Talk:Criticism of Islam/Archive 1

message: Criticism of Islam is entirely on-topic in this article, however, editors will be bound by scholarly and encyclopedic standards. Such a standard is set by the Catholic Encyclopedia, which attributes all opinions to scholars. It is alright to say that Martin Luther called Muhammud a devil, because Martin Luther is a notable early modern Christian author and theologian. Unattributed rants or essays have no place here, or anywhere on Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 12:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, nice work Dab! Zora 13:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Dab, I agree with you about the 'rant' part. But you seem to be purporting the point that only mainstream scholars be allowed to be cited as sources, as you well know, it is very difficult to find ethical criticism of Islam, that meaning the Quran itself, in mainstream intellectual circles most likely because of the fear of being accused of being a racist, ergo, I would just like to clarify, are you against unattributed work, or against work attributes to scholars you haven't heard of?
===Biased nature===
It is important to recognize that borrowing large sections of this particular article from the Catholic Encyclopedia is precisely the reason why this particular article is full of biases. JuanMuslim 17:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Thats all very well and good, but it's so easy to simply do a nice little race or religion card hatchet job on the source, without having to question any of the Source's content. If you genuinely wish to raise specific questions regarding the Source, then give clear examples of content you disagree with, and provide evidence for a counter-argument. --GreekWarrior 01:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New article

message: It is important to recognize that borrowing large sections of this particular article from the Catholic Encyclopedia is precisely the reason why this particular article is full of biases. JuanMuslim 17:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats all very well and good, but it's so easy to simply do a nice little race or religion card hatchet job on the source, without having to question any of the Source's content. If you genuinely wish to raise specific questions regarding the Source, then give clear examples of content you disagree with, and provide evidence for a counter-argument. --GreekWarrior 01:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased nature

message: I don't want to add anything because I fear my own writing... but, I was thinking of these two opposition to Hadith. This comes from Qur'an aloners that believe you need nothing more than the Qur'an for guidance (and is relatively non-notable since you wanted good sourcing I am not sure if you want this included) and from scholars Muslim and non-Muslim alike who question whether hadith are accurate representations of what Muhammad could have said.  Hadith#Western_academic_views_of_hadith will be a good basis for that section.  I also wonder if we should add opposition to Islamic society... which of course would come from a stance of "a society based on Islam is violent"... Although I don't typically think of him as sensationalist Robery Spencer seems to typify that view.  I also know that Fazlur Rahman critiques what he thinks of as stagnation in learning at Al-Azhar before the reforms and how he doesn't appreciate how Muslims scholars would analyze analyses instead of creating new work.  We also need opposition to liberal Islam because there has been plenty of that with Amina Wadud and female imamizing.  gren グレン 17:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: hey, I don't own the article, go ahead. if people don't like it, they will challenge it, and you should then be prepared to either back it up or remove it. Most of the anti-Islamic Ali-Sina type of criticism is directed at society, so I guess that is pretty much part of an anti-Islamic attitude. Although even critics of Islamic society are fond of making remarks about Muhammad the pederast every now and again. dab (ᛏ) 20:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added Qur'an and hadith sections with mostly information from hadith and higher criticism.  My problem is that I haven't read many suitable articles about hadith / Qur'an criticism.  I know that some argue against the Qur'an from an internal coherence viewpoint but I don't know which authors do that without it digressing into a diatribe. gren グレン 09:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More sections

message: Chem1 revised the Qur'an section to read that Uthman imposed the Quraish dialect and suppressed all other dialects. This is an explanation of the differences in proto-Quranic texts that is found in Islamic apologetic literature (it turns any differences into minor matters of dialect, which do not challenge the "uncorrupted Qur'an" belief), but it is not supported by what we DO know about the proto-Quranic texts. The Islamic records (the three variant Qur'ans held by Ali and (I forget their names!)) and the Sana'a texts seem to be converging here, in that the Sana'a records indicate that the Islamic records might be correct in their assessment of the differences. The differences were not ones of dialect, I gather, but just a few words here and there, and verse order. The Qur'an article covers this. Zora 22:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If only I had time to rewrite this article. Unfortunately I'm too busy studying. --Zeno of Elea 00:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: let me guess. Your "rewrite" would plunge us into endless edit-wars and circular discussions? Maybe contributing, with some caution, rather than wholesale rewriting would betide better results, in cases such as this? dab (ᛏ) 20:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes thats what I meant. contribute. --Zeno of Elea 21:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chem1's revision of Qur'an section

message: I have an interesting proposition.  I was looking up information for the above section and I found Reading Medieval Images: The Art Historian and the Object edited by Thelma K Thomas, Elizabeth L Sears.  University of Michigan Press -  -- On page 56 it shows a rather interseting image which at my first glance appears to be a little image of Muhammad in a Christian text... this also talks about him as the Antichrist and other interpretations...  all of this is available at http://print.google.com/ for anyone wanting to see (copyright issues with the image unknown).  gren グレン 12:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: This article is no longer the mere "collection of links" that it was, in June, when it was vfd'ed before. It is substantive.
I suspect that advocates of Islam are trying to suppress its contents, for the purpose of promoting Islam. So I'm putting this page on my watchlist.
All religions should be appraised. It is an historical scholarly tradition (at least in the West) to do so. 
To be fair, we must delete all articles which criticise any religion or (better yet) keep them all.
The same thing happened with a series of articles user:IriskPunkTom was trying to create on religious persecution. He was trying to organize available knowledge about how followers of each of the major religions have perscuted those of other religions. That attempt in no way violates NPOV, and neither does the present article.
I suggest a series on "opposition to X" articles - one for each major religion. Uncle Ed 17:02, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
I am not an advocate of Islam, nor am I Islamic. This article was VFD'd. Recreation of VFD'd content satisfies CSD. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 17:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "I suspect that haters of Islam are trying to slander it, for the purpose of supressing Islam." This sums up Ril's reasoning for trying to delete this article. He is here to defend Islam from "slandering" because he thinks that this article is "supressing Islam." --Zeno of Elea 08:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Can you cut it off please? People are trying to write an article here. Which part of the above statement did you not understand? dab (ᛏ) 18:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Undeletion

message: from the old talkpage

Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Islam
— since the previous article was deleted due to its content rather than due to its title, there is now the suggestion to move Opposition to Islam to this title. dab (ᛏ) 11:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you cut it off please? People are trying to write an article here. Which part of the above statement did you not understand? dab (ᛏ) 18:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from top of page

message: If someone wants to recreate the article, please go to Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion.  Unilaterally recreating a VfD-deleted page, no matter how much bluster and special pleading and attacking of one's critics goes with it, isn't acceptable.  (See also: Wikipedia:requests for arbitration#Ed Poor.) --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 18:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: that's so much nonsense. nobody wants to recreate anything, what would we be doing on vfu? very well, so I moved it back to 'opposition', since apparently common sense seems in short supply just now. dab (ᛏ) 18:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The edit history seems to, for some bizarre reason, be at Criticism of Islam, the redirect. If you want, after this mess settles down, I can merge the page histories. --cesarb 11:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: VfD speedy deletion

message: If -Ril- keeps wrongly marking this for speedy deletion, editors might want to have the article protected against vandalism; if so, let me know. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 08:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't do that.  I think anything blocking this opposition to Islam article will construed as bias and will cause unneeded hassle.  If -Ril- keeps on doing that (which seems to be more or less vandalism at this point) then either he can be dealt with or the minor effort of removing the speedy can be done.  gren グレン 08:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

text: if Ril keeps going, I will start to issue short blocks for disruption, rather than protecting the article (which is still in its formative phase). dab (ᛏ) 10:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, don't do it yourself (you're involved in editing the article); either go to AN/I or ask me. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 22:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will; but the case seems to be closed now anyway. dab (ᛏ) 08:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection?

message: As far as I know, if you get yourself takfir'd, you are essentially 'excommunicated', i.e. not considered a Muslim anymore. Is it possible that whether Rushdie is a Muslim is a disputed question (I don't know)? dab (ᛏ) 19:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rushdie does not claim to be a Muslim, as far as I know. --Zeno of Elea 01:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, he's not a Muslim.--JuanMuslim 15:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Salman Rushdie a Muslim?

message: ::Here follow's Germen's section
Contemporary ethical criticism on traditional and islamist islam focuses on several points. 
* Lack of reciprocity. The Golden Rule, "Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you", does not occur in the Qur'an. In the 40 hadith collection of Nawawi, there exists an incarnation of this rule, but it is valid exclusively regarding brothers, i.e. Muslims (as the Qur'an forbids considering a non-Muslim as a brother).  
* Human rights. Islamic law contradicts the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights at several points, e.g. regarding the freedom of religion, slavery, treatment of homosexuals, treatment of women etc. Many Muslims regarded this as a problem. In order to address this problem, the Islamic Conference has published a separate Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in 1990, which is compliant with Shari'ah.  .
* Discrimination of women and non-Muslims. Critics argue that women have less rights than men and that infidels have less rights than Muslims. Muslims argue that men are the protectors of the women (Qur'an 4:34) and that infidels must return the favour of the protection by the islamic state.
* Ethical priorities. According to islamic ethics, violating dietary rules or sexual indiscretions are as bad as violation of the human rights of others. For example, killing an infidel does not carry a death sentence, but illegal sexual intercourse does. The Qur'an considers worshipping other gods besides Allah as a sin which is worse than any other sin (Qur'an 4:48).
* Glorification of war and violence. Critics state that islam regards armed jihad as a religious duty. Muslims stress that armed jihad is only one of several kinds of jihad.
* Human right violations by adherents of islam. See main article Historical persecution by Muslims.
The ethical criticism on traditional islam has led to reform movements within islam, e.g. liberal islam movements and the Qur'an only movement.
::End of his section
Germen.  You make many unsourced assertion and much of it is original research.  Firstly... I don't think many liberal Muslims will tell you that "ethical criticism on traditional islam has led" to their reforms... also, they'd capitalize Islam.  The Golden rules stuff from Ali Sina is nothing... when we made this dab specified respectable and notable sources... that is not.  "Islamic law contradicts the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights" is, as you should know by now, a worthless statement as there is no cohesive Islamic law... also you might want to state who is claiming it contradicts the UNDHR... and you talk about such thing as a general compliance with sharia that does not exist.  Sharia is Islamic law has different instantiations.  Cite a critique of women's rights in Islam or Islamic lands... use print.google. There are also many region specific case studies like apllication of sharia in Sudan... because, Sudan has law that they call sharia...  As you should also know by now quoting hadith is not quoting Islamic doctrine, it is a source for it and must be weighed and put into context by those interpretting it... which incidentally isn't you in an encyclopedic source.  Also not citing sources that gloss over the jihad question is not good... I believe there is stuff you can take from jihad probably.  Religious conflict and Islam is the correct article and I'm sure that can be linked.    Just to remind you... (beause Dutch might be like French) we captialize relgion's names (well, proper nouns) in English so please keep that in mind.  gren グレン 16:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gren, I added several sources. All of my statements have been sourced, so I cannot understand why you term it original research. You can allege that I concentrate on content of the criticism rather than on names of critics. The reason of this, evidently, is that facts are more relevant than names. It is not highly informative to read the opinions of a group of people. It is more informative to read a summary of the criticism on a point-to-point basis. I have added now more than 20 references, so I think the "original research" epithet, if ever warranted, has been made obsolete by now. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For instance you say "Frequently cited, e.g. by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer and Ali Sina are"... you have to use what they say, and cite it from their books / webpages.  What you do is say they cite certain things... where do any of them (besides Ali Sina, which there is great contention about whtether or not he is legitimate) quote Islamonline or Islam Q&A? or Afrol news?  No, it is original research to presume that they complain about those exacy sources.  You must cite what Robert Spencer says, not attempt your own synthesis... because that is original research.  Look at what Sorna added, it's cited with no original research.  The thing is, you are citing various Islamic doctrines that you disagree with and calling it opposition...  You cannot cite, on opposition to Islam, hadith and then say that it is opposed... I'm sure it is opposed... but by whom / what groups?, and do they say that they oppose that hadith... or do they cite something in general.  That is what this article is about... not showing something that should be opposed and calling it opposition.  As dab said to be, there can be deep criticism of Islam....  but it has to be sourced and done better than this Germen.  It has gotten better... but, this is not up to standards... and please, stop citing hadith unless someone refers specifically to it. gren グレン 12:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Hello viewers of talk page ~ I added a paragraph on Jihad and Human Rights for the Ethics section. It is strictly paraphrasing from the Robert Spencer source, which I think is probably the main idea behind this and other highly controversial Islam articles (using sources). Let me know if this is what you were looking for, and suggestions, etc. Thanks. Sorna 19:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmm, woah, FFI is down.  DOS attack or something?  gren グレン 12:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, probably the action of a hasanat junkie. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Understandable and for websites it is not worth it.  But with the addition fo Sorna's section we were referencing texts... which is the way this article should go.  If you wish to use one of the other footnote styles then feel free to but this style seems to be the most prevalent of late. gren グレン 20:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethical criticism

message: Gren, can you please indicate which points in this section are POV accordng to you?--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 01:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote for deletion

message: Why no mention of the satanic verses - not the book by Salman Rushdide, but the actual verses themselves?
: Why SHOULD they be mentioned? There's an article on the Satanic Verses and they are mentioned in the article on Muhammad. It's not as if Wikipedia were trying to hide them. If they were mentioned, I suppose it would be as one of the standard criticisms of the character of Muhammad (Islam is bad because Muhammad was bad and then a laundry list of criticisms). Zora 05:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Why SHOULD they be mentioned?" because they are a standard criticism of Islam. What you refer to as a "laundry list" happens to be the subject matter of this article. --Zeno of Elea 07:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Satanic verses

message: Can we move this to Criticism of Islam now, without trolls jumping  out of the woodwork? This article passed VfD now, and I think there was consensus for the move. If there are no objections, I will move it in a few days. This will not be an opportunity for another VfD. dab (ᛏ) 06:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me... in fact, it makes more sense. gren グレン 08:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: done :) dab (ᛏ) 17:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: I am hoping you will fix up your mess before others have to.  Blanet quoting Islam Q&A is not proper, it is obviously not criticism and it is original research to add that as you do.  So do not, it is just bad.  You do not need to bold everything either.  Remove Sorna Doon's section was a bad idea.  Sorna is a better writing than you and actually sourced her assertions to criticisms from the books she read... not citing Islam Q&A and opposition.  They might have criticisms of Islamic sects but those do not represent that.  Here is her section:
* I think the current list is much more readable and informative than the previous information. Accusing me of OR is ridiculous because I provided 75% of all links in this article. It seems you apply different standards for different people. But why does this not surprise me. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 16:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Germen

message: The whole section "Anti-Islam/Islamophobia" looks like original research to me, and I think it should be removed if it doesn't improve. What is something like: "Anti-Islam is the criticism of the Islamic religion based on alleged mischaracterizations, stereotypes, and negative prejudices." based on, and where does this defintion of "anti-islam" come from? -- Karl Meier 23:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Karl, I see your point... but I also see it's a road you don't want to go down.  If that gets deleted then half of "Ethical Criticism" will get deleted as well.  Stoning of married adulterers you mention is "mandatory in all five schools", which isnt' exactly true (and it would require more than your severely limited sourcing).  The Saudis are Wahhabi and don't follow a traditional school, etc.  Islam Q&A is not mainstream Islam... Severing of thieves hands has conditions added onto it by all.  If I'm not mistaken the hadith says that if you steal more than the value of a shield and most rulings talk about habitual stealing.  So many generalizations.  Not forgetting that you are citing Muslim sources which, once again, is not "criticism of Islam" but the Muslim viewpoint.  You have to show the critics and what they cite, not whomever wrote ethics (Germen?) citing Islamic sources and then saying in passive voice, "this is criticized".  Juan's section needs some help I think, but if that is removed, the ethical section which suffers from similar problems must be removed as well. gren グレン 19:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point, you made. A person who steals food out of hunger is also an exception. There are actually several exceptions or various viewpoints that aren't represented. Islam is a comlex religion just as Christianity and Judaism. --JuanMuslim 04:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you serious Gren? Do you want to say something like that if I delete "your" unsourced, original research crap, then you'll retaliate by deleting what you believe is "my" unsourced, original research crap? I wonder if that is the way they make neutral articles at EB... Anyway, to make it clear, it isn't me who has been writing the "Ethical Criticism" section, and it also seems to include descent references for almost all of the information that is included. More references is allways nice, but the criticism that is mentioned in this section, is in many places is in many places so obvious and well known that a reference isn't strictly needed. (See: "The Fatwa against Rushdie was heavily critizised", "Death penalty for practicing homosexuals" has been critizised, criticism of "alleged discrimination against women and non-Muslims and so on..) Another thing is that your claim that "islam Q&A is not mainstream Islam" is just your opinion and not very interesting. If you want to add responses to the criticism, then please do that and remember to use proper and well known references. The new word "anti-islam" and it's definition that was pulled out of the thin air is not going to stay. There is no substance in that part of the "Muslim Responses" section. I am sure other editors can do better than that. -- Karl Meier 12:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Karl, so there's such a thing as anti-Catholicism but not such thing as anti-Islam? A keyword search on anti-Islam using Google returns 207,000 articles. --JuanMuslim 04:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Islam/Islamophobia

message: The Muslim critics within the Critics of Islam section is needed. But, the Muslim critics could also have been Muslims with an entirely different methodology/viewpoint. --JuanMuslim 15:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This gets very very intricate.  You have the reformers (within each sect), the minor differences (among the four Sunni madhhabs which are played down as being critical of each other in modern times), the huge differences (Ahmadiyya, Sunni, Shia, Druze (which is contentious even calling them Muslims)), you have the rather large differences (Salafi, Deobandi, Wahhabbi, Sufi, Liberals, Progressives all within the vague sense of Sunnism).  We need to define on what terms we are taking this before we start on such a vast endeavor, and we need explicit criticism... not just, "they aren't us so that's bad". gren グレン 01:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Muslim critics

message: An admin has protected the page after User:Irishpunktom and User:Zora joined User:Anonymous Editor's side of the revert war, while User:CoolCat and User:Karl Meier joined my side. I would like to reiterate CoolCat's statements to Zora in the edit history: "please explain large removals on talk. and do it slowly instead of one go".  Neither the person who started this revert war (User:Anonymous Editor), nor those who have supported him, have bothered to explain ANYTHING in the talk page. Now the article has been protected and the revert warriors still refuse to engage in discussion, despite the fact that I have been calling for discussion for a long time now, as can be seen here. I hope the people who are deleting my edits will finally come forward to explain their reverts. -- Zeno of Elea 23:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, they had more important things to do today than to sit in front of a computer explaining themselves to you. Patience is a good word.--JuanMuslim 07:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to remove very large sections, you are atleast supposed to explain yourself Juanmuslim. If you don't have time to explain why you want to delete most of the article, then you shouldn't do it at all. The way it has been done here with Anon editor inviting users such as Zora to his revert war, by leaving a message that is in violation of Wikipedias rules regarding no personal attacks ("Zeno of Elea gone crazy again.") is surely not the way to do it. -- Karl Meier 09:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Karl, if one is going to replace entire sections on an already controversial article in the first place, then he/she needs discussion to explain his/herself more than the person who removes/reverts. Zeno should have started discussion when she started making the edits; not after a full 3 reverts had been done by her. JuanMuslim is correct in saying that I had better things to do with my time, when Zeno did not discuss her edits in the first place. Btw, Karl I did not invite Zora or Irishpunktom; they came at their own free will and they had every right to. a.n.o.n.y.m   t 16:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't know why you're accusing me of deleting large sections. I'm not like you who deleted the entire section on Islamophobia. I also find it problematic how you intimidate wikipedians from contributing, though I know that isn't your intention. This is a good suggestion on how to handle personal attacks based on no personal attacks: "If you are personally attacked, you may remove the attacks or may follow the dispute resolution process or both. In extreme cases, the attacker may be blocked, though the proposal to allow this failed and the practice is almost always controversial." --JuanMuslim 10:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I provided you with a valid explanation for removing your original research, so there was nothing wrong with that. You can't just make up your own definition of a word and expect it to be included here. And it's not that I oppose, that Muslim responses should be included. For instance, did I oppose what BrandonYusufToropov wanted to include? Did I delete all of it? I sure did not. I tried to edit what he had contributed and address a what I believed was PoV problem here and there. If things are done properly I will not oppose it. Also, I didn't remove a whole section, so I don't know why you accuse me of that. Regarding the personal attacks I think the best way to "handle" them, is simply to avoid them. -- Karl Meier 11:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: You did delete the paragraph about Islamophobia. Refer to the section again. You didn't allow anything about Islamophobia to be mentioned. I didn't make up the term. You're just unwilling to allow people to see a difference between reasonable criticism and Islamophobia. I also explained it as well, and I guess it doesn't matter what I say anyway. I'm getting very tired of the reality found in Criticism of Wikipedia. I just don't have enough time to give this much commitment to Wikipedia. And, everyone thinks they're an expert; they deal with accusations by ppl who don't know anything about you; they provide a narrow viewpoint; they take a nPov article and make it POV; they fear adding/editting for fear their time will be wasted; no respect for one another. And this criticism applies to me as well.--JuanMuslim 12:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Thank you Badd (a.k.a dab) for clarifying what I said before. a.n.o.n.y.m   t 19:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protected

message: Following is a justification of the edits that I have made to the article.
===Introduction paragraph===
====Analysis of current version ====
The current version reads:
:Over the centuries, many people have offered criticisms of Islam and the actions of its followers. Critics of Islam have included philosophers, academics, journalists, scientists, and other people from all walks of life. This article outlines some of the major criticisms that have been offered through the years. As with any religion, various critics have found fault with Islam for theological, ethical, and political reasons. Any criticism of a religion may arise from three points of view: From a secular viewpoint, which is not limited to atheism. From that of another religion. From within the religion itself, such as from sectarian differences and smaller movements within.
Objections:
* The introduction paragraph used to begin with "As with any religion, various critics have found fault with Islam ..." This was deleted by an apologetic editor. Why? It is an important that criticism of Islam is not notably unique from criticism of any other religion. All relgions come under criticism and that is an important point to note. This has been replaced by the sentenced "Over the centuries, many people have offered criticisms of Islam and the actions of its followers ..." This article is not about criticism of Muslims (i.e. "followers"), this article is abotu criticism of Islam. Also, the phrase "over the centuries..." is very vauge and, to be perfectly honest, starting an exposition with the phrase "over the centuries ..." sounds like a average, high school freshman style of writing. Important information about the commonality of criticism of Islam with criticism of other religions has been deleted from this article. I ask again, why? IN my opinion, the only reason that someone would delete such information from this article is because they want to portray criticism of Islam as some sort of unique phenomena which indicates belief in the idea that Islam is a very unique (read: "divine") religion that is uniquely under attack in a "war on Islam" - an idea that is commonly promoted by Islamists. 
* The paragraph claims that criticism of Islamic arise for theological, ethical, and political reasons. This is not completely true because it conveniently fails to mention many other types of criticisms of Islam, specifically scientific and pragmatic reasons. 
====Proposed changes====
Something along the lines of:
:As with any religion, various critics have found fault with Islam for theological, ethical, scientific, philosophical and practical reasons. Critics of Islam has existed since the earliest times of Islam, some 1400 years ago, recorded in the poetry of Arab pagan contemporaries of Muhammad. Criticsm of Islam forms a class of literature that has grown and developed over the course of 14 centuries and has involved people from all walks of life. This article described the major kinds criticisms of Islam, notable authors in this class of literature, the history of critical thought on Islam, and the Muslim response to criticsm of Islam. There are three general sources of criticism of a religion, arising from three points of view: From a secular viewpoint, which is not limited to atheism. From that of another religion. From within the religion itself, such as from sectarian differences and smaller movements within.
====Comments====
Hmmm, while I don't understand all of your reasoning I only object to some.  I personally don't think "over the centuries" is too good, but I think it's better than starting with "as with other religions" because, well, that really has nothing to do with this article... and personally I found that to be more apologetic.  You think how it is now is trying to make Islam sound unique while I was thinking it was trying to hit home the point that "Christianity had slaves too" and other things that Muslims say to try to make Islam not look worse than Christianity, etc.  In any case, if you really prefer that I wouldn't argue too much.
"Criticsm of Islam forms a class of literature that has grown and developed over the course of 14 centuries and has involved people from all walks of life."  --I don't like that sentence.  Criticism has not exactly developed.  Certainly some has but I think that conjure imagery of a mass of works... like, science, getting more and more accurate -- which, I don't think is the case, at least not from a neutral viewpoint.  It may be that many critics think that it is developing into a foolproof case -- but, that's of no matter.
For, "Critics of Islam has existed since the earliest times of Islam, some 1400 years ago, recorded in the poetry of Arab pagan contemporaries of Muhammad", I would change to "Critics of Islam have existed since the rise of Islam, some 1400 years ago, recorded in the poetry of Arab pagan contemporaries of Muhammad" -- although, I'm not sure if there was any early Jewish/Christian direct literature against Islam -- as from the Jews in Medina?  If so, that could be quickly appended.  Of course later with Sassanid and Byzantine interaction you get a lot more writing about Islam since they were more literate people.
Those are my opinion -- I don't see a huge difference (besides that one sentence) so, if you can get others to agree, I wouldn't really mind having it changed some. gren グレン 10:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't mind changing parts of the current version to add that. But fix the numerous spelling errors, grammar errors, change "found fault" to "criticized", and remove this sentence: "Criticsm of Islam forms a class of literature that has grown and developed over the course of 14 centuries and has involved people from all walks of life.". Also please source your assertions on Pagan poetry that criticized Islam. a.n.o.n.y.m   t 13:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to introduction and history section 

message: ====Analysis of current version ====
The current version reads:
:Over the centuries, many people have offered criticisms of Islam and the actions of its followers. Critics of Islam have included philosophers, academics, journalists, scientists, and other people from all walks of life. This article outlines some of the major criticisms that have been offered through the years. As with any religion, various critics have found fault with Islam for theological, ethical, and political reasons. Any criticism of a religion may arise from three points of view: From a secular viewpoint, which is not limited to atheism. From that of another religion. From within the religion itself, such as from sectarian differences and smaller movements within.
Objections:
* The introduction paragraph used to begin with "As with any religion, various critics have found fault with Islam ..." This was deleted by an apologetic editor. Why? It is an important that criticism of Islam is not notably unique from criticism of any other religion. All relgions come under criticism and that is an important point to note. This has been replaced by the sentenced "Over the centuries, many people have offered criticisms of Islam and the actions of its followers ..." This article is not about criticism of Muslims (i.e. "followers"), this article is abotu criticism of Islam. Also, the phrase "over the centuries..." is very vauge and, to be perfectly honest, starting an exposition with the phrase "over the centuries ..." sounds like a average, high school freshman style of writing. Important information about the commonality of criticism of Islam with criticism of other religions has been deleted from this article. I ask again, why? IN my opinion, the only reason that someone would delete such information from this article is because they want to portray criticism of Islam as some sort of unique phenomena which indicates belief in the idea that Islam is a very unique (read: "divine") religion that is uniquely under attack in a "war on Islam" - an idea that is commonly promoted by Islamists. 
* The paragraph claims that criticism of Islamic arise for theological, ethical, and political reasons. This is not completely true because it conveniently fails to mention many other types of criticisms of Islam, specifically scientific and pragmatic reasons. 
====Proposed changes====
Something along the lines of:
:As with any religion, various critics have found fault with Islam for theological, ethical, scientific, philosophical and practical reasons. Critics of Islam has existed since the earliest times of Islam, some 1400 years ago, recorded in the poetry of Arab pagan contemporaries of Muhammad. Criticsm of Islam forms a class of literature that has grown and developed over the course of 14 centuries and has involved people from all walks of life. This article described the major kinds criticisms of Islam, notable authors in this class of literature, the history of critical thought on Islam, and the Muslim response to criticsm of Islam. There are three general sources of criticism of a religion, arising from three points of view: From a secular viewpoint, which is not limited to atheism. From that of another religion. From within the religion itself, such as from sectarian differences and smaller movements within.
====Comments====
Hmmm, while I don't understand all of your reasoning I only object to some.  I personally don't think "over the centuries" is too good, but I think it's better than starting with "as with other religions" because, well, that really has nothing to do with this article... and personally I found that to be more apologetic.  You think how it is now is trying to make Islam sound unique while I was thinking it was trying to hit home the point that "Christianity had slaves too" and other things that Muslims say to try to make Islam not look worse than Christianity, etc.  In any case, if you really prefer that I wouldn't argue too much.
"Criticsm of Islam forms a class of literature that has grown and developed over the course of 14 centuries and has involved people from all walks of life."  --I don't like that sentence.  Criticism has not exactly developed.  Certainly some has but I think that conjure imagery of a mass of works... like, science, getting more and more accurate -- which, I don't think is the case, at least not from a neutral viewpoint.  It may be that many critics think that it is developing into a foolproof case -- but, that's of no matter.
For, "Critics of Islam has existed since the earliest times of Islam, some 1400 years ago, recorded in the poetry of Arab pagan contemporaries of Muhammad", I would change to "Critics of Islam have existed since the rise of Islam, some 1400 years ago, recorded in the poetry of Arab pagan contemporaries of Muhammad" -- although, I'm not sure if there was any early Jewish/Christian direct literature against Islam -- as from the Jews in Medina?  If so, that could be quickly appended.  Of course later with Sassanid and Byzantine interaction you get a lot more writing about Islam since they were more literate people.
Those are my opinion -- I don't see a huge difference (besides that one sentence) so, if you can get others to agree, I wouldn't really mind having it changed some. gren グレン 10:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't mind changing parts of the current version to add that. But fix the numerous spelling errors, grammar errors, change "found fault" to "criticized", and remove this sentence: "Criticsm of Islam forms a class of literature that has grown and developed over the course of 14 centuries and has involved people from all walks of life.". Also please source your assertions on Pagan poetry that criticized Islam. a.n.o.n.y.m   t 13:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction paragraph

message: Hmmm, while I don't understand all of your reasoning I only object to some.  I personally don't think "over the centuries" is too good, but I think it's better than starting with "as with other religions" because, well, that really has nothing to do with this article... and personally I found that to be more apologetic.  You think how it is now is trying to make Islam sound unique while I was thinking it was trying to hit home the point that "Christianity had slaves too" and other things that Muslims say to try to make Islam not look worse than Christianity, etc.  In any case, if you really prefer that I wouldn't argue too much.
"Criticsm of Islam forms a class of literature that has grown and developed over the course of 14 centuries and has involved people from all walks of life."  --I don't like that sentence.  Criticism has not exactly developed.  Certainly some has but I think that conjure imagery of a mass of works... like, science, getting more and more accurate -- which, I don't think is the case, at least not from a neutral viewpoint.  It may be that many critics think that it is developing into a foolproof case -- but, that's of no matter.
For, "Critics of Islam has existed since the earliest times of Islam, some 1400 years ago, recorded in the poetry of Arab pagan contemporaries of Muhammad", I would change to "Critics of Islam have existed since the rise of Islam, some 1400 years ago, recorded in the poetry of Arab pagan contemporaries of Muhammad" -- although, I'm not sure if there was any early Jewish/Christian direct literature against Islam -- as from the Jews in Medina?  If so, that could be quickly appended.  Of course later with Sassanid and Byzantine interaction you get a lot more writing about Islam since they were more literate people.
Those are my opinion -- I don't see a huge difference (besides that one sentence) so, if you can get others to agree, I wouldn't really mind having it changed some. gren グレン 10:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't mind changing parts of the current version to add that. But fix the numerous spelling errors, grammar errors, change "found fault" to "criticized", and remove this sentence: "Criticsm of Islam forms a class of literature that has grown and developed over the course of 14 centuries and has involved people from all walks of life.". Also please source your assertions on Pagan poetry that criticized Islam. a.n.o.n.y.m   t 13:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I realize that my edits are extensive and this may cause confusion or information swamping. Therefore I propose that the page be unlocked, and I will make my changes little by little, subject to consensus on the talk page and editing by others. 
-- Zeno of Elea 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we just wait until there is discussion about the aspects of your big post? It may take a few day but discussion there first will be of great help. gren グレン 22:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Gren. Any major action will not benefit your case. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 23:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: With all respect: If it's not POV to reference, in the introduction, that a) other religions have, as a matter of history used violence to quell criticism... 
... and it's not POV to reference, in the introduction, that b) Islam in particular has, as a matter of history, used violence to quell criticism...
... why is it POV to reference, in the introduction, c) faiths other than Islam that have, as a matter of history, used violence to quell criticism?  BrandonYusufToropov 10:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question for Zeno

message: From: --JuanMuslim 23:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be moved, but really, why bother? These offensive regulations are steeped in Quranic doctrine. One can perceive these to be tantamount to political criticism because of Islamic countries' reliance on the Quran as a legal base, but they appear to be fine in their current context on the page. IMHO, of course. --Michaelk 05:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because politics, laws, regulations, and punishments falls into the realm of the political - country. Death penalty is by a country. The list falls into the political category. --JuanMuslim 03:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, implementation of any laws (including religious) are by country. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 03:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Modern laws are mostly not religious -- they claim to be based on religious law... which is fine, but what they are based on is important.  The criticism of the law itself is not exactly a criticism of Islam unless the one writing the critique expresses it as such.  However, the five sharia schools are important theology.  I think this section generalizes about them (hence my NPOV insistence) however, it does belong here.  Everything must be put in context, etc. gren グレン 06:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue isn't about deleting the information about stoning of..., etc. That's not the debate. But rather about which category the info should be found. Is the information better described as political or ethical? Clearly, its political. --JuanMuslim 15:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Section - Political Criticism

message: This article provides knowledge of the current known criticisms of the religion Islam. A criticism is a point of view of a critic. General criticism of a subject are the general point of view of the critics of the said subject. Readers are warned not to insinuate that any criticism written below as being correct (or wrong) merely because it has appeared in this article. Readers are reminded that a criticism is still a criticism even if it later turns out to be wrong.
In short, this article only lists the criticisms and their supporting arguements. It should be treated as the general point of view of the critic(s) which may or may not turn out to be correct. Ohanian 11:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: yes? so? this Criticism has a notable history, so its discussion is encyclopedic. The Criticism is not pertinent enough to Islam itself to be treated on the main Islam article. what's the problem? 81.63.114.127 18:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning 

message: What's wrong with the statement that Zwemer (1907) evaluated Muhammad
:by the new law of which he pretended to be the divinely-appointed medium and custodian
to make it deserve the quotes, and the addition "(an assessment that stands in stark contrast to that of the vast majority of Muslims throughout history)". In my understanding, Muhammed did pretend to be the divinely-appointed medium and custodian of a new law. What is controversial about this? Maybe the verb 'pretend' which is today often used to imply a claim is false? Replace 'pretend' with 'claim', then. Again, what is it Muslims contrasting to? The notion that Muhammad was divinely appointed? That's ridiculous, that's exactly what Muslims believe. 81.63.114.127 18:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Zwemer

message: I am quite interested in the exact passages in the Quran which were lifted from other sources. I proved the Book of Mormon to be false to a friend of mine by pointing out the plagarism. It made him question whether Joseph Smith was really a prophet. If we can find plagarism in the Quran, then I am sure Muhammed will likely have his prophet status criticized. - ProgressivePantheist
:Well... no?  Islamic tradition believes that the Qur'an is the same (basic) book as the Gospels, Torah, and a few others.... they were just corrupted by human elements.  So, "plagiarism" would merely be interpreted as a part that former traditions had not bastardized.  Also, since there is really no limit to prophets (I think 30,000 was a number given somewhere) even if the source is "pagan" it would be a sign of corruption of that.  Since, I think it's a belief that Adam had gone to the Kaba'a area when the stone came down, etc., yet they became pagan again.  I'm also not sure how you proved the Book of Mormon to be wrong, but.... in any case, it is a claim levelled at Muslims, I just gave you a normal response. gren グレン 13:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagarism

message: Please note NPOV/inaccurate sections as such. Most sections are up to standard. It is not necessary to label this whoel article as such. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 08:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Up to standard. Ya, right. This article is still tooo one-sided. It has improved though. Thanks to the Muslims. I wish editors would make a better effort at thinking nPOV. It doesn't make sense to add lots of confusing nonsense and hope that someone else will come explain the other side of the argument. Take the time and look for info on both sides of the argument and consider the complexities of each issue. --Juan Muslim 08:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Avoid tag pollution

message: The list of critics of Islam is limitless. lol. It wouldn't make sense to add this sort of list for Christians and Jews. This section would be better if it were listed as a link rather than as a section. --Juan Muslim 08:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary Critics 

message: As alluded to on Wikipedia:Content forking, "Criticism of X" titles are inherently non-neutral, because they present the debate one-sidedly and imply that the only discussion of a subject is negative.  See Talk:Criticism of Christianity#Rendering_this_article_neutral for the many examples of where "Criticism of X" articles have become perennial and unresolvable neutrality disputes, and a discussion of how to address this. Uncle G 03:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I remember this didn't evolve as a POV fork.  There were many issues on Islam that were not core issues and since we tend to want to stay around 32kb were not nearly the most important 32kb.  So, this was created in order to discuss some issues.  I don't think this has to carry a POV even though I think it does.  I remain a little mixed because I do think critiques of hadith should just remain in hadith to a great extent.  The ethical criticism (by far the worst section in my opinion) doesn't really fit elsewhere unless we want to delve into Islamic ethics which would be a nightmare.  POV magnets always are and I don't think many of the Islamic article editors around really have the expertise to right well about different conceptions of Islamic ethics.  Plus, it's a huge subject.  I see your point Uncle G, but I'm not really sure... gren グレン 06:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: This article is more or less dismal and yet it is a diverse and important subject.  I figured we could have critical works of some renown about each of the subsections.  Nothing too long but something that the interested person could use.  I believe "Islam and Human Rights" by Ann Elizabeth Mayer is rather well known and the stuff by Ibn Warraq.  I am sure there are even more academic and influential crtiques out there.  Remember to keep Wikipedia:Verifiability in mind.  Only the most notable, most influential should be included such as large university presses.  I figure maybe directing people to the best resources will in part make up for our failure. gren グレン 13:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sectional bibliographies? 

message: I added the following passage to the article but Ulayiti said it is unreasonable. Here is my evidences:
The passage:
"Muslims try to find some seemingly corrupted passages in the Bible but then use the corruption of one passage to defile and discredit the whole. While Quran claims to be based on the Bible, even approves the Bible and frequently mentions it, Muslims do not study Bible together with Quran. They are usually unaware of some of the details and lessons of the work of God throughout the history, i.e. history of Israel."
Evidence 1: For the sentence "Muslims try to find some seemingly corrupted passages in the Bible but then use the corruption of one passage to defile and discredit the whole."
http://www.answering-christianity.com/contra.htm
says
"We must first of all know that the entire Bible is corrupted and unreliable and is mostly filled with man-made laws and corruption!"
If you go on and read the article, you'll see the article takes some passages and proves that they have been corrupted but then concludes that the entire Bible is corrupted.
Muslims should note that even the prophet of Islam only says that if in a matter, bible differs from Quran, take the Quranic account. But he never says that the whole Bible is corrupted! Muslims say that. Because of that they tend to ignore the whole bible. There are passages in the bible that whoever reads can realize that this should be the saying of a prophet. Unfortunately muslims usually do not study bible. 
Evidence 2:
Thomas McElwain (a Muslim theologian) in his book "Islam in Bible" in chapter 12, "negative considerations" says that "Muslims may consider corruption of one passage to defile the whole."
Evidence 3: Honestly, how many muslims know that Israel people were wondering in desert for 40 years. How was the first king of Israel? How many wives did Solomon have?
Now, why this is a criticism: see http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Bible/
: Evidence 1 = Original research. Further, using that single source as evidence of "Muslims try to find some seemingly corrupted passages in the Bible but then use the corruption of one passage to defile and discredit the whole" is wrong. "Muslims try" - Muslims represent close to a quarter of the population of the planet. Anything that starts with "muslims try" is usually POV and wrong. 
: Evidence 2 = You can add that quote by Thomas McElwain, say it's by Thomas McElwain, give it's source and maybe your point will have been proven.  but Thomas McElwain does not make all Muslims.
: Evidence 3 = The Qur'an states the first King of Israel was Talut. Read the Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an article.  Assuming a lack of knowledge for close to one in every four people based solely on their religion displays a bigotry on your part. --Irishpunktom\talk 00:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslims claim of corruption of Bible 

message: I added the following passage to the article but Snakes said it is POV and unneutral.
I wonder why?
My passage was this:
Muslims also argue that the aim of the law is more to frighten people not to get close to adultery rather than to apply punishment. Their reason is that the punishment is applicable only if two witnesses have observed the action of sex with their own eyes (even sleeping nude on each other does not prove having sex). They argue that this is very unlikely to happen.
As far as I know many muslims say that. It is a practical fact. In practice, it is really hard to prove adultery. There is a harsh punishment but it can not be easily applied. If I want to have sex with someone, I go to some private place, Don't I? Maybe one person accidentally see me, but two persons is less likely.
We are here to be factual. Explicitly let me know which part of which sentence is wrong.
Thanks.
: Muslims argue?  Who?  Did I?  When did I make this argument? --Irishpunktom\talk 00:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds reasonable, but, it is unsourced.  Find out Who makes the argument, then add it, sourced with an actual reference.  Right now it is just hearsay.--Irishpunktom\talk 00:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not worry zalimun and infidels, I have created a new page on this. See: Stoning in Islam. عزل 01:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stoning of married adulterers 

message: Various Muslim editors seem to have been working over this article, turning it from an account of criticism of Islam, into a vindication of Islam. Some sections lack even the tiniest hint of criticism; they're just a recititation of Muslim dogma. 
I'm grotesquely over-extended. I'll work on this article if I get a chance. However, I beg non-Muslim editors, if any are still reading this talk page, to take matters in hand and return this article to its stated purpose. Zora 02:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Move all Muslim arguments, keep them STRICTLY to responses to criticism (not dawa in general), and make sure that they're not longer than the criticisms to which they're responding. Zora 07:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perversion of intent of article 

message: This Islamist website says that "The expression Nashooz نُشُوز occurring in the above Ayaah آيه means disobedience of husband. The word is derived from ‘Nashaz”, which signifies rising. In other words, if the wife rises above the limit that Allaah has laid down for the obedience to husband, she will be treated as disobedient." However, Aminz's edit summary and edit claim that it refers to any generally wicked act. Therefore, my question is: do you think it is fair to mention in the article that some Muslims believe this refers to disobedience and some don't, without just simply deleting any reference to the belief that it refers to disobedience? Seems best to me. Yid613 06:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I agree that it is fair to have it both ways. If there is no objection by anybody, please go ahead and apply the change. Thanks  --Aminz 08:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nashooz 

message: Can anyone give a few examples of scientific inaccuracy in the Qu'ran, because this is not being specific. Thanks --Faz90 20:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea! However it maybe be better to make a new article titled: "Islam and Science" or something. How is that? This article is already long enough I think. --Aminz 01:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Islamic science already exists. Perhaps we should add critiques and defenses of science and the Qur'an to that article? As for this article, it doesn't strike me as too large. Each section is relatively small, moreover. Yid613 03:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific criticism of the Qur’an