Talk:Criticism of Islam

message: I am trying to add a picture of Muhammad to give the article more context and flavor and it keeps getting removed without any logical explanations.  If No one raises any legitimate criticism I will be putting it back. Ibn Sa'd ibn Abi Sarah (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been taken to my talk page here, but I repeat: it was blurry, oversized and the relevance of the image is unclear. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The topic of this article is Islam, not Muhammad. The image is irrelevant to the article topic, it is irrelevant to the context of the section it was put in, and serves no purpose. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m happy to have no image. It was the “beloved prophet” in an article about criticism that I objected to. Note also that most if not all of this editor’s edits have been problematic. Doug Weller talk 08:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Muhammed is the creator of islam and is mentioned many times so it is relevant. What is the relevance of the David Hume and Dante portraits? Why are you not making a fuss over other images? Ibn Sa'd ibn Abi Sarah (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

text:  I'm not opposed to its inclusion, but I don't think it adds much. I'd also like to point out that Criticism of Christianity has no images of Jesus. (at least that I could find while skimming). –Daveout(talk) 13:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It adds as much any of the other pictures of relevant people on the article, yet there is no push to remove them.  And there is actually pictures of Jesus and Adam in that article as well as other religious portraits just like the one I’m trying to add, what is the reason for this defensiveness in this case?  Ibn Sa'd ibn Abi Sarah (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected. There's a pic of God\Jesus there indeed. I think this makes your case stronger. However, unfortunately, you'll still have to convince other users that the addition of Mohammed's image is an improvement. –Daveout(talk) 17:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

text: It seemed clear to me (especially given the age and art style), if thats the issues I can find others. What is the relevance of the Dante and David Hume images? Breaking up the text and adding relevant images just as mine did, why is this image treated differently?  Ibn Sa'd ibn Abi Sarah (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Dante and David Hume were "critics", and therefore fairly central to the core subject: that of "criticism". Iskandar323 (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In this section, a picture of Sigismund Koelle or Ibn Warraq would be more relevant than a Timurid prophet portrait. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Syed Ahmad Khan wasn't a critic (and isnt even mentioned in the article itself), yet you don't bother to remove his image, Muhammad is mentioned many times in this article and depictions of him are relevant to islamic criticism, so again if anything we should be putting a depiction of muhammad from Dante's inferno as well as by charlie Hebdo. Ibn Sa'd ibn Abi Sarah (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion is about the image you added, not the rest of the article. Feel free to remove irrelevant images. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No i don't make unwarranted removals without logical reasons which is what you've done, if you dont provide a reason for this removal I will be returning it. Ibn Sa'd ibn Abi Sarah (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been removed by three editors for a range of reasons, so attain consensus before restoring it. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

text: @Daveout as I said it was the caption which was the issue for me. The editor adding the image seems to be insisting on the caption rather than just an any image. Doug Weller talk 17:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

text: The image of Muhammad has nothing to do with the subject of this article. Depictions of Muhammad are a controversial issue, they offend many (if not the majority of) Muslims, and should not be added gratuitously, which is the case here. There is zero context for that image in the place it was added. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: So that's the real objection, as I suspected. So happens that WP:Wikipedia is not censored. And yes there's context for the suitability of that image, as Mohammed is intrinsically related to the subject of this article. If there's no policy-based reason to censor the image then I low-key support its inclusion. –Daveout(talk) 19:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The image was primarily not suitable because it was A) a random cropping of a larger image for no apparent reason, B) was blurry and looked shit, C) was chosen seemingly at random (why a Timurid image, why that one? There are many others on Muhammad), D) that section isn't just about Muhammad in general - it is specifically about ethical critiques of Muhammad, with the larger part being about the Aisha saga. The picture chosen spoke to none of that. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of Muhammad 

message: For example it was written that prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) was the founder of Islam, which is 100% wrong, he is not a founder of Islam instead he is the last and final prophet of Islam.
Adam (p.b.u.h) was the founder of Islam. Corednyion (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Seem apocryphal and impossible since Islam didn't exist until Muhammad invented it. Adam isn't even the founder of Judaism. Please leave your religious POV out of Wikipedia, this is for factual information, not promoting religious beliefs. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Mohamet IS the founder of Islam, just like Jesus of Nazareth IS the founder of Christianity. ALL claims of divinity of someone or something are absolutely UNPROVABLE. Salam. MagnusRegnumAntichristiAdvenit (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is equally as opinionated as the person you replied to.  Take your religion, even if it is avowed atheism, out of this. 172.59.191.255 (talk) 02:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many false statements are there. 

message: One of the most common critiques refers to the direct, unequivocal and repeated message in the Quran that Jesus never died, neither by crucifixion (as the "Christian" sources tell us), nor by hanging (as the Jewish sources tell us). I am not familiar with Roman sources. It might even be that Archaeology contradicts the Quranic claim (examine Talpiot Tomb). I should check some articles of Bart D. Ehrman. 2A10:8012:17:CDC6:FF22:1F1C:21DF:9F6D (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this looks relevant to the article. Albertatiran (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus

message: you reverted  and you wrote in the edit summary that 
# I know that Ibn Kammuna might not have converted to Islam, that is why I used the word may.
# that Ibn Kammuna may have ultimately converted to Islam, is not irrelevant to his saying , because converting to Islam is kind of changing his mind about what he said earlier.Ghazaalch (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Source is very critical that he converted to Islam. Why include a speculation which the authors deem likely to be based off of a known misunderstanding? Saying "may", and even including it at all, makes it seem like it's at least probable. Since the source material itself doubts the validity of the conversion, then it's best not to include it in an encyclopedic entry. Further, even if he did convert, the validity of the critique depends on the strength of the arguments and evidence provided, not the personal beliefs of the critic. Drawing connection between his conversion and "changing his mind" about his critiques is your own thoughts, not those of the source. In fact we do not know why he ostensibly converted, and it could be "to avoid heavy taxation, or to escape humiliation, or if taken prisoner", in which case his conversion strengths his critiques. Conversion does not necessarily imply full agreement with every aspect of the faith: there are Muslims who critique Islam for similar things as Ibn, and Christians who critique evangelicals for how they spread their faith. Chamaemelum (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  per WP:DONTREVERT, even if you find an edit unnecessary you shouldn't revert it:  Ghazaalch (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting Ibn Kammuna's creed by Chamaemelum

message: , as we cannot reach consensus on how to summarize churchill view I restore the version before I started summarization. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Ghazaalch I don't think I disagreed with you on Churchill. Reverting to the old version worsens the article. Feel free to put your preferred version of Churchill's view. I will undo the revert and restore your Churchill version. Chamaemelum (talk) 07:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't able to restore your exact Churchill version now, sorry. I will do it later today. Feel free to restore the Churchill section yourself. Chamaemelum (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Ghazaalch OP community banned this morning. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Winston Churchill view

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Criticism of Islam's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "issue":
From Women in Islam: 
From Islam and violence: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Criticism of Islam]]