Talk:Criticism of the Quran/Archive 1

message: Something is wrong with this page, as it is not desplaying the entire article.--Sefringle 03:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Something is wrong with this page

message: Someone please include S. 86:5-7. It reflects the premodern (Aristotelian?) belief that semen comes out of the lower back. Arrow740 21:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semen from the loins 

message: There apparently has been some misconseption about the translation of this arabic word, and its relation to whether or not the quran says the moon is its own light.(,and, ) to clarify it, see this article by wikipedia, as well as this website .--Sefringle 03:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation of the arabic word "nur" (نور)

message: Someone removed the line "Further, it is not true that mountains render the earth's crust more stable." As I indicated this can be found on page 171 of Campbell's book, and it is a quote by a professor of geology. The exact quote is as follows:
"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. The very existence of the folds is evidence of instability in the crust."
In fact this part of the book goes on to prove that the formation of mountains (by either of the two processes by which mountains are formed; the creation of folds in the earth's crust or by volcanic activity) in fact causes earthquakes. So Muhammad couldn't have been more wrong. I'm being restrained in not putting all of this in; don't remove the one sentence about this. It would be vandalism and could eventually lead to a block. Arrow740 09:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed that line, because we already said it in a slightly different way, and mentioned revelent sources. It is just getting repreatitive to say it again.--Sefringle 01:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine now. Arrow740 10:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mountains don't prevent earthquakes, sorry 

message: "Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."
Notable critics claim that these verses are a scientific error since the sun does not actually set in a spring of murky water. Who claims it means that sun actually set in a spring of murky water. Please refer to one tafsir which support this claim. Do you read any literary text.--Sa.vakilian 02:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give you a tafsir. "it set in a spring of murky water." Arrow740 09:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a metaphore.--Sa.vakilian 04:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to convince yourself of that, that's fine. If you want to get a source which says that it's a metaphor and cite it, that's fine too. You can't remove a sourced criticism just because you disagree with it. What we're doing here is reporting WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY. THIS IS NOT WP:OR. Read the rules of wikipedia before you start messing things up. Arrow740 10:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Muslim veiwpoint :The verse says, “he found it set in a spring of murky water” i.e., according to his vision and sight that’s why Allah does not say “it is setting”.
*Imam Al-Baidawi notes,
He probably reached shore of the ocean and saw it like that because there was but water at the furthest of his sight that’s why He says “he found it set” and does not say “it sets”.
(Al-Baidawi, Anwar-ut-Tanzil wa Asrar-ut-Taw’il, Volume 3, page 394. Published by Dar-ul-Ashraf, Cairo, Egypt)
*Imam Al-Qurtubi states,Al-Qaffal said: It is not meant by reaching the rising or setting of the sun that he reached its body and touched it because it runs in the sky around the earth without touching it and it is too great to enter any spring on earth. It is so much larger than earth. But it is meant that he reached the end of populated land east and west, so he found it - according to his vision - setting in a spring of a murky water like we watch it in smooth land as if it enters inside the land. That is why He said, "he found it rising on a people for whom we had provided no covering protection against the sun." (Holy Qur'ân 18:90) and did not mean that it touches or adheres to them; but they are the first to rise on.
*Al-Qutabiy said: Probably this spring is a part of the sea and the sun sets behind, with or at it, so the proposition takes the place of an adjective and Allah knows best.
(Al-Qurtubi, Al-Game’ le Ahkam-el-Qur’an, Volume 16, page 47. Published by Dar-ul-Hadith, Cairo, Egypt. )
*Imam Fakhr-ud-Deen Ar-Razi states,
When Zul-Qarnain reached the furthest west and no populated land was left, he found the sun as if it sets in a dark spring, but it is not in reality. The same when sea traveler sees the sun as if it sets in the sea if he cannot see the shore while in reality it sets behind the sea.
    (Ar-Razi, At-Tafsir-ul-Kabir, Volume 21, page 166)
*Imam Ibn Kathir states,
“Until, when he reached the setting of the sun" means he followed a certain way till he reached the furthest land he could go from the west. As for reaching the setting of the sun in the sky, it is impossible. What narrators and story tellers say about that he walked for a period of time in earth while the sun was setting behind him is unreal, and most of it is from myths of People of the Book and inventions of their liars.
"he found it set in a spring of murky water" means he saw the sun according to his vision setting in the ocean and this is the same with everyone ending to the shore seeing as if the sun sets inside it (i.e. the ocean).
(Ibn Kathir, Tafsir-ul-Qur'ân Al-'Azim, Volume 5, page 120. Published by Maktabat-ul-Iman, Mansoura, Egypt) --Sa.vakilian 11:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Funny criticism

message: and why is he notable? that FFI article also seems to regurgitate "SKM"s polemic. can somebody please provide critique from somebody a bit more notable?
there are also problems with spamming of verses, and blatantly unencyclopaedic language. there may also be concerns regarding giving undue weight to critique. lastly, there are many weasely wordy statements, in the place of which we can have specific attributions as to who exactly claims what. ITAQALLAH 14:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Criticism of islam is largely internet based because islam gives license for muslims to kill critics of islam. As such SKM is a notable critic. Try using a search engine. Arrow740 22:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: with less than 800 hits to his name, as well as ourselves knowing totally nothing about his background or education, he seems to be an amateur dabbling in polemic. there are plenty of websites and noted personalities you can use, you have no need to rely on "SKM". ITAQALLAH 22:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His writings are posted on websites that even you will admit are notable. As such his writings are notable. Arrow740 23:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: of course they aren't. such websites invite "community participation" and invite any one at all, regardless of their educational background or notability, to have their name up on the website with an article next to it. it does not make the critic notable. i wonder if you would argue for your own notability and inclusion on wikipedia were you to one day submit a few of your own personal analyses to a website like FFI. fact is, not everyone on the list is notable (some are just forum users trying to get into fictional writing, visibly), and some of the personalities are laughable. SKM isn't a notable critic, and we know next to nothing about him: why are you citing him as an authority in an encyclopedia? ITAQALLAH 23:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is called "Criticism of the Qur'an." Criticism of the Quran is a noteworthy thing. It takes place largely on the internet. The points we are attributing to him are a valid phenomenon to report on here. The messenger doesn't really matter, however this guy seems to be a pretty important internet critic of Islam. What's the big deal about his name? Arrow740 23:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: yes, criticism of the qur'an is notable. not everyone who engages in it however, is. therefore, we base the article upon those established critics. we do not include (essentially) phantom critics and name-drop as if they are important or notable, when they clearly are not. similarly, we don't include every and any criticism under the sun: we include only those critiques which are prevelant and notable (and if they are notable, they will surely have someone notable espousing it). ITAQALLAH 17:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want you can replace the links with your choice of these: , , or , and I'm sure I could find others if I spent more than a minute searching. Arrow740 22:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is wrong with including the name? It is only extra imformation about who the critic who said this imformation is.--Sefringle 07:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe Itaqallah can prove to us why it is against wikipedia rules to include the name of the critic. Arrow740 09:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: if he was the only one presenting this criticism, the critique itself would have no place here. his work is more akin to juvenile gutter polemic with the habitual 'CAPS TO EMPHASISE THE POINT I'M MAKING'... there is no reason to embarass wikipedia by pretending that those with just-reached-puberty mentalities are 'notable critics' by citing their name (implying that they are notable), unless of course those are the best, most academic sources you have. this article itself currently makes a joke of wikipedia policy. ITAQALLAH 15:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the What Wikipedia is not article, it says "Less well-known people may be mentioned within other articles." I believe that line therefore allows Syed Kamran Mirza's name to be mentioned.--Sefringle 04:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, "less well-known people", indicating at least some degree of notability which does not quite reach the level of that required for a bio article. to exploit such an ambiguity, claiming that it supports inclusion of people whom we know virtually nothing about and to name him as if he is a prominent critic clearly goes against the spirit of WP:RS and WP:V.  ITAQALLAH 13:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "as if." He is not referred to as "prominent" in the article. He is a notable critic of Islam, as his writings are prominently featured on websites which get millions of hits a year. Also, we are not including him, as you nonsensically suggested. We are including references to his writings, which are notable. We are not giving any biography of him. In naming a person whose material we use more than once we are only being informative. Arrow740 01:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Criticism of the Quran is notable, it takes place largely on the internet because of the death threats critics get, and SKM is a prominent one of these critics, for reasons I outlined. Arrow740 22:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: criticism is notable, yes. i don't believe that merely its presence on the internet is what makes it notable, i think there are plenty of scholarly personalities who have splashed out on critique. hiding away because of death threats? can you substantiate that from independant reliable sources, or do we have only Ali Sina's sobbing to go by? 700 ghits does not indicate the pseudonym Syed Kamran Mirza is prominent, this an objection you've yet to answer. ITAQALLAH 00:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is allowed to include Syed Kamran Mirza's name as a primary source within this article according to the WP:RS. It says "Widely acknowledged extremist organizations or individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should be used only as primary sources." I believe that in this context, Syed Karman Mirza's name is being used as a primary source.--Sefringle 03:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  who exactly is "Syed Kamran Mirza"? 

message: I have added this section. For the purpose of NPOV, if the muslims have a rebuddle to any of the contradictions, please add it.--Sefringle 07:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradictions in the quran

message: I think we can all agree that bhaisaab's decision to delist this from the Islam category was vandalism. I also think that there is sufficient connection to science that we should include it in Islamic Science as well. Arrow740 08:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.--Sefringle 21:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You said in your edit summary "...Bhaisaab didn't even put it in a Quran subcategory..." Perhaps you need to check what categories this article is already in. BhaiSaab talk 21:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way you seem to be calling a few too many edits vandalism. Then when you realize it was a mistake, it's not really beneficial to your reputation as an editor here. I suggest you get a good read over WP:AGF. BhaiSaab talk 21:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quran is a subsubcategory to Islam. This article, while concerned with the Quran, is concerned with the entire Quran and the integrity of the Quran as a religious scripture, and so with the integrity of Islam itself. As such this article belongs in the Islam category. As regards my allegations of vandalism, you deleted a link to something quoted by a secondary source and did not mention it in an edit summary . This was after I had already reverted it back. Maybe this isn't the wikipedia definition of vandalism, but I consider it to be vandalism. Arrow740 21:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: Wikipedia should not use these sources (no scholarly encyclopedia does). If you would like to criticize, find an academic scholar who does so. --Aminz 01:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is called criticism of the Qur'an, an important subject. The people you listed are the prominent critics of Islam. If you want to argue that the entire article should be deleted, try to get it deleted. Otherwise it and the sources stay. Arrow740 02:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It needs to be attributed to a notable critic of Islam, that's it. This isn't a history article. Arrow740 02:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Why doesn't he then publishes his book in an important press like "Oxford University Press"? I would then love to read that book. --Aminz 02:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which of his publishers don't merit being called "important"? Arrow740 02:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Uhmi, please see this. It is the wikipedia policy when dealing with religion.--Sefringle 22:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faithfreedom, Spencer, and Seyed Kamran Mirza 

message: This is not the proper article for your version of "background" on the issue of war and violence, Aminz. Put it in a new article. Arrow740 05:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is called Criticism of the Quran. You make articles too long by wikipedia standards. If you want to put more quotes from silly scholars on wikipedia you have the ability to do it, however if it's not directly related to criticism of the Quran, it should not go here as this article is already quite long, and I have a fair amount of material to add to it which actually is criticism of the Quran. The format for this article is criticism, followed by rebuttal, and we are very specific. That is a good way of approaching an article on this topic, and we would produce the best possible article on this topic if you would also adhere to this guideline. Arrow740 06:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: wiki is not a paper encyclopedia. any appropriate information that is relevant and useful which contributes to the discussion should be included. "The format for this article is criticism, followed by rebuttal, and we are very specific." - no, that is the format of the unscholarly critique spam, which incidentally you have not been consistent in adhering to. any kind of scholarly discussion, from established academics (i.e. not graduates from the local circus) about controversial aspects of the Qur'an which have received critique or about criticism of the Qur'an in general should be welcomed. ITAQALLAH 14:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yawn . Arrow740 22:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: perhaps you should re-read what i wrote above. ITAQALLAH 00:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The principle that we should not have criticism, response, criticism, response, and on and on, makes sense here just as it did where you applied it. Arrow740 09:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For a quick "background," it should describe the topic in one or two sentences, and not include any verses.--Sefringle 03:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Background" 

message: This article is about criticism of the Quran. As in all other similar articles, we have criticism follows by response. You preface criticism with excessive quotations, many of which are out of context, and for which you cannot provide context. Your wording violates NPOV as you state as fact things which have not been proven. I try to make constructive improvements to this article, while you make wholesale reverts. Arrow740 11:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aminz revert warring 

message: User:Itaqallah keeps removing the Islam category from this article, though it clearly is an Islam-related topic. I feel this is disingenuous and wrong. RunedChozo 18:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: every qur'an related topic is an islam related topic, and if all the qur'an related topics were in the islam cat (which, of course, is not the case), there would be no need for a qur'an category. ITAQALLAH 18:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so, a square is a rectangle is a polyhedron, to wit. RunedChozo 18:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category removals 

message: The dispute: We know that Islam has been (mostly recently) criticized for Jihad. I've made a short summary of the ethics of warfare in Qur'an (neither defensive nor critical, an academic one) and added that to this article to provide some context. But some editors don't think it should be there. But I think it is: 1. much shorter than the criticism section, and 2. is nothing but a short summary and provides a neutral summary before any criticism or defense. 
I'll request some Admins to comment on the existence of this short summary . --Aminz 02:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NEUTRAL summary? QUestion is does Islam encourage the agressive Jihad against non-Muslims. you can argue either way BUT saying this 'summary' is neutral for this question well youve gotta be kidding.Opiner 03:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That makes your use and placing of it neutral?Opiner 03:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The question is about your using and placing of the source not about its including somewhere on Wikipedia. About WP:NPOV not WP:RS. Everyone telling you this. PLEASE listen.Opiner 08:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Str1977 also telling you exact same thing. WP:NPOV≠WP:V! Think, otherwise why two policies?Opiner 08:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This article is about criticism of the Quran. Thus, the section in question is about not about the ethics of warfare in Qur'an; instead, it is about critics' views of the ethics of warfare in the Quran. This should be obvious even to Aminz. Arrow740 09:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment.  

message: Please, everyone state their opinions on the following two guidelines. It would help if you chose to Agree or Disagree with both.
*This article is about Criticism of the Quran. The subject of any article should be discussed most prominently, in any section of that article. Thus, a general discussion of a certain aspect of the Quran, while indirectly relevant to criticism of the Quran, should not be the primary focus of any section. Such a discussion would be better suited to the Quran article, or should have its own article.
*This article is about Criticism of the Quran. To merit inclusion in this article, it is enough that an author be a notable critic of Islam; an academic pedigree is not required, as criticism of the Quran is primarily conducted outside of academia.
Can everyone involved in the edit warring state their responses to these two guidelines? Thanks, Arrow740 09:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How we should work on this article 

message: I do not agree with your summary idea. One problem with this is that I do not think it would be possible to provide short neutral summaries of the issues. The Crone piece is not neutral; the Quran advocates certain treatment of pagans, and a different treatment of Muslims, so her piece (if you summarized it correctly) is not only biased, but false as well. Another problem is that, again, the focus of the article is the criticism itself, and general discussions of particular issues belong in other article. Perhaps we could link to the Quran article. It just doesn't make sense to start sections with material that doesn't really belong. Arrow740 10:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: if you think she is not neutral, then you can find reliable sources and add them as well. we can say prone says this and the other guy says that. we can then summerize it. --Aminz 10:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "The basic principle in fighting in Islam is that one should treat other communities as they treat one's own." This is wrong. Moreover, it is an opinion stated as a fact. It nowhere says in the Quran, for example, that Muslims should behead other Muslims. We cannot use Crone. I don't think we should have a section dedicated to a summary of the ethics of war in Islam anyway, because it would be impossible to find a short, neutral, informative such summary. Please try to find a more neutral source (Lewis might be a good place to start). Moreover, the Islamic military jurisprudence is the appropriate place for such material, where it is already presented in extensive form. I am placing the summary of the Islamic military jurisprudence article here in this article. Arrow740 22:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: We have to use common sense in writing this article, and in reading the work of scholars in general. Crone as you have presented her is biased, so it doesn't make sense to use her as the source for a summary in a very important place in the article. The other article and the Jihad article contain discussion of the Quran. Crone shares your POV so you keep pushing her. Do you really think that's the way we're supposed to edit? Arrow740 22:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You have to admit that the first sentence of your summary is merely her opinion, stated as a fact. Even if you put "Crone says...", it will still be her opinion, and a pro-Islam POV. This is not acceptable. If we need to get administrators in here we can, because it is obvious that statements in the summary are biased and misleading. If you cannot find a balanced source, then we should just link to the relevant articles, Islamic military jurisprudence and jihad, where the issues are discussed at length. Arrow740 22:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "You think there are other sources." When did I say that? I'm saying, as it is, it is unacceptable, for the reasons I stated above. I do not believe that we need to quote people. We should just give a very short summary of information stated in the relevant articles. This is the most balanced way to proceed. After all, this article is about criticism of the Quran. Arrow740 22:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: We don't need to get specific. As it is this section is undisguised POV pushing. Arrow740 07:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Follow-up 

message: Patricia Crone is NOT a neutral writer, and her writings should not be consitered the standard for this article. It would be better to call the category that discusses her opinion "Patricia Clone's perspective."--Sefringle 00:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hardly any writer is neutral. at least Crone has respectable academic qualifications in the relevant field (i.e. Islamic studies), which neither Robert Spencer nor Ali Sina- both of whom you rely heavily upon in this article, can boast. it is not merely Crone's perspective, as the article has been endorsed as the most appropriate entry on this topic by the editors at Brill Academic publishers (who compiled both EoI and EoQ) which does give an added weight of authority to Crone's article. ITAQALLAH 01:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying her opinion is irrelevant to this article. What I am saying is it is not fitting to have it as the summary of war and violence for this article, because she is bias. Patricia Clone's perspective would be a far better title, because then, we are not saying that her opinion is more valuble than the other critics, which would not be NPOV. Why do we even need a "general ethics of warfare" categroy anyway? The two sentence summary at the beginning of the "war and violence" section does that just fine in my opinion without incorperating POV.--Sefringle 01:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: But it still is her opinion. We cannot state her opinion as fact. That would be POV. while she Ms. Clone's perspective is relevant, it should be mentioned under a neutral title. "General ethics" is not a neutral title for this category.--Sefringle 21:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The "Criticism" section does just that. Should we just combine the two sections?--Sefringle 21:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: However, in coordinance with the NPOV policy, it is also important to have the summary neutral. Clone is not neutral. If we include her beliefs, which we should, we shouldn't include them in the "general ethics" category, because that would not be neutral. It would be better to call it by her perspective.--Sefringle 22:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The neutrality of Patricia Clone is disputed. --Sefringle 22:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not saying she isn't a scholar. I am saying that calling her perspective the official general ethics perspective is not acceptable according to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, because of her pro-Islam bias.--Sefringle 23:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly, it isn't. Getting some other people of questionable reliability to agree with her on two of her uncontroversial points doesn't save this section. I've moved it to Islamic military jurisprudence where it belongs, not here in Criticism of the Quran. Arrow740 00:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I think it does belong here, but under a neutral title--Sefringle 00:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It serves no purpose here; it is not neutral so it doesn't work as a summary, and it speaks more to the topic of the other article. Arrow740 00:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it does mention many relevant verses related to Islam and science and it mentions a scholars perspective. However, I don't think it should be titled "general ethics of warfare in the quran."--Sefringle 00:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Science? I have no problem with having a neutral summary that mentions verses. What we had is not that, and belongs somewhere else. Arrow740 00:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It wasn't neutral. However it does belong on this page, just not as a summary. It belongs here as a perspective.--Sefringle 01:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about criticism of the quran. Her perspective doesn't figure into that. It belongs elsewhere. Arrow740 02:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: We didn't. The RfC was about the general idea of background, not your POV summary. I think a short two sentence summary suffices, and is the only way to be neutral. Arrow740 02:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: We have a neutral, appropriate summary now. The Crone POV piece is now in the more appropriate article. If you're going to keep fighting to include her point of view on ethics of war in Islam (which clearly doesn't belong in an article about criticism of the Quran), we're going to have to have mediation. Arrow740 03:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethics of warfare in Qur'an vs. Patricia Crone's perspective

message: This webpage (answering-islam.org) contains unverified original research. Why does wikipedia cite it in this article?
And about the Quran vs Science debate. You cannot compare the two since the Quran is from divine origin, while science is merely the work of us humans. Science is a continous process, it still continous to change everyday, and it fails to answer many fundemental questions, etc.
:: No. Muslims BELIEVE the Quran to be of divine origin, whereas nonmuslims believe it to be made up by Muhammad himself. And this article is about those who believe the quran to be made up by Muhammad himself and why.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.173.227.133 (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is concerned with criticism, so critics are cited. Your second point is no basis for editing WP. Str1977 (smile back) 19:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quran claims to be of devine orgin. The purpose of this article is to show the views of those who disagree with the quranic claim to devine orgin. Since many muslims claim there are no scientific errors, critics of Islam have looked in the quran for scientific errors, and this article attempts to show the errors they found and the muslim defenses to them.--Sefringle 21:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: answering-islam.org

message: IMHO, websites such as answering Islam, answering Christianity, answering my grandma, faithfreedom, faithXyz etc are websites w/ an agenda. When there's an agenda, there's a POV. -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 15:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But whats you analysis in the light of WP:RS policy for Partisan and extremist websites; can these be used to criticize Islam or Christianity, when policy says that they can only be used as primary source to describe them and their activities. TruthSpreaderTalk 15:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What i commented above doesn't contradict what you just said truthspreader. Maybe it is an indepth interpretation from myself. Instead of being harsh on implementing the policy i tried to be more explicit hoping editors understand better the guideline. According to the RS, Partisan and extremist websites should be treated with caution and should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals and their activities, and even then should be used with caution. This is what the guideline states and i wanted it to be more clearer. It should be noted also that a guideline is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. In our case, common sense tells us that a website w/ an agenda is a website w/ POV. -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 16:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fayssal's comment unfortunately is without substance in relation to this issue. Of course they have an agenda (everyone has), of course they have a POV (every sane person has), but when they are used as what they set out to be, that doesn't matter. Criticism, lest one wondered, is always POV. Str1977 (smile back) 16:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It carries substance Str. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#A vital component: good research leads and guides us to WP:RS#Partisan and extremist websites. -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 16:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really want to tell me that external links, references etc. must conform to the NPOV policy. Boy, would we be bereft of links then, if someone actually enforced this policy, if it existed. Str1977 (smile back) 16:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have been more happier if i were a boy but i am not one, Str. I haven't talked about Wikipedia:External links at all. -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 16:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about my mistaking you for a boy, but my point still stands. External links are any kind of links pointing outside of Wikipedia (as opposed to internal or Wikilinks). Hence the references we are talking about are external links and no policy requires them to be NPOV. Str1977 (smile back) 16:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Str! I think it would be a better idea to change WP:RS before talking on this issue. What you are saying is totally against WP:RS#Partisan and extremist websites. TruthSpreaderTalk 16:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Truthspreader!!! (So, now please refrain from using exclamation marks on me. Thanks.) Indeed I can find nothing in that policy that requires sources to be NPOV. This would actually be impossible in our case, where criticism is the topic. As I said, criticism is necessarily POV. Str1977 (smile back) 16:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries re boy. I see your point now. It is hard to define which articles are to be linked as ext links. The guideline is not even clear (see n° 2 at Wikipedia:External_links#Links normally to be avoided) but again it brings common sense to the facade. The problem now is "does a critical website factually presents accurate material or verifiable research"? If yes than they would be welcomed. In our case, it is still hard to come to a point here as everyone would argue for or against that. I am really interested to see (as this issue is related to many Islam-related articles) a list of websites that wikipedia could use as external links or sources. I suggest we raise this issue to the village pump. We need to bring the community and get it involved. Otherwise, we will never reach a concensus here.  -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 17:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Fayssal about the research, but this all depends on what kind of article we are writing. In a simple general article about Muslim history I would advise more care than in this article which presents and discusses criticism, and the discussion includes rebuttals and responses. But how can a criticism be discussed if it is not allowed to be posted in the first place? Str1977 (smile back) 19:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My 2¢

message: Interesting how these series of Criticism articles have expanded and evolved since I drifted away in the summer. Some advice... definitely all additions should be meticulously sourced on at least a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. Polemical sites such as 'faithfreedom', 'answering-islam', and 'answering christianity' have a place, but they should be cited SPARINGLY. Certainly pages and pages of cites from just these sites is not appropriate. Spencer is certainly a higher-quality source on the criticism side, and even writers like Karen Armstrong are better than these anonymous websites on the response side. - Merzbow 09:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those websites are notable, reliable sources for criticism of the Quran. If you can find other sources for the material we are attributing to them, you are welcome to include references to those as well. Arrow740 22:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The editors of those websites are mostly anonymous and are mostly amateurs with no degrees to speak of. That is not to say that there isn't good analysis on some of these sites. There is (and to their detriment, many university professors refuse to engage in the kind of analysis of the Quran and other Islamic sources that they've been applying to the Bible for decades, out of fear of political correctness). But quantity does not make quality. Where the sources lack, keep it short, and upgrade as superior sources are found. - Merzbow 05:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add two more likely sources of their reticence besides the fear of political incorrectness. One is the fear of assassination. The other is the fact that these university professors would have had a hard time getting their PhDs if they were harshly critical of Islam; that's why Spencer didn't get a PhD in Islamic Studies. Regarding these websites, are you denying that A) they are notable sources of criticism of the Quran or B) they are reliable sources for criticism of the Quran? "Superior" sources for some of the more specific criticism of the Quran probably won't be found for years, until the ivory tower changes. Hopefully, that's already happening. Arrow740 05:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The solution for this is easy, as I suggested above. Give the polemical web sites only as much space as they deserve - a paragraph or two here and there. Those who are trying to remove ALL of it need to stop. Somebody should sit down and condense the disputed material to about 1/3rd its size. - Merzbow 04:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You run the risk of making the article uninformative. Arrow740 07:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes less is more. Readers are always free to follow links to the original websites if they want to read more about a particular criticism that we summarize here. - Merzbow 02:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you take a section you have an issue with and put a proposed replacement on this page, and give justifications for anything drastic. Arrow740 02:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not getting back into editing these articles... simply offering a suggestion to end the edit wars. - Merzbow 23:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmm 

message: That section doesn't have to do with the Quran, can we just agree that it belongs in Criticism of Islam, not Criticism of the Quran? Arrow740 23:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we're all watching this page like hawks, I'll take no response as acceptance. Arrow740 23:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The various jihads 

message: a reformer in the sphere of morals. I do not believe that these italics are Watt's (not even he is that bad). So I'll give you guys a day to prove me wrong then resume removing them. Arrow740 23:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The italics are very bad style, as anyone who has taken classes in writing in an English speaking nation is well aware, and Watt is such a person, so you're the one who put in the italics. Also you are required to reproduce sources when requested. Arrow740 06:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i don't believe you are in any position to issue ultimatums to other editors. fortunately, we work to no deadline. if Aminz claims to have access to a source and cites it then the relevant extract should be provided if editors request verification, as this is part of what collegial and collaborative editing entails. ITAQALLAH 16:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I have little doubt that Watt said that. Even if he is correct, the quote is irrelevant, because Muhammad was reforming a very backward society, and the quote makes no statements about the morals of the society when Muhammad was done reforming. They were still pretty bad in many respects, and this has continued to be the case until today. Arrow740 03:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you disagree with what I said? Arrow740 21:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A ''reformer'' 

message: I have protected the page from editing. There is no point in simply reverting back and forth. Please discuss and work out the differences. If nothing else, it's a break. Thanks to everyone for the civil discussion, considering the difficult topic.  Tom Harrison Talk 19:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: Mohammad called "profit" in the article. Please correct it, change to "prophet".--Nixer 22:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A mistake 

message: First the critique. We don't have a stable definition of criticism.  In fact, it is working on a few levels.  There is a superficial amount of textual criticism.  There is only literary criticism in as far as we talk about "perfect Arabic".  Mostly, what this article means by criticism is polemics.  Someone who says "I don't like the Qur'an" is a critic of the Qur'an.  I suppose if that is the goal of this article it is doing a decent job.  However, in that case we should stop arguing for "scholarly" since scholars don't typically devolve into polemics.  It will just be an Ahmed Deedat vs. Jimmy Swaggart deathmach.  The drive to "add scholars" means that, say, when a scholar believes "the Qur'an inspired the wars against the Byzantines" someone will think "that sounds bad" and then add it to the criticism despite that statement of the scholar's belief not having anything to do with criticism.  We need to avoid this.
Now the contradiction. We have the competing forces of the scholarly drive and the polemical one.  To have it be criticism in the polemical sense which this article is using as its primary definition you want to have scholars which leads (or did in criticism of Islam) to project criticism onto a scholar's matter of fact statement.  Therefore we are kind of left with the bottom of the barrel in terms of who to work with.
And remember don't say "some critics believe" when your source is one author.  Be precise because: "Many muslims believe Islam is a religion of peace, and that Islamic extremist terrorism is political terrorism or the actions of a few extremists. Many critics of Islam, and some Islamic fascists believe that violence is Islamic, and that Islamic extremist terrorism is religious terrorism or true islam." is not an acceptable paragraph.  Frankly, it is stupid.  gren グレン 20:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your first two paragraphs. When an editor places a scholar's work in an article about polemics, he implies that the scholar is engaged in polemics, thus turning scholarly work into a polemic; the editor is creating something, so this is OR. This should be avoided. The placement of material often necessitates a certain interpretation of that material; when the material is primary material this new interpretation is often OR. What's your issue with the paragraph you had an issue with? Arrow740 07:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the third paragraph. Any suggestions for improvement?--Sefringle 23:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think before anything else is done we need to define criticism in order to give this article a set scope.  Without that we have no real criteria for inclusion--which I think has led to some of the edit wars that go on here.  I also don't believe that we should make this article too broad.  That is to say we may want to split it up into: Textual criticism of the Qur'an, Polemics on the Qur'an, etc.  I use polemics only for lack of a better word.  Polemics has definitely taken on a pejorative meaning which can make it difficult to stay NPOV while referring to an author as a polemicist.  Possibly Criticism of Qur'anic morality would be a suitable title?  That would fit Ali Sina, Robert Spencer, etc.  They are not notable in regards to textual criticism--but they are notable enough critics of Qur'anic morality.  Textual criticism is also too specific because it also deals with historical criticism.  The point is, it should be split into pieces that make sense.  Moral criticism makes no claim at 'objectivity'.  It classifies Islam and points out what it believes is wrong with it.  This is not inherently bad or bigoted or anything of the like--but it is very different from those investigating Qur'anic origins.  I know you asked how to fix that one paragraph--but I think this issue is more pressing.  Comments? gren グレン 08:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Contradiction and a Critique 

message: Mate! you are using faithfreedom as secondary source not as a primary for the organization itself. you have a funny argument, but mate! nobody has understood the policy, as you have. TruthSpreaderTalk 09:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will replace some of the material from the websites with material from books. I personally am willing to let the "noor" discussion go, too. Arrow740 23:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About the noor discussion, nobody made any comment on it at the top of this talk page.--Sefringle 00:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. No one is proposing specific compromises, so I thought I'd start somewhere. Hopefully edits like this and this will not occur again, now that itaqallah has admitted that the sources he previously dismissed and censored can play some role. Arrow740 01:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see if I can come up with a proposed condensation of some of the material as a compromise. This won't include faithfreedom, as I think faithfreedom crosses the line into extremism as opposed to being merely partisan. - Merzbow 02:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? Arrow740 21:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremist websites 

message: I note that a number of Muslim Guild members are here and POV pushing heavily, screaming about "talk page" while never posting there and serially reverting proper material. If they have problems with the items being placed by others, and they insist on crying about "go to the talk page" then here I am: post your goddamn complaints rather than just serially reverting people like Arrow! RunedChozo 19:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page overrun by Muslim POV pushers

message: OK I made an attempt here:
Diffs
This is a diff of a working draft of this article I created as a subpage in my user space; the initial version was taken from the currently protected version of this article.
I removed all the faithfreedom material, and vastly condensed the answering-islam stuff. This article still needs tons of work, but hopefully this might be enough to stop the current edit war. - Merzbow 07:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  answering-islam is also not acceptable. It should not be used at all. --- ALM 10:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you're in the minority on that view, ALM. - Merzbow 20:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well AI is definitely not an authentic source . Secondly most of their claims (Like semen from loins, sun setting in water, mountains preventing earthquakes) have been refuted many times. It would have been nice if some reputed scholar had critised Islam with logical arguments , sadly enough , all so called critics that we muslims get are of the categoy of "noisy crickets". F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 09:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is authentic. You are right, it has been refuted that semen comes from the loins, the sun sets in water, and mountains prevent earthquakes. Arrow740 10:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we come back to the article rather than going round & round in Sina styled debate . BTW policies make it authentic , not you F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 11:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, extremist sites may be used as primary sources about their own activities in their own articles, but not as sources for commentary about other things (like in this article). If you want to edit my draft, by all means, that's what it's for. - Merzbow 22:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "in their own articles" phrase does not appear in the guideline, which is only that. I will work on your draft, but I will include some FF material. You didn't answer my question in the above section. Arrow740 00:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One suggestion I have for the draft is to show the entire verse rather than just name the verse. Though that mihgt be getting too long again.--Sefringle 03:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's why I didn't quote the entire verse. I thought that would be giving undue weight to these sources. If a reader is interested he can always follow the link. - Merzbow 07:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no love for answering-islam. Honestly I'm OK with referencing them in small bits, or not referencing them at all. But anonymous guys writing on islamonline.net or submission.org, which are both referenced in the wife-beating section, are not any better. If we want to keep answering-islam out, then so should these guys be kept out also. If we want to consciously make a decision to have a smaller but higher-quality article (while continuing to balance the material), then we have to decide explicitly to do that. - Merzbow 00:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that AI is not scholarly as such, but I would also remind you that criticism is not required to be scholarly. Str1977 (smile back) 00:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I put in my compromise version. I still think it's a good start. - Merzbow 19:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is unacceptable. You have not made the case for removing all Faith Freedom stuff. If anything Faith Freedom is more notable that Answering Islam. Arrow740 03:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merzbow's attempt at a compromise is entirely reasonable, and does away with all of that needless spam. ITAQALLAH 03:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We are going to have to make a compromise attempt. And while I agree it is unacceptable, I think we can use Merzbow's draft and make a few editings. Maybe we can find some more reliable sources, or at a bare minimum, quote each verse mentioned. I know we don't want to make it too long, but currently it is too short.--Sefringle 03:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding evolution, Please see The relation between Islam and science#Fossils of ancient humans. I think this needs to be added to this article. And it is from a reliable source.--Sefringle 21:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The man quoted there is not trying to criticize Islam, far from it. The fact that his attempt to reconcile science and the Quran is actually quite funny doesn't mean that we can include it here. Arrow740 03:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He may be an apologist, but he has pointed out a scientific flaw in the quran by saying he believes in creationism. Sometimes the best criticism is pointing out the stupidity in your opponents arguements and using those arguemnets against them.--Sefringle 03:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you entirely. However as I wrote above, if we take something which isn't meant to be criticism and portray it as criticism, then that's OR because we are the ones making the argument that Islam is wrong, not him. Arrow740 03:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The link you inserted seems OK. Arrow740 03:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise attempt 

message: FaithFreedom.org crosses the line from partisan to extremism, and thus should not be used as a secondary source. I don't find this a great loss because almost all of the criticism Sina makes on his site is available from other, non-extremist sources. I'll provide some quotes from his site as evidence:
:"Islam is a cult created by a psychopath. It cannot be reformed. It must be eradicated." 
:"Muhammad was insane. Like Hitler he was a brilliant and manipulative psychopath." 
:"Millions, if not billions of lives will be lost if we do nothing. Time is running out!" 
:"FFI is the fist of humanity in the mouth of Islamic expansionism. We intend to expose the ugly face of this impostor and eradicate it from the face of the earth." 
:"Islam and Nazism" 
It's one thing to say Islamic extremism/terrorism or Islamism must be fought; certainly Ahmadinejad has opened himself up to comparison to the modern neo-Nazi movement with his recent holocaust denial conference. But to say that all of Islam must be eradicated, and that Islam itself is equivalent to Nazism, in no unambiguous terms, is unacceptable extremism. - Merzbow 06:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i think Merzbow is right in suggesting that we try moving away from using FFI as a source for criticism. FFI's critiques are easily found in other resources. if not, then the arguments themselves probably don't merit mention at all- much of the material found on it are simply user/reader-submitted articles and analyses. are we compelled to report these DIY critiques? i agree that criticism doesn't have to be scholarly, yet i don't believe the purpose of this and other such articles is to document every criticism available. it is simply to report those types that are common/prevelant and notable (with a few examples), and preferably those circulated amongst academics. what i do envision for such pages is to reserve the majority of dialogue for critiques found in the academic works (and yes there is quite a bit), while keeping the internet DIY sensationalism minimal and certainly not a central part of these articles. you don't see Criticism of Christianity packed with some of the ridiculous stuff you find on answering-christianity.com or any other anti-Christian websites, and rightly so. ITAQALLAH 19:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we might need Unscholarly Criticism of the Qur'an or Extremist Criticism of the Qur'an. --Striver 07:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are high POV names--Sefringle 08:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My case against FaithFreedom.org 

message: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. 
Regarding this verse, in the "responses" section of "war and violence", there is a rebuddle to this verse. However, in the "criticisms" section, this verse is not mentioned. This should probably be changed.--Sefringle 10:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost certainly Spencer talks about this verse in one of his books. - Merzbow 17:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This verse came in a war situation. If you add it out of context without explaining what the context verse referred to then I will delete it because adding it will be WP:OR. --- ALM 18:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Umm no you won't... you can add responses from apologists who say the critics misinterpret the verse, but you can't delete criticism from a notable critic. - Merzbow 18:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You said "critics" in first sentence then I hope you will provide more than one references? You said notable critic in second sentence then I hope that the critics will be notable too. Obviously in that situation I will not delete it and will only provide references from Tafsirs that tell the context (of war) in which the verse comes. However, I do not think Sefringle has even mentioned his aim to provide any references. In that case (without references) I will delete it because without any seconday sources it will be an WP:OR  ---- ALM 18:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Content relevance needs to be sourced, otherwise it will be OR, specialy in sensitive topics like this.--Striver 18:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course. The more notable the critic, the more he deserves to be quoted. - Merzbow 20:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: But in the mean time, as long as that verse is not mentioned in the "criticisms" section of this article, it makes no sense to include a rebuddle to it in this article. Either the rebuddle needs to be removed, or the verse needs to be added to the "criticisms" section.--Sefringle 06:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it cites 9:1-5 as an example of verses typically and most-frequently misrepresented. ITAQALLAH 06:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, let's wait until there's actually criticism of those verses in the article until we post rebuttals. - Merzbow 02:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sword verse

message: I think this shouldn't be covered in this article which is about Criticism of Qur'an rather than Criticism of Islam. The punishments for apostasy mainly come from Hadith and not Qur'an. Encyclopedia of Islam writes:
"In the Quran, the apostate is threatened with punishment in the next world only; the “wrath of God” will fall upon him according to a sura of the latest Meccan period (XVI, 108-9) and severe punishment ( #aù9§b ) “except he did it under compulsion and his heart is steadfast in belief”. Similarly, it is written in the Medinan sura III, 80 ff., “... This is the punishment for them, that the curse of All§h, 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). Sura II, 214, is to be interpreted in the same way, although it is adduced by al-÷9§fi#Ê 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"
I suggest we remove this section and add it to somewhere else. --Aminz 10:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This section has relevance here, because there are some quranic verses relating to Apostasy in Islam.--Sefringle 10:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: WHAT!? BBC isn't reliable? According to its article, it is one of the most reliable news sources avaliable.--Sefringle 10:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is irrelevant but as you said, it is a reliable source for news not for its views on Islam.  It is not reliable for a scientific encyclopedia. I can not imagine that Encyclopedias like "Britannica Encyclopedia", etc etc use BBC as a source on Islam. --Aminz 10:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I pretty much agree with Aminz.... think the Apostasy section in the main article Criticism of Islam already covers the subject very well, and as he points out the hadith are more relevant than the Qur'an here. Therefore this article should mention the subject only very briefly. - Merzbow 20:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree. ITAQALLAH 09:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apostasy in Islam 

message: Of course the Qur'an makes that claim. I'll try to source it using academic sources soon. I do however think the response to claim should come from an Arabic scholar given this and this. --Aminz 01:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We shouldn't even mention this claim in the article unless we can find a notable criticism of it. - Merzbow 02:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sura Like Unto It 

message: There is mistakes to say Islam is not compatible with contemporary scientific views (about mountain).
"Have We not made the earth as a bed, and the mountains as pegs?   (Quran, 78:6-7)"
"And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you...   (Quran, 16:15)"
Its consistent with modern science:
- Mountains have roots deep under the surface of the ground. (Press and Siever, Earth, 413.)
- Mountains, like pegs, have deep roots embedded in the ground. (Andre Cailleux and J. Moody Stuart, Anatomy of the Earth (McGraw-Hill Companies: 1968), 220.)
- shows how mountains are peg-like in shape, due to their deep roots. (Edward J. Tarbuck and Frederick K. Lutgens, Earth Science (USA: Macmillan USA: 1993), 158.)
~~ComFlash2~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.111.4.200 (talk • contribs).
:It is not true that mountains prevent earthquakes! Unfortunately, according to Muhammad, they do. Also yes, the other verse is consistent with modern science. So is the one saying you can enslave the wives of unbelievers you kill. So what? Arrow740 07:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it say in the Quran exactly that "Mountains prevent earthquakes?". Are you making this up? 130.113.128.11 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you... (Quran, 16:15)" 81.173.227.133 17:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction Answer: Mountain In Islam

message: I think we should quote an official English-Arabic dictionary for the translations of the words "nashooz" and "idribuhunna" to english and include them in the article.--Sefringle 08:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Verse 4.34

message: As User:Grenavitar stated above, this section needs to be fixed, because of bad word choices. If you have any suggestions on how to improve this section, please mention them.--Sefringle 02:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: War and violence intro

message: In some countries, such as Brunei, criticising the Qur'an is illegal. Should this be reflected somewhere in the article, or is it already covered elsewhere? Andrewa 00:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has already been covered elseware, or at least that is where it should be covered. See Criticism of Islam#Modern treatment of critics--Sefringle 02:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That section is on-topic, but it doesn't cover this currently. And my impression is that Criticising the Qur'an is taken far more seriously than other sorts of criticism by at least some muslims, and perhaps deserves an article of its own. Andrewa 03:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly I don't remember encountering mention of "criticism of the Qur'an" as being a specific punishable offense when I researched and rewrote the Apostasy section that Sefringle mentions. I think it just falls into the general category of blasphemy, which in turn falls under the category of apostasy in Islamic law. - Merzbow 04:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually talking about the national law of specific Islamic states, which may not be the same as Islamic law. Andrewa 08:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps; if you want to come up with a proposed edit then I'm sure we can speak to that more accurately. - Merzbow 01:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticising the Qur'an as an offence

message: Please see the multiple definitions of the word here. The intro was perfectly neutral as the use of the word "find" there was not so as to imply that fault exists in fact. The attempt to make it neutral merely make it poorly written. Arrow740 09:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Perceiving fault" is an awkward phrase that a native English speaker would not use in writing. The sentence "this article is about criticism of the Quran" is entirely neutral, clear, and well-written. Arrow740 16:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: my suggestion was fine. yours establishes too little context: we should make absolutely clear that the article is about critics who allege faults in the Qur'an. ITAQALLAH 16:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's not. Arrow740 16:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes it is. i am a native speaker, you know. and it makes perfect sense. ITAQALLAH 16:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you should be able to read the title of the article. Arrow740 16:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Find" 

message: This section contains no criticism of the Quran! Arrow740 16:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does, but here as is often the case with Islam, statements of obvious facts about Islam sound like criticism. There is actually no criticism (the subject of the article) and I'm going to remove the entire section shortly. This is all covered in Islam and slavery. Arrow740 05:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think deletion is in order as much as maybe a rewrite of the section in a way that does include criticism. I'm sure that somebody has critized Islam for its allowance of the practice of slavery, especially since muslim scholars agree that it is allowed.--Sefringle 06:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will comment it out for now, maybe little bits of it will be salvaged. Arrow740 06:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I uncommented it. There is criticism of the Qur'an in that section - it permits the existence of slavery. See the Robert Spencer link in the first sentence. - Merzbow 06:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One sentence of criticism and then a page of POV? Do you know the title of this article? Arrow740 06:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think I know, I wrote that entire section from scratch. Also see Lewis qoute where he says that "these reforms were strongly resisted by religious conservatives who saw themselves as upholding an institution that was "authorized and regulated by the holy law."" in the paragraph discussing the resistance of Muslim countries to absolving slavery. That is directly relevant. - Merzbow 06:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Merzbow, Nasr adds that there were also many pious Muslims who refused to have slaves and persuaded others to do so. cf Seyyed Hossein Nasr, The Heart of Islam: Enduring Values for Humanity, p.182. --Aminz 07:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... many is technically three or more, either way the actions of Muslims is distinct from the Quran, and this article is about criticism of the Quran, not criticism of Muslims. Please remove it. Arrow740 07:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So is the view of conservatives since not all Muslim scholars are conservative. --Aminz 07:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? I'm signing off for a few hours. Arrow740 08:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The section should not start out with justification by comparison with Judaism and Christianity. Also al-Hibri is not a historian or Islamic studies scholar. Arrow740 07:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point that there should be more pointers back to direct sources for criticism. I'm 100% sure the standard sources (Spencer, Warraq, etc.) hit upon all the major points discussed in this section like slavery's general acceptance in the Qur'an, the slave girl passage, and modern day slavery in Muslim countries. In fact, I'm 99% sure I can dig these up just from that one Spencer book in the next 10 minutes. - Merzbow 07:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, thank you. Arrow740 07:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavery section 

message: This article should have a "further reading" section at the end of this article. And second, if possible, we should get more critics opinions on the quran. I am positive that there are people other than Robert Spencer and Ibn Warraq who have criticized the quran. Maybe Mark A. Gabriel. Anyway, we should add additional critics opinions to this article.--Sefringle 05:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like Mark Gabriel is actually trained as a historian and so we can use him in the non-criticism articles. Same with Serge Trifkovic, maybe Ibn Warraq as well. Ibn Warraq has edited a book with contributions from some heavy-hitters. Arrow740 05:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: could you explain exactly what qualifications Mark Gabriel has which relate to Islamic studies? ITAQALLAH 07:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He has a masters from and taught at Al-Azhar university. And on a related note having a PhD in History gives one a qualification to discuss all history. Arrow740 07:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I guess it would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. It was an Islamic university after all and they have different standards. Arrow740 07:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There is lots of criticism that we know about that we haven't added. Maybe we could organize and assign tasks through the taskforce. Arrow740 05:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New sections

message: It might be time to start archiving this talk page.--Sefringle 02:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Criticism of the Quran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150202024354/http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/002-qmt.php to http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/002-qmt.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140606204827/http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/033-qmt.php to http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/033-qmt.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140606204827/http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/033-qmt.php to http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/033-qmt.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Criticism of the Quran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070729115247/http://www.renaissance.com.pk/maytitl20.htm to http://www.renaissance.com.pk/maytitl20.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061019034818/http://www.islamonline.net/English/Science/2006/05/article07.shtml to http://www.islamonline.net/English/Science/2006/05/article07.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114085246/http://www.salon.com:80/books/int/2007/01/02/numbers/index3.html to http://www.salon.com/books/int/2007/01/02/numbers/index3.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306193941/http://www.shiasource.com/al-mizan/self/tafsir-2-106-107/ to http://www.shiasource.com/al-mizan/self/tafsir-2-106-107/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080708102707/http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu:80/~khaleel/ to http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~khaleel/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061230062211/http://www.submission.org:80/women/beating.html to http://www.submission.org/women/beating.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Criticism of the Quran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906130646/http://www.saudigazette.com.sa:80/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20150727251595 to http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20150727251595
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050404235348/http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=7061 to http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=7061
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050404235348/http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=7061 to http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=7061
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Criticism of the Quran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050404235348/http://www.islamonline.net:80/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=7061 to http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=7061
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050404235348/http://www.islamonline.net:80/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=7061 to http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=7061
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Criticism of the Quran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061215191645/http://www.tolueislam.com/Bazm/misc/IA_Evolution.htm to http://www.tolueislam.com/Bazm/misc/IA_Evolution.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Criticism of the Quran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20150727251595
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~khaleel/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320233336/http://www.dnd.nl/showarticle.php3?newsID=15018 to http://www.dnd.nl/showarticle.php3?newsID=15018
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050404235348/http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=7061 to http://memri.de/uebersetzungen_analysen/themen/liberal_voices/ges_beating_22_03_04.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050404235348/http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=7061 to http://memri.de/uebersetzungen_analysen/themen/liberal_voices/ges_beating_22_03_04.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020327203120/http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Quran-4-34.htm to http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Quran-4-34.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified