Talk:Criticism of the Quran/Archive 2

message: I am going to revert many of Aminz's recent changes, and here's why.
*The criticism of science section is not biased. Quotes from the Encyclopedia of the Quran are not warranted anywhere in this article. This article is about CRITICISM OF THE QURAN, NOT THE QURAN.
*The (criticism of) the morality in the Quran section has nothing to do with the terribly written Islamic ethics.
*There is no place for this piece on Crone. This article is about criticism of the Quran. As the admin decided, a short summary of the main articles is all that is required, and all that was present. This article is about criticism.
*"The Qur'an touches the issue of apostasy in verses such as , , ,  but threatens the apostate with punishment in the next world only. W. Heffening states that the verse , "is to be interpreted in the same way, although it is adduced by al-Shāfiʿī as the main evidence for the death penalty". This verse reads: "... He among you who falls away from his belief and dies an unbeliever—these, their works are fruitless in this world and the next, and they are the companions of the fire for ever". The hadith literature however explicitly prescribe death punishment for apostasy " This is clearly bloated and tangential. It serves no purpose to the article. "The Qur'an does not explicitly prescribe an earthly punishment for apostasy, while the hadith do." sums it up clearly.
*I'm cutting out this sentence again: "However, there were also many pious Muslims who refused to have slaves and persuaded others to do so" because it's stupid. Who cares if three or more (many) Muslims refused to have slaves? Besides wouldn't it have been better to imitate Muhammad?
So I'm going to do a full revert then put the new Nasr quote and the "Torah" rationalization back in. Arrow740 21:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you have grossly misunderstood WP:NPOV. this article is about criticism, so responses to it are also included. removing references to the scholarly Encyclopedia of the Qur'an based upon this flimsy justification is utterly ridiculous. admins do not dictate what stays and goes in articles, they are simply editors with a few maintenance buttons. as we concluded earlier, we would only re-insert Crone's paragraph once a critique of 9:5 was included, which it now has. "Quotes from the Encyclopedia of the Quran are not warranted anywhere in this article" - it's a reliable, relevant academic resource, and covers all topics related to the Qur'an, including the more controversial. given your misreading of fundamental policy, you shouldn't be behaving as if you own the article. ITAQALLAH 22:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There should be also some balance between criticism and responses. For example, the criticism of Warfare section, is so lengthy but the responses are so short. Also, please do not remove neutrality tag from Qur'an and Science section. It needs to be balanced using the article on Encyclopedia of the Qur'an. Thanks, --Aminz 22:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: indeed, this article is not to be a POV-vehicle for "critics." i have difficulty accepting that the people who defend unknown e-personalities like "Kamran Mirza" can even imagine arguing against scholars and scholarly resources like Patricia Crone and the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an. ITAQALLAH 22:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about criticism. The science section is well-balanced, critiques are followed by responses. The admin was in fact responding to an RfC we agreed to follow. The EoQ is scholarly but does it discuss criticisms of the Quran? If you want to lengthen the responses in the warfare section go ahead. Arrow740 22:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We wanted to include Crone at the beginning of this section, but now it is going to the responses(the RfC was on that). Please work on the criticism section and let others work on the responses section. --Aminz 22:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Also, you should not remove the view of Encyclopedia of Islam on apostasy and Qur'an because you think "it is silly". The author is a renowned scholar of Islam and knows more than any of us. --Aminz 22:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, my original post was a little hard to read. My problem with the apostasy thing was that it was long and unnecessary, and pushed a POV. All the section should say is "there aren't really any criticisms of the Quran on this." I said the Nasr quote about "many" pious Muslims was stupid. Nothing to do with Quran also, now that I think about it. Arrow740 22:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please let me know which POV did it push? It is giving an scholarly summary on this topic. Also, I suggested before that this section to be merged with the section on the Criticism of the Islam article for the same reasons. If the Qur'an doesn't say anything on this and if you think "there aren't really any criticisms of the Quran on this", then this issue is better be only discussed on Criticism of Islam article. Either way is okay with me. --Aminz 00:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the word "only." The verse does not rule out earthly punishment, and the wording you have suggests that is does. Arrow740 05:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Encyclopedia of Islam says(quoting word by word): "In the Ḳurʾān, the apostate is threatened with punishment in the next world only" --Aminz 05:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Then it's either confusing or POV presented as fact. Arrow740 05:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, there are modern jurists who don't prescribe death penalty based on Qur'an. The Qur'an just doesn't say that. --Aminz 06:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with you. The Quran doesn't say anything about earthly punishment. We need to make that clear, not say "next world only." Arrow740 06:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it talks about it and does promises other-wordly punishments. Some believe that the Qur'anic statements are incompatible with the death penalty. For example  says: "Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief," suggest the possibility of going back and forth a couple of times which is impossible if the person is supposed to be killed in the first place. It might be better to include that view as well. Need to do some research to find the scholars. --Aminz 06:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then again, the quran does contradict itself many times, so I wouldn't say it is "impossible" that the person is supposed to be killed.--Sefringle 18:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That the Qur'an prescribes punishment for apostasy only in the afterlife cannot be stated as fact. The Shafi'i school of Islamic jurisprudence finds the main justification for death penalty for apostates in Sura 2:214: "whosoever of you turns from his religion, and dies disbelieving -- their works have failed in this world and the next; those are the inhabitants of the Fire; therein they shall dwell forever." Beit Or 20:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  EoI in the first sentence doesn't qualify the statement: "In the Ḳurʾān, the apostate is threatened with punishment in the next world only... Sūra II, 214, is to be interpreted in the same way, although it is adduced by al-Shāfiʿī as the main evidence for the death penalty." The Shafi'i school of jurisprudence of course prescribe the death penalty but I am not sure if it is proper to say that The Shafi'i school finds this verse as an evidence or Shafi'i himself finds. --Aminz 21:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aminz edits 

message: Different sources:
The Encyclopedia of Religion (p.432 vol 1) states: 
"Qur'anic texts referring to apostasy threten the apostate with punishment in the other world. The "wrath of God" will fall upon him, "except he has been forced, while his heart has been found in disbelief."... Their reward will be the curse of God, angels and men... These early Islamic texts are less severe than the cannonical and Imperial laws and the later Islamic ones.
 Later Islamic jurisprudence elaborated on the meaning of apostasy.... While in the Qur'an apostasy was punished in the hereafter, later the sanction was transferred to this world. Malik ibn Anas, founder of the Maliki school, transmitted the following as a sentence of the prophet: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him.... 
Encyclopedia of the Qur'an writes:
 The characterization and fate of those who commit apostasy vary in the Qur'an. What is striking, especially in the light of later juristic developments, is that although apostates are usually assigned a place in hell, there is no mention of any specific corporeal punishment to which they are to be subjected in this world. 
It is highly probable that the events making up the so-called wars of apostasy, together with their fundamental impact upon the collective Muslim psyche, generated a new element in the attitude toward apostasy. Being largely a reflection of the post-Prophetic experience, hadith - the reports that are believed to document the words and deeds of the Prophet- stipulate, at variance with the Qur'an-that the apostate should be punished by death. To be sure, this stipulation reflects a later reality and does not stand in accord with the deeds of the Prophet. In fact, if we go by what seems to be reliable information about Muhammad, the Quran emerged as a more accurate representation of his attitude toward apostasy...
Encyclopedia of Islam writes:
 In the Kuran, the apostate is threatened with punishment in the next world only; the “ wrath of God ” will fall upon him according to a sūra of the latest Meccan period (XVI, 108-9) and severe punishment “ except he did it under compulsion and his heart is steadfast in belief ” . Similarly, it is written in the Medinan sūra III, 80 ff., “ ... This is the punishment for them, that the curse of Allāh, the Angels and of men is upon them for all time (82); the punishment shall not be lightened for them and they shall not be granted alleviation, (83) except for those who later repent and make good their fault, for Allah is forgiving and merciful. (84) Those who disbelieve after believing and increase in unbelief, shall not have their repentance accepted; they are the erring ones. (85) Those who are unbelievers and die as unbelievers, from none of them shall be accepted the earth-full of gold, even if he should wish to ransom himself with it; this is a painful punishment for them and there will be no helpers for them ” (cf. also IV, 136; V, 59; IX, 67). Sūra II, 214, is to be interpreted in the same way, although it is adduced by al-Shāfi'i as the main evidence for the death penalty, “ ... He among you who falls away from his belief and dies an unbeliever—these, their works are fruitless in this world and the next, and they are the companions of the fire for ever ” .
--Aminz 00:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must agree with Aminz here, but for different reasons. There are no cited criticisms of the Qur'an here. On the other hand, if critics attacked the Qur'an, even if incorrectly, as advocating the death penalty for apostasy, it should be included.Proabivouac 05:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That's exactly it - there is no criticism. If there is cited criticism, which refers to the Qur'an rather than to Islamic law, then it is topical even though Aminz may think it misdirected.Proabivouac 08:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK so let's delete the Apostasy section altogether and discuss the issue in Criticism of Islam. Arrow740 08:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apostasy 

message: In this section, it says Robert Spencer quotes Ibn Kathir, and Ibn Kathirsays... This is sourced to one of Robert Spencer's books. The quote should be sourced to Ibn Kathir.--Sefringle 05:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You want me to say what page of which of Ibn Kathir's books Spencer reports it to be on? Arrow740 07:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.--Sefringle 08:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I'll do it the next time I sit down for a long stretch of wp editing. Arrow740 08:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're in no rush.--Sefringle 09:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sura 9 and the “Verse of the Sword”

message: This article is long enough that it needs some pictures. I suggest maybe for the terrorism section including a picture like this one: :Image:Seconds after first plane.JPG--Sefringle 05:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Maybe a picture of a slave market, or someone with a bloody sword. Arrow740 07:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: more images would be fine. images designed to have an propagandist or sensationalist effect, like some of the ones above, would be rather inapproproate and skew the neutrality of an already problematic article. ITAQALLAH 09:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I somewhat agree with Itaqallah. Pictures included should best be in themselves criticism (e.g. a carricature) and not a mere illustration of what the issue is. Str1977 (smile back) 10:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of pictures

message: Arrow, Lewis says that Muslim conservatives were opposing it. Nasr's comment doesn't contradict it. There are millions of Muslims. Of course, the range of opinions must be far from uniform. To say that all Muslims were pro-slavery is wrong. --Aminz 19:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say that. The statement is vague and conveys no information beyond that 3 Muslims didn't believe in slavery. Many = 3 or more. Also I'm not sure what those 3 Muslims have to do with criticism of the Quran. Arrow740 19:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's your view that 3=many. If only 3 out of billions of Muslims vote for something, we don't say many Muslims voted for that, do we? It does convey the information that the Muslim views on slavery was not uniform. If conservatives were opposing it, probably some were indifferent and some were supporting it. --Aminz 19:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My objection that this is not topical is certainly valid. Also if Nasr mentions some notable Muslims who opposed it, that would be more interesting. Lewis notes that forbidding something that is allowed is almost as big a sin as permitting something that is forbidden, so I don't think it likely that prominent Muslims opposed it until they were forced to do so by Christians. Arrow740 19:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, that's one view. If you today ask Muslim scholars, they give you a different reasoning and explain it using both quran and hadith(Truthspreader can give you the details). It is unlikely that no Muslim scholar of the time had such view. So, it is topical. Maybe we should briefly touch those other arguments as well. --Aminz 19:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would be much better. Arrow740 19:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  If it is a response to criticism, of course. Arrow740 20:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey But Lewis is not criticizing either. --Aminz 20:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No, that is against wikipedia policies. Material must be used in the context it was written. The article is about criticism of the Quran. Arrow740 04:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i don't see any problem with presenting critical alongside alternative non-critical views on a subject. the linear approach stifles the possibility for academic discussion. ITAQALLAH 13:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortunately this isn't the only article on wikipedia. Also please see WP:OR. Arrow740 19:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: there's no need to fork relevant discussions/opinions onto seperate articles. there's no OR involved, the alternative opinions wouldn't be presented as "responses." ITAQALLAH 19:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That is somewhat acceptable, however if we are responding to things that aren't criticized, then we are making the article more confusing to readers.--Sefringle 04:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nasr on Slavery 

message: I think it is informative to mention that the arguments of classical commentators of the Qur'an: "In insisting on the possibility of multiple scientific explanation of the natural phenomena, classical Qur'an commentators were able to guard the autonomy of qur'anic, religous knowledge not through the co-option of science but by assigning it to a separate and autonomous realm of its own." The author himself(sorry, not the classical commentators) notes that "there are considerable differences in the interpretations of the verses that may have a connection to science or the natural phenomena. For this reason, it is not useful to try to ascern a particular quranic position on science."--Aminz 08:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added it to the end of the section, so that the article would be focused on criticisms. --Aminz 08:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it is okay to have those stuff at the end of the section, but it is more informative to provide the arguments of those Muslims who believe the Qur'an doesn't talk about science. --Aminz 22:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments by classical commentators 

message: Arrow, please check Campbel's source. He claims it is a personal conversation. That's his claim. --Aminz 03:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any reason to suspect he is misquoting Professor of Geology David A. Young? Arrow740 03:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no reason to believe that Geology David A. Young has understood the question well, or that Geology David A. Young expresses the only scientific theory on this. --Aminz 03:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no question and a professor of geology at a respectable institution can be a reliable source of scientific consensus for such a basic fact. Here is the full quote: "While it is true that many mountain ranges are composed of folded rocks (and the folds may be of large scale) it is not true that the folds render the crust stable." He continues: "The very existence of the folds is evidenceof instability in the crust." As we all know mountains are either of volcanic origin or the result of land masses rubbing against each other. Arrow740 03:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point is that Cambpel has written his work not as a scientific contribution but as a polemic text. He also doesn't quote a peer-reviewed source just his personal conversation with someone. It is not verifiable. It is though verifiable that Campbel says that. --Aminz 03:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What are you proposing? Arrow740 04:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just adding "Campbel states". --Aminz 08:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Campbell quotes a professor of geology" would be more accurate. Arrow740 20:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  we don't know if the quote is true. "Campbell quotes his personal conversation with a professor of geology" would be fine. --Aminz 22:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campbel 

message: I am out of revert. Can someone please remove the saw's.
Thanks.--Aminz 22:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SAW 

message: This bit does not belong to the response section: "Regarding the issue of context, Robert Spencer writes that the Qur'an itself provides little context for understanding verses Robert Spencer, Onward Muslim Soldiers, pages 126-127., and notes that the surahs in the Qur'an are not ordered chronologically, but by length. In response to Ernst, Spencer states that "I present the work not on the basis of my credentials, but on the basis of the evidence I bring forth; evaluate it for yourself... Carl Ernst did not and cannot bring forth even a single example of a supposed inaccuracy in my work."
The first sentence is already covered in another section and the rest should be moved to the criticism section, not the response. Why is that 1/3 of the response section should be dedicated to the critics? --Aminz 10:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  War and violence 

message: The article should not take any side, neither in titles, nor in the text. The heading should say what we are going to talk about and should not take any position. Therefore "Incompatibility with Christian and Jewish scriptures" is POV. I should be renamed to something like "The issue of compatibility with Christian and Jewish scriptures"--Aminz 22:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the POV? What is the opposing POV? KittyHawker 22:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Section titles are supposed to reflect the arguments of the critics. Beit Or 22:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The issue of compatibility with Christian and Jewish scriptures" is both NPOV and reflects the reflect the arguments of the critics and apologetics. The article should not take side. The article should write about criticisms rather than criticize. --Aminz 22:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If one says "Jesus was crucified" and the other says "He wasn't" then NO ONE in their right mind would say they are compatible! KittyHawker 22:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not *all* Muslims say that Jesus was not crucified. --Aminz 09:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section title 

message: Compare with Criticism of the Bible. That article just discusses the criticisms, not the issues. I'm going to go through and remove stuff from here. KittyHawker 22:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What issues for example? --Aminz 22:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Like the ones I took out! There are lots of "controversial" topics in the Bible. In this article, the controversial articles are discussed even when there is no criticism discussed! If you really think that's fair then go to Criticism of the Bible and give it the same treatment. I don't think you will. KittyHawker 22:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't disagree the article is too long but there is too much work by too many people to remove without proper discussion. Perhaps you can think of a better place for this material but just comparing with the comparable Bible page is insufficient. --BozMo talk 22:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that this article may be too long and we can move the stuff to other articles but the comparison with Criticism of the Bible is not sufficient. --Aminz 23:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll try to remove non-critical stuff from here and add  --Aminz 23:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is way too long 

message: Like Sefringle said, I suggest we discuss the points one by one. I can see too many changes and we can't discuss them all together. --Aminz 09:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussing points one by one 

message: Sefringle, the link to the main articles is not the place for the responses(no one reads them). The article should not take a position towards critics. The responses, or link to the relevant sections must be provided after criticisms. Otherwise, I will move the responses back to this article. The choice is yours. --Aminz 04:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is it is bad prose. I think Arrow740 should discuss this issue instead of me, since he is the one who made the changes.--Sefringle 04:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: it is sloppy. It just looks bad. I think it would be better if you just give a one to two sentence summary of the "rebuddle" or "scholarly" opinion.--Sefringle 04:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What additional information will this edit provide that the origional link doesn't?--Sefringle 06:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This is providing explicit link to the removed "response" material. The Hudud article is about Hudud itself, not about severity of it. --Aminz 06:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think people can easily see the rebuddles by reading the article. At its current size, the "rebuddles" you had are 2/3 the size of the entire article. With the main article, they only see the introduction as well. But as I said above, if you think a response is necessary, add a short one.--Sefringle 06:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The responses and criticisms should be proportional to each other. --Aminz 06:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And how is it not?--Sefringle 06:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In some cases all there was was scholarly POV presented as a rebuttle. And Aminz, why are you fixated on length of rebuttles? Arrow740 06:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to criticisms 

message: What exactly is disputed?--Sefringle 06:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image of Jews in the Qur'an is far from uniform. How is it that you remove sections from Islamic Ethics article because you think it is POV but add a POV section here? --Aminz 06:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are totally different topics. Islamic ethics can go in many directions, some POV, some not, but there are plenty of other POV pro-islam articles like Qur'an and miracles for example. To get to the point, what exactly do you wish to see with this section, keeping within relevance?--Sefringle 06:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, what is disputed? What POV is being given excess weight? Keep in mind the title of the article. Arrow740 06:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sefringle, You have added a tag to Qur'an and miracles, so why are you removing POV tag from here? --Aminz 06:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag I added was because of WP:OR, not POV.--Sefringle 06:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV notice

message: This is quoted to support Spencer's statement: "According to Amnesty International, the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences has reported that 90% of all Pakistani wives have been beaten by their husbands for disobedience.Media briefing: Violence against women in Pakistan- Amnesty International"
It is stated as if it supports Spencer's quote. We need a report saying this many women were beaten because of that verse etc etc. This section is about the criticism of that verse. --Aminz 09:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 90%??? Call this OR, but that is very difficult to believe.Proabivouac 09:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's strange to me too. If true, it should have other reasons rather than the religion as I don't think this to be a universal phenomenon. --Aminz 09:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance 

message: Merzbow, the "response" subsection is already small compared to the criticism subsection. Why then should we put Spencer's reponses to his critics here in that section? Also, the same material is already covered in more detials in the link I provided. --Aminz 09:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not fair to reproduce Ernst's accusation in its entirety, but then go tell readers to go to another article to see Spencer's (which isn't allowed in Wikipedia anyway - we can't source to other articles). Either we delete the accusation and the response, or we give equal time. - Merzbow 09:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it fair that the length of the criticism section be 10 times than the length of the reponse section? --Aminz 09:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not relevant. This is a personal accusation directed against Spencer. He will be given equal space to respond. The rest of the article is about criticism directed against a book, and should also include equal amounts of response to every criticism. - Merzbow 09:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  War and violence 

message: What is the full quote? Arrow740 21:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Crone-Cook theory has been almost universally rejected. The evidence offered by the authors is far too tentative and conjectural (and possibly contradictory) to conclude that Arab-Jewish were as intimate as they would wish them to have been."--Aminz 21:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why aren't you giving us the author of the book? Arrow740 21:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Arrow, I am taking these quotes from here  --Aminz 21:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we can cut out all mention of their thesis. Arrow740 22:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree since they are notable critics of the historicity of the Qur'an. --Aminz 22:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They have disavowed it, or at least completely distanced themselves from it. Arrow740 22:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Arrow, it is impossible to have a section on "Historical Authenticity of the Qur'an" and we don't mention Crone's thesis. --Aminz 22:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about the other things there? Arrow740 22:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are constructing a straw man here. Arrow740 08:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. Crone is very notable for challenging the traditional accounts. And there is no justification to remove it. --Aminz 08:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, I guess you haven't this section of the talk page or the article you linked to. Arrow740 08:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain what you mean --Aminz 08:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The authors have disavowed their work. Thus, it should no longer be considered scholarly criticism when everyone including the authors have disagreed with it. No one is making the criticism. Arrow740 08:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you provide a quote from them disavowing their theory? --Aminz 08:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Their original theory was very notable. We should present it, and if they did indeed disavow this work later on, we should mention that also. - Merzbow 09:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Universally rejected

message: I have noticed one thing about this article, and that is that Robert Spencer is overused. There are hundreds of notable critics of Islam; surely some of them have presented the same arguements as Robert Spencer. This article is about Quranic criticism as a whole, not and essay about Robert Spencers arguements. I think we need to include more variety in views on criticism of Islam.--Sefringle 23:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to include other critics' ideas or credit the ideas to someone else I have no objection. Arrow740 01:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the mean time, I have to tag it with --Sefringle 04:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Robert Spencer overusage

message: Please do not remove Dallal quote. --Aminz 07:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please add neither it nor the OR you have twice inserted in the scientific contradictions section. Arrow740 09:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you mean "nor does it infringe on the realm of science" is not relevant here? --Aminz 10:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please stop engaging in OR. You are using him to address criticism. He was not doing that. Arrow740 09:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not OR. You are criticizing something many Medieval Muslims didn't have any claim upon. That is quite in the context and was discussed before. --Aminz 09:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That response was unintelligible. Arrow740 20:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "nor does it infringe on the realm of science."

message: "In a similar vein, critics point to verses they think imply that the moon gives off light instead of reflecting it from the sun, (25:61, 10:5, 71:15-16) and are skeptical of Muslim statements that the verses should be taken to mean reflective light only."
This is a response to the claim of some Muslims that the Qur'an had scientific predictions, not that the qur'an is wrong on that matter("are skeptical of Muslim statements"). Please see the source as well. --Aminz 10:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "In a similar vein, critics point to verses they think imply that the moon gives off light instead of reflecting it from the sun," you might not know this, but the moon reflects light, so this is a criticism. Arrow740 19:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Qur'an uses two different words for light of moon and light of sun. Some Muslims has claimed that one of them means reflection of sun's light and this is what that source is refuting. Scientific predictions. Not that the Qur'an is mistaken. --Aminz 09:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah right.--Sefringle 00:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, it should be placed in response to the claims. I'll remove this from here. --Aminz 00:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Do not remove sourced material.--Sefringle 03:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a response to the claim of some Muslims that the Qur'an had scientific predictions, not that the qur'an is wrong on that matter. Please check the original source. --Aminz 04:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A response, not a criticism 

message: I added the cleanup tag to the responses section because it is a little messy, and some of the links need fixing to be encyclopediac.--Sefringle 00:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Why not add any responses to the critisms? Wikipedia isn't a place for anti-Muslims to just make articles and delete responses. I find it ironic how posting critisms and deleting the responses (responses even made by scholars) as keeping the article "NPOV". You guys have a weird definition of NPOV. Go check up on it. Armyrifle 12:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you're referring to with those accusations. Arrow740 08:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Being that its titaled "criticism of the Qur'an" I fail to see why it should be wrong to include honest and scholarly criticism.  After reading it, if anything it seems that there is a POV problem the other way with the article trying to be too PC instead of accurate. Gtadoc 16:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is extremely POV

message: Currently, I see two problems with this article. Robert Spencer overusage, and the "Incompatibility with Christian and Jewish scriptures" section as well as the "responses" section. I would like to see these problems fixed, so we can get this article a GA nominee.--Sefringle 23:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The few problems left in this article

message: Someone made the following eidt to the Qur'an article recently, giving the following summary:Some critics have also commented on the arrangement of the Qur'anic text with regard to its apparent lack of continuity, absence of any chronological or thematic order, and presence of repetition As references, they said,
:Samuel Pepys: "One feels it difficult to see how any mortal ever could consider this Koran as a Book written in Heaven, too good for the earth; as a well-written book, or indeed as a book at all; and not a bewildered rhapsody; written, so far as writing goes, as badly as almost any book ever was!" http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=21  
:"The final process of collection and codification of the Qur'an text was guided by one over-arching principle: God's words must not in any way be distorted or sullied by human intervention. For this reason, no serious attempt, apparently, was made to edit the numerous revelations, organize them into thematic units, or present them in chronological order.... This has given rise in the past to a great deal of criticism by European and American scholars of Islam, who find the Qur'an disorganized, repetitive, and very difficult to read." Approaches to the Asian Classics, Irene Blomm, William Theodore De Bary, Columbia University Press,1990, p. 65
We should try to find a place for this in this article.--Sefringle 06:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could start a new section. Arrow740 10:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: recent edit to [[Qur'an]]

message: The "critic" and the "response" parts in this section are not in coherence and for an "objective" reader make finding information potentially quite confusing.  I propose that the two should be merged so that the criticism is broken down into points and the relevent response (if one exists) given immediately below each criticism point.  This would make the section easier to understand, serve to remove any irrelevant material that has buried itself in the long text, and remove unnecessary repetition as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sufaid (talk • contribs) 
Further to this, below I have as an example re-formatted the section by breaking it down into points. Each point begins with a short summary of the criticism that I have added and enclosed in bold [paranthesis].  At the same time at a few locations I have added my comments italicised in [paranthesis] where I feel the text is not relevant.  At the end of each critic point I have indicated where the response to that particualr criticism may be placed. 
I have not actually altered or deleted any text present in this section so far, only broken it into sections.
After waiting for editors to respond to this, I will begin to do the same with the response section and start a cut/paste job to move portions from there into the "response place holders" I have indicated in the reformatted criticism section.  Also any response that is not relevant to the criticism presented will be marked for discussion and deletion.
Sufaid 11:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose your changes, the article will be more coherent if it remains in its current format. Arrow740 07:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which particular change do you oppose and why?  All I have done is broken down the section into sub-sections for clarity.  Right now there are a number of specific criticisms nestled within the full section. The response section then tries to address some of the criticisms and some it does not address at all.  For the reader it would be much clearer if each specifc criticism is identified as such and the response, if any, following the same.  This is quite clear from the reformatted version and I fail to see how the proposed format is less coherent than the current one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sufaid (talk • contribs) 12:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Your latest version was badly formatted. You said, "I have tried to match responses to the criticisms as at present." To me it looks like you're trying to alter the placement of things to distract people from the problems of the Quran. KittyHawker 22:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: A agree here with Sufaid - the article is about presenting various criticism of the Quran in a neutral and understandable way. In this regard the reformatted version does a better job. Nazli 07:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on War, Violence 'sword verse' I (Reformatted V.1)

message: The following text is not related to the Quran so should be deleted.  Probably belongs in Criticism of Islam and/or Criticism of Muhammad.
Arab-American psychologist Wafa Sultan has pointed out that the prophet of Islam said: "I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and his Messenger." Sultan has called on Islamic teachers to review their writings and teachings and remove every call to fight people who do not believe as Muslims.[58] Dr. Sultan is now in hiding, fearing for her life and the safety of her family after appearing on the al-Jazeera TV show. [59] Muslims for a Safe America have opened a dialogue on some of the issues raised by Dr. Sultan.[60]
Sufaid 08:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on War, Violence 'sword verse' III 

message: Can you please present the full quote for the following sentence: "John Wansbrough believes that the Qu’ran is a redaction in part of other sacred scriptures, in particular the Judaeo-Christian scriptures." The source seems to be here . Thanks --Aminz 21:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't add it. Arrow740 23:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wansbrough 

message: Carl Ernst asserts that the scholarship and interpretations of the critic, Robert Spencer, are fundamentally flawed - that he supports preconceived notions through selection bias and that he does not publish his books through academic presses since the books fail the blind peer-reviews as practiced by academic presses.[74] Regarding the issue of context, Robert Spencer writes that the Qur'an itself provides little context for understanding verses, and notes that the surahs in the Qur'an are not ordered chronologically, but by length.[75] In response to Ernst, Spencer states that "I present the work not on the basis of my credentials, but on the basis of the evidence I bring forth; evaluate it for yourself... Carl Ernst did not and cannot bring forth even a single example of a supposed inaccuracy in my work."[76] Small Text
I am not too sure if the above text is an apporpiate response to be included.  If a source such as Spencer is properly attributed and conforms to WP:RS then is material attacking that source valid for inclusion in this article...as the article is not about Spencer.  I would suggest removing the above and if any properly attributable POV's exist specific to the critcism, they should be included instead. Spencer's view of context is already present elsewhere in the articleSufaid 07:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An ad hominem attack is still a response, so Ernst's input is appropriate, as is the response to it. Arrow740 20:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not saying its not a response.....just unappropriate for an encyclopedia article...better to stick to the issues rather than open a discussion within the article itself on the merits of the references.  Takes away from the article quality....
Sufaid 07:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: oh contraire. It is very appropiate for this article.--Sefringle 07:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the section concerning abrogation of sura 9 is heavily weighted towards Spencer. the 'criticism' section, currently a quote-spam, can easily be condensed into a few sentences of prose. even the responses section devotes much of its attention to what Spencer has to say about what is evidently not a response at all. in summary, the section is highly unbalanced. ITAQALLAH 00:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is why that section is tagged with --Sefringle 05:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i see that Matt57 reverted, claiming that the image meets fair use guidelines. perhaps he could state how. ITAQALLAH 01:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's what the image tag says: "It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots ....... on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,  ...... qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.". If you want, I can contact the filkmakers and ask them to provide a much better high resolution image. I'm sure they will agree as the picture is being used in a context they would agree with. Can you now explain why its not fair use?--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you conveniently missed an important qualification: "...for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents..." - the bullet points list the requirements, they are not optional. see WP:FU. ITAQALLAH 01:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image caption does include identification of the program. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: fair use policy mandates that the article text itself must discuss the specific image in question and its verifiable relevance to the subject. see criteria #8, and the images section which stipulates critical commentary. ITAQALLAH 01:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The caption IS the text and it discusses the film in question. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ofcourse its doing that: "The material must contribute significantly to the article" - the material is there in this article. The captain and the picture form the material and they are significantly contributing to the article, in relation to what the film's purpose was: "to highlight Quranic violence towards women",  as claimed.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the film and picture are notable, but the requirements for fair use seem pretty strict - we have to be sure that it meets all requirements of this policy: Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy. I think fair-use images are being frowned upon in Wikipedia now, so it would be best to get explicit permission ASAP. - Merzbow 02:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: from the counter examples provided, it does seem that the critical commentary must consist of an actual passage in the article. material cannot contribute significantly to an article if it is not actually discussed as a topic in the article text itself. ITAQALLAH 02:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Itaq, how do you claim the narrative is fictional? But that is another claim anyway, its not relevant to the discussion here. Your claim that the image is emotive, is of no importance as well. As I have said "The material must contribute significantly to the article", and this is true in this case. None of the counter examples is similiar to this situation.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "As I have said "The material must contribute significantly to the article", and this is true in this case. None of the counter examples is similiar to this situation." - a claim is worth little if it is not substantiated. WP:FU makes extremely clear that the image must be discussed in the article text itself (as it must "specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text"), as well as its explicit relevance to the topic. the counterexamples also show this. the image as it is currently presented constitutes a copyright violation. ITAQALLAH 02:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not. The caption is discussing the film and the content. Do you want to have an RfC or something on this so we can resolve this?--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i have posted on the talk page of WP:FU concerning this. ITAQALLAH 03:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like we need significant mention of the film in the article for the image to be valid. Since it's nothing like a scholarly approach, I'm not sure it belongs in any pre-existing section here. But the film is still very notable, as are the filmmakers. How about a section in Criticism of Islam dedicated to notable criticsm of Islam in popular media, or something like that? I think the film is broader than just criticism of the Qur'an. - Merzbow 04:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that seems a reasonable idea. ITAQALLAH 05:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. You should use the screenshot in that article. The fact that the critical commentary is in a caption box or in the body text is rather irrelevant, but it's important that it's bound to the surrounding text in some way. --GunnarRene 23:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Merzbrow, what qualifies as "significant"? I agree that we should expand on this film. This is a very relevant film in relation to Criticism of Islam or Quran. I hope somoene can expand on the film within these articles. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure, but I think at least a small labeled sub-section would be enough to satisfy fair-use. As I said above, I think mention of this film belongs in a special section that covers popular or even just visual media, and probably in the CoI article, not this one. - Merzbow 07:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on making a more significant mention of the film and its explanation in relation to the topic. There we can have the picture too. It would be great if we can find out which verses of the Quran were used in the film. I'm searching. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 12:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion sought 

message: Having just changed (again) "Contradictions in the Qur'an" to "Claims of internal inconsistency," I now see, "Criticism of the science in the Qur'an." Like "Contradictions," this is unduly presumptive. For my part, I tend to agree with Dallal and Al-Biruni (and strongly disagree with Zakir Naik and his ilk) that the Qur'an has basically nothing to say about science. We shouldn't prejudge these issues in section titles.Proabivouac 06:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "We put mountains on earth so it wouldn't shake." "Man was created from a drop eminating from the lower back" (like Hippocrates taught). "Meteors are missiles God throws at demons." "God created the earth in 6 days." Et cetera. These impinge upon science. Arrow740 07:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whether or not certain Qura'nic verse impinge upon science in an editor's opinion is irrelevent.  I thinkProabivouac has a point that the titles are presumptive in the way that they are pre-supposing a given  POV without recognising the fact that the said POV is controversial i.e more than one POV's exist on the subject.  However, as the article is about criticism, this would be sort of self-obvious....meaning as the full article is about criticism which is a POV by definition, the section titles would follow suit....so perhaps are fine as they are.  Sufaid 09:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Arrow, you are looking at these through scientific eyes. Each of these verses have other interpretations as well. Muslims are quick to show statements in the Qur'an the scientific interpretation of which is only recently discovered. But critics say that these are not meant to be scientific, but when it comes to other passages, they say these are scientific mistakes. --Aminz 01:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even Ibn Kathir admits to being stumped at the "semen comes from the lower back" verse. When we note that that was the widespread belief of the time, the answer is clear. Arrow740 05:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section titles

message: THe interview is with Khalid 'Abdulhadi Yahya Blankenship is an assistant professor in Islamic Studies at Temple University's Department of Religion. 
: Relevant passages which might be summerized: "the "violent image" of Islam is entirely a creation of the western media, not the Muslims, who enjoy no input into that media whatever, except occasionally to be used as foils to defame their own religion. Violence in most Muslim countries is very little, and where it is a lot, it has been fomented by outside intrusions, interventions, and forces, as is especially the case in Afghanistan, Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq. Muslims are victims of power politics and have little ability to resist. Also, internally Muslim countries on the whole are far less violent in the crime aspect than our country here."
: "the amount of people killed by all Muslim warfare is far less than those killed by western-waged warfare, even by the United States."
: " Muslims who have engaged in freelance bombings and attacks such as 11 September are actually very few people."
: "Also, the silence of Muslim religious leaders and people is false propaganda. Actually, there is much discussion and condemnation of such events in the Muslim world,"
--Aminz 02:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warfare- Interview 

message: The article says: "Spencer writes that Sura 9 is, according to the Sahih Bukhari, “the last Sura revealed in full." " I thought the Sura Al-Maeda (The Table) was revealed after that. Itaqallah? --Aminz 07:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this muslim site, surah 9 is the last revealed. Table is the 2nd last actually. Interesting. I knew 9 was revealed later but didnt know it was the last (some critics say more "aggressive" content was revealed later after the "peaceful" content). --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 12:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually critics to make such statements have to isolate some quranic text from its immediate context to make sure it looks "agressive" for presentation purposes. Interestingly some early verses have very similar "agressive" content that is to be found in the later verses such as those of Sura 9.  Sufaid 18:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last sura 

message: Thanks to Sefringle to bringing in the screenshot of the Submission film originally. We should make a more thorough mention of this movie in this article as its directly related to the criticism of the Quran. Here are the salient points from which a writeup can be made. I have found the script to make our job easier:
Here are direct mention of verses in the script:
* Quran 2:222 - “They ask thee concerning women’s courses Say: they are a hurt and a pollution" (Quran 2:222)
* Quran 4:34 - Hirsi says: ""It is written in the Koran a woman may be slapped if she is disobedient. This is one of the evils I wish to point out in the film"." source. "men are the protectors and maintainers of women" ... "First lightly on my arms and legs, just as you, most high describe – ahhhuh O shall I say prescribe – in your holy book;": (4:34).
* Quran 24:2 - Verses mentioned in the film's script: "“The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with a hundred stripes;" - this is verse 24:2 ("24:2 Strike the adulteress and the adulterer one hundred times. Do not let compassion for them keep you from carrying out God's law—if you believe in God and the Last Day—and ensure that a group of believers witnesses the punishment.")
* Another reference to Quran in a general sense: "The verdict that killed my faith in love is in your holy book."
So we have Quran 4:34 and 24:2 and 2:222 in this film being seen in a critical way. This is great material for inclusion in this article. Anyone who could make a write up from these points? Also, in doing this, this will be a significant mention of the movie in this article and because of that we'll be able to include the picture as well. All of this will be a great addition to this article and deserves its own section. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 12:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Powerful stuff. We might need to see more of the script. Arrow740 20:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed and thats the whole script, the link I pasted. i didnt see this material was included. I'll write something up then. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Submission (film) 

message: Robert Spencer writes that Muhammad was instructed to take no prisoners,[73] but also suggests that this prohibition "doesn't seem to be absolute", noting that in another verse (33:50) "Allah gives the Muslims permission to take the wives of those they have slain in battle as concubines."[74]
I think a couple of changes to the above text will make it better.  Before some editors start imagining I have some ullterios motive, please read what I have to say, it really would improve article quality.
"Robert Spencer writes that Muhammad was instructed to take no prisoners,[73]".  I am assuming the cited author (Spencer) is implying that Muhammad was instructed to kill all defeated enemy combantants rather than implying that Muhammad was instructed to let all defeated enemy combantants go free.  Perhaps the text should make this clear as in its current form it is a bit ambigious what the author is trying to imply.  Secondly if Spencer is quoting verse 8:67 (see superscript 73)in support of his argument then that should also be explicitly mentioned instead of putting that as a reference in superscript.
Sufaid 08:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He doesn't give the exact citation. He quotes "It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land." He then says this is in the context of 8:67, so I assume it's in sura 8. It doesn't matter, we're just here to reproduce his argument. He doesn't spell out that the Quran tells Muhammad to kill everyone. You do not need to add your interpretation of his writing to the article. Arrow740 20:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If he is as you say quoting, then he should have given an exact citation, and infact 8:67 is an exact citation from the Quran.  THe problem is that his argument based on this citation (whatever it is) is not presented clearly in the article.  You dont have to as usual start assuming ulterior motives on my behalf; I am not trying to give my own interpretation to Spencer, in fact I want to make sure that his argument is presented so clealry that room for personal interpretations is minimised.  Currently the way the article text is worded it does sound like Spencer is saying that Muhammad was told to kill prisoners.  If he is not saying that then what exactly is his criticism of the quran regarding 8:67.  I think this section needs expansion to properly give Spencer's views.  Sufaid 18:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This text needs more clarity