Talk:Criticism of Islam/Archive 2

message: I think the article could benefit from a section elaborating on the fact that Islam as we see it today hasn't undergone any reformation movement.  I.e. the reason many view it as a "car/flag burning cult" is because it has never reformed into a milder, "more civilized" branch. --LordRahl 01:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, just find a reputable source that makes that argument and insert it. Ashmoo 00:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Reformation in Islam 

message: Would this article benefit from a division of the entire article into: criticism 1. from muslims and 2. from non-muslims ? DanielDemaret 13:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Muslims more tend to criticize the conduct or particular interpretation of some other Muslims rather than the Islam itself. Maybe creating an article titled "Criticism of Muslims" would be a better idea. --Aminz 22:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Within/Without 

message: Please provide a reference for the picture. It seems to me that this picture is a forgery. Since when someone is stoned, he or she will be completely wrapped. This women's face is not wrapped. Please provide a valid reference for the picture. --Aminz 00:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other problems with this picture. It seems to me that this picture is a forgery. It will be removed until a reference is provided for the picture. Thanks.--Aminz 03:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the link to the article: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16800 --LordRahl 04:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are two problems with this picture: 1. The person is not wrapped in a sheet and buried; but here the woman's face is not covered; 2. only male convicts are buried from the waist down; female convicts are buried deeper to prevent the breasts from becoming exposed. Because of these two reasons, this picture should be a forgery. --Aminz 04:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong my friend - I suggest you do some reading on stoning of women before producing false accusations.  Women are buried not as deep as men, to give them a chance of escaping (Islam's twisted logic behind equality of men and women).  You can read about this here:  http://www.iran-e-azad.org/stoning/women.html  --LordRahl 18:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I couldn't find anywhere in the link you sent saying "Women are buried not as deep as men, to give them a chance of escaping" could you please copy the exact sentence from the link. My information was based on the stoning article. Please have a look at it. In any case, I don't say that stoning is good or anything. I just say that that particular picture seems to be a forgery. I don't have any objection to having such a picture in the article. --Aminz 23:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The picture added to Severe punishments 

message: Hey guys, could we limit talk on this page to actual discussion of changes to the article. Including general discussions on the nature or God, truth, reason etc just make it harder to find the article discussions. Thanks, Ashmoo 03:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ashmoo, They are not general discussions; they are all related to the criticism of Islam. But as you said, they are not related to changes to the article. Actually, I and Yid613 are going to finish our discussions soon. --Aminz 06:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose of this talk page

message: Hey guys,
I wanted to discuss a change to the article. Ashmoo omitted the sentence “Some other religions such as Judaism traditionally prescribe death punishment for apostasy and blasphemy (see stoning), but have in practice not executed these punishments for thousands of years. " from the article. 
The article in a few paragraphs later compares Islam's prophet with biblical prophets. "Some critics believe that Muhammad compares poorly to the ethics of the Judaeo-Christian prophets which he claimed to be in succession."
Since the idea of comparing Islam with Judaism and Christianity does exist in the article, I think it would be fair to keep the sentence. Please let me know what you think. Thanks.--Aminz 07:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You too; a suggestion 

message: It seems evident that this is not totally disputed and the use of this warning is taking a leap from the rational discussion of the content being done recently. Can we please remove this tag? Kyaa the Catlord 04:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Several sections are not disputed. It is wiser to mark the disputed subsections as such rather than the whole article. This is recommended Wikipedia editing policy as well. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 09:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. It's better to tag the disputed sections instead. -- Szvest 15:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove "totally disputed" tag

message: This is a strange reference which i do not understand, and have removed for the time being. I assume it is a Quranic reference, but the Quran, in ch 9 vse 11, reads
"But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity,- they are your brethren in Faith: (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand."
I do not see any link with violence, but perhaps i have misunderstood what is being refered to. ch 11 vse 9 seems equally irrelevant. 
Given it is "9:11", this strange reference appears to be disingenuous.
129.12.200.49 18:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, your sources have told you a lie. --Aminz 03:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, this is an urban legend debunked long ago. See Snopes Ashmoo 03:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Ashmoo! --Aminz 04:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference to "sword verse 9:11" 

message: Hey, Aminz, I just went through and added links.  I don't recall having altered any text (?).  I didn't consider content.  Of course that's only part of the verse.
The thing I don't like about all these links is that they clutter up the article as it appears in the edit box.  In this way, templates are far preferable.  However, the only template we have requires the display of the word Qur'an before the verse numbers, which isn't always needed, and itself can be clutter, does not allow multi-verse references to display correctly, and requires these ugly zeros before the numbers.  I don't think we can do anything about the last point, but the other two can be solved, I think, with alternative templates.  I'm working on it.  Also, a Bukhari template would be desirable.Timothy Usher 10:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I have misunderstood your edit summary "one guess as to what I've done in this edit". I thought it was a hint for someone to add that this is only part of the verse. I didn't think you have changed the text. Adding the reference for verses was a very good idea and I appreciate it. Thank you. --Aminz 09:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just being silly.  All my edits were adding references, and it was getting boring writing, "added link" and the like, so I wrote that.  I'll be back at it shortly, hopefully with a few alternate templates to supplement my arsenal.Timothy Usher 09:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What Timothy had done

message: This section of the article needs serious attention.. As this section doesn't have any scholarly reference. Its only quoting from the primary source and not providing any scholarly reference that critcizes Islam in this way. Please provide proper reference otherwise this section should be removed. Thanks  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  (T) 06:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated this section and now there is a source for the criticism that is made in this section, and the criticism has been attributed to this source. -- Karl Meier 15:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Befriending the Christians or Jews

message: :Book 001, Number 0074: 
It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace and blessing be upon him) observed: He will not enter Paradise whose neighbour is not secure from his wrongful conduct.
also see 
*
*
*
*
These hadith prove beyond doubt “Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you” is there in Islam, Adding nonesense sections to this article will seriously undermine the credibility of wikipedia. So keep away nonesense from it..  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  (T) 19:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chapter 19: CONCERNING THE PROHIBITION TO HARM NEIGHBOUR

message: Why is their not a specific section dealing with what must be the most relevant criticism of Islam, that is breeds harbours and defends terrorists.
:Why is this "the most relevant"? While such criticism is widespread, some would argue it is not particularly relevant to the religion of Islam. In any case, if you can find reputable sources discussing such criticism (which <http://www.thereligionofpeace.com> is not), we could start work on such a section without violating the policies of no original research and verifiability. --LambiamTalk 08:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam and Terrorism 

message: Did a jihadist write this or what?  There is no criticism in this article.  It simply refutes every criticism.  The entire article needs to be redone, everything. (Anonymous User) May 23, 2006
::I agree with your concerns. The article is almost noting but apologist POV nonsens, and it has also been polluted by more general discussions of subjects that is not directly relevant to this article. I've deleted some of the more extreme stuff, but of course much, much work is needed. I'll add a much needed pov tag to it. -- Karl Meier 14:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism... Where?

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

message: The section on Muhammad addresses Muhammad's character, not "Criticism of Islam." The overall section is also getting long. 
Recommend that this material on Muhammad be placed in a major breakout article by itself titled Muhammad's Character and linked back to the main biography on Muhammad and to this Criticism of Islam page.
Under the Title propose links to both Islam and Muhammad. Character is a more neutral term than "Criticism" and allows both sides to address the issue.
Propose the following paragraph in the main article on Muhammad linking to this new breakout page Muhammad's Character:
-----------------
Muhhamad’s character
	Main article Muhammad’s character
Muslims view Muhammad as patient, righteous, holy, and exhibiting other high moral qualities expected of a prophet. Others question his relations with women. They observe his strong reaction to criticism and approval of critics consequent murders. Vis Al-Nader, Ocba, Asthma bint Marwan, Abu Afak. Some scholars view Muhammad’s character favorably with principles of Western civilization. e.g., Sir William Muir, and D. S. Margoliouth. Zwemer, Don Richardson (2004) and others detail differences with major Western principles. See also Muhammad's marriages, Rushdie, Muhammad Cartoons, Criticism of Islam, Banu Qurayza.
----------------- 
Some of the general comments relating to Muhammad's character could be moved to this section.
Recommend listing these "See also" breakout pages with this section as they all address his character.
See corresponding parallel proposal under Muhammad, sub section Muhammad's Character 
------------------ 
Note that the citation to Weil is ambiguous. Needs to be further detailed. e.g. does this refer to 
"Gustav Weil (1808-1889), German Orientalist (JE)"??? 
--------------- --DLH 12:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Page: Muhammad's Character

message: The grammar in this article was absolutely terrible, so I took a couple hours to clean it up. I tried to avoid making qualitative changes to the article (except for removing one egregiously POV and unsourced sentence that claimed that the Qu'ran is generally considered to be an 'impressive piece literature' even by non-Muslim scholars). Apologies if I broke anything. - Merzbow 07:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed unsourced claims from the slavery section per WP:V, which says: Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." It's unacceptable to insert original research into the article and hope that it can stay with a "fact" tag; as Jimbo says, unsourced information must be removed aggressively. Pecher Talk 08:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, this article contains lots of uncited speculation, particularly those passages that simply excerpt and interpret the Qu'ran. It's going to need a lot of work to get it up to the standards of many of the other Islam-related articles. - Merzbow 15:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General technical cleanup 

message: The criticisms are presented in sections, and short responses to those criticisms inline with those sections. But then at the end of the article we have a huge section dedicated to nothing but Muslim responses to these criticisms. This is neither fair nor well-structured. I'd like to see one of two things happen:
# Keep the criticisms in the top half of the article, and keep the responses in the bottom half, completely separate.
# Eliminate the dedicated responses section and merge the responses completely into the topical sections.
This would also serve to shrink the article since there much duplicated unsourced discussion. Can we at least get an agreement in principle to do one of these two things? My preference is option 2. Putting the criticisms and the responses together in one place for each topic makes it easier for the reader to get the information he needs than widely separating things out. - Merzbow 02:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think option 2 is also the way to go. It is more logical and has better flow. Ashmoo 02:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Long time ago, I separated criticisms from Reponses per Zora's request but I was pushed back by a couple of editors. The problem with 1 as Ashmoo pointed out is that it does not flow well. However merging responses to the criticisms is practically impossible. For example, the criticism that Muhammad was possessed by Satan: It is practically impossible to insert Muslim responses to this criticism at the top of the article. --Aminz 03:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've got an idea. Above you're suggesting splitting off the Quran and Muhammad sections into sub-articles. This is a good idea. Also note that the 'Muslim Responses' section is 90% Quran and Muhammad. So when we split off those aub-articles, we can move the associated 'responses' as well. The sub-articles could then be organized in a balanced way with criticisms and responses completely intermixed or separate. This would leave the main article with smaller topics, in which the criticisms and responses can be more easily mixed, and the dedicated 'Responses' section could then go away. - Merzbow 05:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Good idea! --Aminz 06:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's separate criticism from response

message: Here is the text I found from Muir's work: 
"On his return from Hodeibia, as I have before related, in the spring of the year 628, Mahomet had promised to those who accompanied him in that pilgrimage the early prospect of a rich and extensive plunder. The summer passed without any enterprise whatever; and his followers began to be impatient for the fulfilment of their expectations. But quiet and peace still prevailed around. Mahomet probably waited for some act of aggression on the part of the Jews of Kheibar (it was the fertile lands and villages of that tribe which he had destined for his followers), or on the part of their allies the Bani Ghatafan, to furnish the excuse for an attack. But no such opportunity offering, he resolved, in the autumn of this year, on a sudden and unprovoked invasion of their territory."
It says that the reason for attacking khaybar was to fulfill promises Muhammad had given (to those who accompanied him regarding the booty of the war). 
I am trying to find the Muslim responses to this criticism (that could be made and it should have been made by someone) and then add everything together somewhere in the article. Can anybody help me here? Thanks --Aminz 08:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new criticism 

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