Talk:Criticism of Islam/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

untitled (to do)

Lead section is too short given the length of the article. Four paragraphs of the current length would be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard001 (talk • contribs) 16 May 2008‎

untitled (to do)

i dunno how this works but i wanted to add a refutation to link/source number [32] http://islamic-replies.ucoz.com/2/Refuting_Infidels_Org_Cosmology.html this will also show that the criticism is very biased and does not fulfill aspects of neutrality — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.233.95.170 (talk) 9 May 2011

Flagged as not meeting Wikipedia's quality standards

As just a casual (but regular) reader of Wikipedia, this article seems to be in at least the top 5% of Wikipedia articles, and therefore meets and exceeds the standards set by the rest of Wikipedia. I propose that enhancements to the style be made transparently by concerned and knowedgeable people who find something dissatisfactory, instead of displaying a glaring flag that reduces readers' expectations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.80.160 (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ali Dashti and Turan Dursun are missing

The Persian scholar Ali Dashti (1894-1982) and the Turkish scholar Turan Dursun (1934-1990) and their criticism of Islam are not mentioned in the article. Could someone do that? English is not my native language, otherwise I'd do it myself. 213.196.250.177 (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Watt" :
  • {{cite book | last=Watt | first=W. Montgomery | title=Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman | pages=61| year=1961 | publisher=Oxford University Press | id=ISBN 0-19-881078-4}}
  • {{cite book | last=Watt | first=W. Montgomery | url=http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/watt.html | title=Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman | pages=229 | year=1961 | publisher=Oxford University Press | id=ISBN 0-19-881078-4}}
• "Modood" :
  • {{cite book | title=Multiculturalism, Muslims and Citizenship: A European Approach | author=Tariq Modood | publisher=Routledge | edition=1st | date=2006-04-06 | id=ISBN 978-0415355155 | pages=3, 29, 46}}
  • {{cite book | title=Multiculturalism, Muslims and Citizenship: A European Approach | author=Tariq Modood | publisher=Routledge | edition=1st | date=2006-04-06 | id=ISBN 978-0415355155 | page=29}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Propose rename

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was I propose we rename this to "Views on Islam".

Reason: Although there is criticism of Islam, there is also praise of Islam. Many scholars have stated that Islam teaches tolerance and peace. Others have praised it for the reforms it brought during 7th century Arabia. Still others have defended it from criticism. Thus we should incorporate both views in the article, balancing it. The other alternative would be to create another article called "Praise of Islam".Bless sins (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with that logic. That would be the more neutral action to take. The more NPOV, the better.Opticals (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a rename only though, because you would be changing the scope of the article. I would suggest keeping the present article since it is very long and still only a brief introduction to criticism of Islam; reducing the criticism part would only result in loss of information. Views on Islam (or appraisal of Islam or w/e) would have to be a new article, in my opinion. A praise of Islam article is also an option. There aren't any precedents with other religion article for this sort of thing, but that doesn't rule it out. Richard001 (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel that an article like 'praise of Islam' would be inherently violating WP:NPOV. I think that positive and negative appraisals can and should be mentioned together under the general scope of 'views' or 'perceptions' of Islam. Futhermore, it also allows for us to cover academic views - not necessarily positive or negatuve - which are not mainstream (and would thus not receive coverage in the main articles like Islam) such as Luxenburg's revisionist view of the Qur'an. As it currently stands, the article only focuses on a particular skew in rather linear fashion. Neutralising the title and widening the scope will allow for an article with much more encyclopedic potential. What do you think? ITAQALLAH 15:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

By that logic, wouldn't this article, criticism of Islam, be inherently violating WP:NPOV also. I guess having something like views/perceptions of Islam, that could have the praise, the criticism and the general marginal views, that do not necessarily praise or criticize, is best.Opticals (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the rationale behind renaming this article. To make it WP:NPOV we might incorporate both positive as well as negative views as well (in a neutral way obviously). 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. - Merzbow (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Renaming this article would be fundamentally counterproductive. Criticism, and views in general, are not the same thing. Criticism need not be NPOV -our presentation of that Criticism is what must adhere to a NPOV; it is not our position to act as advocates. Not renaming this article is in no way a judgment of the value of related subjects- such as the Merits of Islam. As discrete articles, topically specific information is more easily discerned and retrieved by the end user- as is the goal of an encyclopedia. Such articles may link out to each other. For an example of two closely related but separate articles, see Telescope and History of Telescopes. The existence of a this article in no way precludes contributions to other articles featuring whatever content is warranted by the pertinent topic- whether that content is academic, mainstream, or radical. Mavigogun (talk) 06:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Views includes criticism. It would also allow for academic fringe views which aren't "critical", positive appraisals, and so on. I think an article with the title Merits of Islam would be fundamentally unencyclopedic, and I think most of the community would agree too. Your analogy regarding telescopes articles doesn't quite fit: there is a difference between splitting articles and POV forks. While some criticisms of Islam are indeed notable, so are other 'views' regarding Islam, whether commonly held or within the field of academia, that deserve mention alongside it. The plus side is that the article title is no longer of a slanted nature, the article structure is no longer linear (i.e. no longer a critique vs. response format), and the article stands a good chance in the long-term in becoming a stable, encyclopedic exposition. ITAQALLAH 21:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a great many views regarding Islam; merging the contents of this article with such would not serve the purpose of this article- a summation reference for those researching Criticism of Islam. Just as White Supremacy fits within the broader category of racism or views on race, it does not serve the interest of the function of the Encyclopedia to do away with that article, no mater how subjectively distasteful. Likewise, from a NPOV, the White Supremacy article should not be slanted, but a documentation. Our mission is not to cleans or neutralize the encyclopedia of concepts we find personally offensive, but to present those concepts from a neutral position. The topic is discrete -and could no more be wrapped coherently, comprehensively, succinctly and with brevity under an all inclusive heading than could Alevi, Yazidi, Druze, Ahmadiyya, Bábí, Bahá'í, Berghouata, Ha-Mim, Sunni and Shi'a Islam within a single article; although each of those sects are mentioned within the Islam article, they also have their own feature. So, be bold, create a Views of Islam article- but leave this one: it is needed, and merging it would be a disservice.Mavigogun (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A merge isn't being proposed. We're discussing a rename of the article. I don't see how your arguments apply... no-one is claiming that it should be renamed because it's 'subjectively distasteful' or 'offensive'. ITAQALLAH 22:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Read 'merge' as 'combining it with broader content' -not the command function. The NAME of the article is being addressed within the context of what the associated content should be -this is clear; my above comment is also clear in addressing the proposal of changing the scope of the article, and proffers, alternatively, that other articles be created. 'Subjective distaste' was suggested to me in the 'skew in rather linear fashion' assessment, and observation that a compilation focusing on criticism is unbalanced; those interpretations may very well not represent the intent of the authors. In the interest of clarity, the primary substance of my position is that broadening the focus of the article reduces its specific utility by way of dilution, and that the context of this utility (Wikipedia) allows for and prefers granularity to monolithic subjects as a mater of function.Mavigogun (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I object to such a move, and my reasons are based on a combination of the above. Tourskin (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dead Site

http://www.answering-islam.org/ appears to no longer be operational. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.240.182 (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sharia incompatible with Human rights

The House of Lords has said that Sharia is incompatible with Human rights. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/23/religion-islam Discuss!^{(Hypnosadist)} 06:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hume

I was reading Hume and I came across a criticism of Islam by Hume. I thought it would be good because Hume was an important and influential critic of revealed religion in general and it gives a taste of what he thought about one revealed religion in particular. He has a sort of two pronged attack: saying how it has a relativistic or Thrasymachean ethic and that it is incompatible with civilization. --Atethnekos (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Separate articles

The article criticizes Islam itself and Moslem's interchangeably. i.e. "The 24-year-rule was introduced in Denmark, whereby a person must be over 24 years old to marry a foreign born individual. This law came into place to prevent arranged marriages, not uncommon among Muslim immigrants to Denmark." has noting to do with Islam. It is a problem imposed by immigration of people of certain belief. --Nevit (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a difference between Islamic culture and Islam? Does Islam as a religious entity not include the sunnah and hadith, and, to an equal extent, the myriad of traditions less formally delineated yet closely adhered to by its practitioners as defacto tenants of Islam? The question is not rhetorically posed.Mavigogun (talk) 06:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean 'Muslim culture' as opposed to 'Islamic culture'. I agree there appears to be a conflation between critique of Islam and critique of Muslims from particular cultures. ITAQALLAH 20:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You would be wrong, then; I very specifically mean Islamic culture, as I am not including culture shared by Muslims that is outside the realm of the tenants of Islamic faith- such as advances in sciences, culinary proclivities, folk tails and superstitions (such as the Eye of Fatima), common prejudice, etc. A single example, in no way definitive of all the characteristics so included, is the concept of Jihad- both as it is proscribed by Islamic law and commonly interpreted and implemented.Mavigogun (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Jihad is an aspect of Islamic law. I don't see how it relates to the example at hand, which is of arranged marriages by Muslim immigrants. It may be part of the traditional culture of Muslims (as well as Sikhs and Hindus) from South Asia and other areas, but the notion that there's anything distinctly Islamic about it remains unverified. ITAQALLAH 13:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

...and, as an aspect of Islamic law, it speaks directly as an example of Islamic culture; the question of the influence of Islamic tenants on cultural practices is not digital, as the very tenants spring from the same. The borders are subjective, and will not adhere to individual perspective preferences. The question is: do specific or underlying principles of Islam promote or foster an environment that results in arranged marriages? That said, Wikipedia is not a documentation of truth: it is not for us to 'correct' perceived misconceptions; when in service to the article, contrasting may be appropriate. Independent of any rational, the assertion that an action is the result of Islam and associated critique is on topic; critique need not be well reasoned or insightful to warrant inclusion here- only significant.Mavigogun (talk) 05:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The question you pose is one we need not address... the issue here is whether the citation itself verifies direct criticism of Islam. Hence, I agree completely with the second part of your post. The case here seems to be that a law was passed to prevent arranged marriages, not uncommon to Muslim immigrants to the country. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but this source says nothing about criticism of Islam in relation to these arranged marriages. Therefore its inclusion in this article would be original research. Same with any other source/passage which includes critique of a Muslim or Muslims but itself doesn't link it to criticism of Islam per se. The links are not for us to make. ITAQALLAH 17:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There are some things that should be in this article, and this website is not one of them. Besides, who are you kidding? Are Muslims the only religious group who conduct arranged marriages? What about Hindus, or Christians from the Middle East. This is not even a religious issue, its a cultural issue and has no place here. Gabr-el 23:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

There still seems to be some confusion on the subject of criticism. If the article is about criticism of Islam, that doesn't mean the article is criticising Islam; it means the article is reporting on criticism of Islam. Naturally, it should do so in an unbiased way, but to have an article on the subject of criticism of Islam is not intrinsically biased. It's a perfectly legitimate subject for an article (God knows there's plenty of criticism to report on).

Sardaka (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing again

Hi guys. We've discussed a number of times over the 'Criticism of' articles that the quality of sourcing must be improved. Polemical websites do not qualify as reliable sources, whether critical or apologetic (infidels.org, understanding-islam.net and so on). Most internet polemics and fringe theories are beyond the scope this article as reliable texts which do discuss criticism of Islam have not deemed such material worthy of mention. I've tagged the article accordingly so that we can proceed with rectifying this. ITAQALLAH 21:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, the article cites many questionable sources. Some of them are without doubt extremist and fringe. The article needs to pass a verifiability and reliability test in order to clean non-valid sources. Bestofmed (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC).

Gnosticism

Nothing is mentioned of the criticism of Islam and its close relation to Gnostic Christianity. Tourskin (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because very little is known. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 20:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

overbreeding

There are fatwas issued by mad mullah's in India,Europe to Overbreed to catch up with the infidel(kaafir) population and later according to the document(koran) ,slaughter the kuffrs.

Another thing is the "Love Jihad".Please include this!It is a practice in India,Europe to allure infidel girls by pretending Love ,later to kidnap or forcefully change them to the pagan moon god cult(islam).moslem men are rewarded 10000$ acc. to bajrang dal website see: http://www.hinduunity.org/bewaregirls.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.2.249 (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of this criticism article

The article s*x. That said, just as a matter of reflective principle, not too few subsections of the article are just lists of critics, sorted according to an alleged religious stance the critics. Just a list, no red thread! Instead the criticism should be sorted according to the type of criticism, and the rebuttals from the moslem defenders. Foremost, just listing a person and not writing what and how the person criticises islam s*xx horribly and worse. F.ex.:

Daniel Pipes an American historian and analyst who specializes in the Middle East.

STOP! Nothing more! The editorial quality of this has a lower standing than that of flatworms! I'm considering on a suitable new template to litter onto this article such as^{[what the h*ck has this anything to do with this?]}, otherwise {{huh}} = ^[clarify] might suffice for some cases. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 21:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand: the section Criticism of the morality of Islam has such a structure that I'm looking after. Maybe the lists I just raved about could be transformed to such subsections as under that section, and those loony lists could be successively depopulated. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 21:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

this article should be called "rebuttals of the criticisms of islam". It doesn't make clear the criticisms and spends most of it's time refuting them...it's like an apologia to reassure muslims, "oh, look at these silly criticisms, see how real our religion is" but it doesn't actually have any of the proper criticisms of Islam or it's instruction manuals. 84.13.161.96 (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Has "impact to public art" been discussed in Talk pages?

I was considering starting to research the topic of "defacement of significant public art" as a criticism of Islam (due to prohibition against depiction of humans: Buddhas of Bamyan, Hagia Sophia mosaics, etc). Before I start, I glanced thru the Talk archives, and I do not see any past discussion of that topic. Does anyone know if it was discussed before? Or if there is already an article in this encyclopedia that discusses it? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

All right, so it looks like this particular criticism has not yet been addressed in the Talk page. I'll do some research to see if enough 2ndary sources discuss the art issue to make it significant to be mentioned in this article. --Noleander (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the topic is already covered in Iconoclasm#Muslim iconoclasm, so I propose to add a new, small section in this article, summarizing that existing section, with a "main" or "seealso" template referring to it. --Noleander (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"List of critics" is a bit out of place?

This article has a list of critics. This list seems odd: the content seems accurate and useful, but its placement in the article is unusual, and seems to interfere with the article's readability. A handful of historical critics might be okay, but the large list of contemporary critics needs to be moved. A couple of alternatives are:

1. Move them into the "See Also" list at the bottom. Include only the critic's name. The details can be found by following the link to the critic's own article.
2. Create a new "list" style article: "List of critics of Islam"
3. Put the list at the bottom of this article, down with SeeAlso and References.

Comparing this article to the other "Criticism of [someReligion]" articles, I see no other article that has such a verbose list in the middle of the article. Just to clarify: I think the list is good, I'm only questioning is placement. Any comments? --Noleander (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no comments, I propose to move the list of critics down to the bottom of this article for now, then later into a new article. --Noleander (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I made the change identified above. The list of Critics is rather long, and I suggest that if an editor wants to add any more critics (or add addtional detail within the existing critics) then that would be a good time to split the "Critics" section into its own article. See WP:Split --Noleander (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to add content to Criticism of Islam#Women section

I propose to add content to the existing Criticism of Islam#Women section, discussing (1) criticisms related to polygamy; and (2) criticisms related to child brides. All content would be supported by reliable sources, of course. Any suggestions or comments? --Noleander (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Judaism

There is a deletion discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Judaism_(2nd_nomination), and any input would be appreciated. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said on the Criticism of Christianity talk page for users here that what's important here is that all religions on Wikipedia are dealt with in a neutral manner. No religion can be devoid of any criticism, that is censorship, which is not allowed on Wikipedia (WP:Wikipedia is not censored). All religions have criticisms, which Wikipedia must cover. It is not acceptable to have the situation where there are criticism articles for some religions while not for others. Space25689 (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually criticism for all religions is not a requirement here on Wikipedia; for example, there are religions that are very small in number of followers that are unknown to many that are not notable to have their own article, never mind criticism. Others may have insignificant criticism that is not worth mentioning (for example, only one person has criticized it), or a small amount of critisism which can be covered wholly within the article's main entry dealing with that religion in particular. So, in other words, Wikipedia is going to report criticism on a religion according to criticisms and not equally. Neutrality does not equal equal-size-of-article or same-king-of-criticism coverage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.51.151 (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right things to be posting under but here goes. The feel of criticism is far different than that of other religions. Just read the criticism of Judaism article again for comparison, and it is much less political. For example when discussing zionism, it refers to the fact that some scholars say that this is unacceptable, or that the practice of breaking sabbath to save a gentile must be viewed in the historic context. Either this article should be modified to qualify all criticisms or the qualifications on the Judaism one needs to be removed.

what's with all the external links?

wikipedia guidelines say that wikipedia is not a,

"Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines."

So why does this page have so many external islam fansite links? Surely they should all be removed, apart from 2 or 3?

And wouldn't the article be better if it had a picture of the mohammed bomb hat cartoon alongside the summary of that whole kerfuffle? After all, wikipedia isn't censored.

Doktordoris (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, most links in the external links section should be removed. I may go through this sometime, although I never look forward to cleaning up articles on controversial subjects. ThemFromSpace 19:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I just went for it themfromspace, I think 6 links is plenty for any page.

<runs for cover>

Doktordoris (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Which sidebar template?

I notice this article changed sidebar templates: from "Islam" to "Controversies related to Islam". Im not sure that is a great idea. A few reasons to prefer the "Islam" sidbar are:

1. This article is about Islam, more so that "controversies .."
2. The Islam template would be more consistent with other "Criticism of someReligion" articles
3. No other religions have "Controversies about ..." templates (so, although the Controversy template may be valid, it is a "one off")
4. The word "controversy" is not too accurate when applied to this article: many criticisms are not controversies, true?

A good compromise would be to use the Islam sidebar, and put the Controversy template as a footer. Or perhaps both templates, but Islam above the Controversy.--Noleander (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Another compromise may be: having both as sidebars, with the Islam sidebar on top? --Noleander (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No reply after a few days, so going with the above suggestion. --Noleander (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Once a person has clicked on this article, they need to be presented with the appropriate template. It doesnt have to be the same one that was used in the 'parent' article. The Controversies template is where all the controversy related articles are presented. I numbered your points above so I can respond:

1: The article is about Islam and controversy, not just Islam.
2: It doesnt matter what other "religion" articles are doing. We do here what makes more sense here.
3: See #2.
4: Thats an issue with the name of the template, so its a seperate issue.

Once again once a person has clicked on the Criticism of Islam article, they are presented first with the template that branches off to other directly related "sub" articles like Criticism of Muhammad, Quran, Islam critics and so on. So it makes sense to have the Contro template first and then the Islam template.

For all these reasons, the Controversies template has always been on top so you have to get consensus before you can make this change. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean "The Controversies template has always been on top"? Isn't that a recent change? --Noleander (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No I believe its always been on top (until you changed it for a few days or so). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you double check that? The history shows that the Islam template was on top for several years, until you moved the Controversies template above it a few weeks ago, here: [1] --Noleander (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. You're right, I checked. It had been below the main Islam template however - it doesnt mean that cant or shouldnt change. Article flow has to be considered and the next most relevant template has to be considered which enables the reader to go more deeply into the subject. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The "contro" template itself is of pretty propagandistic nature and adds little in terms of encyclopaedic value - as I have mentioned here Zencv ^Whisper 22:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong because it was seen as useful by all the 20 people who took part in that poll. Its a template that groups all the meaning articles together. I will put it back now since this is the main article for that template. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The "Criticism" sidebar could be placed below the Islam sidebar; or as a footer template. But there is no value added in having it as the main sidebar, since all the topics are (or should be) in this article already. --Noleander (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Another thought: there are at least 3 sidebar templates that could be appropriate for this article: Template:Islam, Template:Criticism of Islam, and Template:Atheism and Irreligion Sidebar. An objection to the "Crit of Islam" sidebar is illustrated by the following example:: consider the article History of baseball in the United States - it is one of the articles that uses the "History of baseball" template Template:HistBaseball nav. But anyone could create a new sidebar about "History of baseball in the United States" and suggest that it should be used in History of baseball in the United States article. After all, the new sidebar is exactly about that article. But that does a disservice to readers that are trying to learn about the worldwide history. In other words, the sidebars should be relatively high-level. Creating multiple, low-level sidebars defeats the purpose of sidebars. If we followed that "low level sidebar" trend: every article could have its own sidebar, which contains a list of the "see also" articles from the article itself. In summary: more persuasive reasons for the new Crit of Isl sidebar, than merely "Crit of Is is the primary article in the sidebar". --Noleander (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

To facilitate discussion, here are the 3 versions so far proposed:

• standard "Islam" sidebar
• Criticism of Islam sidebar
• both sidebars in an over/under combo

Other "Criticism of Religion X" articles are not consistent in their usages and provide no real guidance. It seems appropriate that our main Criticism of Islam article would include the actual "criticism of Islam" template; the major question would seem to be whether or not to use both, and if so, in what order. I would hope for broader discussion involving a number of other editors, in order to establish a reasonable consensus. Doc Tropics 23:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Doc: why do you say "Other "Criticism of Religion X" articles are not consistent in their usages and provide no real guidance."? My impression is that they all use the main sidebar for their religion (Buddhism, Christianity, etc). --Noleander (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I had just looked at Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which has no sidebar at all. I was also considering that no other specific religion has such an extensive body of Criticism articles, which means that a direct comparison isn't really possible; many articles/religions don't have the option of a Criticism sidebar because there isn't one. Doc Tropics 23:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you have a good point there. Though within Mormon articles there is Criticism of Joseph Smith, Jr., Criticism of the Book of Mormon, Criticism of Mormonism, Criticism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Reformed Egyptian, etc, etc. so there is a "body" of articles on that religion; and an editor could create a "criticism of Mormonism" sidebar quite easily (and could probably do so for any major faith). --Noleander (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Some more info to consider: all major religions already have categories in this encyclopedia for "criticisms of .." as in Category:Criticism of Christianity, Category:Criticism of Mormonism, Category:Criticism of Judaism, Category:Criticism of Islam. In theory, a sidebar could be created for each religion, consisting simply of the articles in the respective Category. It would be nice to have some consistency across these very similar articles. It just so happens that Islam was the first that had its "criticism of .." articles put into a sidebar. Should the other religions also have a similar sidebar? if so: should those new sidebars be placed into the "Criticism of someRelgion" articles? --Noleander (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Your point is well made and I had been thinking along similar lines. Since each major religion has been the subject of numerous scholarly criticisms, each might well have its own Criticism sidebar. In that case, it would seem entirely reasonable that the main Criticism article would feature the Criticism sidebar rather than the Religion sidebar. I would favor that approach, but would feel more comfortable if there were a wider consensus for it. What would be the proper venue for such a discussion, since its effects would go far beyond this article? Doc Tropics 15:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. That is a good question :-) I guess there are a couple of places: (1) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion; (2) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Atheism (although I posted a query there once about "criticism of some religion" and got a reply that Atheism was not the proper place for discussing criticism of religion); (3) Or you could just set up a discussion/Talk page on that topic at some arbitrary place, say a sub-page of this Talk page ( e.g. Talk:Criticism_of_Islam/Sidebar discussion ). In any case, you should post notices of the new discussion at the 7 or 8 "Criticism of SomeReligion" articles' Talk pages (e.g. Talk:Criticism of Hinduism etc) --Noleander (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Noleander, ok I'm back for now. It doesnt matter whether other religions have the "criticism of" templates or not (as Doc also pointed out). We're talking about this case. Now we know the COI template should be here. The only issue is the order or whether the main Islam template should go away. For now I'm fine with having both as you dont agree to having only the COI, which I think is the right way to do it. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I would concur with inclusion of the COI sidebar, provided that it were below the main Islam sidebar; which it is, so I have no issues now. --Noleander (talk) 13:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wafaa Sultan

I deleted Wafaa Sultan from the section of "Muslim critics of Islam." Sultan have said before that she is not a Muslim nor a believer in any religion. She said said so in an interview with Al Jazeera TV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.30.217.116 (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a link we can follow to prove this? Bassplaya (talk) 12:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how this comment of not believing in any religion qualifies any individual with a sound mind to disqualify this person from this article, on the contraire, it looks very much like the forces embarassed and exposed for their lies and manipulation are trying to cover up the information provided by this very insightful individual who happens to have experienced the horrors of this religous and corrupt culture firsthand, so her testimony I think is very precious and should be returned and updated to serve justice, she was born muslim although the actions of her people have made her doubt the relevance and even existence of anything divine, and I would have to agree, should I be exposed that drastically to the situations she was, I would convert myself to athiesm, rather accepting the possibility of hell then wanting to share in the tyranny of others who act under a forsaken banner of disguuised goodness, it crusades all over again. This would need a whole new concept or consitution before people stop believing how barbaric this culture is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.203.94.34 (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Better sources needed

Octopus114: The material you recently added ("Self-Censorship around Islam") is probably okay, but can you supply some sources that list two or three of the criticisms as a group? Preferably a secondary source, but even a primary source (critic) that has assembled a list of such criticisms may be okay. Also: "bullet" format is not the best format for an encyclopedia, though it can be used in rare situations. I know there are a couple of sections in this article that use bullets, but that was a mistake, and new sections should not repeat that mistake. --Noleander (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I see the unsightly plethora of islam fansites and anti-islam sites has returned

Can I yet again draw peoples attention to the following-

wikipedia guidelines say that wikipedia is not a,

"Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines."

Doktordoris (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I definitely agree that the policy is clear and the EL section had grown into a link farm, and I support (and appreciate) your continued patrolling to help maintain that section. I had recently pruned several of the least reliable or relevant myself. However, I do wonder if we might keep another one of the more useful Criticism sites? Specifically, Apostates of Islam seems like a unique resource because it is criticism from ex-Muslims, and more academically focused than rabble-rouser blogs like Jihadwatch. Just a thought....Doc Tropics 00:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hiya doctropics

I didn't give any thought to the content of the links I removed. I simply left the top 2 and pruned the rest. If you believe I have removed a link that offers something particularly valuable please feel free to replace it, all I want is to prevent the ludicrous proliferation of links. And thanks for your appreciation of my page patrolling! I am neither a muslim or someone who possesses anti-islam beliefs, I just want the page to follow WP guidelines. It seems as though I have accidentally become responsible for this site following WP guidelines, and I shall continue to ensure that this page plays by the rules.

Doktordoris (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I support this approach. Thank you for your efforts. --dab (𒁳) 10:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ibn Ishaq

Unfortunately many of the hadith that have been quoted in the article are from Ibn Ishaq and his Prophetic Biography. Now the problem is that the original biography is missing and an inedited version was later assembled by his disciple Ibn Hisham who says that the biography was indeed 'edited and altered' . Not only this, but a number of Hadith mentioned in the Article have no chain of transmittters whatsoever making the hadith a weak source. So while i do commend on using Hadith material from the well sourced books of Imam Bukhari and Imam muslim, quoting from Ibn Ishaq means one is relying on one of the weakest sources of Islamic history.

Hi. First, please sign comments with four tildes (Digiphi (Talk) 20:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)) so we know who said what. As to the material, keep in mind that this article is not a criticism of Islam. It's a report of criticisms. If Ishaq's Sirah is lacking in your opinion it doesn't discount its relevance to the topic of criticism. If a scholar published a book asserting, for example, that Islam is an unattractive and inferior faith because the prose of the Koran is poorly executed, and therefore lacks credibility, we'd report it here, not as an endorsement but as an encyclopedic entry. -Digiphi (Talk) 20:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ali Sina

An anon has repeatedly deleted text about ex-Mulim Ali Sina, his books, and his organization on the grounds that Sina is not notable. Since we have multiple articles about him this is clearly incorrect. Mr Sina's utility as a reliable source might reasonably be questioned in some circumstances, but his notability cannot, and his presence in the list of ex-Muslim critics is entirely appropriate. Any other thoughts on this? Doc Tropics 18:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Please point to his article, i.e. the exact URL. 68.197.167.149 (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Click on this link: Ali Sina ex-Muslim. This is his foundation's article on Wikipedia. Clicking on the blue words will take you to that article. Doc Tropics 18:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, so it actually redirects to his organization. That doesn't mean he is not notable. Since he founded a notable organization he is clearly notable. Removing content just because you don't like it is only one step from vandalism. 18:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe you've done the same. Otherwise, you would not be instructing me to do so. 68.197.167.149 (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(EC) OK, so it actually redirects to his organization. That doesn't mean he is not notable. Since he founded a notable organization he is clearly notable. Removing content just because you don't like it is only one step from vandalism. 18:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Your comment not only expresses a failure to assume good faith, but "since he founded a notable organization he is clearly notable" is also a fallacy of division. 68.197.167.149 (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that because we don't yet have an article about someone, they are inherently not notable is ridiculous. Faith Freedom International is notable and Ali sina is the ex-Muslim who founded it. The criticisms raised by Ali Sina through his organization are directly relevant to this subject and it is totally appropriate to include them. Have you ANY other reason to exclude this besides your spurious and irrational insistence on non-notability? Doc Tropics 19:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting my argument, and so your calling my reasoning irrational is a bit funny. It is not the lack of an article that makes this person not notable, rather the lack of an article is the result of or evidence of his not being notable. There's a difference - do you see it? So, again, please establish his notability before inserting him here. 68.197.167.149 (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Now it is a list of ex-Muslims and organizations critical of Islam, so stop deleting the info, thanks. Doc Tropics 00:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The title of this article is "Criticism of Islam." What reliable source notes the website for such criticism, and what exactly does the source state? Keep in mind that the burden of proof is on you to provide such backing since you're the editor seeking inclusion of this material. 68.197.167.149 (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. The text is long established and you have repeatedly deleted it. I have bent over backwards attempting to accomadate you by rewriting perfectly good material. The burden is on you to change consensus and you haven't done so. Note that I didn't insert the text, I restored material that has been repeatedly deleted by anonymous editors for dubious reasons. Again, you haven't got consensus to remove established text so it will remain for now. Doc Tropics 02:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no consensus here for its inclusion, only you. By re-inserting the material, you are the editor seeking inclusion. Please address my arguments. 68.197.167.149 (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Doc Tropics 02:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe you need to familiarize yourself with policy, particularly WP:V, which states "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed..." and "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source..." I will provide you with some time to find sources so that this material can be adequately cited, if possible. 68.197.167.149 (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a difficult issue. On the one hand, including material is a good thing, and there is no "notability" requirement for sources (compared with articles, which do have such a requirement). So I can see why DocTropic thinks the material should be included. On the other hand, other "Criticism of someReligion" articles have determined by consensus that only secondary sources may be included in the article: for example, in Criticism of Judaism, no primary source critics of Judaism are cited at all (the only sources are academics and commentators that are describing the criticisms in a second-hand manner). See WP:Secondary sources for why secondary sources are better than the critics themselves: it solves all kinds of POV and reliability issues. I think that we need to start applying more uniform standards across the "Criticism" articles. I used to be in favor of "the more material the better" but as time has gone by, I've moderated more towards the secondary source approach: it tends to reduce edit wars, and improves the overall quality. What I recommend is this: DocTropic: can you find some secondary source (academic or major news source) that discusses Ali Sina? If so, you should use the secondary source as the source for Ali Sina material in this article. If you cannot find any secondary source discussing Ali Sina, that is a good clue that he is really not all that important. In other words: if no secondary sources recognize his importance, then maybe we shouldn't be repeating his opinions in this encyclopedia. If he is important: it should be easy to find secondary sources that talk about him. --Noleander (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys. People keep asking what sources report this organization and its site for its criticism of Islam.

1.) The God Delusion. Richard Dawkins, 2006

2.) Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out. Ibn Warraq, 2003.

Any questions? -Digiphi (Talk) 04:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming you've read both of these sources. Can you cite the page number and sentence where this is described for its criticism in The God Delusion? I have the book in front of me, and can find no such thing. Also, what does Leaving Islam state about the website? Thanks. 69.115.152.200 (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be applying notability guidelines which were written about articles, not lists. There is no policy that I know of which states that items in lists must meet the same stringent standards that would apply to an article at AfD. Doc Tropics 05:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not applying notability guidelines at all because you've changed the entry to FFI. What is being applied is WP:V. 69.115.152.200 (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins is an expert on reporting science, his forte. A "bit" of a crank on religion (to employ an understatement). Could be used as a "contrary" reference if anything he says can be used to support religion, I suppose.  :) Student7 (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Defacing bibles, etc.

Unlike other religions, Christianity (with an exception) has no "sacred objects," per se. People may use a crucifix or a bible, but they are just wood or paper, as the case may be. The exception would be for catholics, the eucharist under either species. But aside from that, it should not really be possible to "desecrate" anyplace; unlike (say) a person who truly worships statues as personal or household "gods", for example. While the offense of mutilating a bible is more than just annoying, it seems hardly in the category of "sacrilegious." Student7 (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to split "list of critics" into own article

I propose to move the list of critics into a new article, perhaps named List of critics of Islam. This proposal is in based on WP:Content fork, WP:Splitting, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists), and WP:Summary style. The purpose of the split would be to bring the article size down a bit (Wikipedia:Article size), to make the article more encyclopedic (typical articles do not contain lengthy lists), and to make the article more consistent with other "Criticism of some religion" articles. Thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The proposed split has been done. --Noleander (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Need sources for "Assimilation" section

The section Criticism of Islam#Islam's influence on the ability of Muslim immigrants in the West to assimilate may or may not be appropriate for this article. I read a few of the sources and they were either (1) dead links; or (2) did not describe a criticism of Islam. The material may be okay if there are critics that say "Islam is bad because it hinders assimilation into modern democracies", and there are some secondary sources that discuss/analyze that criticism. However, if there are only a few minor critics, and no secondary sources, the material should be removed. Can anyone provide secondary sources? --Noleander (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Material removed

I removed some material, most of which was apparently inserted by User:Florencia65 several months ago. The removed material fell into a few categories:

1. Material that had no supporting sources. Removed per WP:Verifiability, WP:Burden, WP:CHALLENGE
2. Material that was not about a criticism of Islam (its tenets & texts) but was instead merely anecdotal stories about persons doing immoral or unethical actions in relation to Islam.
3. Material that was not supported by secondary sources. It is not sufficient for a critic to say "Islam is bad because ...". In addition, there must be a secondary analyst (who is not a critic) who analyzes and documents the criticism. See WP:Secondary sources. This standard is the same standard applied in all the other "Criticism of some religion" articles, and is very useful in ensuring neutrality and avoiding coatrack problems.

Some of the removed material may be appropriate for the article, but - to be restored - it will need secondary sources that are discussing criticisms of Islam's tenets (not merely actions taken by persons who happen to be Muslim). --Noleander (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I fully support your change, a lot of the content in this article is not neutral and almost all of the "critics" are not reliable. This article (and the others on the criticism of Qur'an and Muhammad) do not follow the same standards used in Criticism of Judaism and Criticism of Christianity. I think it was a good decision to remove the stories on the acts of some Muslims, as listing them in this article would make the point that their behavior was influenced and inspired by Islam.

I'm currently going through the article, but I think more people should get involved in checking the text and the cited sources. Al-Andalusi (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. What is most striking when comparing this article with Criticism of Judaism is that in that article for every item of critic, there is a "response" or "defense" or "nuance", which is all lacking in this article. Whaledad (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Criticism of Judaism and Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints articles are good models to use. Not to say they are perfect, but they have undergone a lot of scrutiny, and have evolved to a fairly neutral, encyclopedic state. --Noleander (talk)

Well, it was all one-way before, a bit unencyclopedia. But people do things in the name, or under the aegis of Islam, in which each person, a fundamentalist, pretty much does his own thing. The problem with fundamentalism. So some things, properly referenced, may have to be (re?) inserted where someone 'believes that he has done something supportive of Islam, but the interpreters of the Quoran do not agree that his conduct is correct. At least if pervasive. If I interpret a passage of the Quoran to mean that women are worth half what a man is, it does not matter than masters of the Book interpret this to mean illiterate women who knew nothing about finance. It is open to misinterpretation. And yes, we can quote the masters as refuting that interpretation, but it still may be there. Student7 (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality

Please pay attention to the level of material in the article. See Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Catholicism, (pick one yourself). This should not be a list of critics! What good does that do, besides violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Since critics duplicate, you will either have to lump them together or pick the best spokesperson. Normally, this will be the person with the best academic credentials, not a best selling novelist or blogger!

This should not be a collection of violence. These may go into another article, Islamic terrorism, perhaps, and be linked to from here under an appropriate subsection.

Let's bring the level of this article back to an encyclopedia level. There is core material. We need to get rid of the stuff that distracts from it. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 14:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there are ways to improve a Criticism article that don't start with removing referenced criticism and critics; let's explore those options first shall we? Doc] Tropics 03:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be a mere list. To say accurately (and list, with references) that probably several thousand notable people have written unpleasant articles about Islam is not useful and hardly the point here. Either they have written something that is useful and different or they have merely repeated what everyone else is saying. The latter is not useful nor original. Nor should we be using people with phony credentials like Dawkins, who is not a scholar of religion at all. merely someone who hates religion. If we are stooping that low, how about Chick Publications? Some of this stuff can legitimately be moved to other articles. Violence, for example, may belong in some of the many articles on that topic. And it can be "See also" or linked here, but to go on about it, is irrelevant to an supposedly academic discussion of Islam, is certainly not useful at this level.

Non-notable people or non-notable articles should not be in here.

And in fact, the first thing to do about this article is to remove the stuff that doesn't belong here. It simply attracts imitators. Student7 (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You say: Wikipedia should not be a mere list. but this is your personal opinion, not based in either policy or practice. In other words, you are wrong. Wikipedia includes a very large number of lists, both within articles, and even as stand-alone articles themselves; many readers find them useful.

Your statement regarding Dawkins is likewise completely wrong. Richard Dawkins is a brilliant scholar, widely known as both a distinguished scientist AND and an insightful critic of religion who has published numerous well-received books and articles on the subject. To attack his credentials only serves to reduce your own credibility. Doc Tropics 20:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Doc Tropics, this is just your opinion. I maintain that Student7 is perfectly correct in observing that this is not a list article. If you want to create a list of critics of Islam, be our guest, but a non-list article should consist of coherent prose. Also, in my opinion, Dawkins is a very poor example of a "critic of religion". I cannot comment on his "brilliance" as a scientist, but his understanding of religion, and therefore his criticism of it, is primitive. Yes, his books have been "well-received", as dumbed down, mass market popular literature, not as serious study of religion. Yes, you may disagree. No, I will not deny that Dawkins is "notable", probably more notable than many much more brilliant critics of religion, merely due to his success with the mass media. My point is, your reply to Student7 isn't appropriate. Sometimes it is entirely called for to remove "referenced information" in article. Namely, in cases where such material is tangential, redundant or of questionable quality. --dab (𒁳) 23:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

dab, I must respectfully disagree on a couple of points. While I do agree that it would be better to present the information as text rather than as a list, that's not what Student7 did. He didn't reformat the information, he deleted it wholesale. I can even agree with you that there are occasions where the right way to improve an article is to remove referenced info that doesn't belong, but I honestly don't think that's the case with Dawkins. Although you may reasonably claim that Dawkins tends to "dumb down" information for layman, the fact remains he is successful because people can understand him. That would seem to make his commentary at least as relevant as that of a "scholar" that most readers can't understand without a translator and some background notes explaining cultural differences. Can we at least agree that it would be best to reformat the info as text rather than keeping it as a list or deleting it altogether? And that the items should be examined individually for merit rather than deleted en masse? I am completely open to reasonable discussion, but part of what I objected to was the blanket removal of content. Thanks, Doc Tropics 04:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave Dawkins since there he has an article. But non-notables, if still there need to go at this point.

Having said that, as a critic myself of Islam, I think critics should be better chosen with an eye to objectivity than Dawkins. IMO, it totally weakens the article to have someone whose credentials are in serious question. Like quoting Chick in a "Criticism of Catholicsm" article. After seeing the latter, someone looking for research materials might just move on. Student7 (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

For starters, even Dawkins needs to say something. Someone needs to actually read his book and quote something profound from him, preferably a third party in print (no us!). That would make it "significant" criticism, worthy to be quoted here.

No one has been erased. Anyone that hasn't been read by anybody and therefore no one was able to quote anything noteworthy from them, has been merely commented out. An editor may wish to use what is there as a guideline to restoration when something interesting that the person has said can be quoted here that would actually help the article.

We are not "counting heads" here to "reach consensus" on whether Islam is good or bad. There is no space here for adherents! We are looking for academic arguments. Student7 (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Why does the Blasphemy section contain only one modern day story? I thought we had agreed that we weren't going to post things done by muslims as an example of the religion in general? (98.233.38.29 (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC))

criticism of islam vs. criticism of muslims

this article is labeled "criticism of islam" but i see more criticism of muslims than i see of the actual religion of islam. we hear everyday that islam is "a religion of peace" but we see such ugly actions. as we know there are good people and bad people in ALL religions, and for us to use this article to just list off all the bad things done in the name of islam is doing a disservice anyone who REALLY wants to know about islam. we all know that there are lunatics in EVERY religion or even ideology in general (whether it be religion, or politics, or activists issues, or hobbyists, or whatever), but these criticism articles have become nothing more than a list of the terrible things that have been done in the name of that ideology and then a few quotes from the religious scriptures that may possibly justify it. i would instead like to see a true criticism of ISLAM and not just a list of the lunatics who do evil in the name of islam (and the same should be done with ALL the criticism articles). we hear everyday that islam is "incompatible with the west" on one hand and on the other that it is "a religion of peace". why, what makes it so controversial, what makes it so "incompatible" with my western way of life; the lunatics...? we have lunatics in our own western world that act on a number of different ideologies. what makes islam so controversial that we should have to "criticize" it in the first place. is it the issue of womens rights in islam, or homosexuality in islam, or infidels in islam, or apostacy in islam, or whatever else? i want to know about what the islamic scriptures say about these things (in a critical light, considering this is a CRITICISM article), not just the lunatics that act out. i dont have the time or effort to learn the quran, and study it and the hadiths; i come to this articleto read and find out very quickly where the religion ACTUALLY stands on these kinds of issues. i want to see what is that gives us reason to even criticize it in the first place. i want to know the TRUTH about the religion and not just the horrors commited by criminals who are acting in the name of it. i think the same should be done with ALL criticism articles; criticism of the actual ideolgy (and maybe a FEW examples of how those beliefs are implemented) and then another article labeled criticism of the folllowers of that ideology. the latter can become a list of the actions done in the name of that ideology, whether they were correct in their actions or just twisting that ideology to suit their cause. but as for this article, i would like to propose that we split it up into two different articles; criticism of islam and criticism of muslims. and the same for ALL other criticism articles. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.59.203.174 (talk) 12:50 am, 27 March 2011, Sunday (1 month, 7 days ago) (UTC−5)

Unfortunately, with the lack of structure, which many religions have, has led to violence by some to be tolerated by the general population, so that it is difficult, and maybe impossible, to separate violence or the toleration of violence by Muslims from the religion itself. For the West, it has been a bit of a jolt to realize that fanatical Muslims have terrorized their co-religionists for having less zeal than they, for centuries, maybe a millenia or more.

This is not isolated to this article. For example, the KKK is labeled as a "Christian terrorist" group, though they terrorized Catholics. While this makes no sense from someone who identifies with Christianity, nevertheless, the KKK was tolerated in the South for decades before being brought to an end.

The same goes for Muslims. Student7 (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

@75.59.203.174 - I beg to disagree. Surely *any* religion is made up of both its teachings and its followers. Its followers are responsible for their actions (good or bad).

I believe that it is possible for either the teachings or the followers (or both) to be criticised. This article strikes (imo) a good balance between the two.

Obsidian123 (talk) 09:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

we hear everyday that islam is "a religion of peace" but we see such ugly actions. as we know there are good people and bad people in ALL religions, and for us to use this article to just list off all the bad things done in the name of islam is doing a disservice anyone who REALLY wants to know about islam.

@75.59.203.174 - "Someone who really wants to know about Islam?" This article is *NOT* an "Introduction to Islam". It is a "criticism of Islam" article.

Fact - there are bad things done in the name of Islam. Some of those will be shown in (say) the "Islamic terrorism" article. Some of them will be shown here. It is entirely appropriate for negative things in Islam to be put on the "criticism of Islam" page.

Obsidian123 (talk) 09:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

we all know that there are lunatics in EVERY religion or even ideology in general (whether it be religion, or politics, or activists issues, or hobbyists, or whatever), but these criticism articles have become nothing more than a list of the terrible things that have been done in the name of that ideology and then a few quotes from the religious scriptures that may possibly justify it.

@75.59.203.174 - The "lunatics in every religion" is nothing more than a Tu Quoque argument. This article is about criticism of Islam. It is not about criticising any other religion.

Obsidian123 (talk) 09:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Idolization of Koran

I have seen nothing here about the idolization of the Koran, leading, (for example) to mob execution of UN aid workers for someone burning a copy in the US. This idolization seems to be supported by US politicians and media.

Holy books of other religions are not idols. Burning them means nothing. Student7 (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair comment, actually.

Obsidian123 (talk) 09:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No, actually it is not. Compare Muslim reactions to burning of the Kuran to American reactions to burning of the Stars and Stripes... same difference. --Whaledad (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

@Student7,see ur a Hindu,I get that,u worship idols love them but you fail to understand that the Quran,Torah and Bible are books that helped to liberate other people from the what they perceive to be the false idols of the false mythological gods which you worship,destroying or burning those false idols means nothing to the followers of the book who dont believe in them just like burning holy books means nothing to you but burning a holy book that is the considered which they believe to be the word of god means a sin in thier view,its not idolization,its just respect and love towards revelations of god that liberated from worship of the idols in thier view.You hindus keep talking about how a holocaust has been comitted against you while the truth is opposite,you say hindu population reduced by 80 million,i dont accept or beileve in the source as it appears to be a source recently manufactured to make urself look like the good guys hurt and persecuted by bad guys(muslims),its not going to work that way by suppressing truth and facts unfavorable to you,read these articles,here one hindu called vt rajshekar is quoting from a book of a jewish historian called leon poliakov,the book is aryan myth theory and its said in the book that indias brahminists(high level,high caste hindus) sold the swastika symbol to hitler,guided him in eliminating jews and brainwashed germans with the aryan myth theory that led to holocaust,now what do you have to say about that,here are the links: http://dalitvoice.org/Templates/nov_a2010/reports.htm http://dalitvoice.org/Templates/july2009/editorial.htm stop makingf muslims look bad and hindus look like saints,you people also have evil tendencies,everyone has em.117.204.131.122 (talk) 06:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

IP117, please review our policy regarding personal attacks; your comments to and about Student7 are totally inappropriate. So were your changes to the article and they have been reverted. Doc Tropics 13:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This site should be proposed for deletion

You can criticize pretty much everything on Wikipedia, you can even create a critiwiki but criticising a faith is unfair, criticising the image portrayed by extremists is fair but not the faith Satanoid (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

A faith is a set of beliefs, and it would be unfair to criticize those who criticize any belief - I say this as a Christian who receives lots of criticism about that faith. Besides, this is not about fairness, wikipedia is about creating articles about notable and reference-verifiable topics. Gabr-el 23:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you say "it would be unfair to criticize those who criticize any belief" then you say "this is not about fairness"

You have presented two contradicting principles. Over 1400 years there are several distortions added to Islamic values which are not inherently Islamic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy Satanoid (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You missed the word "Besides", if you want you can put this article up for deletion. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You're misguided Satanoid; no one is criticizing Islam based on any extremists in this article (as far as I am aware) - its got a belief based criticism only. Criticizing certain ideas, source etc. Gabr-el 07:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

My point is that there are people who are anti-Islamic (for whatever reasons) just as their exists Criticism of Judaism which is essentially anti semitic in all but name. The whole article is a platform for the same. Satanoid (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Then take it to AfD, in fact bundle all the religious criticism articles together. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is it unfair to criticise any set of beliefs? If I am a Socialist, I would be criticised by Conservatives. Who gave religions the privilage of a special exemption from this? The page does not criticise Islam, it merely documents criticisms of Islam.Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing this page would be censorship.Techni (talk) 07:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Wikipedia isn't criticizing anything. We are reporting on existing criticism which happens to meet our notability criteria. Please read and understand WP:NOTE and WP:NOT. Also consider reading WP:TIGERS. --dab (𒁳) 20:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is criticising a faith 'unfair'? It is only a set of beliefs, it isn't real. Children believe in father christmas and the monsters that live under the bed and in the wardrobe, but that doesn't mean those beliefs should be allowed to flourish without critical debate. And as the chappie above said WP isn't criticising anything, it is simply reporting facts. Doktordoris (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Doktoris. I am very strongly in favour of critical debate.

Just because a set of beliefs is called a "religion" does not exempt it from scrutiny and criticism. This goes for *any* religion, not only Islam.

I strongly believe that this article should stay.

Obsidian123 (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It can't be much of a religion if it hasn't been large enough to be academically criticized and documented here. (With apologies to folks whose religions aren't here to be criticized). Student7 (talk) 13:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"Islamophobia"

Leaving aside the vacuity of the term itself, it's ridiculous to include this article in a series on Islamophobia when it's already distinguished from Islamophobia at the start of the article. I understand that Islam-related articles on Wikipedia are at the mercy of a determined clique of Muslim propagandists, but even they should be unhappy about such an obvious contradiction. Logos384 (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Violence?

Some historians assert that Muhammad proclaims a religion of violence, only shrouded by poetry and actions that are otherwise holy. I'll let you guys make that decision for yourself. If you want to edit the Wikipedia page to reflect this alternate perspective, go ahead do so, but my hand will have no play in that. I'm only providing the alternate perspective. After all, this is the "Discussion" page. Do with the info as you wish. Farewell.
COice6 (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that nuts interpret the Koran as they see fit and we suspect that the nuts, true to their profession, would select only those phrases that supported whatever screwball thing they wanted to do, like violence. There is no "owner" of Islam that encourages orthodoxy. That doesn't mean that there aren't decent Muslims. But it's like "decent Southerners" during the KKK reign. The majority "decent" people would state that they had "Billy Bob" "under control." In reality, though not as intimidated as the Afro-Americans, they were concerned that they, too, would get a brick, or a bullet, through their window. Student7 (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Perfection

Also, deletion of material has been made based on lacking a citation, when a tag was put just recently and everyone knows that the statement/material is accurate because it was widely publicized. Material should not be deleted when it is generally known to be true. WP:PERFECTION is a policy. It is not a guideline. Please stop deleting material known to be accurate, but lacks "perfection" by an exact, up-to-date link. Student7 (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether cited or not, it's not criticism of Islam. JoshyDinda (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

It is important to make a difference between the event and its application. In this case, the issues with the legislation in islamic countries, that arise due to application of Isalm by the powers (regardless of whether this application is right or wrong) is another issue.—Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

So, since there is no Caliphate, no Ottoman dynasty, there is no accountability for religious practices by Islamic countries, even though consistent: 1) proselytizing by Christians forbidden; 2) Christians may not erect churches or (sometimes) mend them, 3) Christians may not hold public services or sometimes no services at all (even in embassies which are supposed to be foreign territory - this is observed by every other civilized country but not Islamic ones), and 4) wearing of hijab. But Islam is not responsible? Anyway this belongs in section above. This section was concerning one of several hundred deletions made recently http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Islam&diff=462289167&oldid=462288961. This section contained material that actually happened that wasn't perfect in the editor's mind and he deleted it. Suggest moving third opinion up one section. Student7 (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

One thing I will say about the KKK, Christian extremists persecuting blacks - they frequently were secretive about what they did because they did not have "sufficient" public support. But they did have public support for denying blacks the right to vote, and from being properly educated (among other things). Note that there is a remark about them in Criticism of Christianity even though they inhabited only the Southern United States and not all Christian nations. But this can't be said about Islamic practices. They are not isolated to one country. Student7 (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You have an opportunity to help Wikipedia by removing that notice from the Criticism of Christianity article, as it's also irrelevant there. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly so. Islam is not responsible for any of this. The state is. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I noticed this at WP:3O and, though it has been answered by Dmitrij D. Czarkoff, I thought I'd give my interpretation of the dispute. I think we can properly resolve this issue through a better consideration of the sources. Each event and criticism mentioned on the article should be supported by a reliable source, I think we all agree with that point. With criticisms, this is easy - if the criticism is supported by a reliable source, it stays in the article, no problem. With events, it is slightly more complex. As this is about criticisms of Islam, for an event to be included in the article, the event must be supported by a reliable source, but its use as a criticism of Islam should also be sourced. If the use of an event as a criticism is not supported by a reliable source, it should not be in the article. That is the criteria I suggest you use in determining what is retained and what is removed. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

external links

there are more external links that lead to counter arguments of critics of islam than those that lead to actual criticism of islam. not only that but the ones do lead to criticism of islam are very confusing and do not provide a very good criticism of islam. i think some good sites that should be added are: http://www.apostatesofislam.com/ http://www.answeringmuslims.com/ http://www.memritv.org/ http://www.islam-watch.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.155.238.179 (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

this is an article CRITICISING islam, therefore it should have more external links that are critical of islam than there are defending it. and the q and a external links are just defending islam also. so that makes 4 sites defending islam and 3 criticising it. that is rediculously bias. i would very much like to see this changed

www.answeringmuslims.com it's a Jewish web-site not a Muslim web-site --elbarck (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Islam vs. Islamism vs. Islamic culture vs. Islamic countries

This article is about the criticism of Islam and should remain such. I would like to note that Islam is a religion. What it is not:

• it is not an ideology (Islamism is not Islam, and plenty of scholars have made that distinguishment)
• it is not a contemporary government (criticism of the Islamic republic of Iran should not be here)
• it is not a culture (merits and demerits of Muslim culture should be at Islamic culture)
• it is not a country (criticism of 'Islamic countries' should be in the articles of those countries)

Bless sins (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Also add "radical Islam" to this list. Anyone criticizing "radical Islam" is probably not criticizing Islam the religion, or else wouldn't use a qualifying term.Bless sins (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Wholesale deletions

There have been a lot of summary deletions of criticism of linked material with recent tags. I would like to see this purging of obviously legitimate material halted. Student7 (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Material such as the 2 blocks you readded are in no way relevant to the page as they contain no criticism of Islam. The first was a situation in Sudan which contained criticism of the decision of the legal system. This is not relevant in this article in the same way criticism of court decisions in England are not mentioned in criticism of Christianity and court decisions in Israel are not relevant to criticism of Judaism. The second was historical information about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, I'm not really sure why you thought it was relevant but that information would be appropriate in Muslim Brotherhood or History of Egypt. The only things that should be mentioned in an article about criticism of Islam is criticism of Islam. JoshyDinda (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You keep adding more irrelevant things to this article. These things have their place in Wikipedia for example Women's rights in Saudi Arabia, LGBT topics and Islam, the criticism section on Mutaween etc; However if it doesn't include actual criticism of the religion of Islam then it doesn't belong in this article as the title suggests. JoshyDinda (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Where did these countries (one with religious police) get their laws from? They didn't fall out of the sky. They are religiously derived with Islamic support. If they didn't get it from Islamic tradition, where did these proscriptions come from?

While there are "liberal" countries (so far) like Omam and Egypt, Women's rights are often suppressed in Islamic countries. Since laws are constructed by Islamic countries, where else can they have derived them but Islam? Are they reading something wrong? Are they religious heretics?

And many Islamic countries, if not most have "dress codes" enforced by religious police where available, or by the regular police (sometimes).

In others (Palestine, for example), suicide bombers are recruited from women caught (or maybe just accused of) adultery. They are given a choice: stoning or suicide with a martyrs death.

I guess, the question is what will you allow to be said in here, since you appear to have somehow acquired WP:OWNERSHIP over the article? Student7 (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the confusion is. Criticism of Islam is criticism of the religion, what happens in Palestine or the other examples you have given are not relevant to the aritlce. It's really not difficult to understand. I'm surprised it wasn't obvious to you that these sections were not suitable since in the Sudan one you somehow managed to cite the Muslim council of Britain as critics of Islam. Do you not see how idiotic this is? JoshyDinda (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose we can have a separate article that criticizes the application of Islamic principles in specific countries. Like Afghanistan (and others) punishing rape victims by forcing them to marry the perpetrator, or punishing it as adultery (and therefore stoning). Student7 (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, you could have a separate article on "Criticism of Muslims".Bless sins (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)