the more extreme stuff, but of course much, much work is needed. I'll add a much needed pov tag to it. -- Karl Meier 14:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Morality of the Quran

This section again lacks reference or references are just pure mudslinging websites, which has no authenticity. Please try and reference to these sections. The state of this article is pathetic. I Agree on this with Karl.-- «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 19:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

New Page: Muhammad's Character

The section on Muhammad addresses Muhammad's character, not "Criticism of Islam." The overall section is also getting long. Recommend that this material on Muhammad be placed in a major breakout article by itself titled Muhammad's Character and linked back to the main biography on Muhammad and to this Criticism of Islam page. Under the Title propose links to both Islam and Muhammad. Character is a more neutral term than "Criticism" and allows both sides to address the issue.

Propose the following paragraph in the main article on Muhammad linking to this new breakout page Muhammad's Character:

---

Muhhamad’s character

Main article Muhammad’s character

Muslims view Muhammad as patient, righteous, holy, and exhibiting other high moral qualities expected of a prophet. Others question his relations with women. They observe his strong reaction to criticism and approval of critics consequent murders. Vis Al-Nader, Ocba, Asthma bint Marwan, Abu Afak. Some scholars view Muhammad’s character favorably with principles of Western civilization. e.g., Sir William Muir, and D. S. Margoliouth. Zwemer, Don Richardson (2004) and others detail differences with major Western principles. See also Muhammad's marriages, Rushdie, Muhammad Cartoons, Criticism of Islam, Banu Qurayza.

---

Some of the general comments relating to Muhammad's character could be moved to this section. Recommend listing these "See also" breakout pages with this section as they all address his character.

See corresponding parallel proposal under Muhammad, sub section Muhammad's Character

---

Note that the citation to Weil is ambiguous. Needs to be further detailed. e.g. does this refer to

"Gustav Weil (1808-1889), German Orientalist (JE)"???

---

--DLH 12:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Fixed links in proposed paragraph per changes in Muhammad Muhammad's character discussion.--DLH 13:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

General technical cleanup

The grammar in this article was absolutely terrible, so I took a couple hours to clean it up. I tried to avoid making qualitative changes to the article (except for removing one egregiously POV and unsourced sentence that claimed that the Qu'ran is generally considered to be an 'impressive piece literature' even by non-Muslim scholars). Apologies if I broke anything. - Merzbow 07:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I also appear to have stumbled into the middle of an ongoing edit 'skirmish' regarding the slavery passage. I don't have a horse in this race at the moment so I'm going to restore the latest version of this passage (with cleaned-up grammar) and let others argue over it. - Merzbow 07:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed unsourced claims from the slavery section per WP:V, which says: Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." It's unacceptable to insert original research into the article and hope that it can stay with a "fact" tag; as Jimbo says, unsourced information must be removed aggressively. Pecher ^Talk 08:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup, this article contains lots of uncited speculation, particularly those passages that simply excerpt and interpret the Qu'ran. It's going to need a lot of work to get it up to the standards of many of the other Islam-related articles. - Merzbow 15:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

N-edits - The addition you made to the intro and the statement that "The Qur'an is generally considered, even by non-Muslim scholars, to be a very moving and impressive piece of literature" are both incredibly POV and unsourced, and so I removed them. Also, you replaced a well-written and informative, although unsourced, passage in the 'Domestic Violence' section with a shorter, much more POV, and mangled passage. This I reverted also. Also, if you want English spellings for words, that's fine, but change it consistently, not only in some places. Other changes were OK (although I had to refix grammar in some places). - Merzbow 18:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following from "domestic violence": One often-debated issue relating to the accusation that Islam supports domestic violence is the meaning of the word "idribuhnna" in the above verse. Islamic scholars argue strongly that the above verse describes a light beating. Under this interpretation, only light beating is instructed by the above verse of the Qur'an. as it is a repeat of the extant paragraph. Feel free to revert it, but it makes no sense to say it twice. LeeG 01:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Size of article and 'Context' text

The article is currently 65kb. This is twice the recommended size. Can we get some consensus on the use of 'context setting'? By context setting, I mean paragraphs that explain what Muslims believe. I think we can reduce the size by removing all but the most necessary 'context'. Readers can go to the article on Islam, Mohammed, Qu'ran etc to get the basics of Muslim belief. Everything else should be explained in the specific sentence explaining the criticism. eg. Instead of

Muslims belief the Qu'ran was recited word to word to Mohammed by the Archangel Gabriel.

Critics question the Qu'ran is the literal word of God.

The following is just as understandable:

Critics question the Muslim belief that the Qu'ran is the literal word of God, recited to Mohammed.'

Ashmoo 01:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. - Merzbow 02:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ashmoo, you always do a wonderful job in removing the extra stuff. Go ahead!

BTW, we can make sub-articles for Muhammad (section 2) and Qur'an (section 3). A link from here to sections of those sub articles can be made. The article will look nicer I believe. How is that? --Aminz 03:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's separate criticism from response

The criticisms are presented in sections, and short responses to those criticisms inline with those sections. But then at the end of the article we have a huge section dedicated to nothing but Muslim responses to these criticisms. This is neither fair nor well-structured. I'd like to see one of two things happen:

1. Keep the criticisms in the top half of the article, and keep the responses in the bottom half, completely separate.
2. Eliminate the dedicated responses section and merge the responses completely into the topical sections.

This would also serve to shrink the article since there much duplicated unsourced discussion. Can we at least get an agreement in principle to do one of these two things? My preference is option 2. Putting the criticisms and the responses together in one place for each topic makes it easier for the reader to get the information he needs than widely separating things out. - Merzbow 02:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think option 2 is also the way to go. It is more logical and has better flow. Ashmoo 02:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Long time ago, I separated criticisms from Reponses per Zora's request but I was pushed back by a couple of editors. The problem with 1 as Ashmoo pointed out is that it does not flow well. However merging responses to the criticisms is practically impossible. For example, the criticism that Muhammad was possessed by Satan: It is practically impossible to insert Muslim responses to this criticism at the top of the article. --Aminz 03:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've got an idea. Above you're suggesting splitting off the Quran and Muhammad sections into sub-articles. This is a good idea. Also note that the 'Muslim Responses' section is 90% Quran and Muhammad. So when we split off those aub-articles, we can move the associated 'responses' as well. The sub-articles could then be organized in a balanced way with criticisms and responses completely intermixed or separate. This would leave the main article with smaller topics, in which the criticisms and responses can be more easily mixed, and the dedicated 'Responses' section could then go away. - Merzbow 05:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea! --Aminz 06:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Often warlike manner

Please add a reference for the following sentence:"Muhammad is further criticised for the often warlike manner [citation needed] in which Islam expanded under his leadership. [citation needed]"

Thanks, --Aminz 00:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

We also need references for all of the passages that just quote the Quran and give unsourced commentary. If the commentary is accurate these should be relatively easy to provide simply by consulting one of the well-footnoted Quran translations like Yusuf Ali's. - Merzbow

Can you please let me know which quotes and commentaries you are refering to? I'll try to provide sources for them. Thanks, --Aminz 02:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a bunch of citation-needed marks to the article. I marked all the places where Quranic interpretation is given without a source other than the Quran. I also marked up several places where a person's views, like those of Gary Miller, are discussed without references to their works. - Merzbow 03:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks Merzbow. I will try to make them referenced as soon as I can. I am actually working on the article from top to the bottom. --Aminz 04:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

New section: "Sources of Qur'an"

I think this section can be created and then the section "Criticism from the Biblical point of view" & "Other notable passages" can be merged into it. Catholic Encyclopedia suggests 6 sources for Qur'an:

   * The Old Testament (canonical and apocryphal) 
   * The New Testament (canonical and apocryphal) 
   * Sabaism, a combination of Judaism, Manicheism, and old disfigured Babylonian heathenism.
   * Zoroastrianism. 
   * Hanifism
   * Native ancient and contemporary Arabian heathen beliefs and practices. 

Any feedback? --Aminz 03:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I say remove the section 'The origins of the Qu'ran', and promote both the 'Compilation' and 'Claim of Divine Origin' subsections, renamed 'Compilation of the Qu'ran' and 'Sources of the Qu'ran'. Then expand the 'Sources of...' section with your proposed info above (as part of the criticism arguing for a human origin). - Merzbow 04:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds Good! We thus have three goals: 1. Providing references - 2. Re-structuring the Qur'an section as you suggested 3. Forming sub-articles and killing the Muslim responses section.

I think it will take time to do all these. But it is a good agenda. --Aminz 04:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A better heading - Domestic violence

Does anybody have a suggestion for a the "Domestic violence" section? --Aminz 04:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't really think of a better name. Right now it only discusses the 'beating' passage, but renaming the section 'wife-beating' is probably too specific (and not really in good taste). - Merzbow 05:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Domestic Violence seems ok to me. What problem do you have with it? The only other name I can think of is Beating of wives. Ashmoo 05:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Merzbow and Ashmoo! The problem I have with this is that the title implies more than that the section is about Domestic violence; it actually implies that "Domestic violence" is prescribed by Qur'an. For example, if we make a section in "Islam" article with the title "Muslims killing themselves", it implies that it has actually happened (i.e. it says more than that section talks about this issue).

My suggestion is something like "Domestic behavior". Please let me know what you think. Thanks --Aminz 08:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think that domestic violence is not prescribed by the Quran? It looks like a command to me - if you fear rebellion, beat her. God knows Muslim societies are far more prone to domestic violence than non-Muslim ones (and before anyone complains, the WHO says so, not just anyone with any experience of Muslim countries). Lao Wai 08:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think saying Qur’an prescribes “Domestic violence” as you put it is kind of unfair. Excluding the minority view on the word “dharaba”, the commandment as I understand is that one must first talk and then avoid sexual contact that provides the necessary time and space for both parties to cool off, reason, examine the problem and reach a favorable agreement for both of them. The beating is the last alternative. Secondly, the word “nashooz” is only applied to particular actions. Thirdly, here are a couple of other verses:

030.021 YUSUFALI: And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquillity with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): verily in that are Signs for those who reflect.

004.019 YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may Take away part of the dower ye have given them,-except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good.

002.229 YUSUFALI: A divorce is only permissible twice: after that, the parties should either hold Together on equitable terms, or separate with kindness. It is not lawful for you, (Men), to take back any of your gifts (from your wives), except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah….

Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri: "I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)"

Narrated Mu'awiyah ibn Haydah: "I said: Apostle of Allah, how should we approach our wives and how should we leave them? He replied: Approach your tilth when or how you will, give her (your wife) food when you take food, clothe when you clothe yourself, do not revile her face, and do not beat her. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2138)"

--Aminz 23:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact is the word "first", "next" and "last" in that translation were added by Westernised Muslims. They are not in the original which has if you fear nushuz, reprimand, ignore or beat in no particular order. Nushuz is clearly translated as rebellion or disobedience and this is invariably how Muslim men understand it. Where are the commentaries that spell out exactly what it is?

I was trying to get access to Tafsir Ibn Khatir, but it seems it is no longer available online. Yusuf Ali quotes Imam Shafai who is not a modern scholar. I am not good in arabic but I can see the letter "fa" at the beginning of each verb (fa-zaraboohonna) ,etc which supports a particular order. But I am no good in Arabic. Nashooz is understood by many to mean "disloyalty" and not "disobedience". Again I know nothing. I think it would be great if you could find a famous ("un-Westernised" :) ) Muslim scholar and add a quote from him to the article. --Aminz 03:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the other commandments, well the Quran is a big book. It says a lot of things. It is clearly aware of how a marriage ought to be. But one things it does not say is that wife beating is wrong and one of the things it does not condemn is wife beating.

Yes as far as the Sunan Abu Dawud goes, but you have to read down a little further

Book 11, Number 2141:

Narrated Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab:

Iyas ibn Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) as saying: Do not beat Allah's handmaidens, but when Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) complaining against their husbands. So the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: Many women have gone round Muhammad's family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you.

Book 11, Number 2142:

Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.

Well, I can say #11:2142 is really strange and in contradiction with other things I have been taught in school,... I was taught that the second thing man is asked after death is how he/she has treated his/her mate(the first is about God, prophet,...) . I don't have anything to say about this Hadith. Something has went wrong here. --Aminz 03:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

So presumably the "do not beat" refer to the other hadith "do not strike her in the face". Muhammed gave men permission to beat their wives and the Quran reflects this. Lao Wai 09:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, please note that beating wives has a long history. There was a time in the history that women were not considered as humans, or were considered humans but inferiors to men, etc. Our view in modern times has become much better. And as to your point, yes, in Muslim countries (and some other countries), some Muslim men do beat their wives, true, but that's a "criticism of Muslims" not a "criticism of Islam". What about "Domestic behavior" as a title? It is more general, more neutral, and opens the door to other related possible criticisms. --Aminz 23:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There has never been a time that I am aware that women were not considered humans. Inferiors perhaps, but the Quran does little to correct that view either. It is a criticism of Muslims, but it is also clearly a criticism of Islam in that their behaviour is rooted in Islamic norms. Muslims do this or people influenced strongly by Islam. I think neutrality on some issues is a mistake and anyway the complaint is not about domestic behaviour but beating. Lao Wai 09:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I was telling the story from very long time ago. Women were universally treated badly till recently (and actually it continues to even now - it is men who are actually defining "values"). And its reason is clear. Women were staying in cave and men were going out for haunting. What is more important than the ability to haunt? ;) Hey, did you ever note that most of Hadiths are narrated by men? :)

Religion and Culture and lots of other factors have impacts on each other. All societies can be criticized. If one wants to blame religion for all bad things, all religions are to be denounced. And to be honest with you, I haven't seen anybody beating his wife because of following God's commandment. That would be a funny thing to do! --Aminz 04:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The material added, I believe, qualifies renaming the title of the section into "Domestic behaviour". Please argue against it (using quotes from some famous scholars) if you want, unless I will go ahead and rename the section. Thanks. --Aminz 05:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, when you quote Yusuf Ali's commentary, can you reference a specific edition of his translation and page number? There are many editions of his English translation, some of which have revised commentary and some which do not (and some which contain no commentary whatsoever). Thanks. - Merzbow 05:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow, here is where I found those quotes: http://www.ilaam.net/Questions/ViolenceWomen.html . --Aminz 05:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A new criticism

Here is the text I found from Muir's work:

"On his return from Hodeibia, as I have before related, in the spring of the year 628, Mahomet had promised to those who accompanied him in that pilgrimage the early prospect of a rich and extensive plunder. The summer passed without any enterprise whatever; and his followers began to be impatient for the fulfilment of their expectations. But quiet and peace still prevailed around. Mahomet probably waited for some act of aggression on the part of the Jews of Kheibar (it was the fertile lands and villages of that tribe which he had destined for his followers), or on the part of their allies the Bani Ghatafan, to furnish the excuse for an attack. But no such opportunity offering, he resolved, in the autumn of this year, on a sudden and unprovoked invasion of their territory."

It says that the reason for attacking khaybar was to fulfill promises Muhammad had given (to those who accompanied him regarding the booty of the war).

I am trying to find the Muslim responses to this criticism (that could be made and it should have been made by someone) and then add everything together somewhere in the article. Can anybody help me here? Thanks --Aminz 08:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad

I removed the following paragraph

Muslims consider Muhammad to be the final and greatest prophet, the messenger of the final revelation, the Qur’an. Muslims believe that Muhammad was righteous and holy. However, according to some critics, parts of his life appear to show great immorality. Some critics believe that Muhammad compares poorly to the ethics of the Judaeo-Christian prophets which he claimed to be succeeding. Islamic scholars disagree, especially when the comparison is made between Muhammad and Biblical prophets. Muslims have also questioned the historical evidence for some of Muhammad's alleged immoral acts.

someone can add this paragraph back if they could, tell me,

• who are these critics in -> "However, according to some critics" and "Some critics believe"
• who are these scholars in -> "Islamic scholars disagree"

this I believe qualifies as weasel wording and original research, both are evil in wikipedia.

thanks  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 08:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

One such critic is Ali Sina who has said harsh words against Muhammad. One Apologist is Osama Abdullah. Who is that? --Aminz 08:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

But I am fine with removing " Some critics believe that Muhammad compares poorly to the ethics of the Judaeo-Christian prophets which he claimed to be succeeding. " unless one finds a good reference. How is that? --Aminz 08:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Mystic, almost the entirety of the 'Muslim responses' section is unsourced OR, so that would equally deserve to go. But for now we are holding off because everyone is aware of the situation with sources and is actively working to fix it, and we don't want to butcher the article in the meantime. Anyways, Aminz' compromise version of this paragraph is fine for now. (Aminz, are you working on making the Quran and Muhammad sub-articles yet)? - Merzbow 16:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow is right. It is better just to specify the places needs to be changed. The article is currently in a bad shape. And it is everywhere, not just Muslim responses. For example, though I think "Muhammad is further criticised for the often warlike manner [citation needed] in which Islam expanded under his leadership. " is not 100% true but I am keeping it. I believe some scholars may describe spread of Islam as "often warlike manner" but not all while this sentence states it as a fact. But it is fine to keep it as long as one can find an appropriate "replace" for it.

Merzbow, I am still in the stage (1) of our agenda. I am trying to find references for the claims. But I can not do it all myself. I need help. Merzbow, if you can help with the making the Quran and Muhammad sub-articles, that would be great. Thanks --Aminz 17:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll make an attempt at the Muhammad sub-article. I'm also collecting books in an attempt to build up references. Merzbow 17:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

hi Amin and Merzbow,

Muslims consider Muhammad to be the final and greatest prophet, the messenger of the final revelation, the Qur’an. Muslims believe that Muhammad was righteous and holy. However, some scholars such as Sir William Muir and Marcus Dods see some of his actions as very immoral.

• could you provide a reference for the bold section, I am sure you read it somewhere and should be having the reference. I dont know the source otherwise I would've included them.

 «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 18:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

We have the following sourced material. "Sir William Muir, Marcus Dods, and some others have suggested that Muhammad was at first sincere but later became deceptive. Koelle finds "the key to the first period of Muhammad's life in Khadija, his first wife", after whose death he became prey to his "evil passions." "

I will replace "Marcus Dods" with Koelle due to his usage of the word "evil passions". I'll try to find something for Muir. --Aminz 20:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther quote

I tried hard but I can't find a source for this statement: "Martin Luther referred to Muhammad as 'a devil and first-born child of Satan.'" - Merzbow 07:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

YOUR FATHER YOU ******** JEWISH --195.229.242.54 21:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)