Talk:Criticism of the Quran

message: Should mention the bit about Muhammad accusing the Jews of worshipping Ezra as the son of God(!)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's Right, Jews Worshipping Ezra as the son of God, as you can see in the verse . By the way, my name is Ezra also. StrategyFan (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Ezra

message: There is not more than one verse "stating that Christians and Jews will be rewarded as a result of their belief in God" in the Quran - this is incorrect.
I had to therefore replace "even though there are some verses" with "although there is a verse".
(Obviously if you think this is wrong, add the relevant verse)
Cheers,
Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Correction

message: The traditional Shari'a rulings on death penalty for adultery and homosexuality is not taken from the Qur'an (and arguably go against it (4:16; 24;2 etc)). I think they should be talked about in the Criticism of Islam page but in the Criticism of Qur'an.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death penalty for adultery and homosexuality 

message: This may be an ancient criticism and long since answered, but I remembered seeing a criticism that when Mohamed died, his followers wanted to record what he had dictated. Scribes had taken his dictates down on "whatever" was handy, including eggshells! No dates on materieal which they had not deemed important. As it happens, his pithiest comments were made early in his preaching career, his tortured, much longer ones, near the end when he had lots of information to consider. The organizers (it was said) decided to place the longer stuff first, shortest last! If true, one of the stranger and most perverse organizations ever. So the reader assumes that he saw "clearly" near the end and had shorter statements which may have superseded and overrode the former, when the opposite was true. (And no, the commentator wasn't reading it backwards. Come one!  :). Student7 (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible sequencing problems

message: With the possible exception of Abdullah Al-Araby (who appears to be reliable, ex-Muslim, so he knows what he's talking about), the following writers have been vetted by various Wikipedia editors and generally regarded as reliable sources for the subjects they write about: Robert Spencer (author), Serge Trifkovic, Bat Ye'or, Abdullah Al-Araby, and Walid Shoebat.  Would someone please explain to me why a film (Islam: What the West Needs to Know) that essentially aggregates what these writers say is somehow "fringe"?  -- Frotz(talk) 23:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on Amatulic's advice, I am dropping the pursuit of adding a link to Islam: What the West Needs to Know here.  -- Frotz(talk) 23:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:   It seems that Abdullah Al-Araby support the Eurabia conspiracy theory, so he is not reliable. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you're telling me because of the subject matter he presents, he is not reliable?  Perhaps you could explain exactly why he's not reliable instead of resorting to "I don't like his message, so he's unreliable.".  -- Frotz(talk) 00:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film heavily based on Reliable sources not a valid source? 

message: The Quran mentions the two holy books (Islamic holy books) the Tawra and Injil as authored by Allah (God's name in Islam). However, the Quran mentions that they were altered and that the original text had mentioned the last prophet of Allah which the Quran says he is Mohammad. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide secondary sources that state that. To expand, we are only allowed to use direct quotes to show the actual content. Any analysis needs a secondary source. See Criticism_of_the_Quran#Violence_against_women for an example of this. --NeilN talk to me 15:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Thanks, ok, as you know I am new here and need some help, so thanks again and I will write here first to see if I got it right :-) Abdusalambaryun (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quran criticism of other holy books 

message: Mostly there are reasons for criticisms of any thing or any person. I discuss here that Wikipedia should consider mentioning reasons of such acts or behaviour from authors by referencing.  This way it is more justified for readers and it will make editors more not taking sides. In this article, the reason is clear, because the Quran criticises some religions and som believes. The Quran is the primary subject but the article should clarify the reasons with referencing the Quran verses that criticises issues of others with its reason why. However, if we just say this reference "X" criticises the Quran of mentioning "A" because of "B", there maybe another reason "C" that "X" does not mention but another reference "Y" does.  Moreover, in complicated issues referencing all X,Y and any more can help see the real picture of criticism acts/behaviours. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If we mention criticism A,  we can't comment on that criticism ourselves but would need another source (which will have to meet our criteria for sources) that discusses criticism A. See WP:SYN. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  yes that is my point. The Quran criticised many thoughts and religions so then the Quran became criticised. Therefore, this section needs to address the verses that is criticises others. The source I need to be clear is actually the subject which is the Quran. The reason why the Quran is criticised is mostly because it started to show others as wrong so it criticised, so then the article editors are showing sourced of one side and not the other real related side. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So first you need a reliable source which says that that's why a person criticized the Quran.  For example, if you have a reliable source which says that Sam Harris criticizes Quran because the Quran criticized neuroscience at verses X, Y or Z, then you can include that information with due weight where Harris's views are mentioned. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Firstly, that is only a muslim point of view that the Qu'ran has been criticized by others in response to criticism of the Qu'ran. It's obviously a generalisation intended to discount any criticism. Secondly, I don't think you understood Dougweller's point. Please read WP:SYNTH. This says, in effect, that if you want to say that Religion X criticises the Qu'ran because the Qu'ran criticses Religion X, then you must find one source that says all of that. What you are not allowed to do is use one source that says Religion X criticises the Qu'ran and a second source that says the Qu'ran criticises Religion X and put them together to say Relion X criticises the Qu'ran because the Qu'ran criticizes Religion X. I hope I explained that clearly enough. DeCausa (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

text: That's called "original research" in Wikipedia - read WP:OR and is not permitted in the article. DeCausa (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism reason if any 

message: I see many archives but are there concensus documented, not sure. However, it will be nice if I review the archive and bring in this section the summary, so that I check if something is not missing.
Abdusalambaryun (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that will be a useful exercise as the talk page is not the only way, or even the main way, that consensus is created. If you read WP:CONSENSUS you will see that consensus also arises out of edits being made. So if an edit is made and is not reverted it is deemed, after being kept in the article for some time, to have consensus support. Also, consensuis can change. So, as an example, you could have a situation where something is expressly agreed on the talk page in 2008 and implemented, but is then changed in 2011 through an edit but without discussion on the talk page. If it is then not reverted or subsequently changed, it becomes the new consensus in place of the 2008 agreement. Of course, there's nothing wrong with now challenging that consensus either through an edit (but WP:BRD would apply) or by opening a talk page discussion thread. DeCausa (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives Talks and Editors Consensus 

message: In section; Violence against women, where is the criticism that mentions violence. The title says violence, so we need references to authors saying there are violences. The editors' voice is very clear but we need true references to be more reasonable. Please change title or show references to the same title. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The article provides evidence that the  Qu'ran advocates violence against women, see this: "Verse 4:34 of the Quran... as translated by Ali Quli Qara'i reads 'But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them.'... 'Marmaduke Pickthall's, Muhammad Muhsin Khan's, or Arthur John Arberry's. Arberry's translation reads "admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them.'[74]" However, there are no sources actually criticizing the Qu'ran's encoragement of violence against women. But I suggest we don't delete for the moment: it's highly unlikely that criticism of sura 4:34 doesn't exist, and it should be looked for in the first instance. DeCausa (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editor criticism not references 

message: "Bell and Watt thought that cases where the speaker is swearing an oath by God, such as surahs 75:1-2 and 90:1..." - The verses mentioned read: 'I do call to witness the Resurection Day and I do call to winess the self reproaching spitit' and 'I do call to witness this city'. Where is the speaker swearing an oath by God?
:The source is self-published and unreliable. So I removed that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk • contribs) 14:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Zabt of Tahzeeb, this is not self-published. --NeilN talk to me 14:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Zabt of Tahzeeb, as Richard Bell (Arabist) and William Montgomery Watt directly contradict your claims, it seems you're more oblivious than you thought. --NeilN talk to me 14:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

text: No, we don't add NPOV tags to articles because an editor's (incorrect) opinions. You need to find reliable sources that support your claims first. --NeilN talk to me 15:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

text: All you have done here is provide two false claims (work was self-published, authors were Islamophobes) to try to justify your removal of the material. That's it. --NeilN talk to me 16:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

text: , do you know what Zabt is talking about? As far as I can see, they are using their own opinions to rebut Bell and Watt. --NeilN talk to me 17:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , Zabt appears to be a new editor (his account was created only a few days ago) and obviously has little experience in editing (often forgets to sign his postings and disregards the common practice of adding new postings and sections at the bottom of the talk page). He clearly doesn't like the Bell & Watt quote but appears to be unable to provide coherently argued reasons for removing it. AstroLynx (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oath by God 

message: we wikipedians shouldn't promote Islamophobia. We should mention the thing that is presumed bad by critic. It is policy generalization are bad. For example What is that jewish encyclopaedia says so and so. Which morale? The opposition remains silent. Such stereotypes shouldn't be promoted as they are islamophobic and spread faults of Quran which does not exist. eg. some says something is in Quran but it is not in Quran. If it cannot be explained then it should be removed. Wikipedia policy is Generalizations are bad. I try to modify, if someone has diasagreement talk on talk page otherwise silence means consensus. For example confusion over speaker. The opposition remains silent on talk page but when removed, they reverted 2 times nor show consnsus. What?.
Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, your removal was reverted because you are tossing around false accusations of Islamophobia. Also, the points you're trying to make are barely understandable. Again, the source is by two respected scholars. Find another academic source that rebuts their statements (not your opinion).  --NeilN talk to me 17:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Your first point is irrelevant and your second point is unintelligible. --NeilN talk to me 18:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

text: All right, since you can't seem to make your points coherently, I will wait for someone else to try and do so. You may not take this as agreeing with any of your edits. --NeilN talk to me 18:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

text: This is an article on criticisms of the Qu'ran.  By its very nature, the article has to describe the various criticisms that have been made - that does not mean the article is implying that those criticisms are correct. It appears that the text you object to has a reliable source for the fact that the criticisms have been made. If you have reliable sources that say those criticisms were motivated by Islamophobia, then please bring those sources in (and clearly identify who is claiming the arguments were based on Islamophobia). But whatever you do, please don't simply delete sourced information simply because you disagree with it, and please do provide reliable sources for additional information that you do bring in. EastTN (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Islamoiphobia should be prevented

message: Criticism means ANALYSIS of (things that are considered) FAULTS (by critic) IN DISAPPROVING WAY. I quoted relevant definition otherwise say faults and merits collectively- that is not relevant to article.
Anti-Islam and Islamophobia means PREJUDICE (dislike due to percieved things) against Islam.
It is not my original research. You can view any dictionary
when watt percieved fault that doesn't exist and criticised. It is anti-Islam not critticism.
Original research? Can be called alleged criticism.
Criticism is the point that actually exist and viwed fault by critics.
But anti (Islam or christianity) is that point which falsely attributed and then criticized defame religion.
Childstoning and wifebeating are actually criticism not such things. Because they are sanctioned by scripture and when we civilized we realized they are true.
I was solely concerned to improve article, as SELECTION OF CONTENT is under the hands of senior editors and they should recognize the confusing terms through dictionary and NOT TOO GENERALIZE - and that is wikipedia policy. 
I assume good faith to all editors and think they will pay heed on my recommendations, not just recommedations but facts according to wikipedia policy.
For that reason I rose the discussion of islamophobic section.
However, if you think they are synonymous then merge the articles of Anti-religion and criticism of Religion.
Other wise my point is clear.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk • contribs) 00:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "when watt percieved fault that doesn't exist and criticised." And again, what you think about Watt's views doesn't matter. Only what other reliable sources (i.e., not you) say matters. And please stop adding new sections to the middle of this talk page. It is getting disruptive. --NeilN talk to me 01:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Why isn't this criticism relevant? --NeilN talk to me 01:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Since you have provided no sources indicating the authors were islamophobes, your opinion is irrelevant. --NeilN talk to me 01:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

text: This is my last post on the matter. You don't get to decide. I don't get to decide. Wikipedia follows what reliable published sources say. --NeilN talk to me 01:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately your inability or unwillingness to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines limits your ability to improve the article. A dictionary offers no use as a source for the authors' purported islamophobia. See WP:SYNTHESIS. --NeilN talk to me 02:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Zabt, what do you mean by "you cannot criticise Quran by reliable sources because you don't have them"? Are you talking about one specific criticism, or the article as a whole?  If it's the latter, a number of different editors have worked very hard to improve the sourcing for this article. You may not agree with what the sources have to say about the Qu'ran, but that doesn't matter. What's critical here is that the editors you're talking to are not "making self claimed faults" - we're reporting on what has been said by sources that, in our judgment, meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliability.  I would also note that you seem to be expressing a rather strong Point of View of your own ("altered Gospels"). It's fine to have a point of view - we all do - but other editors are not doing anything wrong when they include sources with points of view that disagree with yours. EastTN (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: criticism of Islam and Islamophobia are not Synonymous

message: when we' civilized we realized they are true.  
EastN and that IP address, I'm not blaspheming any religion. I did not look your comment because I had created new section before. But don't accus me of blasphemy. I did not Wrote punctuation mark, it doesn't mean blasphemy always assume good faith. It is grammatical rule to write the statement in above way. Actually it means:
And (critics say) when we' civilized we realized they are true.
And it is well-known principle
In exclamatory passages the absent thing can be written in such way. As for apostrophe, as girls' school and girls school are same. They are also same. 
Kindly assume good faith and improve article o that IP address.
O that you can correct me. I can also correct you improve your lingual knowledge and then improve the article.
Similary  stone him does not mean  don't stone him.
Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not using your analysis or opinion of Watt's work to change/remove any material. --NeilN talk to me 14:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  grammatical complexity should not be confused with blasphemy 

message: I think the variations found in the Sana'a manuscript should be included in the criticism of the Quran entry.  It is a copy of an early copy which was not burned prior to the compilation of the "official" Uthman Quran.  --HafizHanif (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no proof which says that the copy  obtained is a copy of quran. and none can say that  a copy discovered in 19th century is the copy of quran. hence the claim is false. -- Smatrah (talk) 09:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Smatrah, please read the citations for clarification on why the scholars conclude the age and two versions of Quranic writing in the Sana. -- HafizHanif (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

text: One valid reason is that qualified experts whose professional careers is the study of the Quran, its style of writing, its history and the history of Islam, say it is. Sure, some people deny such findings because it breaks with their idea that the Uthman version is the very same 'revealed' rendition that Muhammad repeated to his listeners. Why don't you read the citations for yourself? How about verifying who the experts are and whether they are qualified? The Sana'a manuscript page (which is linked in the section you are questioning) is replete with citations showing that it is actually a pre-Uthman version of the Quran. Look up the references. -- HafizHanif (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

text: The many reasons are listed in the reference and quite obvious. I could copy and paste the entire entry, but the link I provided is sufficient and should be used by you. If you 'fail' to comprehend or understand what the Islamic scholars have extrapolated, I'm sorry. But your inability to comprehend is not reason to challenge what is clear and obvious. I'm not going to respond again, having repeated myself three times. Go in peace.  -- HafizHanif (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Why do you claim that it was discovered in the 19th century? If you actually read Sana'a manuscript you surely would have noticed in the lead that it was discovered in the 1970s, that is far into the 20th century. AstroLynx (talk) 08:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Sana'a manuscript 

message: Thanks for your contributions, but please do copy directly from sources as you've done from The Atlantic here. It is copyright infringement.--Anders Feder (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for mentioning that   I mostly use quotes because they are directly cited, but don't want to fill up the entry with all quotes.  Could you give me an example of how to add content without falling into copyright infringement, please? Or point out what you think I should edit in what I've recently added?  Thanks!! --HafizHanif (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you meant to say "do NOT" copy directly... right?  --HafizHanif (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes :)--Anders Feder (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

text: I agree, quotes quickly become too much. You need to essentially read and understand the part of the source you want to reproduce, then put it away completely, and then–maybe a minute or two later even–formulate the same meaning in your own words. Only direct copying and close paraphrasing constitute a problem.--Anders Feder (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see, thanks for clarifying and including the information link.  It is tempting to write in / reveal a bias when formulating one's own words, but I'll try ;)  --HafizHanif (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: Why isn't there any mention of the bad science in the book?72.93.214.15 (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Likely because the Quran isn't a book of science, doesn't claim to be a book of science, and neither do Muslims consider it to be a book of science. We don't give undue weight to "bad science" in the Bible, Bhagavad Gita, Torah, or other religious texts either. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it is a widespread claim amongst Muslims that the Quran is a book of science - the claimed scientific accuracies are given as evidence of its divine perfection. See, for example, Islam and science#Scientific topics in the Qur'an and Hadith. On that basis this would be a legitimate topic for this article. DeCausa (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is also a similar widespread claim among fundamentalist Christians about the Bible, but I remain unconvinced that such nonsense deserves space in an article devoted to criticicism of the Bible. Is this article topic about criticism of the Quran, or criticism of fundamentalist interpretations of the Quran? ~Amatulić (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say "widespread claim amongst fundamentalist Muslims". I think you are not aware that it's a mainstream Muslim belief, unlike Christianity for which it is fringe. DeCausa (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Do we have reliable sources for said 'inaccuracies' ? I recently read the book "Islam's Quantum Question" written by an astrophysicist, and he didn't seem to think there were many (or any) such 'inaccuracies.' In fact, he considered the Quran to be very encouraging towards the sciences.cӨde1+6TP  01:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific inaccuracies? 

message: The disruptive daily reverting must stop. This article is fully protected for 1 week. Resolve your dispute on this talk page. If you can agree on a change before the protection expires, an administrator will make the change if it is tagged by a  tag. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article protected 

message: Alexis Ivanov, per three revert rule WP:3RRNO, I hereby notify you that you are disrupting the process of building this article. Your efforts in persuasion on the talk page is insufficient regarding your continued vandalism and non-productive deletions. I will also request page protection WP:RFPP since you only desire to defend a page that is an article on criticism of the subject, instead of adding to its critique. If you desire to promote the subject matter, there is a page for that... I suggest you cite properly your promotions. -- HafizHanif (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You are just joking around. The citation is the same citation as you used, so don't act like you don't know what you are saying. There was no vandalism, and on top of that you lied on what the author said in his own book. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Your contributions and manners reveal your character, the petty and baseless allegations simply show how dishonorable you are. This is my final response to your user handle. - HafizHanif (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  It sounds like you are describing yourself. There can't a final response since you do realize your mistakes are clear. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexis Ivanov edit warrior (waring) 

message: user:Johnsoniensis, is the rating change to beckon other editors to help improve the article? Since the article is a critique, I've been working on finding citations to go with already existing content, or editing in what I do find in building a scholarly critique of the topic... but it hasn't been without the contrasting efforts of others in defending or neutralizing the criticism. What do you suggest? -- HafizHanif (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The rating of C may be too low; WP Islam has rating of B which may well be justified. It would need careful consideration before all the ratings were raised to B. What you are doing is useful; however some other editors who disagree may object sometimes.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying. I'll have to look into the ratings and how they come about. I figured the rating to be low because of the lack of references and the poor manner the page has been contested. -- HafizHanif (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category rating change 

message: Srich32977 (talk), may I ask why Joseph Schacht's (an Islamic scholar) and John Wansbrough's (professor of Oriental studies) wikilink was removed by yourself? -- HafizHanif (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  current maintenance run-through 

message: Hello Anachronist. Am thinking of trying to improve and add information to this article and you seem to be involved and knowledgeable so I hope you don't mind me asking you some questions about the article. 
*what constitutes criticism?  What's appropriate to put in the article? In the lede it mentions "Questions relating to the authenticity and morality of the Quran ... scientific errors adding allegations of contradictions in the Quran while questioning interpretations of its moral and ethical message."
**but how about questions, puzzles, difficulties?  things that don't imply rejection, attack, etc. "Literary criticism" is "the art or practice of judging and commenting on the qualities and character" of the literature being criticized. More like analysis. For example, in the work What the Koran Really Says, the editor lists  words, phrases, sentences, passages in the Quran "whose meaning is not certain", clear, or thought to be interpolations, etc. Should/can that be included in the article as well? So far as I know wikipedia has no guidelines on this.
*Article is tagged "This article's lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents...." but I could find no discussion, no expansion on what was missing in the talk page. Did I miss it? Or should I just go through the body of the article, find what's missing and add it to the lede?
*what's up with the long quote at the beginning of Criticism_of_the_Quran#Historical_authenticity? About how some  "...have alleged tampering with the original texts. But the argument is so patently tendentious and the evidence adduced for the fact so exiguous that few have failed to be convinced that what is in our copy of the Quran is in fact what Muhammad taught, and is expressed in his own words". No intro. no context. Sounds like a drive-by defense of the Quran that  no one bothered to delete.  Am I missing something? 
Cheers, BoogaLouie (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: These observations and questions really belong on the talk page. Regarding your first question, in my view, criticism falls into two categories: Thoughtful or scholarly analysis that has been reported or cited in reliable sources, and non-expert commentary by notable or influential people that has been reported in reliable sources. We can include both kinds, with an emphasis on the former. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll put it on the talk page --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, we already have some literary criticism in this article under Quality, and I see know harm in adding something more scholarly on the topic. Eperoton (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  questions for Anachronist (reposted from his talk page) 

message: On the domestic violence section, I think it would be beneficial to note that the world iḍribūhunna, which is usually translated as 'beat them', also means 'to go out' or 'go away' in Arabic, and derivations of its root word daraba (ضرب) are understood elsewhere in the Quran to reflect this meaning e.g. in Quran 4:101. Essentially, many Muslims do not interpret this verse as a call for domestic violence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.217.167.157 (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Domestic Violence 

message: Was just looking at the two articles on another holy book: Biblical criticism and Criticism of the Bible 
both of which have a disambiguity tag at the top of the article. (below is the one for Bibilical criticism)
The situation for the Quran is very similar; as the lede of this article says: 
The Quran is viewed to be the scriptural foundation of Islam  and is believed by Muslims to have been sent down by Allah (God) and revealed to Muhammad by the angel Jabreel (Gabriel). The Quran has been criticized both in the sense of being studied as a text for historical, literary, sociological and theological analysisDonner, "Quran in Recent Scholarship", 2008: p.29 by secular, (mostly) Western scholars who set aside doctrines of its divinity, perfection, unchangeability, etc. accepted by Muslim scholars; but also in the sense of being found fault with by those — including Christian missionaries and other skeptics hoping to convert Muslims — who argue it is not divine, not perfect and/or not particularly morally elevated. 
In historical criticism, scholars (such as John Wansbrough, Joseph Schacht, Patricia Crone, Michael Cook) seek to investigate and verify the origin, text, composition, history of the Quran, examining questions, puzzles, difficult text, etc. as they would non-sacred ancient texts. Opponents of Islam (such as Ibn Warraq)Ibn Warraq, Why I Am Not a Muslim, 1995: p.104-63 have worked to find internal inconsistency and scientific errors in the holy book, and faults with its clarity, authenticity, and ethical message.Bible in Mohammedian Literature., by Kaufmann Kohler Duncan B. McDonald, Jewish Encyclopedia. Retrieved April 22, 2006. The most common criticisms concern various pre-existing sources that Quran relies upon, internal consistency, clarity and moral teachings.
I propose to create a Quranic criticism article with a disambiguity tag reading something like 
not sure how long it will take. Have been working on it for a while. 
--BoogaLouie (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting of article 

message: The question is, Quran advocates vegetarianism or not.The evidence in scriptures of other religions such as Bible, Vedas, Bhagvad Gita and Granthavali suggest vegetarianism.(Satya Jaimala (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Food in Quran 

message: Hi,
Requesting you to have a look at 
* Superstitions in Muslim societies and also Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies
Requesting article expansion help, if above topics interest you.
Thanks and regards
Bookku (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting help in article expansion  

message: Came across following article, but don't know whether Wikipedia book of literal  commandments allows following. Is there any equivalent Wikipedian approvable reliable source for following?   
* https://mostintolerantreligion.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/124000-prophets-lie-of-islam/comment-page-3/
Bookku (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No. O3000 (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

text: That clearly is a biased source. I mean, look at the name! watermelon66 (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting RS 

message: In four months, you made a mistake because you did not pay attention to the exceptions. For a woman who has led to divorce due to lack of sexual intercourse or due to inability to enter, etc., the marriage relationship is not considered (1). In addition, the period of four months is considered for three periods of menstruation and non-pregnancy, and the same period has exceptions and conditions (for example: postmenopausal women or women with different menstrual periods). On the other hand, this period is a few months for thinking and reconsidering and going through hard and bitter days or, for example, climate change and attitude change. Because such an oath to God may be made out of anger and lack of research, and there are no conditions for the next marriage. Also, this deadline indicates the enormity and weight of swearing and breaking the oath so that it will not be dealt with easily. It is also not correct to object to the number four. Any number that counts can be challenged. For example, the length of the menstrual cycle may be different in different women in different climates or in different neurological and physical conditions. The suffering of dissatisfaction with sexual desire also depends on the temperament and physical nature of men and women, cold temperament and hot temper. The conclusion is that maintaining the foundation of the family, giving importance to proper swearing is one of the main messages of verses 226-227 mentioned today.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.110.252.89 (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of the cancellation oaths section 

message: * de Molière, Maximilian. "Chapter 6  “Muhammad’s Jewish Heresies”: Reading the Quran through Kabbalistic Books". Confronting Kabbalah. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004689527_007 Web.
 Bookku    (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs