Talk:Criticism of Muhammad/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Improper tagging

User:Humaliwalay has again added header tags to the article which seem either unnecessary, or blatantly wrong. For example, I cannot find a peacock term anywhere in the article and Humaliwalay has provided no examples. Further, the tags for Neutrality and OR are inappropriate unless they are accompanied by specific examples from the text of the article. There has long been a fairly solid general concensus amongst editors on the neutrality and POV of the article, yet Humaliwalay claims there is no consensus because he disagrees with the theme and topic of the article; that is not how consensus works.

User:Humaliwalay, unless you can provide specific examples of text that we can discuss and act upon, the tags do not belong. Doc Tropics 19:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"Lutheran writers recorded both polemical and historical ideas about Muhammad. Martin Luther referred to Muhammad as "a devil and first-born child of Satan".[7] Heinrich Knaust in 1542 wrote that Muhammad's parents gave birth to him on the outskirts of Mecca. After his father's death, he lived with his mother and grandfather. When he reached maturity, he saw that the people could not decide whether to follow Christianity, Judaism, or Arianism. So, remembering an astrological prophecy that he would begin a new religion, he pieced together parts of the Christian and Jewish Scriptures. These he had learned from an Egyptian monk and the heretic Sergius. His goal was to make a law that he could get both Christians and Jews to submit to.[8]"

The above section is entirely from Catholic Encyclopedia which is hostile towards Muhammad, the Section of Ali Sina is from [1] which is a hate site and again hostile towards Mohammad, again the section Murder of Asma bint Marwan[38] cannot be verified, there are plenty of sentences which promote the concerned subject without any neutrality like the above highlighted ones. Another Example - "Lutheran writers recorded both polemical and historical ideas about Muhammad. Martin Luther referred to Muhammad as "a devil and first-born child of Satan".[7] Heinrich Knaust in 1542 wrote that Muhammad's parents gave birth to him on the outskirts of Mecca. After his father's death, he lived with his mother and grandfather. When he reached maturity, he saw that the people could not decide whether to follow Christianity, Judaism, or Arianism. So, remembering an astrological prophecy that he would begin a new religion, he pieced together parts of the Christian and Jewish Scriptures. These he had learned from an Egyptian monk and the heretic Sergius. His goal was to make a law that he could get both Christians and Jews to submit to.[8]" This is a complete POV pushed by the initial composers and then by the editor, where can we verify the claims of Martin Luther and Knaust that "Martin Luther referred to Muhammad as "a devil and first-born child of Satan".[7] Heinrich Knaust in 1542 wrote that Muhammad's parents gave birth to him on the outskirts of Mecca". Please prove the neutrality and then remove tags after reaching consensus.

I have kept the reference numbers above, to ease referring in the article - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I find it curious that someone would complain of referencing sources perceived as hostile to Muhammad, when this article is about "criticism of Muhammad". Therefore, it is appropriate to reference such sources, because they are sources of criticism. As long as the criticism is properly attributed to the source, and isn't presented as if Wikipedia is taking a position, then there is no problem.

I also note that Humaliwalay tagged the article with weasel words, although none can be found. I'm removing that tag. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If this is the case that its curious to say someone would complain of referencing sources perceived as hostile to Muhammad, when this article is about "criticism of Muhammad". Then why was references removed from article Criticism of Sunni Islam by complaining about hostile and hate reference?? when the article itself was about Criticism??? If that can happen there why can't here, if not then please remove the tags from Criticism of Sunni Islam first then shall we remove from here. Because I have tagged this article based upon my conclusion from the opinions of various editors on talk page of Criticism of Sunni Islam.

Please guide, as I welcome that because I can see contradictory judgments there, till the time i reinstate the tag. Thanks. - Humaliwalay (talk) 09:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have never looked at Criticism of Sunni Islam. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid argument -- although that document is written in the context of deletion debates, it applies here as well. This article is this article. It is not another article. Problems in other articles doesn't justify introducing the same problems in this article.

You have restored the peacock terms tag without justification. I have removed it because you have not demonstrated any example of peacock terms. I have left in the OR and NPOV tags for now, but you also have not justified the OR. You are arguing NPOV, basically. Once and for all, please explain these tags, or accept that they will be removed. I have no problem with the NPOV tag staying in the article until the differences of opinions regarding sources is resolved. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

And my response echoes that of Amatulić. First, the Catholic Encyclopedia is a perfectly valid reference for criticism of religous topics and related issues. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the NPOV policy: it requires us to report information without taking a stance on the issue, it does not require us to ignore information which is non-neutral or hostile in nature....we just report it accurately using neutral language. Similarly, the writings of Martin Luther on this subject are notable and his theological opinions are not subject to our NPOV policy, the way that we write about them is. As long as we report his opinions accurately, in neutral language, we have acted in accordance with the policy. Second, WP:OTHERSTUFF is exactly on point in this case: the proper action is to correct the issues with Criticism of Sunni Islam, a process which has already begun. Doc Tropics 03:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

OK..I referred the OTHER-STUFF section and finally agree that example from Criticism of Sunni Islam cannot be taken here as argument. I will not place any tags from the conclusion of that article, but still neutrality tags will exist because there is no consensus as of now about neutrality. Please do help me in reaching conclusion on reference used in Criticism of Sunni Islam there has been a lot of issues going on. Do interfere and help getting article improved. - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverted recent explanation of criticisms

I have reverted a good-faith edit by Rsg70007 that attempted to explain some criticisms regarding sexual deviance. The problems I saw were as follows:

• This is the English Wikipedia. The primary references are not verifiable to English readers, because they are in a middle eastern language.
• One of the references was a video, on what looks like an Arabic YouTube site.
• Interpretations favorable to Muhammad were being presented as factual. I see this also in Christian arguments that attempt to explain away contradictions evident in the Bible, with the reasoning that anything that can be interpreted as favorable to the religion should be interpreted that way. That is the impression I got here.

If the interpretations were presented as how followers of Islam explain away these criticisms, that would be better. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel the same way, and for the same reasons. At least half has been re-reverted by Rsg. -Digiphi (Talk) 01:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of issues here.

1. The article Wikipedia:verifiability clearly states that "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, unless no English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." This clause is definitely the case when you are accessing the books of Tafsir, or Qur'anic exegesis, or the likes of Fath al-Bari. Only Ibn Kathir, as far as I know has been translated, and it is an abridgment, so even there the translation is not complete. This has been consistently the case in Wikipedia material dealing specifically with issues which are native to non-English parts of the world, such as Islam, and this article should be no exception.
2. In fact, largely relying on translations will lead to problems. An example is in the hadith quoted from al-Bukhari referencing an online translation. In an effort to use online translations, this person used one (usc.edu) which removes chapter headings, mis-numbers the hadiths, and does not even add quotations properly. This led to the person providing as a criticism of Muhammad text which was not attributed to him to begin with, being the speech of al-Bukhari in his quoting Abu Hanifah: "Some people said, 'If a virgin is not asked for her consent and she is not married, and then a man, by playing a trick presents two false witnesses that he has married her with her consent and the judge confirms his marriage as a true one, and the husband knows that the witnesses were false ones, then there is no harm for him to consummate his marriage with her and the marriage is regarded as valid.'"
3. In most of these cases, you could have requested further translation. I can in fact translate the entire passage being quoted in the footnote itself. This would be as per the passage in Wikipedia:Verifiability "When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page. "
4. I did not present "interpretations favorable to Muhammad as factual" as claimed. Rather, I used the words "interpreted" and "exegesis" wherever referring to these interpretations, or "linguistic" referring to the semantic properties of the text. Where the criticisms being discussed lack any reference I used the words "imply" since the author didn't mention any point of criticism to begin with after quoting texts from the Qur'an and Sunnah. As far as being similar to Christian arguments that attempt to explain away contradictions evident in the Bible, I don't see what contradictions are being discussed, nor my bringing myself into any of these discussions as an attempt to "argue" something away. My stance was not Apologetic, rather an attempt to discuss these criticisms strictly in the light of what the texts themselves reveal, including the original scholarly treatments of the Qur'an and Sunnah which predate any of these criticisms. In contrasting the two, an Apologetic tone may have occurred, but that is far from presenting something as fact. In short, I may have erred in application or otherwise, but I don't believe my overall stance was in error, to the point where the points made became unacceptable.
5. I find the statement "If the interpretations were presented as how followers of Islam explain away these criticisms, that would be better," very problematic. First of all, no source I mentioned, or for that matter any scholarly treatment of an Islamic text that I am aware of claims to present how "followers of Islam" understand them, rather how specific people understood them, or how specific generations or madhabs understood them etc, or the author himself. The sources I mentioned, whether primary or secondary, all go back to classic interpretations which predated all of the fantastic criticisms being discussed. They are not apologetics, or responses to accusations of Muhammad of sexual assault etc, but the original de facto understandings of the texts, which any reasonable critic would actually have referred to himself. To present something as you have requested is to do original research, not to present scholarship. Additionally, your requesting "how followers of Islam explain away..." the texts seems to indicate that you are open to the Wiki including apologetic responses as long as they are attributed as such. I don't think it is acceptable in Wikipedia to do as you have suggested, but rather to bring to light the scholarship already in existence regarding the topic at hand and no more.

The following are the additions that were reverted. I have attempted to explain a few points, and then maybe we can take it from there.

Sahih al-Bukhari and Quran both known as the most authentic books in Islam contain verses that have been interpreted as describing sexual assault and child abuse by modern standards.

1. Narrated 'Abdur-rahman bin al-Aswad: …(on the authority of his father) 'Aisha said: "Whenever Allah's apostle wanted to fondle anyone of us during her periods (menses), he used to order her to put on an izar and start fondling her." 'Aisha added, "None of you could control his sexual desires as the prophet could."Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:6:299

My previous comments: The narration in itself is used by critics to portray Muhammad as sexually deviant, while it is often ignored that it is in fact a narration from his own wife speaking of his ability to restrain himself. This ability to restrain oneself from intercourse was a requirement in certain situations, for such relations with one's spouse are not allowed for a person when fasting, or otherwise prohibited from doing so (due to Ihram or a Kaffarah etc.) unless he was sure of his ability to restrain himself.

The video quoted was a fatwa given regarding the question "Is it permissible for a man to kiss or touch his spouse while fasting" which discusses this context. Though the speaker is an authority in jurisprudence, I have no qualms about providing textual references, in fact I always do so, but this time saw this as being a superb discussion of the context of this narration. I personally agree with the video not being best, and have no issue with bringing references which explicitly discuss the context of the text mentioned.

That is the main point: the narration has context. An encyclopedic treatment of any topic should provide the original interpretation of such a text which builds upon such context, being that we are discussing it's modern criticism.

Also I am basing my additions on the fact that the "criticism" presented is acceptable as it is. I myself don't see the criticism, only an allegation of existing criticisms, and the presentation of the source material of the criticism, which is nonsense. Really, the criticism should itself be presented, the words of the critic themselves containing such texts.

Note that I didn't refute the criticism. I didn't speak about the lack of sexual assault in this example, or the legal definition of it, etc. Rather, I only provided the original context of the text, and how that is seemingly considered by the alleged critics. The reference being in video form is a non-issue, though just for it to be clear, it is the kind of video that is often transcribed and published, being a fatwa program with a prominent scholar.

2) The second point here is, I believe, is even more important for it to be made clear where the problem lies in articles such as this. The following verse from the Qur'an is presented without any comment whatsoever.

Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear Allah. And know that ye are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give (these) good tidings to those who believe.

Is the verse in itself a criticism of Muhammad, or is the verse being interpreted to mean something which is being held as a criticism of Muhammad? It is a surprise to me that this person was not required to be clear what exactly he/she is speaking about.

I had said, "This verse as [is] discussed in various works of Qur'anic exegesis and though it's negative connotation is linguistically non-existent, it has been used by critics to imply sexual deviance. In fact, it is interpreted to give allowance to a man to have conjugal relations with his spouse entering her vaginally, and not anally, for the tilth refers to the womb's bearing fruit.[34] The preceding verse prohibited one from having relations with his spouse while she was menstruating."

I should have been said openly in the quotation what interpretation I was referring to, for this makes it sound as if no specific text is in mind. And there is some lack of clarity which can be fixed also. However, if the fact that the Qur'an is itself quoted by some guy in 2010 as a criticsm of Muhammad (without his saying any more than quoting the Qur'an) and that the Qur'anic exegesis from 800 years ago has no application is absurd.

3) The following verse from Sahih al-Bukhari has been interpreted by critics to mean that virgins were forced into child marriage. The Prophet said, 'A virgin should not be married till she is asked for her consent.' 'O Apostle! How will the virgin express her consent.' He said, 'By remaining silent.' [This is where the hadith ends.] Some people said, "If a virgin is not asked for her consent and she is not married, and then a man, by playing a trick presents two false witnesses that he has married her with her consent and the judge confirms his marriage as a true one, and the husband knows that the witnesses were false ones, then there is no harm for him to consummate his marriage with her and the marriage is regarded as valid." Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:86:98

First of all al-Bukhari (which the author placed BEFORE the Qur'an as being the most authentic books of Islam) does not have verses. Secondly, what critics used this "verse" and where? Thirdly, the translation used is not accurate. Fourthly, as I already mentioned, the part the author wants to use is the speech of Bukhari not part of the Hadith.

If the additions were removed due to the tone becoming somewhat apologetic, that is fine. I can see that, though the criticism itself has some role in that. "This viewpoint is founded on understanding that the words "some people said..." to the end of the text are part of the narration, as has been printed incorrectly certain translations of Sahih al-Bukhari. The speech is in fact that of the author of Sahih al-Bukhari himself in his quoting Abu Hanifah and his opinion in regards to a marriage in which a man married a virgin with her consent but with false witnesses.[36] It is thus neither a statement of Prophet Muhammad, nor an affirmation of the allowance of forced marriage. In fact, forced marriage is concerned impermissible by Ijmaa', or consensus, of the scholars of jurisprudence.[37][38]

The references are an academic article which discusses the quote itself, as being the opinion of Abu Hanifah which al-Bukhari was referring to here. The other references are Fath al-Bari, the encyclopedic complition of Ibn Hajr of the various commentaries on Sahih al-Bukhari.

I am open to suggestions on how to correct this part of the article. Leaving it as it is is lying, while the author may just have been ignorant. I am actually against removing it, since if this is indeed a criticism, it shouldn't be removed from discussion. Please feel free to suggest.

Then as for the Zaineb heading, the narrations are all weak. I discussed it a little more than the Aisha hadiths, and may have lost the appropriate tone for encyclopedic content in some areas. However, returning it to the status quo, we have weak narrations being mentioned without any discussion of their authenticity. This is unacceptable.

In short, I will be happy to work on these points again, but I request that the aggressive editing be checked in consideration of the points I mentioned above.

Thank you Rsg70007 (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, Rsg. Please understand that this article is about criticism of the historical figure Muhammad. You can determine this from the title at the top of the article page. If you have concerns about the content being presented as the official, non-controverted history of this man, do it on the Muhammad article. Any criticism of Muhammad that has been made widely and/or by notable critics is to be reported in this article. That is this article's purpose. -Digiphi (Talk) 03:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

1) Question: is there an article which discusses/presents the methodology being followed in the Wikipedia Criticism of... type of articles? 2) Comment: at least the majority of the criticisms I am referring to are problematic by your definition. They are either not referenced to anybody specifically, or referenced to the wrong person, which I have already made clear. If what is presented is within the bounds of Wikipedia's methodology (which I insist it isn't and you are insisting it is), you should say, "any criticism of Muhammad that has been claimed to have been made or can somehow be ascribed to him is to be reported in this article." And if that is this article's purpose, then so be it. As for "widely and/or by notable critics" than you cannot attach those words to what I have been speaking about. Quoting the Qur'an itself as criticism also does not match your description. Rsg70007 (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

According to Whom

This interpretation isn't sourced by anyone credible.

The following verse from Sahih al-Bukhari can be interpreted to mean that virgins were forced into child marriage.

The Prophet said, 'A virgin should not be married till she is asked for her consent.' 'O Apostle! How will the virgin express her consent.' He said, 'By remaining silent.' Some people said, "If a virgin is not asked for her consent and she is not married, and then a man, by playing a trick presents two false witnesses that he has married her with her consent and the judge confirms his marriage as a true one, and the husband knows that the witnesses were false ones, then there is no harm for him to consummate his marriage with her and the marriage is regarded as valid." Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:86:98[33]

The statement begins with "'A virgin should not be married till she is asked for her consent." the remainder of the quote is thus qualified by this rule or statement.

"How will the virgin express her consent.' He said, 'By remaining silent.'" meaning if she is asked for her hand in marriage and she is to shy to answer yes [as many young women are inherently shy] this is seen as consent or if she does not want to marry she can say no.

"If a virgin is not asked for her consent and she is not married, and then a man, by playing a trick presents two false witnesses that he has married her with her consent and the judge confirms his marriage as a true one" this is referring to a person who has tricked and lied about the marriage, after which the case is disputed in a court of law hence the prophets mentioning of a judge.

"and the husband knows that the witnesses were false ones" the husband knows he is lying and has tricked the judge but the issue cannot be settled or proven in her favor in a court, meaning an injustice has been done against her.

"then there is no harm for him to consummate his marriage with her and the marriage is regarded as valid." as it is self evident this wording clearly contradicts the opening remark "'A virgin should not be married till she is asked for her consent.'" so how do you reconcile the two points...by accepting the more sensational remark and ignoring what the source itself quotes as the prophets own words in the same work on the same page directly following what is quoted on wikki???

Volume 9, Book 86, Number 99: Narrated Al-Qasim: A woman from the offspring of Ja'far was afraid lest her guardian marry her (to somebody) against her will. So she sent for two elderly men from the Ansar, 'AbdurRahman and Mujammi', the two sons of Jariya, and they said to her, "Don't be afraid, for Khansa' bint Khidam was given by her father in marriage against her will, then the Prophet cancelled that marriage." (See Hadith No. 78)

Volume 9, Book 86, Number 100: Narrated Abu Haraira: Allah's Apostle said, "A lady slave should not be given in marriage until she is consulted, and a virgin should not be given in marriage until her permission is granted." The people said, "How will she express her permission?" The Prophet said, "By keeping silent (when asked her consent)." Some people said, "If a man, by playing a trick, presents two false witnesses before the judge to testify that he has married a matron with her consent and the judge confirms his marriage, and the husband is sure that he has never married her (before), then such a marriage will be considered as a legal one and he may live with her as husband."

Volume 9, Book 86, Number 101: Narrated 'Aisha: Allah's Apostle said, "It is essential to have the consent of a virgin (for the marriage). I said, "A virgin feels shy." The Prophet; said, "Her silence means her consent." Some people said, "If a man falls in love with an orphan slave girl or a virgin and she refuses (him) and then he makes a trick by bringing two false witnesses to testify that he has married her, and then she attains the age of puberty and agrees to marry him and the judge accepts the false witness and the husband knows that the witnesses were false ones, he may consummate his marriage."

Sahih al bukhari is a source of the prophets words out of context they are short statements by individuals about various issues, often many sound confusing due to how brief or scarce of detail they are. if the idiotic assertion above [can be interpreted to mean that virgins were forced] is accepted as proof of Islamic law then it may surprise some that their is a system of law in Islam called shariah law, they should quote shariah law as permitting a women to be forced into marriage and not misquote a clearly primary source which itself is against wikki policy. Shariah law is based on the study and research of legal experts of Islams primary sources and their is no such law permitting women to be forced into marriage.

This is what shariah law says,

Islamically, an adult woman has the right to choose or agree to the person she will marry, for the obvious reason that this is the person who will be her companion and ameer for the rest of her life.

The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace be upon him) said , “A virgin cannot be married until her permission is sought.” [Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, Nasa’i, and Ibn Maja, from Abu Hurayra (Allah be pleased with him)]

If the person is not suitable for religious reasons, or because she does not like his character, personality, or something else that will not make her happy or secure with him, then she has the full right to refuse to marry him, and her parents cannot force her to do so against her will. Then, if she continues to refuse, the marriage will not be valid. If they force her to accept against her will, they will have wronged her.

In `Allama Qudri Basha’s definitive codification of Hanafi person law, it states that:

(Item 53)

• An adult free woman cannot be forced to marry, whether she is a virgin or a non-virgin.

• Rather, it is necessary to get her permission and approval.

• If she is a virgin and her immediate guardian (wali), or his agent (wakeel) or messenger (rasul) sought her approval before marrying her off or if he married her off... and she knew the husband and the mahr and maintained her silence from refusing, without being forced, or smiled or laughed without doing so scoffingly, or cried without a voice, then [in all these cases] this is considered an approval [f: legally, though it is religiously recommended to seek explicit spoken approval]... (Qudri Basha, al-Ahkam al-Shar`iyya fi’l Ahwal al-Shakhsiyya)

This is confirmed by Imam Haskafi and Ibn Abidin in Radd al-Muhtar `ala al-Durr al-Mukhtar (2.298-299, Bulaq ed.) and other major texts of the Hanafi school [of law].

Shaykh Faraz Rabbani [quoting Islams major legal experts]

on this basis i request this quote be removed as it is erroneous in its representation and interpretation.

Ibn kathir (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

i have removed the passage since no one has attempted any sort of dialogue.

Ibn kathir (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ibn. I posted these comments once above but I feel it needs just as well to appear here. Excuse me, Rsg. Please understand that this article is about criticism of the historical figure Muhammad. You can determine this from the title at the top of the article page. If you have concerns about the content being presented as the official, non-controverted history of this man, do it on the Muhammad article. Any criticism of Muhammad that has been made widely and/or by notable critics is to be reported in this article. That is this article's purpose.

If you wait three hours and no one has answered something on the board, that doesn't mean you're being ignored. Editors have RLs and aren't on WP 24/7. We can discuss it here if you like. -Digiphi (Talk) 03:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

well its been a week i have raised my points and no one has discussed anything, i am again going to remove the incorrect quote.

Ibn kathir (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I have again removed the primary sources quotes regarding women being forced to marry since i have clearly proven my case that no this is not a part of the Islamic religion.

Saying a thing can be interpreted to mean something is so wide a statement that anything can be placed after it and isn't a justification for its inclusion. for example, The following can be interpreted to mean space monkeys are flying in orbit, E=mc^2...i see the correlation why don't you?

their are thousands upon thousands of prophetic sayings in Islam should every single one of them along with their warped interpretations be included in this page. the basic rule should be if Muslims themselves don't interpret understand or believe the hadith to be saying something you think it is then their is no grounds for its inclusion here since essentially you are critisisng your own perspective and beliefs not that of Muslims. Its one thing to critisise a muslim for something he believes in and completely outrageous to criticize him of something he doesn't belive in and ask him to defend himself against it.

Ibn kathir (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

is any one going to attempt to source those primary sources comments or will we have to seek arbitration on this matter?

Ibn kathir (talk) 07:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ibn kathir, please feel free to do something here besides complain. If you think that text needs a source....go find one. For most of us this is an extremely busy time of year and WP takes a back seat to "real life". And just so you know, Arbitration is generally the last step in conflict resolution, not the first. Doc Tropics 16:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The onus is on you to find a source since you want to maintain the quote i want it removed because it has no source.

Ibn kathir (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If this were a WP:BLP article, you might have a point about removal. But this isn't a BLP article. If a reasonable but contentious claim has no source, then slap a {{fact}} tag on it, but you don't have consensus to remove it because sources do exist - they just aren't in the article. This isn't an urgent issue, and those of us participating here are, as Doc Tropics points out, extremely busy this time of year. If you aren't busy (and I guess you aren't if you think you have time to bother ArbCom at this stage in the dispute), go find a source. Otherwise tag the statement and wait. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

so what your saying is that as long as this isn't a biography of a living person we can write what ever we like. Well at this point in time i have only your word that a source exists but you have not produced anything, i also question your sense of sensibility if you think it is reasonable to maintain something that is little more than a myth. The title of this page should be changed to common myths and misconceptions about Islam and Muhammad since being factual is not an issue, Such claims should be under common myths not criticisms as they are not formal or by qualified individuals.

Ibn kathir (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have already provided two possible sources resulting from a brief 5-minute search. Doc Tropics suggested others. Further investigation is required.

No, being factual is not an issue. Are you surprised? See WP:NOTTRUTH. I'm sure most Christians disagree with criticism of Jesus but their objections don't invalidate the fact that criticism exists.

And I have no objection to an article called "common misconceptions about Islam" but we already have an article called list of common misconceptions, with a section on religion (including Islam) so I invite you to submit entries there if you like.

As for this article, criticisms need not be valid to be criticism. Many criticisms are borne out of misconceptions. I have no objection to removal of the disputed text if no good sources can be found (and I promise to take some time next month) but the current consensus is that the criticism is not new, and it is reasonable to conclude that sources exist. If you can't be bothered to respect the consensus and find sources, then you simply have to wait until others find the time to do it. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the most reasonable response i have had from anyone so far, thank you. ill wait and see.

Ibn kathir (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Aisha and the age of marriage in pre industrial world

Her age only became an issue at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century when parts of the world became industrialized and the modern schooling system delayed the age of maturity by some 10 years [see John Taylor Gatto], it is enough to point out that muhammads worst enemies in his own life time did not object to the marriage or saw anything controversial in it, and you can not judge a individual by the standards of society he wasn't a part of didn't grow up in and a time and place he wasn't aware of. it is like accusing a person of a crime that he didn't even know was a crime and neither did the rest of the world during that time.

for example

The minimum age for marriage under Jewish law is 13 for boys, 12 for girls; however, the kiddushin can take place before that, and often did in medieval times. source.

What is the minimum age of marriage according to Jewish law? by Rabbi Naftali Silberberg…In ancient (and not so ancient) times however, marriage was often-times celebrated at a rather young age. Although we do not follow this dictum, technically speaking, a girl may be betrothed the moment she is born, and married at the age of three. [Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 37:1.] A boy may betroth and marry at the age of thirteen. [Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 43:1] source.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says: The marriageable age is fourteen full years in males and twelve full years in females, under penalty of nullity (unless natural puberty supplies the want of years [i.e. if puberty occurs before the age of twelve])… The canonical age holds in England, Spain, Portugal, Greece (Ionian Isles excepted, where it is sixteen and fourteen), and as regards Catholics even in Austria. While in some parts of the United States the canonical marriage age of fourteen and twelve still prevails, in others it has been enlarged by statutes.source.

the point is this was the normal age of marriage during Biblical times and the ancient world, "Women were marriageable right after puberty, marriage arrangements were made while they were in infancy; they were wed at the age of twelve or fourteen to men in their twenties or thirties." source. or "One such example of betrothal between a mature male and young girl is that of St.Augustine (354-439 A.D.). At the age of thirty-one, Augustine betrothed himself to a ten-year-old girl.", "Child brides, whether Byzantines or foreign princesses, were the norm rather than the exception, especially from the late twelfth century. Irene Ducaena, wife of Alexius I Comnenus, was twelve at her marriage, and empress before she was fifteen; the Byzantine princess Theodora, Manuel's niece, was in her thirteenth year when she married Baldwin III of Jerusalem; and Margaret-Maria of Hungary married Isaac II Angelus at the age of nine." source.

Pedophilia is an entirely modern development and label rightly made against individuals who have sexual relations with children that are pre pubesent. the wikki article itself asserts [as well as it being a historical fact] that muhammad consummated the marriage after Aisha reached the age of puberty so the label of pedophelia is erroneous and wrong to begin with by the modern defanition of pedophelia, see wikkis own page on the defanition here and the American Psychiatric Association's definition, Islamic law reflects this same reality that a women can not be married prior to reaching the age of puberty which differs from one individual to the next. The page should be corrected and the charge removed, simply because a person makes an accusation due to lack of knowledge it does not mean the erroneous claim should be maintained for the sake of reporting grievances.

Ibn kathir (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether you personally agree or not, this is a well-documented criticism that has been raised many times by notable and well known figures; it certainly merits inclusion. The text fully explains the different historical and cultural standards regarding child marriage, and both points of view are properly referenced with reliable sources. Doc Tropics 17:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

personnel opinion has nothing to do with this, by the scientific definition of what pedophelia is according to the sourced article on wikki and the American Psychiatric Association their claims are wrong. This is clear fact not an opinion. A well documented erroneous criticism is still an erroneous criticism based on error, its well documentation does not add to its credibility only to the list of people who are wrong. if this was simply a matter of opinion i could see your point but the definition is clear, these statements do nothing but increase hate amongst people and benefit no one. Ibn kathir (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Our article doesn't say Muhammad was a pedophile, it doesn't even use that word except in the context of a specific quote from a prominent Christian pastor, so arguing whether or not the term is technically correct is pointless; it's part of a quote that is properly attributed. Please try to understand that whether the criticism is right or wrong, it is still a notable criticism and can be referenced to reliable sources so there is no justification to remove it. Doc Tropics 22:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And Ibn, again, this article is about criticism of Muhammad. Content presented as sound and non-controverted facts is on the Muhammad article. Gripes and opinions about the appropriateness of facts should be taken there. This page is an encyclopedic report about criticisms. Do you see —Digiphi (Talk) 03:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The quote you talk about isn't separate from the article and is presented in a manner that implicitly implies he is a pedophile as it is presented directly after the quote about Aisha being pre- menarchal hence giving the implication that yes this pastures idiotic and hypocritical claims of him being a pedophile are in fact correct. you don't have to explicitly say something for it to be understood in such a manner. The basis of a criticism should be factual and if proven wrong either removed as it has no basis or refuted with the clear evidence directly after the quote otherwise you would be guilty of mis-information and spreading hate unjustifiably and wiki is an encyclopedia not a collection of erroneous facts and quotations, of which their would be no end if we where to list all the wrong criticism leveled at the prophet over the years.

your reliable sources link is pointless all it means is that the quote is proven to be from the pasture which no one is disputing, i am disputing its factual basis in reality. the quote makes a definite assertion not a criticism subject to opinion, it is also followed by a quote from a primary source [which is against wiki policy] as to suggest this pastures accusation is in fact factual and correct. the entire section is presented in such a deliberate manner as to leave no room for any other conclusion. The quotes refuting his erroneous claims are inadequate and do nothing to address the specific charge leveled against him.

Ibn kathir (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ibn, this is in fact the place for assertions. This isn't the page for conclusions and facts. That's not what we do here. Again, these might be valid complaints about content in the Muhammad article. However this article is about notable criticisms. We don't draw conclusions for readers. As a reader you can draw your own conclusions. You can even conclude from the content reported in the article and your own background knowledge that you disagree with some of the criticism reported, but you can't remove content because you've decided the criticizer is incorrect in his/her assertions. A good place to do that would be in one of myriad internet forums for theological and historical discussions. This is not a forum. Also, if you read WP:Verify and WP:IRS, you can find the guidelines regarding primary sources, which do not prescribe a blanket prohibition. —Digiphi (Talk) 15:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

no matter how hard you try you cant twist your way from the fact that this section is written to prove Muhammad was a pedophile, you would have half a case if it was quotes alone and i would at least think you where sincere but someone arranged those quotes deliberately and then attempted to support them with primary sources which where not part of the original quotes but the concoction of the person writing the section, so no this section inst merely a collection of notable criticisms. you can also stop using the this is not a forum bs because the point i raised, their is no discussion it is the scientific definition of the term pedophile no amount discussion will ever change that fact.

Ibn kathir (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

i have removed the misquotes and false accusations and left what is at least based on reality.

Ibn kathir (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

And I have restored the content because you failed to make your case; consensus supports its inclusion. Doc Tropics 14:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

power is addictive isn't it in spite of scientific facts. so this is a page on notable criticisms which other people have decided to support with primary sources which i have proven are wrong...well done clap clap.

Ibn kathir (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The relevant fact here is that Muhammad has been criticized as being a pedophile. This is a common criticism, and therefore is appropriate to include. Whether that criticism is valid or not isn't an issue to be addressed within the scope of this article. Ibn kathir, edit-warring will not accomplish the revisions you want on this article. If anything, the sourcing should be improved. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

than this is little more than name calling and that should be beyond the scope of an encyclopedia wording it in a civil manner wont change that. you cant reconcile your logic with the fact that someone has attempted to support and prop up these criticisms with primary sources hence making an argument that is separate from the quote and for them, which itself beyond the scope of the article as you mention it. Are you really attempting to list every single criticism made of Muhammad no matter how petty or wrong?

Ibn kathir (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Very valid point Ibn kathir. The point that is continually being missed is that this kind of a "mass list" is NOT encyclopedic in any way. It is misinformation, plain and simple. There needs to be a clear statement about the methodology of the "Criticism of" articles. Stereotypes are not criticism. Myths are not criticism. Misunderstandings are not criticism. Criticism is more noble than all of that, it has a scholastic requirement in itself. At least it does in any encyclopedia or scholarly work I have come across until now. To sum up what is being asked for as I see it: present the actual criticism sourced to whoever says it. Quoting Islamic texts under new titles does not qualify as criticism in itself. Thank you. Rsg70007 (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't a valid point. What primary sources? The part on Aisha is very well sourced. If you want more sources for notable people leveling the criticism of pedophilia at Muhammad, such sources are easily found. Some are already mentioned, such as Geert Wilders.

If you have a problem with the title of the article, we can change it to something more appropriate, although "criticism" is a broad word that covers all its various forms. Criticism is not as narrow as you would like it to be. The fact is, criticism comes in many forms. Some criticism arises from stereotypes, misunderstanding, and myths. The critics can be ignorant of facts; that doesn't make them not-critics. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is a valid point. Under the Aisha heading it says "Sahih al-Bukhari and Quran both known as the most authentic books in Islam contain verses that have been interpreted as describing sexual assault and child abuse by modern standards." After this PRIMARY sources are listed. No actual criticisms are listed. The alleged criticism ("have been interpreted") is NOT referenced to anybody. The point which you are missing is that this is not called criticism. This is called presenting an allegation, and then citing evidence for it. And you have disallowed discussion of these points of evidence to show their original historical understanding. I said before that myths and stereotypes are not called criticism. Criticism, what is defined as such in application in all scholarly work, presents what is being discussed and then presents criticism based on it. Stereotypes do not do that and neither do myths (they are based on non-existent or fictitious material). Do you see it as permissible to create an article called "Criticism of African-Americans" and list that Blacks in American have been criticized as being "niggers"? I am not saying that Geerd Wilders' calling Prophet Muhammad a pedophile is not criticism. It is. Present it and cite it to him. Don't present a hadeeth from Sahih al-Bukhari and an ALLEGED criticism. I don't think I can make this any clearer.

We are not arguing what people say and do, and what they can say and do. We are arguing the methodology of this article as per its presentation of criticism, upon our understanding that this is a scholarly article in an open encyclopedia.

Thank you Rsg70007 (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I see the problem. This talk page section has a heading referring to Aisha, the comments I responded to were in the context of Aisha, and you are referring to a different part of the article that does indeed have sourcing problems, and I agree that if nothing can be found the passage can be removed. However, rather than argue for removing the section, why not try to find sources? A few minutes of searching came up with the following:

• http://schnellmann.org/http___www.homa.org_mohammad-the-pedophile.pdf - probably not reliable
• http://www.primechoice.com/philosophy/jihadpages/women.htm - better, with many criticisms and backing arguments

I am sure more can be found. I find it interesting that there is a lengthy discussion above involving nothing but complaints, with no attempt to make constructive improvements. This is an article about criticism. Therefore, criticism belongs in the article. If the criticism is badly sourced, then improve the sourcing. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

And you dont see anything ethically wrong with creating your own allegation then searching for a source that agrees with you to maintain it, rather than simply listing a well known criticism which happens to mention this material.

"The following verse from Sahih al-Bukhari can be interpreted to mean that virgins were forced into child marriage."...this is not attributed to anyone so instead of deleting it as per some scholarly methodology you would rather advocate searching for a random source to maintain it...are we listing well known and recognized criticisms or random interpretations of primary sources, further this is a separate allegation than that of the pedophile quote and has nothing to do with Aisha as it is allegedly referring to women being forced to marry and it is established from the primary source itself in the very next hadith that the prophet annulled a forced marriage and did not accept them, so why should a random persons idiocy and lack of education be given due weight.

Ibn kathir (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't create the allegation. The allegation existed before Wikipedia existed. If it's a known criticism, it belongs in the article, and should be sourced. As I stated before, critics are often not educated in the subjects they critique. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

There seem to be two seperate issues here. First is the "accusations of pedophilia". These are well established with a strong historical basis and not reasonably subject to removal.

However, the second issue regards the use of primary sources and the unattributed theory "...can be interpreted as..." or "...has been interpreted...". While there is nothing wrong with quoting primary sources for illustrative purposes, this part of the section does need a reference to avoid the appearance of original research. But as Amatulic pointed out, it's not something we just made up; references can certainly be found. The first two sources I would check would be Spellberg and then Turner, since we already include both of them as reliable for historical information. Doc Tropics 18:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

the second issue is made up maybe not by you but someone, at present their is no source and yet it is included, you are now seeking to find a random source in order to maintain the allegation you didn't have this source before hand it was simply made up, this is the sequence of events.

you are also giving the impression that any one can come up with any allegation about anything and you will list it here, you need to list your criteria for accepting allegations and criticisms. i would also suggest changing the title of the article because most this page has nothing to do with criticism but random allegations and peoples idiocy and lack of education.

What options are their for rebuttal, can i start a separate page dealing with these issues and link back here or can i just insert it in the main page.

Ibn kathir (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No, the second issue isn't made up. Please observe the WP:AGF policy. This is a case of someone carelessly inserting a known criticism without providing a source. As I said, that criticism has existed before Wikipedia. Personally, I had heard of it long before I ever encountered Wikipedia, so it's likely something well-known. I agree it should be removed if no sources can be found, but my cursory search indicated that such sources exist. We can refer to Doc Tropics suggestions for sourcing, or we can backtrack the history of the article to see who inserted that passage and ask that person for their source.

You want criteria: The criticism must be something known to others, not made up, and have sources. This isn't a WP:BLP article, so unsourced claims should be tagged with a {{fact}} tag to indicate further sourcing is needed. Just because a source wasn't provided initially doesn't mean that sources don't exist. It is our job to find sources for any criticism that seems to have a reasonable basis, as this does.

As for rebuttals: This is an article about criticism. It isn't a debate. Look at similar articles, such as criticism of Jesus, which simply describes the criticism, carefully attributing each one so that the article does not take a position about any criticism.

The purpose of a Wikipedia article is to present a topic, not to teach readers the "correct" way to think of a topic. There is no "correct" interpretation. That would violate our WP:NPOV policy. A separate article on rebuttals may be acceptable as long as such an article does not take a position that the rebuttals are "correct", just as this article should not be taking the position that the criticisms are correct. However, a rebuttals article risks creating a slippery slope where further articles are required to explain critics views of those rebuttals, with no end. Wikipedia isn't a debate forum, and we shouldn't be using a collection of articles to disguise a debate. It would be best to simply write an article about the debate, if sources exist that have done something similar. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

A debate occurs when their is a possibility of another opinion being true, the issues i have raised thier is no other opinion regarding the matter, the definition of pedophilia is the scientific one, Muslims do not allow women to be forced into marriage as per Islamic law and any such marriage is not valid as explicitly stated by Islamic law so no an article refuting these so called allegations would not be classed as a debate since there is nothing to debate, the article would simply state what Muslims believe and not what others wish they believed.

Ibn kathir (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Minor versus child

Regarding the edit war going on now...

The term "minor" is an ambiguous legal term that has different meanings in different localities. The term "minor" is also related to the age of consent, which is different (as low as 9 years old) in some countries. The term "child" is more precise, meaning any human between infancy and puberty.

A previous sentence already stated Aisha's age as 9 years old. Therefore, using the term "child" in this context is precise. A 9 year old is a child by definition of "child". A 9 year old may or may not be a minor, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Doc Tropics (talk · contribs) is pushing hard to keep his POV in the article despite presenting a definition of "child" (which he initially didn't bother to read, much like the way he reacted to the "prepubescent" issue) that doesn't fit with with the sources we have. You have used the biological definition, "any human between infancy and puberty", (which I pointed out earlier and the reason why I'm against using child here) to support your case , yet no source states that she was prepubescent, therefore it is a POV. Besides, the claim that "a 9 year old may or may not be a minor" is NOT true, as all children are minors by definition.

Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I am going to full-protect the article for 48 hrs as the only active editing at this instant is the edit warring.

Both sides are currently into blockable edit warring; the comments here just recently aren't sufficient. You should have come here to discuss it two days ago.

Please assume each other are operating in good faith and discuss it here to find a consensus.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

POV has nothing to do with this. The word "minor" can generally be applied to any person under the age of 18 and no one has ever criticized Muhammad for having sex with a 17 year old. He has been criticized for having sex with a 9 year old child. Doc Tropics 04:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not true, the statement is not attributed to a critic and instead presented as a fact:

"The age of Aisha is cited by some critics who denounce Muhammad for having had sex with a child."

So far, I've only seen contradictions in all attempts to restore this word, beginning with claims that child has "no other definition", and when presented with the biological definition that could imply prepubescence (which as discussed earlier, is not supported by any traditional source), another user claimed that minor is ambiguous as it used in a legal context with each country defining its own age of consent, but even then, Aisha would still be considered a minor.

After claiming that child is unambiguous (no reasonable explanation given so far), Amatulic then refers to the biological definition as a proof. In other words, I was correct in predicting that the usage of "child" might falsely imply prepubescence.

If a traditional source has NOT been provided for the claim that Aisha at the time of marriage was (in Amatulic's words) "between infancy and puberty" and if no reasonable objection as to why Aisha cannot be called a "minor" is provided, this statement will remain a POV and will be challenged. Please spare us the "17-year is a minor" objection and provide better reasoning (if any) against the usage of "minor".

Al-Andalusi (talk) 04:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

In almost all cultures the age of accountability begins at puberty. see coming of age and Bar Mitzvah as one obvious example.

Ibn kathir (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The most neutral solution would be to state what it is: a 9 year old girl. That would remove any argument about "minor" versus "child". Frankly, neither term is satisfactory, for valid reasons given by each side above, although "child" more narrowly matches the state of a 9 year old than "minor", which could represent a near-adult. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Very good suggestion; it is simple, direct, and entirely supported by the sources. The change that Amatulić has suggested would be an improvement, and should resolve the issue at hand. Thanks! Doc Tropics 17:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me Al-Andalusi (talk) 07:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

just an FYI by the age of 17 some Arabs where chosen to lead Armies and men twice their age by the prophet and this is a historical fact. this had nothing to do with Physique but mental maturity and state of mind as well as possessing a wisdom and sensibility that most people in modern society could not achieve. These kind of situations are life and death and not a time to be testing individuals they where chosen for their known Qualities.

Ibn kathir (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

So you agree with Amatulic's suggestion? Doc Tropics 14:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

how about saying she was 9 years old period with out any allusion, assumption or prediction to the state of her maturity which is all that these label's are alluding to and nothing more. since it is the season to remember Jesus and his birth, according to the Oxford dictionary of the bible Mary was twelve years old when she gave birth to Jesus, in most Oral cultures seven years was usually considered the entry into adult hood.

Ibn kathir (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly what Amatulic suggested, thanks for your agreement. Doc Tropics 14:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

9 year old girl is different from saying she was 9 years old, one has an implicit allusion to immaturity [especially in this page] while the other doesn't. If you cant tell the difference then say she was a 9 year old women.

Ibn kathir (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Most intelligent rational people WILL assume that a 9 year old is immature. You are the only one arguing that a 9 year old should be assumed to be sexually mature. Please provide some sort of evidence to support your assertion. Otherwise it is totally appropriate to use the word "girl" to describe a 9 year old female, as this is normal practice in the English language. Doc Tropics 18:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That is your myopic view which is limited to your culture, upbringing, education and perspective. the entire discussion as well as the previous ones i have been quoting sources supporting my view click on the highlighted texts to see the sources. i also provided you with one major source supporting "my view" that the entire world sees it different from you and as a matter of Fact God himself according to Christians and Muslims as Mary was essentially 11 years old when she became pregnant, are you not celebrating Christmas at this very moment, because in effect you are celebrating the fact that a 12 year old "girl" was impregnated by God and gave birth to your savior.

it is a matter of fact and history that women married as young as seven years old and this was a norm.

"Women were marriageable right after puberty, marriage arrangements were made while they were in infancy; they were wed at the age of twelve or fourteen to men in their twenties or thirties." source. or "One such example of betrothal between a mature male and young girl is that of St.Augustine (354-439 A.D.). At the age of thirty-one, Augustine betrothed himself to a ten-year-old girl.", "Child brides, whether Byzantines or foreign princesses, were the norm rather than the exception, especially from the late twelfth century. Irene Ducaena, wife of Alexius I Comnenus, was twelve at her marriage, and empress before she was fifteen; the Byzantine princess Theodora, Manuel's niece, was in her thirteenth year when she married Baldwin III of Jerusalem; and Margaret-Maria of Hungary married Isaac II Angelus at the age of nine." source. their are plenty of other sources but i don't want to flood this section with quotes about something that is a historical fact and a part of Jewish, Christian and Muslim doctrine which pretty much covers the overwhelming majority of people on this planet, people used to actually practice their faith at one point in time.

Ibn kathir (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

...And it's all irrelevant. This article isn't about who else had a child bride, or what cultural norms prevailed during Muhammad's time. This article is about criticism of Muhammad. And rightly or wrongly, Muhammad has received criticism for having sex with a 9-year-old. It is not Wikipedia's place to judge the validity of the criticism, but rather simply to present it.

The issue of Muhammad's alleged pedophilia has come up often enough on Talk:Muhammad that, a long time ago, I authored an answer in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ explaining why we don't mention it in the Muhammad article, and my answer there echoes points that you have made above. Nevertheless, it is a common criticism, therefore it has a place in this article. I do agree that loaded or ambiguous terminology should be removed. The most precise and neutral description is to simply state that Aisha was 9 years old. We need not elaborate that 9 years old equates to a child or minor or girl. Fair enough? I think we've wasted more words on this section than the section is worth. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I was replying to his request not for its inclusion in the article and it was to support a point.

Ibn kathir (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"Discrimination against women"

Removed content recently added by Fancy.kira (talk · contribs) for the following reasons:

• The section Criticism_of_Islam#Women already covers (in a more neutral tone) the parts on inheritance, woman’s testimony, beating, stoning and the "intelligence" hadith. As the aforementioned relates to Islamic law rather than the morality and character of Muhammad, it would make much more sense to have it in Criticism_of_Islam.

• In what way is the quote by "Phyllis Chesler" describing present-day offenses against women relates to Muhammad ?

• Quotes by Dr. Younus Shaikh claiming that pagan Arab women had more rights before Islam. Dr. Shaikh is a medical doctor with no expertise in any Islamic field whose views have not been cited by a reliable third-party and directly contradicts with what established experts and recognized scholars of Islam have stated concerning women's rights in the pre-Islamic era (See Women_in_Islam#Sources_of_influence):

Annemarie Schimmel states that "compared to the pre-Islamic position of women, Islamic legislation meant an enormous progress; the woman has the right, at least according to the letter of the law, to administer the wealth she has brought into the family or has earned by her own work

William Montgomery Watt states that Muhammad, in the historical context of his time, can be seen as a figure who promoted women’s rights and improved things considerably. Watt explains: "At the time Islam began, the conditions of women were terrible - they had no right to own property, were supposed to be the property of the man, and if the man died everything went to his sons." Muhammad, however, by "instituting rights of property ownership, inheritance, education and divorce, gave women certain basic safeguards.

As for his claim that "it was highly unusual for a man of pre-Islamic Arab society to have more than one wife", this is completely false as polygamy was unrestricted at the time and I can cite many examples of notable people with multiple wives some of whom had to divorce some wives when the limitation of 4 women was made.

• Last paragraph doesn't fit in this article, sources and claims have to be verified as well.

Finally, the section's title is POV.

Al-Andalusi (talk) 08:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Changing the Title

Much of what is present on this page doesnt come from reliable sources or is noteworthy, it also isnt accurate or based on reality but common myths or indavidual interpretations of primary sources by unqualafied indaviduals. To use the words "Islam Promotes" or "Islam says" and by extention "muhammad promotes" or "Muhammad said" you have to go into Islamic books of law as these are the only sources of legislation in Islam for the indavidual. The Quran and prophetic sayings are a source of legislation for the Qualafied lawyer or judge not for the indavidual this is why we have four legal schools of thought in Islam or madhhabs, no muslim is allowed to go into the primary sources and come up with thier own legislation which is the underlying assumption made by most people Quoting primary sources.

Sahih Bukhari which is one work being heavily misquoted in this page has a famous commentary called Fath al Bari no indavidual/muslim wishing to make any sort of legislation or speak for Islam so to speak can Quote from Bukhari with out using this work. This work is in the proccess of being translted here, if you want to get an idea of how much these short sayings/narratives/stories/accounts are missing in terms of context i would suggest visiting the site.

For these reasons as well others i would like the title changed, I would suggest "critisisms and myths about Muhammad" you can suggest others.

Just to pre-empt some of you i am well aware of wikki policy and the relavence of my comments to its policy, wikki policy is not a substitute for analytical reasoning or is even concerned with the truth/factual basis of its claims/pages and that is where it falls short in reality and always will people read these pages and take them as facts not a page merely listing so called critisism irespective of thier factual basis. Ibn kathir (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the entertaining suggestion, it's good to know that we can always count on you for a laugh. Doc Tropics 16:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"Criticism is the judgment of the merits and faults of the work or actions of an individual or group by another" for the criticism to be valid the actions, merits, and faults have to be proven to be those of the individual being criticized if they are not his actions, merits and faults then this is nothing more than a Myth or misconception or fairy tale. You can not be criticized for something you didn't do or say.

The title is "Criticism of Muhammad", meaning the individual, not criticism of works of history or literature. if you cant establish historicity of these quotes in their current interpretation on this page back to Muhammad directly then you are not criticizing Muhammad the individual but the work itself.

Sahih bukhari [as well as other primary sources] can not be used as a source because it is not a work of history, it is a reference work for other source material and this is its place in Islam. You will not get a true account of Muhammads actions, sayings or deeds from this work so Quoting it is not Quoting what Muhammad said or did.

You are then criticizing a well known Myth not his actual sayings, teachings or actions and the Title is "critisism of Muhammad" not "critisisms and myths about Muhammad".

If you want to be scholarly about this Entire matter DOC then deal with this reality and don't just ignore it.

Ibn kathir (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You may also wish to consider what the fork policy states about criticism articles: "if the word 'criticism' must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen if a 'Praise of...' article was created instead)." Read the full policy.

In other words, this article should not only include criticisms, but also refutations. The goal is to represent all views concerning any one criticism, then let the reader decides whether it's valid or not. Thus other issues like doubts about sources and ignoring the context of Hadith are on-topic too. Wiqixtalk 01:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to this Idea. I thought this was interesting "if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen if a "Praise of..." article was created instead)."Ibn kathir (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Two points worth noting:

This article already contains refutations.

The the fork policy linked to apllies to "POV forks" and a Criticism article such as this is not a POV fork.

Politely yours, Doc Tropics 05:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

some points that should be noted

- Criticisms of fairy tales are more accurately myths and anti islamic propoganda. - Inadequate refutations by people who have no understanding of the subject matter are little more than apologetic.

If you cant even tell the criticism is false and just make some apologetic statement then the refutation is just as worthless. This article is certainly a POV criticism since we cant agree on what is or isn't a criticism, im for going through this article and labeling anything that has no historical accuracy as a myth, propaganda or urban legend which is its correct definition as well as adding more accurate refutations that deal specifically with the criticism if it is to be maintained.

Ibn kathir (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Please stop inventing new rules, and imposing your own definitions on this article.

Criticism of Jesus is probably the best parallel example. The article simply names a notable critic and describes the criticism. That's all a criticism article should do. An encyclopedia need not, and should not, engage in interpretation or refutation or notes about historical accuracy just because someone disagrees with the criticism. It is the job of an encyclopedia simply to present the criticism, and go no further.

That said, I agree that this criticism of Muhammad article does not rise to the standards of Criticism of Jesus. Just as some critics of Jesus were Christian, I am sure there must be Muslim (or at least Arabic or Persian) critics of Muhammad, but those works are unavailable to westerners unfamiliar with the language. If they exist they should definitely be included. The article must also take care not to conflate criticism of Muhammad with more general criticism of Islam or of the Qur'an. We have separate articles on those topics. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur, Criticism of Jesus represents a fairly good model of a successful Criticism article and we could make improvements here based on it. While it's true that we have separate articles for specific criticisms of Islam and the Qu'ran, it might be reasonable to allow a small degree of overlap in summary style, with links to the main articles, simply because the topics are so closely related. But you are right that they are not identical or synonymous, and shouldn't be treated as such. Doc Tropics 20:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you are the one imposing your definition on the article, in each of my posts i linked to the wiki definition of the term I used so no you cant accuse me of inventing a definition. It is becoming increasingly clear that your definition of what constitutes a criticism is not correct and very wide as to be anything negative said about a subject or individual. This is more accurately known as slander and calumny as their is no truth or factual basis, something can only be a criticism when it is factual in nature and not simply invented or twisted to represent facts selectively or in a manipulative manner which is the definition of propaganda. At the heart of each one of these terms is a criticism but because they are not factual, biased, manipulative and selective they are more accurately known by these terms and i think this is where your mistake is, that you accept a criticism as anything negative regardless of factual basis [not interpretation].

If you had knowledge of the subject matter you would not be making statements such as " engage in interpretation or refutation or notes about historical accuracy just because someone disagrees with the criticism", otherwise you would be able to correctly categorize each of the statements in the article. To you its interpretation because you cant judge the factual basis of the claim, If their is more than one expert opinion regarding an issue than that is interpretation or difference of opinion but not when something has no basis at all then it isn't interpretation, refutation or notes about historical accuracy. If you want to criticize Muhammad the individual then criticize what he actually did not what someone made up about him.

What i agree with;

• Criticism of Jesus is probably the best parallel example. [that is because they are critisisng an already established narrative]
• The article simply names a notable critic and describes the criticism. [Although this isn't an Archetype of such pages]

That page clearly didn't involve itself in name calling, labels and while we have language such as " not so wise as some other people have been, and He was certainly not superlatively wise." we find on this page "demon-possessed pedophile".

Clearly the caliber of the individuals being Quoted is miles apart, one is criticism on a scholarly basis while the other is well profane.

Ibn kathir (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I should also add simply because their is a lack of scholarly criticism it does not justify what we find on this page.Ibn kathir (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Some more points to consider:

• The fork policy clearly states that: "If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article [[XYZ]], then it is also inadmissible at a spinout [[Criticism of XYZ]]". Therefore, any content that wouldn't be allowed in the Muhammad article shouldn't be allowed here.
• Most other "criticism of" articles include refutations and counter-arguments (if available). See for example Criticism of Noam Chomsky.
• I also wouldn't describe Criticism of Jesus as "successful". It's full of original research. You'll need reliable sources before quoting someone known for their incoherent philosophy, like Nietzsche. Moreover, Nietzsche praised historical Jesus, and only criticized the Church's perception of him. The article fails to mention this fact, which makes it mostly useless and lacking depth.

Let us try to follow wiki policy here instead. Wiqixtalk 22:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

i would say about 80% of this article is inadmisable since people have been collecting anything negative about Muhammad irespective of its factual nature as it was stated in previous replies to my statments. Maybe if we made a "Slander OF" article we can list them all thier since slander is esentialy made up critisism, but becouse it can still be called critisism of a sort we may as well collect here?!?. Ibn kathir (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Offensive material: "However, words and images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner." outright slander, fabricated claims and anti Islamic Propaganda can not come under this as its intent is not to inform but defame.Ibn kathir (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant. That guideline pertains to vulgar language and obscenities. We have entire articles on offensive material. You would have them deleted? Do you have anything besides your own opinion on what constitutes "outright slander, fabricated claims, and anti Islamic propaganda"? It has been pointed out to you many many times now that criticism need not be scholarly to qualify as criticism. In fact, much criticism is grounded in ignorance. That doesn't make it inadmissible for presenting in an encyclopedic fashion. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Amatulic, what I find worrying is that this article cites multiple questionable and self-published sources to repeat the exact same contentious claim. I have never seen this type of repetition in any other "criticism of" article. Wiqixtalk 00:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

In that case these instances of the exact same claim should be consolidated. The fact that the claim can be found in multiple sources indicates that it is appropriate to include in the article. And, it is entirely appropriate to cite a source self-published by a critic for the purpose of referencing what a critic says. That is one of the few instances where primary sources should be used. If you're going to quote someone, go directly to the source of the quote. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• " Do you have anything besides your own opinion on what constitutes "outright slander, fabricated claims, and anti Islamic propaganda"?" Yes the wiki page each term is linked to, i suggest you do some reading rather than assert your vague ideas of what these terms actually mean on others "demon possessed pedophile" is not a criticism its an insult, i suggest we stick to the dictionary meaning of words and you can stop imposing you own personnel dictionary on others and this article.

• "It has been pointed out to you many many times now that criticism need not be scholarly to qualify as criticism" scholarly doesn't just mean comes from a scholarly source it's a comment on the standard and factual basis of the claim. if the claim has no factual basis then you cant use it in a page called "critisism of muhammad" and this isn't a matter of "interpretation" and other vague terms you use to hide your lack historical knowledge of the subject matter. Stop nit picking issues that you have a capacity to reply to and deal with the real issues not just vague notions of policy it shows lack of depth.

• "If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article [[XYZ]], then it is also inadmissible at a spinout [[Criticism of XYZ]]" this is clear, if you cant place a factually incorrect statement in the original page then it also has no place here.

• "That doesn't make it inadmissible for presenting in an encyclopedic fashion" would you care to define what that is because i don't think this is referring to outright insults.

maybe if we add in clear big writting at the beginning of the page that these comments have no factual basis and this page is merely a catalog of insults, criticisms, anti Islamic propaganda, slander, defamatory comments, calumny about Muhammad and are not intended to inform you of anything he actually said or did, then we could possibly accept what is on this page. Ibn kathir (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Going over this article again this isn't an article of critique which has to question either the sayings or actions of the individual in some sort of rational manner, its an article documenting insults in the guise of critique.

Some obvious examples;

• Jewish writers commonly referred to Muhammad as ha-meshuggah ("the madman" or "possessed")...an insult not a criticism.
• Some reports on Muhammad's life and death include claims circulated by Christian writers that Muhammad died drunk and was eaten by pigs....what is the criticism here? they even admit they are defaming, spreading propaganda and slandering him, is this a "history of" page?
• Martin Luther referred to Muhammad as "a devil and first-born child of Satan"...documented insult not a criticism.
• When he reached maturity, he saw that the people could not decide whether to follow Christianity, Judaism, or Arianism....pure Myth not a criticism.
• The play is a study of religious fanaticism and self-serving manipulation based on an episode in the traditional biography of Muhammad in which he orders the murder of his critics...plain falsafication of history.
• but that the views of Luther and those who call Muhammad a "wicked impostor", a "dastardly liar" and a "willful deceiver" are an "indiscriminate abuse" and are "unsupported by facts...not a critisism but documented insults and slander.
• In 2002, Evangelical Christian leader Jerry Falwell called Muhammad "a terrorist,"...documented insult not criticism.
• Ayaan Hirsi Ali has called him a "tyrant"[15] and a "pervert".[16]...Insult not a critique.
• Netherlands Party of Freedom leader Geert Wilders calls Muhammad a "mass murderer and a pedophile"...more insults and slander not critisism
• Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached...an insult not a critisism.
• Ali Sina, accuses Muhammad of being a misogynist, a rapist, a pedophile, a narcissist, a lecher, a torturer, a mass murderer, a cult leader, an assassin, a terrorist, a madman and a looter....more documented insults, you people should be ashamed of this garbage not defending it, have the words slander and insult been striken form your dictionaries that you cant even recognize something for what it is and then complain that the article doesn't meet the standards of the jesus page and wonder why it sounds better over their.

The high ground is with morality and scholarship not this garbage that lacks any form of critical analysis of what Muhammad actual said or did. This page is documenting all the names he has been called over the years....

And this is only half the page mind you.Ibn kathir (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Title should be societal views of Muhammad or something. Marcus Qwertyus 10:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

that would imply these insults are representative of the wider community many of which are fringe and not notable, we should rather keep this page to real criticisms of real issues.Ibn kathir (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

When the scope is changed more majority opinions could be brought in to avoid WP:Undue weight. Marcus Qwertyus 10:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

What about this ""If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article XYZ, then it is also inadmissible at a spinout Criticism of XYZ"Ibn kathir (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

one more point, if we change the scope from criticism what is to stop another criticism page being started and these same issues arising again?Ibn kathir (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ibn kathir, your arguments might be more convincing if you stopped bandying about emotionally-loaded terms as if they had any validity. The parts you quoted above are not "insults" if they are directed at a sympathetic audience, because then the intent isn't to insult, but to foment an audience's opinion. They are insults only if they are directed at Muslims. And in no case above does it appear (to me) that those statements were made with the intent to insult Islam or Muslims; they were made with the intent to sway a different audience.

Let's use a more distant analogy since participants here seem personally or emotionally close to the subject of this article. If I say "China is ruled by a barbarian government" it is perceived as an insult only if I say it to a Chinese official, but not if I say it to my followers or my readership or whatever audience I am targeting. To my audience, it isn't an insult, it's a judgment with a basis — that basis could be China's human rights records, the Tianamen Square incident, envy of China's economic success, or anything else that disturbs me about China. The intent isn't to insult, and the statement has a basis. If a critical statement has a basis, it qualifies as a criticism.

A criticism, by definition, is "the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything."[2] All those statements quoted above are simply that, passing judgment on the merits of Muhammad.

Take the example of Geert Wilders. He has a basis, grounded in historical facts and his own personal sense of morality, for claiming Muhammad is a mass murderer and a pedophile. And he does not make that statements to Muslims. He is speaking to his constituency. Therefore, he is leveling a criticism at Muhammad. The fact that Muslims object to that criticism, perceiving it incorrectly as an insult (since Wilders isn't talking to them) does not change the fact that he has criticized Muhammad for being a mass murderer and pedophile. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That's deluded [A delusion is a fixed belief that is either false, fanciful, or derived from deception] and the only way a person can be that deluded [i refrained from saying anything earlier since it would have been an accusation] is if the person believes their is truth to these statements or believes them himself and you clearly claimed that in your reply. "The intent isn't to insult, and the statement has a basis. If a critical statement has a basis, it qualifies as a criticism.", "He has a basis, grounded in historical facts and his own personal sense of morality, for claiming Muhammad is a mass murderer and a pedophile." study the life of Muhammad before attempting to lecture others on history.

one observation regarding you definition of an insult, many of these where witnessed by Muslims or intended directly at Muslims so if you have no objection we should remove the ones that fall into this category.

Putting aside your warped definition of an insult [which is the equivalent of the tree falling in the woods philosophical riddle,If a tree falls in a forest and no one heard it [the insult] does it still make a sound [is it still an insult]] these statements are clearly intended as slander, defamatory and anti Islamic propaganda not criticisms which present some sort of argument against the thing being criticized [and not single word labels,slogans, or insults] and that is their intent to ferment an anti Islamic feeling [as you clearly acknowledge above] by manipulating and selectively choosing historical facts or more accurately "Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda. Propaganda can be used as a form of political warfare."

their is NO argument being put forth to appeal to peoples intellect and that is what differentiates criticism from insults, defamatory statements, propaganda and calumny.

You also still haven't replied to this "If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article XYZ, then it is also inadmissible at a spinout Criticism of XYZ""

Ibn kathir (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

One obvious factor in all of this which you didn't address and i should have pointed out in my earlier post is the profane language beings used which also sets apart a genuine criticism from an insult or defamatory statement especially by the normal standards of the individuals making these statements many of whom this isn't part of their normal language.

....Just for the sake of curiosity can you rationally explain this one away "a devil and first-born child of Satan".Ibn kathir (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a statement by Martin Luther, one of the most notable figures of Christian history therefore worthy of noting his views of Muhammad in an encyclopedia. He was not addressing Muslims. He is passing judgment on Muhammad. By definition, that is criticism. Look up the word in the dictionary.

It is irrelevant that Muslims find Martin Luther's statement an insult. Here's a hint for you: criticism and insult aren't mutually exclusive. Just because a statement is insolent or contemptuously rude (the definition of "insult") doesn't mean the statement isn't also criticism. As long as you continue to redefine terms like "criticism" and "insult" according to your personal views, and continue refusing the accepted standard definitions, we really have nothing further to discuss. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Then leave this page to those who know the english language because that statement was pure insult, of course you will now tell me you literally believe he was THE FIRST BORN OF SATAN and its all rationale in your mind. The Germans would have loved you at the Nuremberg Trials you would have rationalized away all there deplorable actions with words like "but they believed it to be true" and "in there minds it wasn't wrong".

It's clear you are running away from the key issues that i raised since you haven't replied to the inadmissible content policy and ignored the fact that none of these insults present an argument what so ever [that appeals to an individuals intellect] which is the definition of a criticism and what sets it apart.Ibn kathir (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPA. Do it now.

I am not "running away" from any issue. When you stop redefining "criticism" according to your personal views, then we can continue. When you stop WP:WIKILAWYERING, we can continue. You clearly failed to read the second sentence in my previous comment. You have failed to provide any valid reason why common criticisms issued by notable individuals should be excluded. It looks more and more like we have a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT here. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have commented about this elsewhere, no personnel attack was intended it was a comment on your judgment, as its said in Islam everything is according to its intention...ill leave it at that and move on.Ibn kathir (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Jewish criticism

This section cites view point of Jewish writers, and is no way related to criticism. The only thing which can be derived from this section is their biased or hated reference about Mohammad. Since they [Jewish writers] disliked Mohammad and referred him anything does not necessarily can be included here as criticism. - Hum Aliwalay (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at that section this was intended as name calling something for the masses not a serious analysis of his prophethood, if this reference is to be used and it is a primary source then you may as well include the views of the Jewish leaders during his time which was that they believed him to be a prophet but only one sent to the Arabs and rejected him on that basis i.e he wasn't Jewish. Other more recent Jewish theologians also believe he was a prophet while yet others in the community believe he was a vehicle for divine governance and this is an accepted theological positions in Judaism separate from those who believed him a prophet.

If you want to raise the standards of this page take out the statements meant as propaganda and are defamatory they don't belong on a criticism page, as another editor said ""Criticism of X" articles are for discussing serious criticism (positive and negative, see WP:Criticism), not for listing bits of polemical rhetoric."

Iβи Ķᾱτhiɍ (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:Content noticeboard discussion about this article

See the discussion at Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard#Criticism_of_Muhammad.2C_a_page_of_profane_insults_not_criticism. Thank you, Ibn kathir (talk) , for your comments there. I am a previously uninvolved editor, and would like to help improve the article. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a good starting point would be to compare this article to some others in the category Criticism of religion, such as Criticism of Christianity, assessed as a B-Class article, or Criticism of Jesus, a Start-class article. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

I'm about as non-religious as it gets and usually don't edit (more of a reader), but could this article be change to Critique of Muhammad or Opinions of Muhammad or something that doesn't suggest POV. I understand that "criticism" does not always necessarily mean "negative views", but I think that it would be a good change to indicate a balance of positive-vs-negative views, and would be a great precedent to set for all the other "Criticism of..." articles in WP. David Able (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The word "critique" has the meaning of a single detailed evaluation, or essay. The word "criticism" is simply the passing of judgment about merits. This article doesn't contain critiques. On the other hand, it is appropriate to describe criticisms that were made by notable individuals.

"Opinions" is a reasonable word, probably more appropriate for the sort of criticism that appears in this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "Opinions" would be better than "Criticism", although even that is not really an appropriate description of the statement by Luther, which clearly wasn't an opinion but merely an attempt to inflame. In any case this article is completely unbalanced. Currently it cherry-picks negative statements. Positive Islamic views of Muhammad are not really all that surprising or interesting in the context of this article, but there are plenty of positive or mostly positive views by Christian Europeans and others, including modern scholars. E.g. there can be little doubt that he initiated an extremely far-reaching political reform of the Arabic world by directing the enmity between tribes to external enemies. Hans Adler 19:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that I'd rather see this kind of material stay inside the main article, rather than get broken out into a seemingly POV stand alone article. But that is an unfortunate convention of WP that I disagree with. If it is going to remain largely a breakdown of negative perceptions, we should at least try to find criticism that has been studied or discussed by reliable sources in a neutral fashion, neither in support or defense. Also, I'm not sure that content some of the content belongs here (taking a child bride, etc). That would be OK in the main article for biographical information, but the criticism here should be about his role as a historical figure...not of the man himself in day-to-day life. David Able (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)