Talk:Criticism of Islam/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Islam and unbelievers

Many verses in the Qur'an can be read as supporting warfare against unbelievers.

"Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!" 3:151
"How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them. No plea had they, when Our terror came unto them, save that they said: Lo! We were wrong-doers." 7:4-5
"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.'" 8:12
"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly." 8:60
"Lo! those who disbelieve spend their wealth in order that they may debar (men) from the way of Allah. They will spend it, then it will become an anguish for them, then they will be conquered. And those who disbelieve will be gathered unto hell,"8:36
"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."9:5
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued." 9:29
"And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!" 9:30
"And the True Promise draweth nigh; then behold them, staring wide (in terror), the eyes of those who disbelieve! (They say): Alas for us! We (lived) in forgetfulness of this. Ah, but we were wrong-doers!" 21:97
"He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however much idolaters may be averse."61:9
"On the Day when (some) faces will be whitened and (some) faces will be blackened; and as for those whose faces have been blackened, it will be said unto them: Disbelieved ye after your (profession of) belief ? Then taste the punishment for that ye disbelieved."3:106
"Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise." 4:56
"And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do." 8:39
"O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred (steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence." 8:65
"Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings."98:6
"Say: (It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers Fire. Its tent encloseth them. If they ask for showers, they will be showered with water like to molten lead which burneth the faces. Calamitous the drink and ill the resting-place!" 18:29
"These twain (the believers and the disbelievers) are two opponents who contend concerning their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads,Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted;And for them are hooked rods of iron.Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning." 22:19-22

84.146.218.102 21:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

Some non-Muslim critics, in explaining the beliefs of these scholars, say that their conscience pushes them away from the alleged instructions of God as revealed in the Qur’an. [citation needed] However, these Muslim scholars believe that their understanding is properly based on Qur'anic verses and Hadiths.

Islamic scholars claim that there are several verses of the Qur'an and several quotes attributed to Muhammad (Hadith) that bide believers to act kindly towards women and not to beat them [1]. However, many critics of Islam believe that this Qur'anic verse is responsible for poor treatment of some Muslim women in Islamic countries and even in Western immigrant populations. They also claim that "the command to beat disobedient wives" that they believe to exist within the Qur'an "is founded upon a woman’s subservient / secondary status in Islam." [2]

--Aminz 23:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Some non-Muslim critics, in explaining the beliefs of these scholars, say that their conscience pushes them away from the alleged instructions of God as revealed in the Qur’an. [citation needed]

is an absurdity: Ibn Khatir in his commentary says: "However, the beating should be dharbun ghayru nubrah, i.e. light, according to the Hadith narrated in Sahih Muslim, on the authority of Jabir,"

I'll remove the whole thing. --Aminz 00:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad sub-article work

Instead of working on the Muhammad sub-article in isolation, I've decided to integrate the work piece-by-piece into the main article, and only move it into the sub-article when it's all done. This will prevent my work from 'going stale' in isolation and will also allow it to be immediately improved by others. I started by consolidating the Muhammad 'Satanic connection' criticisms and responses. I'm going by the rule-of-thumb to try to keep the amount of space dedicated to the criticisms equal to the amount given for the responses (and I think this is a good rule for others to follow as well). I'm also strictly sourcing everything. - Merzbow 03:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Merzbow,
re: "I'm going by the rule-of-thumb to try to keep the amount of space dedicated to the criticisms equal to the amount given for the responses (and I think this is a good rule for others to follow as well)."
In some cases it is not possible to do this. For example, how can one answer to the 'Satanic connection' response in one sentence (noting that the criticism is just a sentence).
Now, my idea is to prepare two versions of the responses/criticisms : a short one and a more detailed one. The short one can remain here but the detailed one can be moved to the sub-articles. --Aminz 03:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that when we create the sub-article we still need to keep a shorter version of the most important criticisms/responses in the main article. Certainly in some cases the shorter versions may have to give a bit of extra space to either the criticism or the response section to do justice to the arguments. - Merzbow 05:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow, I am surprised how the source you provided supports: "he was, at various times, inspired by Satan himself."

The text uses harsher words: "Satan is everywhere in Islam. He's in the Qur'an, in the prophet, in the bodies of believers, in their homes, in Muhammad's harem, and in his booty."

The context of your text is clear:

Some critics attempt to discredit Muhammad as a divine messenger by claiming that he was, at various times, inspired by Satan himself.[36] As evidence, they point to early Islamic histories that recount how Satan fooled Muhammad into adding two lines to Sura 53 of the Qur'an, lines that implore followers to hope for intercession by three pagan goddesses. The histories then say that these so-called 'Satanic Verses' were shortly afterward repudiated by Muhammad at the behest of the angel Gabriel.

I can not see how source 36 supports this text. Can you please explain?

I think there are two distinct groups of critics: 1. Those who believe Qur'an is the literal word of Satan (i.e. Muhammad was possessed by Satan) 2. Criticisms starting from the Satanic verses.

Source for 1) --> source 36

Source for 2) --> James Arlandson, a Christian critic of Islam, holds that these supposed Satanic influences cast doubt on the divine origin of Muhammad's revelations as a whole. He thinks that if Satan had inspired Muhammad to reveal a few tainted verses, he could also have inspired him to reveal many more.

--Aminz 04:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll make a change to distinguish the type of criticism made by source 36. - Merzbow 05:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow, it seems you have done a lot of research! I appreciate it! --Aminz 05:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your hard work digging up some of these difficult-to-find references also.- Merzbow 05:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Slavery

Lets have this section in the talk page until the entire section is properly referenced. Merzbow you can add it once you are finished with your research. Thanks.

Islam has come under criticism for permitting slavery, a practice that was a common feature of pre-Islamic pagan Arabia. [3]

The Qur’an explicitly allows and regulates slavery. Muhammad is documented as having kept many slaves. Qur'anic regulation made prisoners of war the source of slaves. Prisoners of war included not only captured enemy soldiers but also captured civilians. [citation needed] For instance, it allows Muslims to take civilian women of enemy tribes or nations as slaves [citation needed], and furthermore to consider any marriage bond dissolved by their enslavement. [citation needed]

While the Qur’an encourages the liberation of slaves under certain circumstances, it does not require it except as expiation for certain sins. Both the Qur'an and hadith enjoin kindness to slaves (4:36). The Qur'an in general commands uncompromised justice (4:135), enjoins restraining anger and the pardoning of men (3:134). According to the Qur'an, amends for serious crimes could be made in part by freeing a slave (4:92). According to the hadiths, the emancipation of a slave is a recommended act that would gain the person freeing the slave some measure of forgiveness for past sins. The Qur'an encourages Muslims to give slaves the opportunity to buy (back) their freedom if they so demand (24:33). The former text also allows marriage between a master and their slave, if the latter is considered to be religiously pious in nature (24:32). Slaves could also earn their freedom by teaching 10 illiterate Muslims how to read and write. [citation needed]

Slaves were not considered inferiors to their masters in theological terms. There is a hadith which claims that Muhammad said: Your slaves are your brothers and God has put them under your command. So whoever has a brother under his command should feed him of what he eats and dress him of what he wears. Do not ask them (slaves) to do things beyond their capacity (power) and if you do so, then help them (Bukhari 1:2:29). Masters were commanded to address their slaves by "My young man" or "My young woman" rather than "My slave" or "My slave-woman" and slaves were commanded to address their masters by "My master" or "My mistress" rather than "My lord" (Abu-Dawud 41:4957 ). Muslims argue that the concept of equality of all men is expressed in the Qur'an 49:13. [citation needed]

The Qur’an permits sexual intercourse with female slaves. Critics of Islam argue that the Qur'anic text, in verses 23:1-6, actually permits the rape of female slaves. Verses 23:1-6 state that: The believers … who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or whom their right hands possess ... are free from blame. Verses 70:29-30 repeat the same idea. "Those whom their right hands possess" has always been understood to refer to slaves and captives. Some critics of traditional Islamic scholars claim that “they also approved that every male master had the right to force any of his female slaves to have sex with him.” [4] According to some critics, Qur'anic ambiguity on such a matter is itself evidence of human origins for the Qur’an. It is claimed by them that if these verses are not considered to justify rape of slaves, they still appear to justify having sex with slaves. [citation needed]

On the other hand, the following verse seems to contradict at least one of the former viewpoints: Force not your slave-girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world, if they would preserve their chastity. And if one force them, then (unto them), after their compulsion, lo! Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful (24:33). However, some critics interpret this verse as a condemnation solely of slave-owners who forced their slaves into prostitution for profit. In addition, they point out that it promises forgiveness for Muslims who do it. [citation needed]

See Religion and slavery for more information about slavery in Islam.

 «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  (T) 05:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to press the issue, if only because I have time to work on this tomorrow. This actually shouldn't be that hard to fix since the other article can be mined for the proper sources to the standard Muslim responses; a bit more detail is needed on the criticism, but sources for that are readily available. - Merzbow 06:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll finish this section tomorrow. I'm using only good, published sources on this; I'm even going to the library tomorrow to verify some pages numbers in one of Maududi's commentaries. Merzbow 04:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Wonderful! --Aminz 04:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

James Arlandson

Merzbow, James Arlandson seems to self interpret the Qur'an. He is not giving any reference to any Muslim commentary. I have read his article and think he holds some unorthodox Islamic views. His interpretation of verse 22:52 just seemed too strange to me. It seemed to me that he is putting words in the mouth of Qur'an. I may be wrong but I expect him to either be an Islamic scholar (which he is not) or quotes Islamic scholars. That article has no cites. It is just an "email" response to someone. Do you think it is reliable? --Aminz 08:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Gary Miller is no more qualified and his article also doesn't have references. I don't think we can expect to find sources for criticisms and responses that will ever be as 'good' as we would like, simply because professors in universities rarely engage in this sort of debate. As long as we present both sides of the argument using the best sources we can find at the time I think we're doing well. - Merzbow 16:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
But Gary Miller is not self-interpreting the Qur'an. There is a big difference. But anyway, my position is that yes, we should get rid of Gray Miller quotes as well in the revised version. --Aminz 18:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I am either removing or replacing quotes from Gary Miller with better ones. Please remove or replace the criticisms made by James Arlandson. --Aminz 19:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, so far, Arlandson's article is the best I've found that outlines this criticism explicitly. Watt's writings simply argue for the historicity of the Satanic Verses story; as a historian he doesn't judge the likelihood of actual Satanic influence on Muhammad. If I find a better source I'll replace Arlandson, but to be complete, we need this particular criticism represented in the article by somebody, because it is very widely made by Christian opponents of Islam. Merzbow 20:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
True, I agree that it is widely made, but not via "satanic verses" argument. They simply derive it from Jesus's warnings about the "false prophets", that the false prophets can even do miracles and so on. They argue that since Muhammad has deprived too many people from getting saved by the blood of Jesus, he must have been inspired by satan. Among all these critics, I honestly doubt, one percentage of them have ever heard of the "satanic verses" argument. I am willing to give up all the Gary Miller quotes at the expense of avoiding critic’s "self-interpretations" of the Qur'an.
Please take your time in replacing the Arlandson's arguments, but please do it as soon as possible. --Aminz 20:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, I took out almost all the Arlandson stuff and reference him just in a single sentence now that makes it clear that his view is only one among many. This section in general was too long before related to its importance, I think it's the right size now. - Merzbow 21:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Merzbow. --Aminz 04:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I found a source by noted scholar William Montgomery Watt that backs up some of this; I'll add him in. - Merzbow 17:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. --Aminz 18:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow, Do you think Arlandson states some parts of Qur'an are inspired by God and the rest are inspired by Satan, or that some parts are written by himself and the rest are inspired by Satan? --Aminz 05:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I reworded that sentence to better reflect Arlandson's argument. - Merzbow 22:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Noted Islamic scholar

I think "Noted Islamic scholar William Montgomery Watt " is better to be changed to "William Montgomery Watt". He is a noted scholar, but it is not common to provide such backgrounds, I think. --Aminz 05:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. Merzbow 21:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism from the Biblical point of view

The section is badly written. "The obvious response from Muslims would be.."? An encyclopedia doesn't attempt to predict a response. Also, the Bible is not mentioned anywhere in the Qur'an. Muslims believe that a piece of scripture (Injil) was revealed to Jesus, as the Torah was to Moses. Muslims do NOT hold St. Peter or Paul or the unknown authors of the other books as having any religious authority. His Excellency... 19:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that section needs to be re-written. --Aminz 19:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, Muslims do not acknowlege the gospels as rendered by Mark, Matthew, Luke or John. They believe there was such a thing as the "Gospel of Jesus". The Quran doesn't acknowlege the notion that third parties were 'inspired' to write scripture after Jesus' death. His Excellency... 19:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE "His excellency" is Amibidhrohi's new username.Timothy Usher 22:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The "some" , "all" question

I have a question in general. How can we prove that "Islam" says something? I would like to somehow prove that according to Islam "slaves were not considered inferior to their masters in theological terms."

There is a wealth of material on this (here is a few):

049.013 YUSUFALI: O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).

some Quotes attributed:

People from the time of Adam onwards are as equal as the teeth of a comb. Arabs are not superior to non Arabs, nor are Redskinned people better than Blacks. No superiority or virture exists except in terms of Piety.

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: None of you must say: "My slave" (abdi) and "My slave-woman" (amati), and a slave must not say: "My lord" (rabbi or rabbati). The master (of a slave) should say: "My young man" (fataya) and "My young woman" (fatati), and a slave should say "My master" (sayyidi) and "My mistress" (sayyidati), for you are all (Allah's slave and the Lord is Allah, Most High.

Any feedback? --Aminz 00:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can't prove it, all we can do is say that this is a certain POV and give the most notable arguments that have been made supporting this POV. I think the Bukhari hadith the article is quoting now is good support. That latter quote you list looks like a hadith also, if you can find a source that mentions that hadith then it could be quoted in the article. I don't think 049.013 is as useful as the other quotes since it doesn't explicitly mention slaves. In the end, I think we should be careful to only quote verses and hadiths if we can also cite a commentator who says that this particular verse or hadith is relevant to the subject (like Qutb). - Merzbow 01:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I used the latter hadith in the rewrite of the Muhammad 'Slaves' section, it fits in well there. Thanks for pointing me to it. - Merzbow 04:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I may apply some minor edits later. --Aminz 05:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow, the quote you found from "Rodney Stark" is an excellent criticism by itself. Thanks! I wish the critics of Islam were bright like you to know how they should criticize something. Please keep working on the article, we need you here. --Aminz 05:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's actually pretty fun doing this research. The one thing I'm having a hard time with is finding decent commentaries on the hadith. For the Quran, I have Yusuf Ali and now Maududi (among others). Do you know of a good source of scholarly hadith commentary? - Merzbow 06:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I exactly have the same problem with Hadiths and wanted to ask someone! BTW, Do you have online access to Yusuf Ali (or Maududi)? I have only online access to the commentary of Grand Ayatollah Makarim Shirazi, a shia jurist. That's almost all I have. --Aminz 06:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't have access to the Shia collection of Hadiths. It differs from Bukhari, etc. That's my other problem. --Aminz 06:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You can get access to Yusuf Ali's commentary via the Amazon 'view inside this book' feature. Maududi not online, the only way I can read his stuff is at the local library. I think I'll go to one of the Islamic message boards and ask.- Merzbow 17:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

proposed section merge

I think the Muhammad Muslim response section 'Response to the claim that Muhammad copied the Qur'an from the Bible' should be merged into the 'The origins of the Qur'an/Claim of Divine Origin' subsection, since it's talking about exactly the same subject. Agree/disagree? - Merzbow 01:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking it could be merged into the uncreated "sources of Qur'an" section.... Which one do you think is better? --Aminz 01:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Right, I forgot about that proposal. That sounds like a good idea. - Merzbow 01:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)



New section proposal :Intolerance of other faiths

In regions that are dominated by Muslims , the houses of worship of other faiths are often targetted and destroyed [10][11][12]:


--CltFn 05:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Christians used to lynch black people in the United States. Alleged 'witches' were burned in Europe and in the US as well. Should they be listed on the "Criticisms of Christianity" page? His Excellency... 06:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The examples you have given are of a prior age. The examples given by CltFn are contemporary.
I'm not, of course, stating that there aren't abusive, intolerant Christian groups (like the IRA), but the proportion of intolerance is worth being analyzed.--C.Logan 16:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

CltFn, if you can back up your argument using traditional Muslim commentaries and western academics, your addition will be a good one. --Aminz 05:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, please note that the criticism should be directed to *Islam* and not particular *Muslims* Thanks --Aminz 05:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Something like this, if relevant, would probably go into the 'Alleged discrimination' section, which needs some work. (It should probably split into two sub-sections, one focusing on women, another on religious minorities with a focus on dhimmi.) But because this article is about criticism of Islam, the incident you mention would only be relevant if you could find some scholarly authority that ties it directly to the religion somehow. - Merzbow 06:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow, we already have a criticism article focused on dhimmi. I think you can simply refernce it to that article. --Aminz 06:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

We should at least give it a couple paragraphs in this article, then direct the user to Dhimmi for more info. Currently we only mention it in passing. It constitutes a large part of the criticism directed towards Islam. - Merzbow 17:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Muslims have protected other houses of worship as well. [13] BhaiSaab talk 18:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that some critics allege that Islam breeds hate should probably be written about.

My "new section proposal" - Criticism of "critics of Islam"

Filled with material like this:

In a seminal essay on "Islam Through Western Eyes," Professor Edward Said of Columbia University wrote, "I have not been able to discover any period in European or American history since the Middle Ages in which Islam was generally discussed or thought about outside a framework created by passion, prejudice and political interests.

Also,

Said is best known for describing and critiquing "Orientalism," which he perceived as a constellation of false assumptions underlying Western attitudes toward the East.


Any feedback? --Aminz 06:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Edward Said was professor of English literature. Pecher Talk 09:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It sounds more like a criticism of an approach to criticism. We could create a section after 'history of criticism of Islam' called 'modern approaches to criticism of Islam' that summarizes the general approach critics like Spencer, Warraq, Lewis (in parts) and others are taking, and the response could quote Said, Armstrong, and others who disagree with that approach. - Merzbow 17:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
As you pointed out, Edward Said's quote only deserves a paragraph (or a couple of sentences) at most and not a section. We can subdivide the "history of criticism of islam" into two sub-section: "pre-modern" and "modern". Then I suggest the following to be added to the "modern" section.

In the modern era, European and American Orientalism examine the claims of Islam from a secular and academic perspective. However within academia, the underlying assmptions made in Orientalism is criticized. Edward Said, in an essay "Islam Through Western Eyes," states that the general basis of Orientalism thought forms a study structure in which Islam, as an object of study by west, is placed in an inferior status, and has been looked at with a very special hostility and fear due to many obvious religious, psychological and political reasons all deriving from a sense "that so far as the West is concerned, Islam represents not only a formidable competitor but also a late-coming challenge to Christianity." [5] Said's academic critics such as such as Bernard Lewis [6] , Albert Hourani, Kanan Makiya, Nikki Keddie and Robert Graham Irwin [7], argued that Said made no attempt to distinguish between the writings of poets such as Goethe (who never even travelled in the East), novelists such as Flaubert (who undertook a brief sojourn in Egypt), discredited mavericks such as Ernest Renan, and serious scholars such as Edward William Lane who were fluent in Arabic and produced work of considerable value.

Today, criticism of Islam and "Islamic" practices have increased markedly in the Western world.


How is this? --Aminz 20:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it may be focusing too much on Said and his critics. The way I see this section as being structured is first naming some modern critics of Islam and their general approach (which is mostly that Islam should be compared with the West by Western values), then it would mention Said and others who agree with his approach (which seems to be that we are wrong to judge Islam using a Western value structure). We probably don't need to mention Said's critics specifically. - Merzbow 20:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your idea is the best. But I wonder how we can find the variety of different approaches within western academics. Have a look at Henri Lammens. It is universally acknowledged "that Lammens provided the study of the sira with a new basis". But I don't know what he exactly did. Sir William Muir, I think also brought new ideas. In the satanic verses, it says: "Since Muir the historicity of this episode (whether as an actual discrete event, or as a dramatization of a longer process of accommodation and then confrontation with Meccan polytheism) has been largely accepted by Western scholars of Islam." (BTW, if you can find references for the claim that the episode is largely accepted by Western scholars of Islam, please add it to the article). We don't need to be worry about the length. This section can have its own sub article. --Aminz 20:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, length isn't so much of a worry, but we do need to keep it balanced and structured well at whatever length it is. For now, we may want to begin this section with just a paragraph touching on the general modern critical approach briefly (naming a few names), then after that a paragraph touching on the modern apologetic approach (naming Said and others). How about I try writing the first paragraph tonight and put it on the talk page so you see my general approach, then you can take a shot at doing the second paragraph? - Merzbow 22:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds great! --Aminz 23:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I've written:

Modern criticism of Islam comes from people who can be grouped into three broad categories.
The first category consists of non-Muslim scholars raised in the West who publicly state that Islam falls short when judged by Western, and sometimes explicitly Christian, values and standards of conduct. Noted members of this group are Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, and Bat Ye'or. Robert Spencer is especially vocal, having written many books, one titled The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims.[8]
In the second category are former Muslims who believe that Islam is the primary cause for what they see as the mistreatment of minority groups in Muslim countries and communities. Almost all (if not all) of them now live in the West, many under assumed names because of a perceived danger to themselves. Such people include Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, and Ali Sina. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has focused on the alleged plight of Muslim women, saying that "they aspire to live by their faith as best they can, but their faith robs them of their rights."[9]
The third category consists of scholars who do not self-identify as critics of Islam but who are not afraid to criticize aspects of Islam which they imply are lacking in some regard. Bernard Lewis is perhaps the most well-known member of this group. For example, he holds that unbelievers, slaves, and women are considered fundamentally inferior to other groups of people under Islamic law.[10].

Good people to put in your response would probably be Edward Said, Karen Armstrong, and John Esposito. Definitely some modern Islamic scholars should be mentioned, but I'm not as familiar with them. - Merzbow 03:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful! You did a great job Merzbow! I'll try to do my job ASAP. --Aminz 18:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow, could you please go ahead and add your text to the article. I am kind of busy and slow. I will do my turn whenever I can, but meanwhile, please post your paragraph. Thanks again for your great job! --Aminz 06:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I added it. I also added part of your paragraph on Edward Said at the end to serve as a starting point for a paragraph about those who respond to the critics. - Merzbow 07:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Merzbow. --Aminz 07:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Modern criticism of islam

Merzbow, just a quick question: Do you know if John Esposito is a Muslim? Thanks --Aminz 02:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I looked on Google for a while and nothing I found addressed the question of what his current religion is. His Wiki bio says that he was raised Catholic, so in the absence of any contrary information we should probably assume he's not a Muslim. - Merzbow 06:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks --Aminz 07:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is my draft:


Responses come from both Muslim and some Non-Muslim scholars and writers. Such Non-Muslim scholars and writers include William Montgomery Watt, John Esposito and Karen Armstrong. Watt, for example, in his book “Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman” addresses Muhammad’s alleged moral failures. He claims that “Of all the world's great men none has been so much maligned as Muhammad.” [11] Karen Armstrong, tracing what she believes as West's long history of hostility toward Islam, finds in the Muhammad’s teachings a theology of peace and tolerance. Armstrong holds that the "holy war" urged by the Qur'an alludes to each Muslim's duty to fight for a just, decent society. [12] John Esposito has written many introductory texts on Islam and the Islamic world. He has for example addressed issues like the rise of militant Islam, women veiling, and democracy. [13] [14]
Responses from Muslims has come from many Muslim writers, scholars and comparative religionists such as Ahmad Deedat, Osama Abdallah, Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Gary Miller. Within the academia, responses has come from scholars such as Michael Sells and notably Edward Said who sharply criticized Western scholarship of the East. In an essay Islam Through Western Eyes, he states that the general basis of Orientalist thought forms a study structure in which Islam is placed in an inferior position as an object of study. He claims existence of a very considerable bias in the Orientalist writings as part of the scholar's cultural make-up. He claims Islam has been looked at with a particular hostility and fear due to many obvious religious, psychological and political reasons all deriving from a sense "that so far as the West is concerned, Islam represents not only a formidable competitor but also a late-coming challenge to Christianity."[15]

Any feedback? I have also provided the sources(they are online).--Aminz 02:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That looks great, feel free to add it. Just a few minor nitpicks (Koran -> Qur'an, you should probably make the references conform to the format of others in the article (i.e. include ISBN, italicize titles, etc.)) - Merzbow
Thanks I added it. Feel free to edit it, if you would like. --Aminz 07:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

people we can quote

Merzbow, Just wondering if we can quote "Ayaan Hirsi Ali", "Ibn Ishaq" and perhaps "Robert Spencer"? On the other side, we had "Islamonline.net", Gary Miller, ...

I believe "Islamonline.net" is reliable since the director of the site is a famous sunni scholar; so his ideas are an example of a modern Muslim scholar. "Ayaan Hirsi Ali", "Ibn Ishaq" and "Robert Spencer" are outspoken critics. Gary Miller is an outspoken apologist but he is not an Islamic scholar. Merzbow, I am fine with quoting critics as long as they do not self interpret Qur’an or Hadith. Assume we find a critic who interprets a verse from Qur’an in a way that nobody among Muslims has ever interpreted. The answer to this critic is clear. But adding that criticism and the Muslim response is doing junk work. We need to be sure that a criticism is worthy enough to answer. For example, Ali Sina claimed that the golden rule is not mentioned in any hadith. I found a Hadith later. And then I asked myself so what? Even before finding the hadith, I knew that this particular criticism is absurd at least at this level. His other criticism that there is discrimination among Muslims and Non-Muslims was worthy though. But I knew that golden rule is widely “known” among Muslims. I am sure he knew the famous quote from Ali ibn abi taleb that “…people are either your brothers in religion or equal with you in creation” because he was raised in Iran.

That’s why I am concerned with the claims the critics make. The same goes with Muslim responses to those critics. Some people just invent answers to critics out of other self interpretations of Qur'an or Hadith. --Aminz 18:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

We do have to tread a fine line here, but since the article is specifically about criticism of Islam, it's our obligation to present the views of the most notable critics of Islam, whether we think they are right or even qualified. Sometimes scholars are also critics, but there are a lot of areas of criticism that professors in the West can't engage in for professional reasons. (You'd never find Bernard Lewis critcising Muhammad for marrying Aisha at a young age). I would never quote Ibn Warraq in any article that's not about criticism - for example, in the main Islam or Aisha articles. But because he's written many books critical of Islam and is very widely published and quoted as a critic, his views need to be represented in this article specifically.
We also have an obligation to present the most notable Muslim responses to the criticisms. And there are many great responses out there (although sometimes they are harder to find since so little Islamic writing is currently being published in the West, which is why we have to rely so heavily on some of these web sites). I am overjoyed to find good Muslim responses to these criticisms, and am willing to look very hard to find them, because one-sided arguments benefit nobody. But in the end, the decision whether or not to believe the criticisms, or the responses, or a little of each, can only be in the mind of the reader. - Merzbow 20:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, fine. --Aminz 23:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems that Ibn Warraq is now an "alleged" ex-Muslim, which according to the editor Taz Manchester this Warraq has "never actually shown any proof" he was once Muslim and that "doubts remain.". Just to keep a NPOV any chance of some evidence to show the doubts before I revert that change as current evidence would indicate to the contrary ? Ttiotsw 03:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow, As usual you do a great job

I appreciate your hard work. --Aminz 07:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. The Muhammad section is nearing completion, I just have to add sections now for the 'was a liar' and 'had psychological problems' criticisms (and merge the "Responses" sections on these two issues into them). All this is very time consuming, so I'll probably slow down my pace a bit. - Merzbow 22:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have found the following material regarding the allegation that Muhammad was an impostor:

Watt writes: [14] "One of the common allegations against Muhammad is tha he was an impostor, who to satisfy his ambition and his lust propagated religious teachings which he himself knew to be false. Such insincerity makes the development of the Islamic religion incomprehensible. This point was first vigorously made over a hundred years ago by Thomas Carlyle in his lectures On Heroes, and it has since been increasingly accepted by scholars. Only a profound belief in himself and his mission explains Muhammad's readiness to endure hardship and persecution during the Meccan period when from a secular point of view there was no prospect of success. Without sincerity how could he have won the allegiance and even devotion of men of strong and upright character like Abu-Bakr and 'Umar ? For the theist there is the further question how God could have allowed a great religion like Islam to develop on a basis of lies and deceit. There is thus a strong case for holding that Muhammad was sincere. If in some respects he was mistaken, his mistakes were not due to deliberate Iying or imposture."

The article currently states:

Muhammad's confidence in certain circumstances

Gary Miller claims that Muhammad's confidence and his behavior show that he really thought he was a prophet, and thus not a liar. Miller states, for example, that when: He (Muhammad) left Makkah and hid in a cave with Abu Bakr during their emigration to Madeenah, the two clearly saw people coming to kill them, and Abu Bakr was afraid. Certainly, if Muhammad was a liar, a forger and one who was trying to fool the people into believing that he was a prophet, one would have expected him to say in such a circumstance to his friend, 'Hey, Abu Bakr, see if you can find a back way out of this cave.' Or 'Squat down in that corner over there and keep quiet.' Yet, in fact, what he said to Abu Bakr clearly illustrated his confidence. He told him, 'Relax! God is with us, and God will save us!' [16]

Ahmed Deedat states that: When Muhammad's infant son Ibraheem died, his death happened to coincide with an eclipse of the sun. All of the Muslims came running to him exclaiming 'It is a miracle, the sun itself is mourning the death of your only son.' Upon hearing this, Muhammad became very angry with them and said: 'The sun and the moon do not eclipse because of the death of any among mankind. They are but two signs among the signs of God. When you see them stand up and pray.' Deedat argues that if Muhammad was a liar, he would have credited this coincidence to the death of his son. [17]

Possible motivations

In response to the criticism that Muhammad wrote the Qur’an for material gain and glory, Muslims argue that all the descriptions of Muhammad's family life emphasize his total disregard for luxurious food, clothing, and surroundings. In Ibn Sa'd, there's a tradition that Muhammad said that the only worldly things in which he took pleasure were women and perfume. The Sira of Muhammad claims that he was of the most noble of tribes, of the most noble of families and the husband of a wealthy tradeswoman. According to these traditions, before he received his revelations, he was well-known to his own people as trustworthy and reliable. He was named “Al-Amin”, which means “The Trustworthy”. After his claim of prophethood, he became a social outcast. For 13 years in Makkah, he and his followers faced excruciating torture, which led to the death of some of his followers, ridicule, sanctioning and excommunication from society. Many note that he spent all his money and devoted his life for his goal. [citation needed]

There were many ways which a person could gain fame in the society of that time, including via poetry and acts of valor. [citation needed] Muslims argue that if Muhammad had made the claim that he himself authored the Quran that would have been enough for him to be recognized as a great poet. Maurice Bucaille claims that "the hypothesis advanced by those who see Muhammad as the author of the Qur'an is untenable" arguing that a man, from being illiterate, can not become the most important author in terms of literary merits in the whole of Arabic literature [18]. And according to the Encyclopedia Brittanica "Muhammad is the most successful of all Prophets and religious personalities".[19]

Some relevant Qur'anic verses arguing for Muhammad's sincerity [citation needed]

Say: No reward do I ask of you for it but this: that each one who will may take a (straight) Path to his Lord. (25:57)
Thou wouldst only, perchance, fret thyself to death, following after them, in grief, if they believe not in this Message. (18:6)
Say: "If God had so willed, I should not have rehearsed it to you, nor would He have made it known to you. A whole life-time before this have I tarried amongst you: will ye not then understand?" Who doth more wrong than such as forge a lie against God, or deny His Signs? (10:17-18)
We have not sent down the Qur'an to thee to be (an occasion) for thy distress, But only as an admonition to those who fear. (20:2)
Say: "Will ye dispute with us about God, seeing that He is our Lord and your Lord; that we are responsible for our doings and ye for yours; and that We are sincere (in our faith) in Him?" (2:139)


--Aminz 04:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a good quote, Watt is a highly-regarded source. I think a good strategy will be to create a section under Muhammad called "Personal motivations". The criticism will be that Muhammad created Islam as a way to gain power, wealth, etc. for himself. (However, we need to dig up some good sources for this criticism; I recall most of the usual suspects like Spencer making this argument, so it shouldn't be hard). The Watt quote and the existing material in the "Muhammad was a liar" response section could then be incorporated as responses. I can try to do this in the next few days, if that's OK. I don't think the section needs to be as long as the current "was a liar" responses section. I think it makes sense to dump the Miller quote, and use perhaps half of the Watt quote. I'm not sure Qur'an quotes are relevant in this section, since they don't serve to counter the criticism that Muhammad was an imposter since the critic would just say Muhammad wrote them anyway. - Merzbow 04:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please take your time. There is no rush. I am also busy. I agree that we should significantly summerize the "was a liar" responses. What is your opinion that instead of dumping Miller's quote completely, we just say: "Gary Miller quotes several incidents in which Muhammad's life was in serious danger but his confidence and his behavior, Miller argues, shows that he really thought he was a prophet and thus he was not a liar."; that is instead of dumping Deedat and Miller's quote, we summerize the argument in one sentence.

Re the Qur'anic verses, maybe it would be good to write how Muhammad himself has responsed to the criticism. BUT not in details. In one sentence, we can say these verses are relevant. What do you think? --Aminz 05:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I can summarize Miller and Deedat's quotes in one sentence in the article, and give a bit more space to Watt because of his reputation. It would definitely be good to mention arguments by Muhammad himself on this subject; do you think they would be in Ishaq and the hadith somewhere? I can also reference the Qur'an verses in one sentence, but only if Yusuf Ali or Maududi or another commentator says they are relevant. I have Yusuf Ali with me, I'll check out his commentary on those verses. I've also ordered Maududi's books so I don't have to keep going to the library, they should be arriving in a day or two. - Merzbow 06:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I may be also of help. We can do it slowly; there is no rush. BTW, I've also got "Jews of Islam" from Bernard Lewis from Libarary today. I am really slow but will try to see if I can find anything related to this article there.--Aminz 07:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Watt also writes about the allegations of treachery and sensuality:

From the standpoint of Muhammad's time, then, the allegations of treachery and sensuality cannot be maintained. His contemporaries did not find him morally defective in any way. On the contrary, some of the acts criticized by the modern Westerner show that Muhammad's standards werehigher than those of his time. In his day and generation he was a social reformer, even a reformer in the sphere of morals. He created a new system of social security and a new family structure, both of which were a vast improvement on what went before. By taking what was best in the morality of the nomad and adapting it for settled communities, he established a religious and social framework for the life of many races of men. That is not the work of a traitor or ' an old lecher'.

I also found the following material from Voltaire that may turn out to be useful somewhere:

[15]

I tell you again, ignorant imbeciles, whom other ignoramuses have made believe that the Mohammedan religion is voluptuous and sensual, there is not a word of truth in it; you have been deceived on this point as on so many others.

Canons, monks, vicars even, if a law were imposed on you not to eat or drink from four in the morning till ten at night, during the month of July, when Lent came at this period; if you were forbidden to play at any game of chance under pain of damnation; if wine were forbidden you under the same pain; if you had to make a pilgrimage into the burning desert; if it were enjoined on you to give at least two and a half per cent. of your income to the poor; if, accustomed to enjoy possession of eighteen women, the number were cut down suddenly by fourteen; honestly, would you dare call that religion sensual?

The Latin Christians have so many advantages over the Mussulmans, I do not say in the matter of war, but in the matter of doctrines; the Greek Christians have so beaten them latterly from 1769 to 1773, that it is not worth the trouble to indulge in unjust reproaches against Islam.

Try to retake from the Mohammedans all that they usurped; but it is easier to calumniate them.

I hate calumny so much that I do not want even to impute foolishness to the Turks, although I detest them as tyrants over women and enemies of the arts.

I do not know why the historian of the Lower Empire maintains that Mohammed speaks in his Koran of his journey into the sky: Mohammed does not say a word about it; we have proved it.

One must combat ceaselessly. When one has destroyed an error, there is always someone who resuscitates it.

--Aminz 05:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow, I was surprised to see that while the famous Leibniz (1710) praises Muhammad and his followers for spreading monotheism and abolishing heathen superstitions, others have criticized Islam on the way it spread It was very interesting to me. --Aminz 05:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Many in the West are conflicted over this. Many Christians see it as a good thing that monotheism replace paganism/polytheism, even if that monotheism is Islam instead of Christianity. However, many claim that Islam spread by the sword instead of peacefully like Christianity supposedly did. It might be worth mentioning this criticism in the 'War and violence' Qur'an section. - Merzbow 06:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Did Christianity spread peacefully? I don't have enough knowledge about the history of Christianity. I've just heard that the Roman empire at one moment forced people to convert to Christianity. Can you please illuminate me?

And yes, the good place for it is in the 'War and violence'. I'll then try to find the responses to this criticism. Thanks. --Aminz 07:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, for the first 400 years or so Christianity did mostly spread peacefully, since it was disapproved of by the then still-pagan Roman leadership. However, when emperor Constantine converted in the fifth century, he made Christianity the state religion, and from then on religious freedom declined. However, Christians do point out that even afterward Christianity was still often spread peacefully in new lands - for example, St. Patrick in Ireland. But it spread by the sword too, like the Spanish in the New World. You can probably find more on this in the Christianity Wikipedia articles. - Merzbow 17:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Violence

"However, others imply or outright state that Muhammad was justified in his actions (or at least not at fault by the standards of that time) because the Qurayza Jews had, in fact, been negotiating with the Muslims' enemies.[20]"

Merzbow, this seems to me to be inconsistent with Ibn Ishaq (the following either taken from Banu Qurayza) :

"In 627, the army of Mecca attacked Medina under the command of Abu Sufyan. Abu Sufyan asked the Banu Qurayza tribe to help them conquer Medina, by attacking the Muslims from behind the lines or letting them into the town.

According to one early historian, Ibn Ishaq, the Banu Qurayza chief, Ka'b, was initially reluctant, but eventually decided to support the Meccans, being so persuaded by Huyayy ibn Akhtab, chief of the Banu al-Nadir. "

Ibn Ishaq says that before the war, Ibn Mu'adh had amiable relations with the Banu Qurayza. But it seems his sentiments had changed. He believed that the Banu Qurayza were wrong to break their agreement with the Muslims. When the arrow hit him, according to Ibn Ishaq, he had said "O God, seeing that you have appointed war between us and them grant me martyrdom and do not let me die until I have seen my desire upon the Banu Qurayza."

--Aminz 02:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The source for the sentence where I say 'negotiated' is John Esposito, Islam: The Straight Path, p. 15; he specifically says that the Banu Qurayza were neutral but also were negotiating with Muhammad's enemies. - Merzbow 03:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
So, How is to mention both quotes from Ibn Ishaq and John Esposito? --Aminz 03:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I worked on the section again, adding the extra info from Ishaq. However, I didn't want the discussion of this incident to grow too large, so I took out the quote from the Bukhari hadith and simply referenced the hadith instead. I think it's pretty fair now; if the reader wants extra details he can follow the links. - Merzbow 06:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. My POV is that Banu Qurayza didn't really "fight"; maybe the throw some arrows; but did not engaged in real war. So, I think using the term 'negotiated' should be appropriate (we can not say fought of course). I am happy with the current version. --Aminz 08:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ Wife Beating in Islam, by Silas (pseudonym), Answering Islam, August 25, 2001, retrieved April 16, 2006
  3. ^ [2]
  4. ^ Spencer, Robert. Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West., pgs 299–300
  5. ^ [3]
  6. ^ Bernard Lewis “The Question of Orientalism” in Islam and the West (London) 1993 pp. 99–118
  7. ^ Robert Irwin For Lust of Knowing. The Orientalists and their Enemies (London: Allen Lane) 2006
  8. ^ Alyssa A. Lappen, "Review: The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats non-Muslims", FrontPageMagazine.com, April 11, 2005, [4]
  9. ^ Ayaan Hirsi Ali, "Unfree Under Islam", The Wall Street Journal, August 16, 2005, [5]
  10. ^ Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong?, p. 67, 2003, Harper Perennial, ISBN 0060516054
  11. ^ *Watt, W. Montgomery (1961). Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198810784.  from pg. 229. [6]
  12. ^ Editorial Reviews of the book Armstrong, Karen (1993). Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet. San Francisco: Harper. ISBN 0062508865.  [7]
  13. ^ Esposito, John L. (2002). What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195157133. 
  14. ^ Esposito, John L. (2003). Unholy War : Terror in the Name of Islam. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195168860. 
  15. ^ Edward W. Said, Islam Through Western Eyes, The Nation, January 1, 1998
  16. ^ Garry Miller - The Amazing Quran [8]
  17. ^ Ahmed Deedat & Garry Miller - Christianity and Islam, video file, [9]
  18. ^ Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, The Qur'an and Science, 1978, p. 125 ISBN 08925-9010-6
  19. ^ Encyclopedia Brittanica, 11th edition, Article Koran
  20. ^ John L. Esposito, Islam: The Straight Path, p. 15, 1998, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0195112334

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Judaism

--Greasysteve13 09:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

A request

Merzbow, can we please remove the following: "Daniel Pipes has said that in order for Islam to modernize, there must be "no more death sentences for blasphemy or apostasy."[21]"

It is true but it will only cause negative reactions among Muslims. Had he said "in order for Islam to more merciful, there must be "no more death sentences for blasphemy or apostasy.", it would have a caused positive reaction. Our aim is to persuade Muslims to not to prescribe death punishment for apostasy (based on the arguments of minority from Qur'an) , isn't it? So, can we please remove it. --Aminz 06:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll replace the Pipes quote, there must be something more constructive out there I can use instead. - Merzbow 17:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow, The bernard Lewis quote is both true and false (in my POV). At the time of Muhammad, yes, Islam was conceived as a polity, not just as a religious community. It follows therefore that apostasy is treason. It is a withdrawal, a denial of allegiance as well as of religious belief and loyalty. BUT NOT ANYMORE IN THE MODERN SOCIETY. Today apostasy from Islam is not necessarily treason to community and this is one of the reasons some scholars do not prescribe death punishment. Can you please check with the source to see if it mentions anything like this? ALSO, the person must be sane; in some schools male, etc; saying "The penalty for apostasy, in Islamic law, is death." is not a fact. --Aminz 07:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Lewis quote is meant as a summary of the subject; in one paragraph there isn't space to list the various exceptions and disagreements. I think it's an accurate description of the root reasons why so many Muslim clerics still advocate the death penalty for blasphemy/apostasy (and personally I've heard this very reason used in defense of the death penalty when talking with Muslims on message boards, for example). Islam is still an all-encompassing way of life in most Muslim countries to a much greater degree than, say, Christianity is a way of life in the US or Europe. But I'll add some context around the quote to make it clear that it is just a summary. - Merzbow 17:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is not expandable anymore (it is close to 100K)

Moved to here:

Zaynab bint-Jahsh

Muhammad has been criticized for marrying Zaynab bint-Jahsh, the divorced wife of his adopted son. Watt however holds that Muhammad didn't marry Zaynab for sexual desire but his marriage was mainly a "political act in which an undesirable practice of 'adoption' belonging to a lower moral level was ended".

I may break up one part into a new article. --Merzbow 02:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Split

Aminz, I restored the split sections for now. I think those are the wrong sections to split off, and also it's not a good idea to split them off without providing any summary of the sections at all in the main article (most people aren't going to follow a subarticle link without at least a summary of what's there).

I think if we want to reduce article size now we should move the 'responses' section out for the moment, because the material in there is going to be incorporated stage-by-stage into the main sections anyways in the near-term future. In fact, most of what's left in it is the Muhammad stuff which should be incorporated completely by the beginning of next week. Then we can talk about what sub-articles we want to create and how. - Merzbow 02:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The only reason that I splitted sections was that I wasn't able to add something to the article. I wasn't able to add it when I reduced the size either, so the problem was supposedly something else which I still don't know. The reason I started with the first topics was that they seemed to be stable. But I am not in a hurry for breaking up the article at all. --Aminz 02:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there is a technical limit on article size... perhaps it was a temporary issue. - Merzbow 03:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is a list of very long pages, some > 300KB, so 100KB definitely isn't a hard limit: Special:Longpages. - Merzbow 03:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it was a temporary issue. Thanks for your recent edits. --Aminz 08:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Maududi's quote

Merzbow, do you think the blockquote from Maududi is a good argument: (I mean the following: )

"One may say that there is nothing peculiar about his Message. It is the product of his own mind. If it is so, then he should have proclaimed himself as God... But lo! His assertion is just to the contrary. For he proclaimed that: I am a human being like yourselves. I have not brought any thing to you of my own accord. It has all revealed to me by God. Whatever I possess belongs to Him... A liar and a hypocrite generally tries to ascribe to himself all the credit for the deeds of others also, even when the falsehood of his statement can be easily proved. But this great man does not appropriate the credit of any of these achievements to his own person even when none could contradict him, as there was no method of finding out the source of his inspiration."

I thought it is kind of fool and can be easily refuted. What do you think? --Aminz 09:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right... I think Maududi's stronger argument is his comparison of the Muhammad before his 40th birthday with the transformed Muhammad afterward. I'll rework the Maududi section to focus on that. - Merzbow 16:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Divisions of Islam

Does this small section really belong in the article... I don't see a criticism here being responded to. - Merzbow 02:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Not as it stands, but it would be good to mention that some traditions authentic to Sunni Muslims are not authentic to Shias. + For Shia Muslims, the sources are vaster; there are twelve Imams whose words to them are as authentic as the Hadiths of prophet. Thus, "new criticisms" or "answers to the criticisms already mentioned in the article" may come from their extra sources. Shia Muslims may also dismiss parts of Sahih bukhari, etc (e.g. I *guess* if the chain of narration includes "Abu-Hurayra", the Hadith will become weak in their eyes) . Thus some criticisms may simply go away, while other criticisms come. To Qur'an alone Muslims, many traditions simply go away. --Aminz 08:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. How about this - we can rename the 'hadith' section to 'hadith and other traditions'. We can discuss criticism of the hadith in general by scholars; disagreements between Sunni and Shi'a about which hadith should be considered valid; and I assume there's criticism from Sunnis about the fact that Shi'a also reverence the words of the twelve Imams? - Merzbow 17:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hadith

Also regarding the 'Hadith' section - I'm not sure this belongs in the article. Sure, there is disagreement about how reliable hadith are, but this isn't a criticism of Islam per se, it's just an argument between scholars about the reliability of some sources. I don't want to throw away this information though, it's well-researched - can I merge it into the main hadith article? - Merzbow 02:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually now that I think about this more, I think I've changed my mind... the hadith are an important source for Islamic law, second only to the Qur'an. So I can see the criticism being something like "Islam bases much of its jurisprudence on the hadith, but critics claim the hadith aren't reliable." So I suppose it would be worth keeping this section after all. - Merzbow 06:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with including this section. We may also want to mention the Qur'an alone Muslims as well. --Aminz 07:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with both of you, as it is important to show the varience of these views of the value/legal weight of specific hadith, or there relivence at all.Hypnosadist 18:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Article itself violation of WP policy

From WP:Criticism : "Don't make articles entirely devoted to criticism of a topic that has or should have its own wikipedia article." Obviously this article is an open violation of that rule. That this article is blatantly POV-biased and works only to elaborate on collections of derogatory critiques is merely a consequence of the fact that the article itself is intended to be a POV fork. Comments? Remedy? His Excellency... 03:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You are completely wrong. Where do I begin?
First, WP:Criticism is NOT a policy. It is not even a proposed policy - it's a proposed GUIDELINE - proportion and emphasis guideline. It has no 'legal' force whatsoever in Wikipedia.
Second, the PROPOSED guideline is not even coherent. A 'criticism of X' article is NOT necessarily a POV fork. The only thing that the existence of a 'criticism of X' article is asserting is that there is enough notable criticism of X to warrant an article discussing it. (In the same way that, say, a 'Muhammad's marriages' article is justified because there is enough discussion of Muhammad's marriages to warrant it). 'Criticism of X' articles can easily maintain NPOV, and we are doing our utmost in this article to do so - there are, in fact, usually more responses to each criticism than there is criticism. A POV fork article (and Wikipedia:Content forking is itself a guideline, not a policy) by definition pushes a certain POV. A well-constructed 'Criticism of X' article does NOT push a POV.
Third, one could argue that these criticisms could have been integrated into all of the various Islam related subarticles. That would be an alternative organization. But at this point we have a coherent, well-written article that people have spent countless hours on. It is organized very well; it is very easy at this point simply to have links in the Islam subarticles to point to their relevant criticism sections here. The disruption in the Islam article tree would be massive if this article were split up into 15 different pieces and thrown around, and would not be worth it. - Merzbow 03:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Here's another argument for you, from a practical view. Let's assume this article was nuked. It's first on the list at Google for 'criticism of Islam'. I encourage you to explore for yourself what other sites pop up for this term and for terms related to Islam in general - jihadwatch.org, Daniel Pipes, atheist sites, 'answering-islam.co.uk', all sites that ONLY present criticism against Islam and DON'T present responses (or they shove away the responses in minor sub-pages). This article, in contrast, maintains NPOV by presenting at least as many well-researched responses to the criticisms as there are criticisms. By maintaining this article we are actually helping combat unwarranted prejudice against Islam by giving the reader views from BOTH sides and letting him decide for himself. - Merzbow 04:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm skeptical of these 'Criticisms of.." articles. I don't think any objective reader would characterize this article as NPOV. Personally, I've been so fed up trying to bring NPOV (or multiple-POV to be more precise) that I've all but given up editing actual articles, and stuck to talk pages. I'd say the fact that "Criticism Of Islam" is about 3 times as big as the "Islam" article says something about the motivation behind the 'construction' of this article. Anyway, if this article can be made NPOV by accurately and correctly representing all views, then I guess that's okay. His Excellency... 04:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Just comparing it to the main Islam article isn't really fair, since the Islam article points to about 20 subarticles about Islamic subjects that each point to 20 more, etc., while this article is singular. I also don't think the motivation for this article was to slam Islam; Aminz certainly isn't biased against Islam, and he's added as much to this article as anyone (probably more). I don't have an agenda with this article, I just want to improve it then move on to other articles (there are many Islam-related articles in Wikipedia that badly need sourcing). That being said, we don't want to article to grow too large... I think it's at a point now where our goal is mostly reorganization and improving sources. Good sources for Islamic thought are hard to find, and we welcome anyone who can help dig them up (and even provide translations). - Merzbow 05:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think as long as we have an article on "criticism of islam", it is fair also to have an article on "defense of Islam" in which Muslim arguments go first. But I'm sure such an article will be removed.--Aminz 07:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a "critisism of islam" article because many critisisms are edited out of the islamic articals. Particularly things like islam's support for the Slave trade and religious violence. I understand why muslims don't like thier "perfect" religion being critisised but thats just tough, if was actually perfect there would be no possible critisism.Hypnosadist 10:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Nor Judaism is "perfect" in the sense you mean. I can confidently say that Bible has much more violence than Qur'an. But of course that doesn't prove anything simply because Bible was written long before Qur'an. And as to the slavery, Islam and Judaism are not even comparable. Islam forbids masters to address their slaves by title “my slave” (they were ordered to address them by “my young woman” or “my young man”) and we know how central the position of language is. Anyways, I am a Muslim and support the existence of this article for I believe it is constructive. Muslims can come here and read what others tell about them, and try to correct themselves if there is any mistake in their behavior (nobody is perfect of course). That's it. There is nothing wrong with accepting our mistakes. Genuine Repenters are closer to God than those who didn't sin in the first place. The problem with this article is that the critic's arguments go first. It was fair to have an article in which Muslim arguments would go first. But I know it is not possible. --Aminz 10:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
You have all the pro-muslim articles you want, namely every artical in the islam section, all pushing oyour meme,as many as you could want(well obviously not!but hey!). As for your Defence of slavery under islam that you don't call your slaves names, I'm sure that makes up for the RAPE and loss of all rights. The fact that you try to defend the indefenceable means i can't say here what i really think of you.Hypnosadist 10:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's try to focus on the article and not get into religious arguments. A 'Defence of Islam' article is an interesting suggestion, but I agree that the generic 'Islam' articles already serve purpose of putting forth the arguments of Muslims first (for example, the first paragaphs of many of the sections in Islam start with Muslims believe)... - Merzbow 17:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC
Merzbow, Hypnosadist first started attacking on my religion. I can answer to the points he raised (e.g. there are many dimensions to slavery. one very important dimension to it was its functionality in the economical system. An important reason for abolishing slavery was scientific progress (and not our progress in moral standards as people usually emphasize). One economical reason for abolishing Slavery was that there was a need to labor work in the factories. Slavery did perform a function in history and it was necessary to be there and it was there. It later lost its functionality and was abolished. It was humiliating; yes, there was a humiliating dimension to it (to which Islam opposed). There are many problems with our current economical system: Were have these homeless people come from? Can we change it? Merzbow, No, I can not keep quite when one is attacking my religion. But I'll keep quite from now since the discussion is irrelevant to the article. --Aminz 00:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
sorry, but I think that "Defense of X" articles are a terrible idea. A defence is always a defence against criticism, and such defenses should be treated right here: Detail the citicism, attributed to notable authors, and then discuss the defence, attributed to notable authors, right next to it. dab (ᛏ) 17:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
So its agreed that this artical is not a violation of WP policies, Aminz Please start the artical Why slavery WAS acceptable in Islam and maybe you can tell me what i'm missing here.Hypnosadist 01:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
You can't judge a 7th century book by 21st centuries standard. Islam didn't 'accept' slavery any more than Judaism or Christianity did. Slavery was a reality of the time preceding Islam, and Islam encouraged the stopping of it to a great degree. While slavery wasn't rendered illegal absolutely, it was made very clear that those who owned slaves were to clothe and feed them as they clothe and feed themselves. That's more than the Bible ever did (yes, slavery is mentioned in the bible, and in the Bible, slaves are told to be obedient and tremble at the sight of their masters).His Excellency... 01:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I am pro having this article. I can start such an article. But I neither have time for it nor am knowledgeable enough to avoid saying nonsense. Slavery IS cruel, we all know but so is many other things. Hypnosadist, if you are indeed sincere you should become a vegetarian (i.e. because of animal rights, but this is against the Jewish law, isn't it?). Who says it is less cruel than slavery? --Aminz 01:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
His Excellency, True, Islam improved the status of slaves A LOT! --Aminz 01:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If articles supporting Islam aren't permitted, those devoted to criticizing it shouldn't be either. If an article can represent both views (Views On Islam, maybe), that'd be something. If the 'generic' Islam/Islam-related articles do represent a positive image of Islam, then they're not NPOV and need to be corrected. The tone was supposed to be neutral. However I don't see the Islam article listing every positive comment or opinion ever voiced regarding Islam, the way this article serves as a reservoir for so many negative ones. No, I'm fairly convinced this article shouldn't be here at all. Because of the title, only negative views regarding Islam can be documented, followed perhaps by responses to those criticisms. Pope John Paul II's positive words on Islam or Muhammad wouldn't fit here, nor would those of anyone else, Muslim or Non-Muslim, who've ever expressed a positive view of Islam that wasn't a response to criticism. That makes this article POV-biased at its core. I don't particularly know Amin or Merzbow, and I'll assume good faith until I know them better. I do know several of the players who frequent pages dealing with Islam or Muslims, and I know their intentions are malevolent. Articles such as these serve as a platform for their Islam-bashing. My suggestion: perhaps it can be renamed such that all views can be accomodated. "Praise And Criticism of Islam" maybe. "Divergent Views on Islam". His Excellency... 01:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Your logic still doesn't hold up. Jimbo Wales has made it clear that Wikipedia is to contain discussions of criticisms of particular subjects because criticism is an important part of the sphere of knowledge of any given subject. Therefore, where to put it is a simple matter of organization, not of existence. Criticism of X can either go as sections in the main articles about X, or in dedicated 'criticism of X' articles; the sections/articles of course must be NPOV, but by necessity they are ABOUT the criticism of a subject X, and so must be organized around that criticism. There is no commensurate requirement for sections about 'praise of X', and if you want such a requirement, you need to talk to Jimbo Wales and get it added. The reason there is no such requirement I can imagine is because the main treatment of 'X' by fairness necessarily puts 'X's viewpoints forward first. - Merzbow 02:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


I'll dare to say Jimbo Wales could be wrong. He might be the head honcho of Wikipedia, but he didn't invent neutrality. No offense to him, of course. This article has a section on "violence". It has a section on "Islam not able to take criticism". "Apostasy". documentation of all negative perspectives and negative aspects of Islam. What about a section on how Muhammad spoke against racial differentiation in his last sermon ("no white man is superior to a black man nor is any black man superior to a white man")? What about how Islam banned the pre-Islamic practices of burying born daughters when sons were desired, and how Islam blasted that tradition? How about the fact that Islam gave women the right to own property and businesses, and to divorce their husbands to whom they were married without their own consent? Charity? Modesty? How Muhammad, despite being the most powerful man in Arabia owned only a modest house, and would mend his own torn old clothing rather than waste money purchasing a new one? All those aspects about Islam and Muhammad, that could be percieved as positive to a 21st century audience, can't be added here, because this is a CRITICISM article. Posting all that in the 'generic' article would be immediately labeled 'POV-pushing'. A negative POV is what's expected in this article however, because of its title. The title can be changed to accomodate the content, while also giving light to the 'other POV'. Note that I'm not advocating wholesale deletion, and I don't disagree with your view that representation of criticism is important. I disagree that an article should focus on criticism to the exclusion of the opposite view, which isn't defense but admiration. Renaming doesn't wash criticism from this article, it allows criticism to be framed in an NPOV (or mPOV) environment. His Excellency... 02:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
So it was His Excellency. ALL the descriptions of Muhammad's family life emphasize his total disregard for luxurious food, clothing, and surroundings. In Ibn Sa'd, there's a tradition that Muhammad said that the only worldly things in which he took pleasure were women and perfume. --Aminz 02:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
All those things you mention can be added to the main articles, even, and I will support them if done in an NPOV matter. You want to add a 'Muhammad as a reformer' section to Muhammad that talks about the way he reformed Arab pagan culture? I agree. A section in Qur'an that talks about 'Women's rights in the Qur'an' that leads with a presentation of the rights guaranteed to women by the Qur'an? Sure. A section in Qur'an about 'Charity in the Qur'an' that dicusses how it implores people to be charitable? Yes. All these can and should BEGIN with a sympathetic or at the least neutral presentation of the subject. In fact, you are actually getting two chances to present the Muslim view, and not just one - first in the main articles, then the criticism comes in the criticism sections/articles (with a small amount in the main articles if necessary), then there is a chance for responses. I think it's completely fair. - Merzbow 02:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
So you say, but eventually someone will delete anything I add, since such content wouldn't be relevant to the topic. Pointing out that Pope John Paul II said flattering things about Islam, and in fact apologized for the Crusades and the history of vilification by the church, would not fit in this article, even if you express the will to tolerate it. Mention of Gandhi as an admirer of Muhammad wouldn't fit in this article, even though mention of Pat Robertson as a critic would. The title of the article makes the POV bias and selective documentation unavoidable. His Excellency... 04:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
His Excellency, of course Pope John Paul II can be quoted here. Just find his quote from a reliable source (e.g. BBC, CNN, etc.) and add it here. The same goes for Gandhi. Please note that we don't want (and can not) quote everybody. We want to show the "range" of views people had. But Gandhi and Pope John Paul II are famous enough to be quoted. If they same the same thing as others (already quoted) have said, we can simply say "X and Y say so". --Aminz 08:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Yup, I agree. Reliable sources are absolutely necessary for statements of fact (as opposed to opinion quotes, e.g. 'Professor XYZ claims that Pope ZZZ did YYY...'). And additionally the info should go in the correct section (the PJP2 quote did not mention Muhammad, yet it was in the Muhammad section). - Merzbow 08:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
God bless you Merzbow. 'Professor XYZ claims that Pope ZZZ did YYY...' is the ideal form of quoting. --Aminz 08:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
His Excellency, Go ahead and create such sections in other articles. If you were stoped, we will solve the issue here. If you were successful, then we will provide links from this article to those sections. Best of Luck!--Aminz 02:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I see my daring to critisise slavery has brought on me the wiki-jihadies, i'm not even going to bother critsising islams good kind of slavery that aminz and his execellency believe in as it will just waste keystrokes to no end. Also some editors could do with reading this article, particularly the section about islam not being able to take critisism. Wikipedia is about the propogation and examination of ideas not to "adore" islam as his excellency would have the articles do. This is why your POV edits willkeep getting deleted.Hypnosadist 09:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Hypnosadist, stop refering to me to anybody by "wiki-jihadies". It is a personal attack. --Aminz 09:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
And i find your and his execellency's support of slavery a personal attack on me and my family, but thats my point of view.Hypnosadist 11:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
How is acknowleging a history of slavery a personal attack to you? You're not a slave. I should point out that according to the Hadiths, Muhammad said that just a man frees the body of the slave from servitude, so shall the man who frees a slave have his body spared from hellfire. Most Sunni Muslims also believe that the first man to enter heaven will be Bilal (RA), the slave that was freed by Abu Bakr and given the honor to be the first man to recite the call for prayer. I know of nothing from Jesus or St. Paul showing that kind of compassion for a fellow human being. His Excellency... 04:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Hypnosadist, I wasn't there when Islam was formed. Nobody asked my opinion regarding the slavery. I can not even understand slavery well. We all know there are bad elements to slavery. All my arguments here was to show that one can not dismiss Islam, Christianity, Judaism or any other religion as "un-inspired" by God due to existence of slavery. I tried to argue that for slavery to be abolished some time was needed. There were many wise men in our pre-modern history of humanity but none abolished slavery. It is not just Islam. I also don't know your personal background. If you feel my arguments were insufficient (due to your personal experiences), feel free to reject them. You may know things I don't know. I don't see any reason to make a personal attack on you or your family for I have had nothing to do with slavery. I never had any slaves. If I did any personal attack, I take it back. I may find scholars saying the same thing as I think and add their quote to the article but will keep my personal judgment "just" for myself. --Aminz 03:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

RFC Response

Your RFC request was a few days ago, so I don't know if you feel that you have resolved this matter already. If so, please disregard the rest of what I have to say.

  1. The best solution is to include the various criticisms into the prose of the relevant main articles. Criticism of Muhammad into the article on him, criticism of the Qur'an into the article on it, criticism of Islam as a whole into the article on it. In this situation, this article would either not exist or discuss the phenomenon of criticizing Islam as an activity. For Judaism, there are relevant articles on the phenomenon of criticizing Judiasm, such as anti-Semitism. I don't know of any such articles for criticizing Islam, so for the remainder of my comment I'll assume there isn't any.
    To implement this solution, first add the relevant criticism to the relevant articles. When it can be shown that the criticism is there and fairly stable in content, switch what is here to a pointer to the relevant place in those articles. When this article is down to nothing but such pointers, it can go away.
    If that solution is attempted and fails because too much criticism is rejected from one or more of the relevant main articles, that is an indication that the relevant main article is failing the NPOV policy. Two wrongs do not make a right, but Wikipedia is better if it as a whole is NPOV than if only one of the biases is represented. So until the relevant main article achieves NPOV the material inappropriately rejected from it, Wikipedia as a whole is better off with the rejected material remaining here than vanishing totally.
    I emphasized two phrases in the prior paragraph: too much and inappropriately. In each case the point of emphasis is the same. There are tests in policy for what criticism to exclude. The first test is criticism that is so far fringe that it is hard to establish a significant critic holding the view. The second test is that criticism and praise can't be introduced by original research, even using weasel words like "some believe" - they need to go in in a form that is verifiable from reliable sources, and best form is to bring them in as quotes. This article is in better shape than most in citing sources, so it should be easy to bring the criticism from it into other articles as sourced material.
  2. A second solution is to leave this article standing on its own. This, unfortunately, is a tacit recognition the the editors don't believe that the other articles are NPOV, and thus stands as a condemnation of those articles. This is why this is an inferior solution.
    In this situation, the criticism should lead each section. Avoid use of disagreeing wording that looks like a record of a discussion, make it more educational in tone. Strive to make this article so good that its introduction would deserve to be a paragraph in the Islam article with a "main article:" link. Strive to make each section so good that the section's intro would deserve to be a pargraph in the relevant other articles with a "see also:" link.

I hope this helps. GRBerry 19:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're starting from a flawed assumption here. You say that leaving this article on its own is a "tacit recognition that the editors don't believe that the other articles are NPOV". You're making the common mistake of assuming that an article about Criticism of X is inherently POV. That's not true if it correctly balances criticism and response in an NPOV manner, like this article strives to do. Having a Criticism of X article is qualitatively no different than splitting out a sub-article from a main article on any other aspect of the subject X. In other words, a Criticism of X article is really a Discussion of Criticism of X, just like a Muhammad's warfare article is simply a Discussion of Muhammad's warfare, which would have been split off the main Muhammad article due to space constraints. - Merzbow 22:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I responded to an RFC request for help at Talk Islam a few weeks back and have been watching that article. That situation seems to have stabilized, thankfully. But I am well aware that this is not a split out of a sub-article from that article. That article has lots of sub-articles, as well it should. This is instead, merely one of twelve "see also"s at the bottom. If it were included as a sub-article in Islam the way you suggest it ought to be, I might have a different starting assumption. GRBerry 00:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I never said it was a split-out from Islam; this article and Islam were here years before I came to Wikipedia. I'm saying that logically, it could have been, and in fact, it's probably a good idea to add a small section to Islam that summarizes this article and then links to it, in the same way that Islam summarizes Islam's denominations in a short section and links to Divisions of Islam. My overall point is that a "discussion of criticism" article is not qualitatively different than any other article. I'm not sure if you dispute this claim or not. If not, it seems your objections are wholly organizational. Certainly incorporating criticism into a main article and its children is a valid way to go, but I believe that keeping the criticism in separate articles and subarticles, and linking from the main articles to the criticism articles and/or sections is valid also. (We are planning on splitting out the Muhammad and Qur'an criticism sections into their own subarticles soon because this one has grown to large). Given that both paths are valid, I don't see how the massive disruption to dozens of articles that would be entailed by dismembering and redistributing the contents of this one is justified. - Merzbow 01:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
It would be disruptive - I believe it would also make those articles better. Most of the Islamic articles I've visited have one or more clean-up tags at the top. Those of us who respond to RFCs are just another editor, so our comments are free to be ignored. Unfortunately, the Religion and Philosophy category doesn't have many regular commentators. As you split out articles, I'd suggest that you build the web by also making them sub articles of the relevant page. Ie, make the forthcoming "Criticism of Muhammad" a sub-article of "Muhammad" as well as a sub-article of this one. (Heck, possibly even instead of, given that Islam doesn't even have Muhammad as a sub-article.) GRBerry 02:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Possibly. The mainline Islam articles do need lots of work, mostly good sourcing. Anyways, thanks for your comments, more eyes are always appreciated. - Merzbow 05:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, we can't practically include all these criticisms into the main articles and this article on its own, I believe, merits existing. But, as much as there are criticisms of Islam around, they are apologists as well. The problem with this article is that one can not raise the topics that are interesting for apologists. Moreover, critic’s arguments go first. Now if we want to have small sections in the original articles about the criticisms that would be really unfair. --Aminz 06:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Did Watt believe Muhammad recieved revelation from God

Merzbow, The article on Watt says:

I therefore do not believe that either the Bible or the Qur’an is infallibly true in the sense that all their commands are valid for all time. ... when the form of society changes in important respects some commands cease to be appropriate, though many others continue to be valid. I do, however, believe that Muhammad, like the earlier prophets, had genuine religious experiences. I believe that he really did receive something directly from God. As such, I believe that the Qur’an came from God, that it is Divinely inspired. Muhammad could not have caused the great upsurge in religion that he did without God’s blessing. [16]
Thus, whether Muhammad incited his followers to action and then used their wrongs [wrongs committed against them] to justify it, or whether he yielded to pressure from them to allow such action, the normal Arab practice of the razzia was taken over by the Islamic community. In being taken over, however, it was transformed. It became an activity of believers against unbelievers, and therefore took place within a religious context. The Emigrants were described as "striving with goods and person in the way of God [Qur'an 4:95, 9:20, 9:41, 9:44]. They were promoting one of the purposes of the Islamic community in trying to establish a region in which God was truly worshipped.
(Montgomery Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, London, Oxford University Press, 1961, p. 108).

--Aminz 01:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh, I must have read that passage at some point, dunno why I forgot it. I will change it back. - Merzbow 01:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Ouch, it looks like I got hit by that Firefox/Google toolbar bug that sometimes cuts the ends off of long articles in tabs in edit fields. Thanks for restoring it. - Merzbow 02:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
No problem Merzbow --Aminz 02:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad the reformer

Watt says:

"In his day and generation he was a social reformer, even a reformer in the sphere of morals. He created a new system of social security and a new family structure, both of which were a vast improvement on what went before. By taking what was best in the morality of the nomad and adapting it for settled communities, he established a religious and social framework for the life of many races of men. That is not the work of a traitor or ' an old lecher'."

"In both Meccan and Medinan periods Muhammad's contemporaries looked on him as a good and upright man, and in the eyes of history he is a moral and social reformer."

For you, User: His Excellency --Aminz 02:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Why for me? Edit it yourself. Be bold. I've gotten into serious trouble here dealing with POV-pushers head on. I'm still apprehensive as to whether or not I should bother with these articles at all, given how anti-Islam opinion towers over moderates, and how most admins take sides. It might be best to let things fall, to let these articles reflect nothing but the American/coalition-of-the-willing rather than to give the illusion that this bias is implicitly endorsed by Muslim participation. I still take issue to the premise of this article, and I've filed a comment on the RFC board. His Excellency... 07:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of making your comment NPOV, as is required by the RFC instructions ("a brief neutral statement of the issue"). - Merzbow 08:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
RFC on what? This article is a nice one! Myself and Merzbow have spent hours and hours on this article. It is not *very* biased. Let me be blunt. We, Muslims, have our own biases and problems. None of us is perfect. If you criticize other wikipedians, please don't forget criticizing your Muslim brothers. Unlike you I don't see things falling. Merzbow is an excellent editor. Had he at least a couple of thousand edits, I would have nominated him for adminship. I haven't seen anyone with anti-Islamic opinion editing this article so far. On some other articles, maybe; But definitely not here. Everybody has been kind and reasonable. --Aminz 08:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a good article? Sir Bernard Shaw called Muhammad "the savior of humanity". Any mention of that here? Given the title of the article, pointing that out would be deleted for being irrelevant to the topic. No, this article instead focuses on calling Muhammad a pedophile and a war monger. This isn't a good article. It's offensive.
"We, Muslims, have our own biases and problems." Yes, and disenfranchizing them by demonizing their religion will not encourage Muslims to modernize. Muslims ARE responding to the likes of Daniel Pipes and Pat Robertson and Ann Coulter. They're responding by radicalizing further, by becoming defensive. Their rhetoric, and the kind of rhetoric pushed here, alongside this war, convinces those who would've been moderate that what's being seen is a desire to wash out Islam totally. You efforts here to show that a Muslim can bash his own religion as well as any American can doesn't move us an inch towards solving any problems. It makes things worse. It makes life harder for the moderates who want to believe that there can be a less hostile relationship between Muslims and the West.
I am and I've been critical of Muslims, more so probably than you. I'm vehemently opposed to Shari'ah and all forms of Islamism. There's plenty that I disagree with when it comes to what Muslims are doing in the world. But I don't entertain myself by creating page after page of online propaganda though the misleadingly selective recollection of history and facts, which is all that this and other pages like this do. His Excellency... 15:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
You wrote: "This is a good article? Sir Bernard Shaw called Muhammad "the savior of humanity". Any mention of that here? Given the title of the article, pointing that out would be deleted for being irrelevant to the topic. No, this article instead focuses on calling Muhammad a pedophile and a war monger. This isn't a good article. It's offensive. "
I take my words back. I don't claim the article is good. It may be very well much improved. I don't know. --Aminz 04:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
"disenfranchizing them by demonizing their religion will not encourage Muslims to modernize." True! I concur.
"They're responding by radicalizing further, by becoming defensive."
True, infact I have heard that the idea that 'one can find everything in Qur'an and there is no need to look into other sources' (Al-Islam o mohel) was first proposed by Ikhvano-l Muslemin in response to West's claim that science can solve all our problem. There are some reactions of course. What Muslims need to do in my eyes is what Bernard Lewis for example said in his book (what went wrong). We need to study other cultures. Qur'an frequently says "Fasiroo fil arz" ; we need to travel and see how other people are thinking. Pagans were mocking Prophet Muhammad as being "an ear", for he was carefully listening to everybody. We need to become "an ear"; we need to "observe". How many Muslims you know who have studied west and how many western have studied east. It is shameful to see that the commentaries written by western scholars on the work of 8-9 century "eastern" scholars are translated back into eastern languages. It is shameful that we, eastern, are learning our own cultures through west. We need to "study". That's my opinion. --Aminz 04:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)



Actually in a rare and usually unheard of Malayan magazine, George Bernard Shaw was reported to have called Muhammed that. But as it would go against everything else he ever said I think a grain of salt is called for. It would have nothing to do with the article - perhaps you would like to start a "Praise by non-Muslims for Muhammed" page? Muhammed had erotic dreams about a girl he married when she was six. Call that what you like. He started wars. Now you may think the first is normal and he was provoked in the second, but lots of people don't think either. Misleadingly selective? What do you think comes under that title? Lao Wai 15:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The claim that criticism is radicalising Muslims is absurd. Britain has tried to mend fences with the Muslims communities and has invested in their organisations. The result has been the 7-7 bombings. British Muslims hate Britain and the British more than any other European Muslim community. The government gave them money to go away and solve the problem of radicalisation and their response was a massive government-funded program to convert non-Muslims. What is clearly needed is a little less tolerance of the radicals and the extremists to make Muslims choose between the radicals and their country. Let moderates choose between proving Anne Coulter wrong by living a peaceful life or proving her right by becoming radical. Appeasement is a stupid policy. However all this is irrelevant to Wikipedia because it is an encyclopedia and it should not censor itself whatever the social impacts are. Lao Wai 15:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually in "The Genuine Islam", published in 1936, he wrote that. It wasn't merely 'reported' as you put it. That hadith regarding Muhammad's dream was never described as 'erotic' by any Muslim source. Yes he started war, during a time in history when if you weren't leading an empire, you were dominated by one. You're illustrating precisely the negative effects such propaganda has on a mind that is exposed to nothing but it. There's a difference between intellectually solid criticism, and continuous and unabashed vilification. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by His excellency (talk • contribs) 2006-06-24 09:10:37 (UTC)
No, it was an interview with a Malayan journalist. I was interested enough to look it up. No evidence that it took place of course. It does not matter what it was described as. Muhammed saw an angel carrying a child and said angel undressed it. You denying the heavy erotic tone of this story? Jesus did not start wars. Nor did Buddha. What is less than intellectually solid about this page? Lao Wai 16:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Quote the Hadith as it appears in the text. There is no 'erotic tone'. Jesus? Jesus was a coward. He spoke of swords often enough, and he demonstrated a hatred of non-Jews (comparing them to pigs and dogs) and even of Jews ('an incestuous generation'). He just never had it in him to assume leadership. Even those closest to him denied him when he was taken by the Romans. Don't compare Muhammad to Jesus. So much of the story of Jesus is a mixture of history and myth, taken from pre-Christian pagan mythologies. In life, Jesus was an ineffective leader who had little effect on what would become Christian theology. For the most part, Jesus talked. Most of what makes up Christianity comes from St. Paul, and the unnamed writers of those books of the bible that were found to not have been written by Paul. His Excellency... 18:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The issue of Muslims in Britain is a more complex one. One that most Americans wouldn't be bothered to evaluate. Britain was once the colonial power that dominated over the Muslim countries, crippling them deliberately to bar them from participation in the process of industialization. The mentality of holding Muslims as lesser citizens is one that was adopted by the government. An illustration of this can be seen in how the British government responded to the death edict on Salman Rushdie, a british citizen. The government offered him no protection, but instead banned him from boarding British Airways planes because he was a flight risk. This is all irrelevant to this particular article, but take a close look at British relations with Muslims between 1950 through the Prime Ministership of Thatcher and the dork who followed her. Once again, NPOV demands the article illustrate all sides, not just those engaged in the vilification of Islam. His Excellency... 16:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
But everything that applies to Britain ought to apply to France, but it doesn't. Their Muslims are happier. The French also hate them more than the British do. The "crippling them deliberate" is an excellent example of what you call continuous and unabashed vilification. The British government has bent over backwards to make Muslim feel at home and the last thing they are is second class citizens. The British government has spent a fortune guarding Rushdie. What close look would you like? The British have been extremely generous to Muslims. Some of them have blown themselves up on the Tube and most violent oppose basic British values. However all that is still unimportant. As this is an article on criticism of Islam it only has to report the criticism of Islam that exists. If you want to do a page on supporters of Islam knock yourself out. It is not a violation of NPOV. It neutrally reports criticism of Islam. Lao Wai 16:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
His excellency where do i start, I'm British and that "dork" was John Major and i'm just going to say that Salman Rushdie was and still is protected by the same police unit that protects the government and Royals and it COSTS me money. Oh and British airways banned him not the government, and i don't blame them for anything other than giving in to terrorism but thats not really the job of companies is it? The conspiracy theories to explain why your culture is in ruins is not helping muslims or anybody else, any chance it could be to do with the thoughts that muslims think that make them make the choices they do!Hypnosadist 16:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

French Muslims are happier? Did you hear about the french Muslim riots? The BBC has done alot of research into the discrimination Muslims face in Britain both in education and in the work place, and the Tories (particularly Thatcher) have been very vocal in the past on their position that Muslims aren't 'real' British citizens. That isn't to say Muslims aren't to blame for their situation there. I see their condition as being similar to what black Americans still face in the US- despite programs that effectively maintain quotas in educational institutions and in employment, they're the lowest income earning group in the US, show a lower rate of education and show a larger participation in crimes . That Pat Buchanan would characterize as social programs is actually compensation for past injustices that don't address the core problems that created this situation. If you're going to contrast the British Muslim population with anything, try the US.In the US, Muslims tend to do much better than Muslims in many British countries, because the US, at least in the domestic context, stresses equality. What you call 'bending backward' on the part of the Brits is nothing but compensation for other inaequacies. Anyway, I don't particularly feel Muslims should expect equality in Western Europe, so all this is irrelevant to the topic at hand. His Excellency... 18:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

What you have to realize, H.E., is that people looking for criticism of Islam are going to find it one way or another, probably via Google. I implore you to check out http://www.answering-islam.org.uk (which is at the top of many search results) and compare it to this article (also near the top of many search results), and see which one is more NPOV. The content in this article is not going to be censored. Even if 500 Wikipedians descend on it and AfD it, the content would be painfully integrated into all of the main articles, where it can even more easily be found. We've suggested that you be productive and add the content that YOU want to see to the main articles - about Muhammad's reforms, etc., instead of taking potshots at other peoples' hard work as you've done here. I repeat my pledge to back you up if you do so in an NPOV manner with reliable sources. How about it? - Merzbow 17:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
There are neo-nazi websites that people can look up as well. That doesn't mean Wikipedia should host articles that provide an alternative source for similar polemicism. If what you're trying to create is an alternative source that suits the tastes of those who'd frequent frontpagemag.com or answering-islam or Ali Sina's website, you've got the wrong understanding of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Please don't speak of censorhip; I never said anything along the lines of suggesting anything should be censored. To the contrary, I think the title of this article itself works to censor mention of positive views regarding Islam. As such, the topic works to maintain a POV-bias by being representative of a single perspective, and responses to that perspective alone. Misleadingly selective. Those who read this type of content thinking it's reliable information become like Lao Wai here, who only see the negatives. They're convinced Muslims make no positive contributions to their societies or nations, that they restrict themselves to blowing things up. As for your 'pledge', you know full well that I CAN'T add the sections I'd want here, since the sections I add wouldn't be CRITICISM. Change the title, and I'll bring in enough information regarding positive views of Islam, to balance the negative. For now, any such addition would be deleted in days, and we'd be back here again. His Excellency... 18:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say add the sections you proposed here, I said add them in the main articles where they belong. So far you have shown no sign of assuming good faith, given your accusations of a pro-Western cabal supposedly in control of all these articles. We've extended the olive branch now, it's up to you if you want to swat it away or take up the offer. - Merzbow 19:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you suggesting I balance out the anti-Islam bias of this article by introducing pro-Islam POV in the generic articles!? No, I'm not assuming good faith, or bad faith. I'm speaking in response to this article and its content, not the morality of the editors who created it. My view that articles on Islam are being skewed to represent the most negative image of Islam possible is one echoed by many other editors and readers (most not Muslim). And who are you to either pledge to support my actions or oppose it? The only question of relevance is if the article represents truly NPOV. This article does NOT and cannot. As such, I'm not interested in your olive branch, I'm interested in bringing this article within NPOV standards. For now, that seems to require that the title be changed to be inclusive of both opposing views. His Excellency... 04:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Suuuure. Please show me a list of these 'many other (non-Muslim) editors' who support your extreme claim, because I've been around these articles, and I just don't see them. And you're missing my point again. Nobody is implying material should be made POV. But you're the one claiming that the mere fact that criticism of a subject matter is being discussed in an organized manner is POV. Now you've trapped yourself, because I can now claim that Islam is POV because it presents the claims of Muslims first. For example, "Muslims believe that God revealed his direct word for humanity to Muhammad...". That is a POV statement, every bit as POV as "Robert Spencer believes that Muhammad was a fraud". If this article is inherently POV, then so is that. In fact, the whole 'Beliefs' section of Islam presents the Muslim view that the Bible was corrupted in detail, with no response from Christians. The only response is in this criticism article - with an ADDITIONAL response from the Muslim side, to give them the last word! It is absurd to claim that Islam is inherently being misrepresented by this article organization. - Merzbow 06:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

H.E i'll keep it real simple as to why this article exists; the Islam articles are lacking in critisism of islamic thought and/or practice so it gets religated here so that good muslims won't have to see it.Hypnosadist 19:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about what is going on in europe, so I can not make any comment on that, but at least I can say, I added "Muhammad the reformer" section to Muhammad article and nobody deleted it. Most people are friendly here. I will add the section "Muhammad the vilified" filling it with quotes from William Montgomery Watt, Edward Said, Voltaire, Karen Armstrong and probably from John Esposito and Michael Sells and others. Just give me time (I am busy in real life but will try to do it ASAP I can). I'll try to find some positive quotes of Non-Muslims about Muhammad and add them to this article. --Aminz 04:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The new section is good. I don't think you need to add a "vilified" section, however. I think perhaps just adding a sentence to the "reformer" section quoting a critic would be sufficient; a notable criticism I think would be the claim that Islamic doctrine might actually have been a step backward in some of the Christian lands that became part of the early Muslim empire. - Merzbow 07:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe adding a "vilified" section make the environment just posionous, though it can be made very well sourced.
Your idea of "a notable criticism I think would be the claim that Islamic doctrine might actually have been a step backward in some of the Christian lands that became part of the early Muslim empire." is a necessity there. Let me think. I don't know about what happened in the Christian lands, but in the case of Iran, the bad thing I've heard is that Muslims brought with themselves some elements of Arab culture (that was not necessarily Islamic) and was inferior to their counterpart in ancient Persian culture. I have *heard* Muslims burnt a big library in Iran at their conquest (simply because they didn't know its value or didn't seen one before :) or I don't know). Unfortunately, I don't have any source for these claims. And I don't know how these *actions* can stand on the opposite side of *ideas* for which Muhammad is called a reformer. --Aminz 07:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hypnosadist, if you are indeed sincere you should become a vegetarian (i.e. because of animal rights, but this is against the Jewish law, isn't it?). Who says it is less cruel than slavery?

I just noticed the presuppositions buried in this answer to me from Aminz. No i'm not jewish by either genetics or conversion, but i have studied the kabbalah along with most of the faiths on this ball of dirt and water. I do not consider being called a jew insulting but i suggest you look at this thought in your head; critism of islam=being a jew.Hypnosadist 09:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry. Since you were editing Dhimmi article(and everybody there except Timothy was either Jewish or Muslim), I thought you are a Jewish. I have had very constructive joyful discussions with Yid613 who is a Jewish on this article. I just guessed you may be a Jewish. --Aminz 09:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I think your own criticism BTW goes with your "wiki-jihadist" idea, doesn't it? --Aminz 10:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Many muslim editors such as yourself can and do edit well and with as little POV as humanly possible, others believe there should be little or no critisim of islam(as opposed to other ideas) on wikipedia and the muslim views of islam and relivent topics should come first. These people are the "wiki-jihadists" who assert islams domainence and perfection, and they are waging jihad(struggle) to covert and you know that in your heart Aminz. Yes i am biased and have double standards.Hypnosadist 11:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words about me and some Muslim editors. I see your point. --Aminz 04:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

What Went Wrong

Any idea of how we can justify adding the content of this book to this article? --Aminz 07:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a good book, I actually just finished reading it. We have one quote from the book in the article already. However, Lewis is very careful in the book not to directly attribute any of the failings of modern Muslim societies to Islam itself, although he comes very close to doing this at times (for example, implying that the believer/unbeliever dichotomy in Islamic doctrine contributed to the isolation and thus backwardness of modern Muslim societies). - Merzbow 07:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe these material should go to reasons for stagnation of Islam (Can you think of a better title?) --Aminz 08:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
There's an article called Muslim world... it could start out as a section there. - Merzbow 16:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The term "Muslim World" is a terrible orientalist terminology. Does Iran have anything in common with Bangladesh? His Excellency... 16:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Gee, I dunno. Why don't we check out the article and see? Oh, here it is:
"The Muslim world is a term given to the world-wide community of those who adhere to the religion of Islam. This community, who are known as Muslims, number approximately 1.1 - 1.2 billion people. This community does not constitute a distinct race, but are spread across every race; the world's Muslims are connected only by the heritage of adhering to a common religion." - Merzbow 18:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits by Phippi

Thanks very much for your post Phippi46. Just a few points: 1. Can you please add the pages of the books of which the quote is extracted. 2. Some of your arguments(e.g. marriage one) are better to different sections. This section only tries to answer to the question: "Did Muhammad believe he was a prophet, or did he consider himself a fraud?". We have another section for marriage I believe. 3. I know you have tried hard to find those quotes but as they are lengthy, it is probable that we may lose our readers. I'm not sure they will read the whole thing. I think they are better to be summarized. Thanks again,--Aminz 01:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to say, the people we are supposed to quote in "Muslim arguments" section should be Muslims. I don't think they were all Muslims. --Aminz 01:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Carlyle for example doesn't seem to be a Muslim. --Aminz 01:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarify Maimonides

It seems the whole "History of criticism of Islam" section is lacking specifics, especially the Maimonides paragraph. It would be nice if it was mentioned what specifically these historical figures disliked about Islam, at least a few examples should be there.--- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.67 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-27 00:16:20 (UTC)

If we went into specifics for every person name-checked in that section, that section would be an article (which I don't think is justified currently, unless somebody is masochistic enough to spent 12 hours creating and referencing and summarizing it). - Merzbow 07:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Concur! --Aminz 07:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

N-Edits changes section

I've made a section for you to seek consensus for your many controversial edits that you are attempting to lump into one big change. You are removing sourced material, unilaterally changing section names that were agreed to after much discussion (like Domestic Behavior), adding unsourced POV material, and so on. Wikipedia requires you to gain consensus from other editors before making controversial changes. - Merzbow 18:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, N-edits, please discuss them one by one here first. Thanks --Aminz 20:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I was putting edits into one change to be helpful, by avoiding lengthening the very long page history (e.g. 500 edits in the last 20 days), but I can split edits up if that is prefered.

To show our good faith, I have added back uncontroversial portions of your change, and reworked other slightly, but most of it is very controversial. Here is a breakdown of the major problems with your original change (based on this diff: [17]):

(Although I do not question your good faith, deleting practically everything cannot be called evidence of good faith.)

1. The text you added to the intro is POV and is unsourced.

The text of the intro is not POV. In what sense it is possibly POV? You must explain how a brief overview of Islam to begin an article on Islam is POV? Or are you suggesting it POV to say that the most meaningful criticism of Islam is criticism of fundamental aspects of Islam? - That is so self-evident that it does not need a source, how could it not be the case, how could the Quran not be more fundamental than the burqa? I do not understand what you are talking about.
What may be 'self-evident' to you is not self-evident to others, so please source it. Any material that is not trivially obvious must be sourced. That is Wikipedia policy - see WP:RS. - Merzbow 18:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, as a Muslim I find N-edit's edit to the intro to be true for those critics who question the religion as a whole (some Muslim critics question the practices), but in any case it needs to be quoted from an scholar. Ashmoo was also objecting to that intro, I remember. So, for consensus we need to invite him as well. --Aminz 23:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

2. You removed sourced information about Islamic poets from 'History of criticism of Islam'. I went ahead and attributed these descriptions to Ibn Warraq, but his book was already referenced properly and you had no justification to remove the information outright.Merzbow 18:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Will look at this again and reply later.
I removed this stuff since it is criticism of religion in general, not Islam. The article is too long for irrelevant material which is not dealing with criticism of Islam in particular. Only Al-Ma'arri is debatably making critism specific to Islam although I think including even him is dubious. Surely someone can find examples of critics from within the Islamic world who are criticising Islam and not just religion? N-edits 15:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

3. The statement "many critics, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Daniel Pipes, see this as an attempt by Islam to avoid answering objections that it cannot satisfactorily address" is unsourced OR.

Reference to the printed and published opinions of Daniel Pipes and Ayaan Hirsi Ali is obviously not original research, what rubbish. Look at Wikipedia:No original research. Original Research is "previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas" which this is not.
Sorry, that's your opinion of what those critics are doing. It is OR. Please source it. - Merzbow 18:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
N-edits, I personally agree with you that Daniel Pipes and Ayaan Hirsi Ali say so, but wikipedia requires citation for the claims. --Aminz 23:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

4. "Personal motivations" is proper grammar here, not "Personal motivation". Muhammad did not have just one motivation.

Motivation is a collective noun relating to a "motive", it is used as a collective noun, otherwise one normally says "motives". Your version is sylistically poor, I'll change it once more, to "motives", but if you want, change it back to motivations and we'll leave it at that.
Hmm. Motives is fine then. - Merzbow 18:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

5. The "Satanic Connection" section should not have been split into the Qur'an. The verses never made it into the Qur'an, so the whole incident is relevant to a discussion of Muhammad's behavior, not an examination of the Qur'an.

Will look at this again and reply later.
Okay well basically, I have moved satanic verses to "Qur'an", following "Claim of Divine Origin" in "The Origins of the Qur'an section" because it is related to criticism of Quranic origins, not allegations of some Satanic possesion of Muhammad. To support this opinion I have included references/material to that effect (i.e. related to Quranic origins) from Maxime Rodinson's book "Muhammad" (full details of book in article reference, obviously!). N-edits 15:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

6. The section title "Domestic behaviour" was reached after much discussion above between different editors, and will not be changed without a great deal more discussion.

Discussion? Where? I don't see it on the talk page? Which section?
In the archive: Talk:Criticism_of_Islam/Archive_2#A_better_heading_-_Domestic_violence. - Merzbow 18:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

7. The sentence you added beginning "No Muslim state banned slavery..." is unsourced. Wikipedia articles cannot be referenced as sources.

If you want a source wikipedia policy is to tag : [citation needed]
This tag exists because it is not good to immediately delete for lack of referencing. If you tag for a source i will find one.
WP:RS says that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question, and any unsourced material may be removed by any editor." But I will leave this particular edit tagged since it's couched simply as a historical fact and not POV. Please reference ASAP. - Merzbow 18:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I haven't as much time as I would like, so it is taking time. It is now a while now since I tagged it for a source, so delete it now if you want, if you have any doubts as to the truth of the statement. I should get a source eventually and put it back on then. N-edits 15:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

8. 70% of the Saudi information you added (the last portion) was unsourced; again, Wikipedia articles cannot be referenced as sources. The view you attributed to the BBC article is not actually made by that article; it is OR. Plus, a "Saudi Arabian country study" from web link that states that "Do NOT bookmark these search results. Search results are stored in a TEMPORARY file for display purposes." is not a reliable source for a sweeping generalization like "In Islamic thought, women are held responsible for sexual temptation".

Saudi Arabia: My source was overwhelmingly another wikipedia article; i will do research and consider whether to reintroduce this section with other sources.
Women: The source IS a reliable source for "In Islamic thought, women are held responsible for sexual temptation". The source is Eleanor Abdella Doumato, in Helen Chapin Metz (ed.), Saudi Arabia : a country study (Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, 1993), Ch. 2. Publications of the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress are proper sources. The web adress is simply for wikipedia users' convenience so they can find it more easily than looking up the book, it is not the source itself.
I looked up this Doumato - she is a professor, but that statement is reasonably controversial, so it should be attributed to her specifically, instead of being stated as fact. - Merzbow 18:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, I am a Muslim and as far as I know, "women are held responsible for sexual temptation" is not factually true. Women maybe more responsible but not exclusively. Men are told to keep their eyes. Men are told not to watch porno films. They are told not to put themselves in a situation that they may be tempted. This sentence is not factually true and I can swear on it. --Aminz 23:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Why is this a criticism in the first place, BTW? We need someone who has criticized Islam in this way. I don't see any problem with that statement. It seems to me as a reality. --Aminz 00:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, for that paragraph to be appropriate for this article, we need to find someone who makes that assertion specifically as a criticism. - Merzbow 00:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it is presented as a criticism by Doumato herself in my source, but I'll need to check. N-edits 15:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

- Merzbow 21:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

N-edits 15:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sam Harris

Merzbow, do you think Sam Harris is notable enough to included in the article. The reason I am asking is that his criticism doesn't seem be academic. I am a Muslim and I hold no hatred against west. There "are" anti-western feelings among Persians Muslims but it has nothing to do with their faith. It has two main reasons: 1. they feel historically west has exploited them. (Especially England and America afterwards e.g. England separated Afghanistan from Iran) 2. They feel west is forcing to them its culture. They feel all these porn films come from west and some feel they are deliberately imported to the Muslim countries. 3. And the last one is only related to U.S. and not west in general and that is U.S.'s support of Israel. That's pretty much of it. There is no more hard feeling to best of my knowledge among Persians. The claims of Sam are strange (especially the Qur'an one since Qur’an was written 1400 years ago!) Do you think he is a reliable source in making such claim? Anyone can make any claims but are his claims supported by academics? --Aminz 09:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi aminz and merzbow, Sam Harris is a new writer on the block, and i've just listened to a lecture by him so i'll talk to you about him. He's a self identified athiest who critises ALL religious crimes against humanity, for example he discribes the Catholic Church policy against condoms as "Genocidal Stupidity" in its affects on people in africa. And he's no less critical of Islam, particularly the Violence and the Victom mentality that supports that violence. He uses logic and comparitive religion to attack the pressence of religion in 21c world, but his biggest critisism in the lecture i listened to was for the idea that Faith's can't be questioned. This he believes is stupid and dangerous thinking that will lead to more 9/11's.Hypnosadist 10:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, Hypnosadist --Aminz 23:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, his book has become a bestseller, is well-referenced, and he's certainly very widely talked about here in the U.S., so I think he's notable for a mention as a critic (certainly not as a source for anything else though). - Merzbow 16:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that he is notable critic. But see, he believes "All Muslims" are so because of their religion. That's not true for sure. Had he said "Many Muslims" or "Most Muslims" are so, I would have considered his claim deserving to be checked. Maybe the context of his book makes it clear that he is talking about a particular group of Muslims and not all of them. At least there are people who consider themselves Muslim but do not practice the religion. Do they have hatred against west? Is it possible that among every four person one of them hates west? --Aminz 23:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
He's generalizing. It's not really any different than other critics who generalize when they say that "Islam is a danger to the West". He certainly doesn't mean every Muslim, and I don't think the average reader is going to assume that. - Merzbow 00:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Merzbow, that information is valid and Sam Harris is notable enough as a critic. But I would be thankful if you could illuminate me that how constructive this criticism is.
For example, the survey says: "Many Westerners see Muslims as fanatical, violent and intolerant, according to the study by the Pew Research Center in Washington. Muslims, for their part, tend to view the West as selfish, immoral, and greedy - as well as fanatical and violent - the survey says." there is a lot of truth in the view of many Muslims presented there. Muslims are either ignorant or are unwilling to acknowledge that there are "many" practices in the west that are morally superior of those in Muslim societies. They easily accept that Muslims should learn science from west, but to best of my knowledge, many are not humble enough to be willing to accept that there is much more than that needs to be learnt from west; or at least carefully study west from a critical perspective. --Aminz 08:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to find a less offensive quote from him. - Merzbow 19:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that Sam Harris should be taken as Analyst rather then critic, he seems not to belief any faith, and he has his arguments and his critism on all major religion has one base. According to him almost 95% of the people are in some kind of mass illusion. I dont think such comments can take as direct critism on any religion. phippi46 23:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Phippi i don't think you could be more wrong about him! He's a critic of religous thought forms and meme's, and the fact that he attacks the actions/beliefs/scriptures of all the major religions except Budism should be taken as him being unbiased as to whom he attacks, not that his critisisms are weak. He makes very direct critisism of each religion some on specifics and some on general whooly thinking by the faithful. He believes (to my understanding) that people worship Invisible Pink Unicorn's and kill each other because there unicorn exists and the other persons doesn't, or even they both worship the same unicorn but each think its a different shade of pink, so they kill each other! Now some are trying to kill him because he was born in new york, and hes not happy about that. He thinks that all atheists and agnostics should exibit what he calls "Conversational Intolerence" in an attempt to minimise the power of religion through talking logically.
As to your point Aminz he is talking about practicing Muslims not "cultural" Muslims. This idea stems from what he see's as incompatabilities between the core presuppositions (things that have to be So to make this world good) of the gestalt "islam" and the gestalt "the west". An example of this in a recent survey http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/5110364.stm both sides said they treated women with respect and the other did not.Hypnosadist 00:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


Hypnosadist, don't you think your above "Invisible Pink Unicorn" criticism could be a good addition to this article? (Maybe we can have a small section on criticism of religion in general here). Also, thanks for the survey. It strikes me that surveys are good sources of information but not an unbiased one, since design of the survey already pushes some bias into the matter. The questions the survey asks, the way it asks, the four choices, etc. But it is valuable for sure.--Aminz 08:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Aminz, i do think modern Atheist critisism should be a bigger part of this article (the medieval claims that Mohammed is the anti-christ or a fake are given to much space). An inclusion of minds like Richard Dawkins would help this article, we could legitamatly have a section of critisism of religion in general (with links to those full articles) as those pertain to Islam.Hypnosadist 09:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Hypnosadist, yup, there is actually a serious need for that. I can't find "anywhere" at which this article touches on modern Atheist critisisms of religion (and particularly Islam). I am not even sure if the article can be considered neutral while the article doesn't even touch this issue. I think we can start off the section using the criticism of religion article and the views of Richard Dawkins. --Aminz 09:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
He has an entire chapter devoted specifically to Islam. Although he does dismiss all religion on philosophical grounds, he does argue that there are practical differences between certain religions when it comes to positive/negative effects on the world. - Merzbow 00:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Merzbow, What you make of it ? Do you agree with him personally ? I read the artical and your work and research on it, if I am not wrong you are motiviated person, specially when its comes to critising Islam. Dont get me wrong, I just want it to know, that if this is the case, how can we take your edits and comments neutral ? or we should take it as POV with prooves, regards phippi46 00:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the personal views of any of us is relevant in Wikipedia... people try hard here to edit with a fair mind. It is the duty of a good Wikipedia editor to present the best arguments for all notable POVs to achieve NPOV in an article. Aminz is Muslim, but he's found some good criticisms; I'm not Muslim, but I've found good responses. The scholar I probably most agree with on Islam is Bernard Lewis; he doesn't pull any punches but he tries very hard to be fair and he does see the good points of Islam along with the bad. - Merzbow 03:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Origin and development of the Qur'an section

The sources I know so far:

Any further sources? --Aminz 10:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Tough to find sources on this... I pulled these up on Amazon:

The Qur'an's Self-Image: Writing and Authority in Islam's Scripture (Hardcover) by Daniel Madigan

Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation (Hardcover) by John Wansbrough, Andrew Rippin

Patricia Crone is well-known for arguing against the reliability of the Quran:

Hagarism:The Making of the Islamic World (Paperback) by Patricia Crone, Michael Cook

And of course we have the critics:

The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book (Hardcover) by Ibn Warraq

- Merzbow 04:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Merzbow! --Aminz 08:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Still NPOV?

Does anyone still think the article deserves the NPOV tag? We've done a lot of cleanup in the past few weeks. There are still some sections to clean up, but I think we're pretty balanced now. Anyone see any areas where either the criticisms or the responses are being given undue weight? - Merzbow 03:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the article as a whole is POV. We can add the POV tag to sections if it is necessary. the article doesn't even touch modern atheism criticism of Islam (religion in general) --Aminz 08:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't think that's an issue of POV, more an issue of new material. The question should be is the existing material NPOV or not. - Merzbow 19:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

As a Muslim it hurts to see any criticism of our religion, especially from "critics," as they do not really see what Islam is about. However, I must congraulate the both of you on working so hard on this article. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and so it cannot be like islamicity or even dhimmiwatch (a 180), it must be in the centre. This article seems NPOV to me compared too some toher articles on Islam (on wikipedia) i have seen. So no, there is no NPOV tag and basically this article is in pretty good shape.--DoomsElf 16:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Severe punishments

Merzbow, would you please let me know why you remove the following from the article:

"The Qur'an 5:38 orders the severing of hands (interpreted as the four fingers of the right hand in shiasm ) of thieves. [22] Several conditions are required for the punishment to be applied. In shiasm, for example, the penalty will be applied only if the thief is adult, sane, has stolen intentionally, unmistakably and stealthily from a "safe" place (i.e. somewhere which is locked or someplace similar), has not been forced to do so either by someone or out of misery, also does not repent before the crime is proved, and some other conditions. [23]. The stoning of married adulterers is mandatory in five Shari'ah schools [citation needed](For example, Ayatollah Fazel Lankarani, a shia jurist, prescribes stoning penalty for a sane, adult, free and married adulterer who have had access to his mate at the time of adultery) [24] [25] and is practiced in countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and local Shari'ah courts in northern Nigeria. The penalty is imposed on the sane married adulterers only when proof is established. The adultery is proved either when "four reliable and pious men testify that they witnessed the act and actually saw the male sexual organ inserted into the vagina", or if one bears witness against his or her own self four times, or if there is a pregnancy. [26] [27]. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi states that "In Islam, we are instructed to keep our sins secret and to seek repentance for them. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, is reported to have said, “Anyone who commits a punishable sin should cover himself up as long as he’s being shielded by Allah (i.e. he should not expose himself) because if he divulges his punishable sin, the prescribed punishment becomes due.” (i.e. it should be carried out as he has confessed)..." [28] ... A’isha narrated that the Prophet (pbuh) said: ‘Ward off punishment as much as you can. If you find any way out for a Muslim then set him free. If the Imam makes a mistake in granting forgiveness, it is better for him than that he should commit a mistake in imposing punishment.’ Thus, any doubt about the evidence should prevent the punishment." [29]

As a shia, I tried to dig up what they say and added them to the article. The view of shia scholars is no less than that of the sunni scholar such as Yusuf Ali or Maududi. Thanks --Aminz 08:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to keep the Shi'a references, but the links were in Persian so I was skeptical of doing so... however I trust your translation so I'll put them back in, they don't sound controversial to me. - Merzbow 19:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
OK I restored the Shi'a info (with some minor editing). Just two requests... can you add some additional info to the 'Tafsir Nemooneh' reference, like page numbers, date of publication, publishing house, etc.? It looks like a Persian book so it won't have an ISBN, but it should have the other stuff. Also there is a reference to a website 'www.maarefislam.com' - can you add the full name of the website as the value of the 'work' attribute in the cite, and the name of the specific section as the 'title'? Thanks. - Merzbow 19:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused about the last sentence in the adultery paragraph now. First, I'm feeling uneasy about the source you quote for Al-Qaradawi on the adultery punishment - this article [18]. I know it's his website, but this article looks more like a news item, and doesn't mention his name at all - is it fair to ascribe these views to him? And this passage - "(e.g. it is not enough for example if the witnesses only see the man and woman sleeping nude together and they hear some sounds)" seems like too much detail and doesn't seem to be in the source - I think the reader should be able to assume it from "actually saw the male sexual organ inserted into the vagina". Second, you also have the Shi'a website reference for this same sentence - are you saying the Shi'a view on this is exactly the same as Al-Qaradawi's, or is the difference in the Shi'a view addressed in the "according to some scholars" clause? - Merzbow 08:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Merzbow, I'll remove my editorial comment "(e.g. it is not enough for example if the witnesses only see the man and woman sleeping nude together and they hear some sounds)".But it is really so. In reality, it is almost impossible to prove adultery unless it is committed in public. That's all I wanted to say there. I *think* most scholars consider all three proofs valid (e.g. the shia jurist I've included). The shia scholar just says his own opinion (i.e. it does not talk about other views). The shia scholar also is silent as to what happens if one bears witness against his or her own self BUT goes back on it. That source also just says "observing adultery" and doesn't say "actually saw the male sexual organ inserted into the vagina" but according to the teachings I've got as a shia, "observing adultery" means the same thing. I'll try to find a better source to replace it by the Al-Qaradawi's website. --Aminz 08:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Merzbow, please have a look at this http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A6175172 section "Zina and rape". It says:" Before moving on to the whole Islamic perspective it is important to point out that the punishment for adultery and fornication is not due to breaking the right of God (i.e. an article of faith) but rather the punishment is for breaking the public's right. The Islamic community is very strict on its moral frame work and so if two people commit adultery in secret, they have broken one of God's laws but when it becomes public knowledge they have broken God's laws and the rights of the moral community. It is for the act becoming public knowledge that they are being punished, either through witnesses or self confession. In either case they will have to face God with what they have done on the day of the resurrection." I'll use this article to fill in the gaps. --Aminz 09:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Ooops, it says "Most of the content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC." I need to find another source. --Aminz 09:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
This website even though not reliable casts doubts upon the "pregnancy outside of marriage" evidence. --Aminz 09:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I remember this case from Nigeria http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2202111.stm and the fact pregnancy can be used as evidence is often quoted as an example of sexism in Sharia by femanists.Hypnosadist 10:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I found this article directly attributed to Qaradawi that mentions the punishment for adultery: [19]. I'll replace the news article link with this and adjust the detail slightly to reflect what it's saying. - Merzbow 20:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It is interesting that pregnancy can serve as a proof if the woman is unmarried BUT the death penalty does not apply to unmarried women, only to married women. Ha ha --Aminz 23:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, all the conditions around the law are confusing. I'm thankful at least that in practice it's imposed very rarely. The Tanakh has similar types of severe punishments; I wonder how the Jews argue that they shouldn't be still applied. Christians, of course, have it easy - they just say that Jesus abrogated all the old OT laws (when in fact he said otherwise, but that's an argument for another time, heh).- Merzbow 00:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Merzbow, the sex problem is really solved religously (not culturally) in Shiasm. Have a look at temporary marriage! Islam, and particularly shiasm, is the best religion from the sex point of view ;) But that's only the religion. The culture strongly opposes to these ideas :(. Anyways, as far as I know, Jews stopped applying these laws after the fall of the second temple. --Aminz 00:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


Univ. Declaration of Human Rights

From the article: "Human rights issues Malaysia and Saudi Arabia have refused to ratify the Declaration 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, essentially due to the question of state establishment of religion. In 1990 the Organization of Islamic Conference published a separate Cairo Declaration of Human Rights compliant with Shari'ah. [187] Ayatollah Sanei believes that the Islamic and the UN Declaration of Human Rights are approximately close to each other. The discrepancy is their sources. The source of one is divine revelation and the source of the other is the God-given human conscience.[188]"

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not international law, and has no signitories. As such, no country has 'ratified' it. So how does this paragraph make sense? His Excellency... 16:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe all countries must agree to it to join the UN. I think they "ratified" it by passing it through their parliament, or by their government signing an undertaking to abide by it, although it is not international law. I am not sure about the exact nature of ratification, the point is that Saudi Arabia and Malaysia (according to the article, I myself only know of Saudi Arabia) actively refuse to accept the principles of the declaration in its entirety. Perhaps it would be better to write:
"Malaysia and Saudi Arabia have refused to recognise the validity of the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in its entirety, essentially due to..." etc.
Incidentally the question is not "state establishment of religion"; Saudi Arabia does not allow freedom of religion, the practice of any religion except islam being illegal, and citizenship being dependent on being a Muslim.
N-edits 15:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
BBC news article about freedom of religion in malaysia http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/5205328.stm quote from it is "A group of NGOs, known as Article 11, is pushing for Malaysia to honour constitutional guarantees enabling all citizens to practise their faith."Hypnosadist 01:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Another link about Article 11 http://www.christianresponse.org/articles/412/protestors-undermine-religious-rights-forum-in-malaysia Hypnosadist 02:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
From the UN page linked to by Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Q: Who are the signatories of the Declaration?
A: Since the Declaration is not legally binding technically, there are no signatories to the Declaration. Instead, the Declaration was ratified through a proclamation by the General Assembly on December 10, 1948 with a count of 48 votes to none with only 8 abstentions. This was considered a triumph as the vote unified very diverse, even conflicting political regimes.
Rich Farmbrough 21:51 17 August 2006 (GMT).

Motivations of Critics

Aminz made the suggestion for this type of section before. Content addressing the motives and historical roots to criticisms of Islam would be appropriate here. The criticisms of Catholic figures of Islam has its historical context, for example; as do the criticisms of Bat Ye'or and Daniel Pipes today. His Excellency... 20:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I made a stab at this before in the Modern Criticism section by attempting to categorize modern critics with some commentary, but it was somewhat OR and I didn't disagree when it was reverted. We should find a source who comments on this and note them. - Merzbow 21:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
The article already touches the motives: e.g. Edward Said says: "He claims Islam has been looked at with a particular hostility and fear due to many obvious religious, psychological and political reasons, all deriving from a sense "that so far as the West is concerned, Islam represents not only a formidable competitor but also a late-coming challenge to Christianity."
If you have further information, we can move all these to a particular section in this article. --Aminz 02:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Edward Said's opinion does not seem particularly relivent as he sure is not a critic of Islam, also its not accurate IMHO. Outside the bible belt of america the religious competition theory is meaningless in the SECULAR west were you can choose your faith or lack of it. Now psychological fear is part of this due to the use of Terrorism to promote the imposition of Islam on the West, as well of the fear generated by that fact that "normal" muslims in your own country can turn on you and kill your family because they think God wants them to. While i was writing this i just had to stop for the Two minute silence to commemorate the dead of 7/7 so if i'm rude today i'm sorry. Hypnosadist 11:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, Watt & Karen Armstrong and others also agree with Said that 'historically' it has been the case. And to best of my knowledge, as a person who is raised in a Muslim country, I can safely say "fact that "normal" muslims ..." is very very incorrect. You are overgenralizing I think. --Aminz 21:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The normal muslims i was talking about were the 99.9% who don't commit mass murder, but one of the bombers played football (soccer) with some of the white/CofE lads he had been to to school with 2 days before the bombing and they had no idea he hated them enough to want to kill himself just to kill them.Hypnosadist 22:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Now 9/11 has been a critical moment in the thoughts and actions of Atheist critics of religion in general and of course those critical of islam were more so after that event. Two people who should be on this page Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins were affected in much the same way intellectually, it did not change there arguments against belief but brought the concequences of that belief into a new stark light. Before 9/11 many atheists derided the what they saw as the cultural leftovers of religious dogma, as a self inflicted punishment on the stupid and gullable or a HARMLESS crutch some people needed to deal with the facts of death and pain. Things like the Crusades where carried out by perocial medieval minds not modern post-enlightenment man. 9/11 proved that the believers were just as capable of mass murder now as ever, and modern technology ment that a few people could kill thousands in an hour. Now theism and particularly islam are seen as insane violent meme's that must be combated intellectually or they will have to be combatted physically later. Sam harris started writing his first book on the 12th of september 2001 in his home town of New York. His second book out soon is to be about the threat posed to America and the rest of the world by Cristian Fundamentalism and how these ideas support the state of Israel, creationism and attack Gay and reproductive rights.Hope this helps people here.Hypnosadist 13:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Hypnosadist, I think it is unfair to just compare negative points in theism with positive points in atheism. Atheism has its own criticisms. Evolution does not explain everything… Do you really think all Heisenberg said about self-conscious is absurd? I, for one, can not accept that I am nothing but a machine. I wonder how atheists can accept it. --Aminz 22:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm just telling you what thier motivations were, i'm not an athiest, just telling you why you are hearing them talk publicly and do TV shows like "the root of all evil" now. They though they had "won" with the idea of secularism now they don't and believe they have to fight theism again.Hypnosadist 22:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I had once before called into question the validity of this article.It's almost impossible not to have the article essentially function as a compilation of negative opinions on a religion.I think it's both relevant to the article, and serves the purpose of NPOV to include content that would put criticisms into context. The topic is "criticism of Islam". Indeed, the actual criticisms should be included, and right now that is all the article is. It's also essential to have reviews of this culture of criticism, and the counter criticism that has been levied against those who issue such statements. Certainly Edward Said's comments are relevant insofar he speaks on the Critics and their motivations, and the culture of criticism as being rooted in Christians feeling Islam to be its competition. On the 9-11 thing, I think many people ignore the fact that the needless war the US is fighting now in Iraq was itself primarily motivated by the Christian Right, and Bush's own sense that 'spreading democracy' was his duty given to him by God (he said as much). The 9-11 attacks were indeed monstrous, but just because you don't live the horrors of the Iraqi people being bombed day after day doesn't mean the degree of monstrosity of this essentially Christian-rooted is any less. Many more civillians are dead because of this war. People have been raped and tortured. When 9-11 happened, Muslims around the world stood at candle light vigils protesting the terrorist attacks. I see nothing like that of Americans in response to the massacre in Haditha or the rape of that woman and the murder of her family in Fakhriya. And yet, I don't see a "Criticism of The United States" article. I dont see the Christian Right of America and its war rhetoric mentioned in "Criticism of Christianity". Because Wikipedia reflects essentially a Western-only view, predominantly American (how that came to be is another question) that other side to the story is as badly covered on Wikipedia as it is on Fox News. His Excellency... 15:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm puzzled about how an article that is more than 50% devoted to apologetics can be accused of containing only criticism, as you claim. - Merzbow 17:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
H.E. let me answer your last point first as to why there is endemic bias to the western view on wikipedia, The West Built it!, thats the answer, a guy called Jimbo(what an american name!) started this project. Based on HTML which was created at CERN and given free to you so that you and your children learn more and be better off. Built on a model of working not even thought about before the existance of the open source movement in the late 80's, that being the Bazar model. This project and the entire west stand on the shoulders of something called the industrial revolution that was brought about by the new thoughts that britons were the first to think, or at least not be burnt at the stake for thinking then acting on them. As to no Criticisms of the War on Terrorism who do you think Amnesty International are, made in briton just like Oxfam. If you want to add the anti-islamic and war-mongering retoric of the christian fundamentalists to Criticism of Christianity, good please do, Sam Harris's new book should help you. The largest protest in british history was against the war on iraq, with the population split 50/50 as to whether it was the right thing to do. Those who supported the war included the tens of thousands of iraqi asylum seekers who had in some cases lived in my country for 25 years, because they knew how bad Saddam Hussain really was. This article is more a bit of moaning about islam than critisism, Merzbow is right, there are no structured arguments and the new critisize the critics section is another example of this. Good faith means that until i see otherwise i'll believe it is to provide context (like the info i gave above) as opposed to sully the names of these people.Hypnosadist 22:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, 'American Jimbo' apparently doesn't share your mindset on the matter of neutrality, or 'endemic bias' as you put it. I suggest you consult WP:NPOV and see his take on western-centrism (hint: he disapproves of it). I also suggest you refrain from participating in the editing of this article, or any article at all, if you honestly believe that "The West Built It" is an excuse for the blatant 'endemic biases' you yourself noted. If anything, it seems I and 'my children' need to work here to teach you a thing or two, particularly on the topic of intellectual honesty, which you're demonstrating here you know nothing about. I find it laughable that you speak of 50% of Britons not wanting to bomb a country that did nothing against them as if I should admire them for that bit of moral consciousness. 50% of Britons were against committing atrocious war crimes that have since lead to massacres, rapes, acts of torture, etc etc etc. How many million cookies do I owe them in thanks for that? His Excellency... 22:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
That's three. - Merzbow 23:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
H.E. you need to understand the difference between a reason and an excuse. Me, Jimbo and WP:NPOV all agree thanks for asking. There are many biases in wikipedia, simple things like popstars get more MB than polititians, geek topics like Comics, linux and Sci-fi have huge sections. Countries with more internet users get more coverage than poorer nations. Even WP:NPOV is a western form of informational secularism with all views getting represented and hence is an example of western bias as "the west" set the WP:NPOV rules LOL. Please feel free to tell me more about intellectual honesty. PS: That would be 30 million cookies, preferablely choc-chip, I know they will be halal for the 2million muslims but if you could avoid using milk and animal fat so the Hindu's and Vegi's could eat them that would be nice thank you H.E. Hypnosadist 01:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
If you see "The West built it" as a reason but not as an excuse for bias and you accept WP:NPOV, you'll certainly agree that criticism on the critics should be included as well. Raphael1 12:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Most should be on there pages not here, and certenly not twice as much as critisism of islams role in slavery, and ten times as much on the slaves owned by Mohammad personally. Not to mention there is nothing of substance on POW's being made slaves by the armies of Mohammed. So when thats covered here and at Mohammed to a proper NPOV way then there should be this much critisism of the critics.Hypnosadist 14:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The Motivations of Critics is now huge and at the top of the article, this is a joke!Hypnosadist 15:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Just watch it and make sure it stays focused on the motivations and methods of critics and doesn't become an attack on the critics themselves, as somebody is trying to make it. - Merzbow 17:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Muhammad and Aisha and everyone else is open to mudslinging, but those who critisize them are immune from review of their action by verifiable sources? The topic is 'criticism of islam'. If the writings and speeches of the people you select as 'sources' have been reviewed by those outside of their political target audience, and their works have been described as 'muslim-bashing' or 'bigotry' by third party publications, the readers have every right to be aware of these reviews. Apparently we can have polemics masquerading as fact here, thanks to a few editors here. People do have the right to the information that those 'facts' HAVE been considered polemic by some. Daniel Pipes has been condemned for his bigotry by senators, and even fellow conservatives. If his critique of Islam is presumed 'fact' by editors like yourself, the readers have the right to know that the critic has himself been subject to review and found questionable in his motives and political goals. Such controversial contibutors should either be excluded from the article as being less than reliable sources, or the fact that they are controversial should be known. "Criticism of Islam" is ABOUT CRITICISM OF ISLAM, and just as Islam is under review in the body of the article, so should the environment in which the criticism takes place, and those who contribute to it, be subject to review as well. We do have a double standard in that you see nothing wrong with the inflammatory rhetoric presented by academically underqualified writers like Bat Ye'or, directed against over a billion people, but you take issue with reviews of people LIKE herself (Robert Spencer is arguably worse) being presented in the article. If I may be so bold as to say, I see your contributions in Wikipedia reflect the same kind of 'cherry picking' that the article I cited alleges Robert Spencer is guilty of.His Excellency... 19:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
You've posted this same lengthy essay in 3 different places so far. As usual, it contains personal digs at me and other editors. I will no longer read any of your posts past the first sentence until I receive an apology. - Merzbow 22:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
How about you apologize for your harassment and your vandalism of my talk page with threats? There, that's one sentence. Cheers. His Excellency... 22:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

I need to run now. But let's discuss the recent edits. --Aminz 22:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm now partial to nuking the whole 'Criticism of critics' section since the article is not about the critics, it's about the criticism. Said is relevant since he's not quoted as singling out particular critics for personal attack, but instead he's criticizing an approach. Plus the three sources being used are extremely poor-quality (the CAIR page is simply a collections of excerpts from book reviews, the other two are by nobodies writing for minor web magazines). At most I can see summarizing all this in two sentences, there's no way these crappy sources should get more space than Said. We can't set a precedent for quoting paragraphs of personal attacks against people written by any yahoo with a web page. - Merzbow 22:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
This is a ridiculous justification for 'nuking' the section. By the same logic, criticism of Muhammad should be excluded since the article is on "Islam" and not "Muhammad". The title of the article is "Criticism of Islam". Those who voice these criticisms HAVE been reviewed by sources critical of them, and those criticisms should be available here. Many of the critics here have reasons other than mere objective scholarship. Pipes is a political figure, and has been vocal in his neoconservative focus on the strategic interests of israel. Bat Ye'or has been labelled a polemicist by almost every objective reviewer of her work. The context in which these individuals issue their criticisms is relevant to "Criticisms of Islam", particularly in the section dealing with modern criticism of Islam. If readers are to be given a reservoir of criticisms of a religion, made elaborate to expose every criticism no matter how unpopular or unfounded in fact, they also have a right to see reviews of the context in which such criticisms is made. "Criticism of Critics" would provide the reader with knowlege regarding the environment in which such criticism is produced. His Excellency... 23:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
First, your sources are not notable. Two nobodies writing for innocuous web zines and a page of excerpts from book reviews with no original content. Anybody can put up a web page attacking someone. Second, "troubling bigotry" and "intellectually dishonest" are not criticisms of the context. Said discussing Orientalism is a criticism of the context. "Troubling bigotry" and "intellectually dishonest" are attacks against a specific individual. This article is about criticism of Islam and responses to that criticism, not about critics of Islam and attacks on those critics. You want to create Critics of Islam, go ahead. - Merzbow 23:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
First, how notable is Mr. Kevin Knight ("New Advent"), who gets used as a reference 11 times? Second, the credibility and professional responsibility of the critics referenced in this article is certainly relevant. Raphael1 18:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but you're gonna have to find better sources for that than irrelevant webzines. - Merzbow 18:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
By what standards to you call something relevant? www.islamic-awareness.org, www.islam-is-the-only-solution.com and www.peacewithrealism.org all have lower Alexa rankings than said webzines, but still get used as references. Raphael1 19:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
We're trying to phase out references like that as the article is being revised. We don't need to introduce more. - Merzbow 19:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Let me make a proposal: I put that critique on the critics back in and I will remove it again, when you have phased out all less relevant references from the article. Raphael1 22:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Guys, let's give this section a closer thought and discuss it tomorrow. --Aminz 23:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Butchering the Persians in 600s CE

This article looks quite thorough except that it doesn't include the Muslim atrocities against the Sassanians and trampling upon all human rights. I request that an expert add a section to this article on the butchering of the Zoroastrians who did not submit to Islam. I myself don't know enough to contribute .--Patchouli 09:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Since the article focuses on Islam specifically, it would have to be in a section like the 'Quran violence' section, and the violence would have to be specifically attributed to some aspect of Islam by a notable critic. - Merzbow 16:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is a good article:http://www.iranchamber.com/history/islamic_conquest/islamic_conquest.php --02:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

New Advent

How comes, that the almost 100 years old Catholic Encyclopedia is one of the primary sources of this article? By using that colonialistic source 11 times in the article, we are not publishing modern critizism but are rather engaging in Said's Orientalism. Raphael1 13:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia is used on wikipedia particularly because it is an open source document of repute, is there particular quote you have a problem or just a broad smeer campain.Hypnosadist 14:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not a smear campaign. The Catholic Encyclopedia certainly has it's value for researching the catholic view of 1910. But using this article 10 times as a reference without telling our readers, that this is a view from colonial times is a deception respectively camouflage. Raphael1 15:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with it being clearly named as the Catholic Encyclopedia, but i feel Colonial times is POV what does the last years of the Turkish/Otterman control over the middle east got to do with this?Hypnosadist 15:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
"Colonial times" is not a POV, it's history. Following the collapse of the Ottoman empire France controlled Syria and Lebanon and the United Kingdom controlled the Mandate of Palestine. And lets not forget the colonialization of Africa accompanied by widespread Christianizations. French Equatorial Africa was established 1910. And guess why there's a Port Harcourt in Nigeria? Raphael1 00:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Why are there so many moslim nations in africa, oh yes Arabia got a head start on colonising africa. You can't leave your POV out of a single post can you?Hypnosadist 00:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I've never denied the expansion of the Umayyad Dynasty. But would you trust Umayyad sources on pre-Islamic polytheism of the Berbers or other African pre-Islamic indigenous beliefs? Raphael1 08:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't follow. There is nothing that says that religious spread is necessarily colonial... nor is there anything that says that all Western texts are Colonial. I mean, we have much bigger problems with passive voice criticism. Look at the section "Domestic behaviour"... the 'criticism' there is Muslim sources. If I say I kill people there is no criticism in that. There is only criticism when someone criticizes me for my actions. Therefore wife beating is not criticism of Islam unless someone is criticizing the policy... which those sources are explaining their interpretations... not criticizing them. gren グレン 00:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly Gren welcome to the wonderful world of the criticism of islam, if you criticise islam your're islamophobic, and if your islamophobic you can't be in this article!!!!Hypnosadist 10:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Also Gren you'll get called names and have your're culture and family insulted(see above), but thats because they see any legitamate criticism as Blasphemy.Hypnosadist 10:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we stay on topic? How about this article where the Catholic Encyclopedia calls the massacre of Cholula, where Cortés army killed thousands of unarmed Aztecs, a "short struggle"? Another interesting read is the Islamism section of its article on Africa. IMHO it is pretty obvious, that Islam is displayed so derogatory, because it hinders "progress".

Hence it is evident how utterly mistaken those are who may have held that Islam is a kind of useful, possibly necessary, transition, between Fetishism and Christianity. On the contrary, Islam as it were crystallizes the heart and mind of man. It is not a step taken upward, but a wall that arrests all progress.

Hmm ... do they possibly have an agenda? Raphael1 11:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes Raphael1 they have an agenda and thats pushing the idea that there religion is better than all the others just like every POV muslim source in this article.Hypnosadist 11:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
While this idea has been widespread in early 20th century, nowadays most religious leaders of all faiths are committed to seek reconciliation rather than conflict. Do you intend to revive colonial times by spreading their propaganda in Wikipedia? Raphael1 12:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I hope you are right about most religious leaders of all faiths are committed to seek reconciliation rather than conflict, but i believe them less than polititians. If the italian police/security services screw up and there is a successful attack in rome against a catholic holy site then you will find that this pope is nowhere near as nice and leftwing as john-paul2.Hypnosadist 11:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

A closer look

Regarding the following paragraph:

"The motivations of certain modern-day critics and their criticisms have come under review by both Muslim and non-Muslim observers. Daniel Pipes has been subjected to criticism for his writings and public statements. The Council on American-Islamic Relations characterizes Pipes' works as "troubling bigotry towards Muslims and Islam".[199] Writer Robert Spencer, also director of the Jihadwatch.com website, has been criticized as being "anti-Islam". His work has been described by Louay M. Safi as "cherry picking" verses from religious scripture and "obscuring both the textual and historical contexts of the verses he cites." [200] Mark LeVine, Middle East historian at UC Irvine, states that Robert Spencers criticism "falls into the orientalist trap of trying to use Islamic legal compendiums dating back well over 600 years to define for all times what Muslims think about a particular issue."

Even assuming that it is perfectly true, I can not really understand why it is useful to be here. Why do we need to name these people? Even if one argues that it is needed, I doubt the readers remember their names. Here is my proposal:

"As with the critics of other religions, the works of many critics of Islam has been criticized on the grounds of selectively picking verses from religious scripture and obscuring both the textual and historical contexts of the cited verses, and also for representing Islam by "its worst examples while carefully shielding both Christianity and the West from comparable critique." Mark LeVine, Middle East historian at UC Irvine, states that Robert Spencers criticism "falls into the orientalist trap of trying to use Islamic legal compendiums dating back well over 600 years to define for all times what Muslims think about a particular issue."

How is that? --Aminz 08:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, there was a lengthy discussion here as to if we should have a Muslim response section. We moved all the responses to the relevant sections. I don't know why this section is created again. --Aminz 09:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should avoid Council on American-Islamic Relations due to funding and terrorism alligations. Mark Levine's quote is good as it discribes what spencer is doing wrong as opposed to some vauge he's anti-islamic. The "cherry picking" alligation always confuses me as thats what i think both sides do.Hypnosadist 10:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you guys intend on censoring every source that is Muslim? I used to be a critic of CAIR because it bended over backwards to appease Washington. The 'terrorism links' allegation is completely false; certain members have had ties to certain charities, which in turn had been abused by other personalities with ties to groups like Hamas and Hezbullah. Congress and the White House still recognizes and respects CAIR's efforts towards fostering good relations. Had CAIR been directly linked to terrorism, that wouldn't have been the case. CAIR's a legit organization, but it's being subject to defamation by the likes of Daniel Pipes because it represents the Muslim community, and Daniel Pipes has openly expressed he considers the enfranchisement of Muslims as a 'threat'. His Excellency... 15:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Old english saying,once is dumb luck, twice is a coincedence, three times someone is trying tell you something. It does not cover four times, but the fact that CAIR is thick with people ascociated with terrorism does not tend to make it reliable source in my mind but it is up to concensus. Try looking for more reputable groups like the muslim council of britain, couldn't care if you do use it but it does make the muslim community look bad to be linked with groups that have links with terrorism.Hypnosadist 19:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

His Excellency, I personally don't know anything about and haven't read the article on Council on American-Islamic Relations, so, I am not disputing it. My point is that 'selectively taking passages out of a text and obscuring the context' is what some critics of all religion do. And I think that's what you would like the readers know. The quote from Mark LeVine about Robert Spencer is not what many critics do, so I left it as it was only directed to Robert Spencer. I need to run now, but will be back. --Aminz 20:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you type when you don't have to run? His Excellency... 21:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
How about as Aminz proposal but with the last line as:

Mark LeVine, Middle East historian at UC Irvine, states that Robert Spencers' (Director of the Jihadwatch website) criticism "falls into the orientalist trap of trying to use Islamic legal compendiums dating back well over 600 years to define for all times what Muslims think about a particular issue.". The Council on American-Islamic Relations characterizes Daniel Pipes' works as "troubling bigotry towards Muslims and Islam".

And we wikilink to all groups and people mentioned above and let the reader decide how credable or not each party is.Hypnosadist 21:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


I think the addition of 'selectively taking passages out of a text and obscuring the context' is something constructive that gives insight to the works of some critics of any religions, subjects, etc. Comparing the best of one with the worst of the other one is another example (as Lewis points out). Now there may be many who have "troubling bigotry towards Muslims and Islam" (or towards other religions) but I think we need to mention how these motivations show up themselves in one's criticisms of a religion. I don’t get what is the point of picking a particular critic and criticize his behavior? Why is it constructive? 50 years later, there will be no Daniel Pipes and his motivations will be irrelevant to wikipedia. Saying some critics are also inspired with "troubling bigotry towards Muslims and Islam" is still better. But I think Said’s quote already says the same thing. --Aminz 22:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I need to think more about it. I take my comment back for now. The modern criticism of Islam section mentions these people by name & describes their works. I think if main modern critics of Islam are only Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'or, then it is perfectly fine to write something specifically about them. Another option is to modify the "modern critics of Islam" section. --Aminz 01:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The "UN Declaration of Human Rights" bit: doesn't contain a source that 'critisizes'. It's not enough that you're critical of the difference Muslim countries have with the document. Also, no country has 'adopted' the UN Declaration of Human Rights. It has no signitories. It's not international law. It's just a document that the UN created as an expression of somewhat worldwide understand of what should constitute a basic agreement on human rights. I dislike the stance of those Arab countries as much as you do, but you need to provide sources that explicitly expresses a CRITICISM of this action. Otherwise, the whole paragraph is OR and lacks notability. His Excellency... 02:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Rise of Fatwahs

Osama Bin Laden is many things, but he's not a scholar or an imam. Supporters of him lovingly call him "Sheikh" apparently, but he has no education or qualifications that supports considering him a religious authority. In short, he's just a terrorist. His statements therefore are not 'fatwahs', but declarations of Al Qaeda's objectives. Even if he calls on Muslims to engage in war, he's nothing but an angry man making a plea. If there's an academically verifiable source that characterizes his decree as a 'fatwah', I'd like to know of it. I'd still strongly disagree with it though. His Excellency... 17:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I guarantee that Osama bin Laden knows the Quran by heart and has informal education in Islam. Jimbo Wales doesn't have a degree in computer programming, but if he didn't understand it, then he wouldn't be able to launch Wikimedia projects.--Patchouli 06:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Osama Bin Laden is definitely not a reliable source on Islam. Informal education on something doesn't make one eligible to be quoted in wikipedia. Only "notable", "renowned" Islamic scholars could be quoted. --Aminz 06:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
It's clear that bin Laden does offer a view about Islam. I would not go as far as to say he doesn't make fatwas... many may not consider his opinions to carry any weight... but some do. What I am worried about with some of the above statements is portraying renowned or notable as binary. Many Muslim scholars agree with bin Laden on a decent number of issues. Not everything he says carries the more controversial innovations that say, a civilian like himself declaring jihad does. His excellency... is a little off because there isn't a fully uniform idea of what makes one able to declare fatwas in jurisprudence (as far as I know). Moreso you have issues that 'Islamic law" is not always followed by the population... you do get popular movements which are notable in terms of Islam. Look at the rise of various Madhi claimants. They (for short periods of time) wielded incredible power but they didn't come about through formal means. Bin Laden is not quite like that because he holds a more indirect power of drumming up popular support for some big issues but then going further and diverging from mass belief (but clearly trying to portray his views in a way that it will seem he is widely supported). Personally I think he provides pretty interesting innovations to Islamic law... and if you give a decent context to it, it can be used. gren グレン 07:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Gern, All I personally know about Osama Bin Ladan is that he is the head of Alghaeda. *I think* Osama Bin Ladan is a notable person for other articles. I think His criticism would be 'criticism of Osama Bin Ladan' and not 'criticism of Islam'. Would it be? --Aminz 10:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Aminz raises the classic "problem" of Osama Bin Ladin and does he speak for Muslims and if so How many? (The core Question behind Islamophobia) I have a metaphor to explain to my muslim friends this and that is Osama Bin Ladin is the Iman to most westerners. I think critcism of him should be in this article but comments about him by Major Islamic groups should also be added as a counter point.Hypnosadist 13:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we can not take Mr. Osama as a reference or notable authority on Islam. He has political agenda, and he is using Islam as cover to get his political motives. If you see his problem, he wants to change the Govt. of Saudi Arabia and put his authority there. He was born in Islamic family, and if he got some publicity with his terror compaign, that does not give him any authority to speak for the Muslims.It will be mistake, that if people take him as a so called leader of Muslim. Most Muslim do not take him as their leader at all and that should be keep in mind before talking on him. phippi46 22:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Muhammad used terror. He always carried a sword with him and had no college degree in anything. Osama wants to convert others the same way Muhammad and caliphs won converts in Persia, Egypt, and in the vicinity by mere butchering. I believe Osama is honest despite my disagreement with his philosophy.--Patchouli 06:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • My friend, Muhammad(PBUH) never used terror. Self defending is something else, as terror. You can not change mind of people with force, the effect may be short, but on long run, you can not go with force or terror. Its against the human nature. Any way, this mean, if we take your openion correct that Muhammad(PBUH) used terror to win minds of Arabia, then it against his other teaching. Do you seriously think that Billion or so Muslims are forced muslims ? Is a Terrorist Like Osama can change your mind ? I think you know the answer phippi46 21:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Phippi46 unfortunately Osama's authority is from his Death Toll and who he has extracted it from. Is he a good muslim? I can't judge either him or Islam because i'm not god but if he is i'm happy to be on satans team. He does what he does in the name of islam, he and thousands of others, and only you Phippi46 and your brother and sister decent muslims can take that CLAIM off him and his like, no american bomb can do that. Until that happens terrorism will be part of islam, don't tell "the west" terrorism is wrong, tell your children so they don't become another Osama as those lost to total hate are gone for good.

And one of the biggest criticisms of Islam is its use by Osama and his like, and i know decent muslims dislike this connection being made as it desicrates and dispoils the Name of Islam but it is the Mosque bombers and child killers of Al-Ouaeda that commit these profanities in the name of Islam. This is why He and his crimes should be in this article.Hypnosadist 23:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt from an article written by Michael Sells: [20]

"The plaintiffs boast that Jesus never commanded his followers to kill the unbelievers but told them to leave punishment for the afterlife. But scriptures relate to violence in complex ways. During the Inquisition, killing a heretic was considered to be more compassionate than allowing him to lead others to damnation. Gospel passages that have helped inspire compassion have also been used to justify persecution of Jews. The Koran is read by the Taliban and by the Muslims who were persecuted by the Taliban. Verses that inspired Gandhi are cited by those who recently massacred unarmed Muslims in India."

Is crusades or existence of christian terrorist groups are good addition to 'Criticism of Chrisitianity' article? --Aminz 23:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • If Osama bin Laden had the military might, his terrorism would convert millions to Islam. The caliphs successfully converted Persia to Islam — the supermajority. Now anyone who disavows Islam will be executed for apostasy. Egyptians don't even know what the Egyptians language is about.

If I were imprisoned by Muslim radicals who gave me the choice of beheading or converting to Islam, then I would convert to Islam. Many people would, I can assure you.--Patchouli 00:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Offcourse you do, but the question remains. will you be a faithful muslim ? NO, because this kind of converstion to Islam is with force, and that is my point. If Islam was spread as some of you think with force, it could not survive that long. Secondly, regarding Mr. Osama, I understand that feeling against him, specially in America are hostile. I agree with you. He is a terrorist and should be brought to justice accordingly. But, you just can not put him and labeled him with Islam. What are the motives of all known terrorist ? they all have political motives. He has a political agenda too. Now for this, he is using the name of Islam, to relly support. If he is against America, it is also a political motive. Now his tectic to use Islam is just to get in news and get support. Just put him away from the secne for a moment and then think of Islam. You have a different feeling. I dont use IRA a Christian Terrorist group and labeled them with Christian. They too involved in religious killings, in Northern Ireland. If we take these things like that, then we all terrorist, you and me ! We all do the same thing, a muslim extremist killed innocent civilians in newyork, on the other side, a "mis targeted bomb" kills innocent civilian in Afghanistan or in Iraq. whats the difference, when only innocents civilians are dying. An act from a indiviual should not put to a religion, any religion. It should be judge with facts. phippi46 01:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Bernard Lewis explains that the reason for rapid conversion of Zoroastrians was the close association of the Zoroastrian priesthood and the structure of power in ancient Iran, and also neither possessing "stimulation of powerful frineds abroad by the Christians, nor the bitter skill in survival possessed by the Jews." --Aminz 00:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Which of his books (Bernard_Lewis#Books) is devoted to this the most?
I don't know. My quote was taken from Lewis (1984), p. 17, –18 --Aminz 01:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Current edit war

What are the arguements here for the removal/addition of this text?

Such notable critics include personalities such as Evangelical leader Pat Robertson, who expresses the view that "Islam wants to take over the world and is not a religion of peace, and that radical Muslims are "satanic", and that Osama Bin Laden was a "true follower of Muhammad". [30] [31] Jerry Falwell, another popular American conservative Baptist minister, characterized the prophet Muhammad as being a 'terrorist'.[32] Franklin Graham described Islam as an 'evil and wicked religion' and suggested that those who believed Islam to be "wonderful" should "go and live under the Taliban somewhere". [33]

Should we some of this, move it what? Lets have a disscusion please.Hypnosadist 12:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I admire Franklin Graham's courage and honesty.--Patchouli 06:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The information is cited and well known by the general public. It's both notable and verifiable. There is absolutely no justification for removing any of it. His Excellency... 15:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What we are supposed to do in that section is to provide our readers with a concise introduction to modern criticism of Islam. HE's personal selection of out-of-context quotes doesn't help us to do that, and the whole thing should of course be deleted. The quote collection do not present modern criticism of Islam in a fair or encyclopedic way, and HE's motives for adding such trash is very transparent. -- Karl Meier 17:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Notable critics. Both are notable religious people who have their good reasons to criticize islam. Sourced material from notable media institutions. What else do we need? -- Szvest 17:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

I repeat: What we need some encyclopedic discussion of the sections subject, and a fair and unbiased presentation of modern Criticism of Islam... What we do not need is a collection of out-of-context quotes, that has been added to make modern criticism of Islam seems ridicules. Another thing is that I have never accused HE of vandalism. Please don't use your edit summaries to make such false allegations against me. -- Karl Meier 18:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason to call what Karl's doing anything other than vandalism. Of courser Karl hasn't accused me of vandalism- I've done nothing to warrant such an accusation. He gives no real reason for his deletions. "Out of context"? Please explain the actual context then, if you will. The sources cited are reliable, and the information included goes as far in depth as anything else in the entry. Why does Karl takes strong exception to this particular content of all the material in this article? There are paragraphs in this article that are so far uncited at all. His Excellency... 18:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
It is up to you to present the context of the quotes, if you want them to be included. What I am pointing out is that your selection quotes is not the way to provide our readers with a fair and balanced presentation of modern Criticism of Islam. Another thing is that random selection of quotes belong to the Wikiquote project, but in this case the selection is pretty useless, and not worth transfering there.
Regarding the vandalism accusations, I am already aware that you are well known to use a lot of dirty language, when addressing editors that you disagree with. I want you to know that I'll not accept any of your nasty language. -- Karl Meier 18:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Please agree on the context first -in case there is a need- and then we'll see if that should be removed. -- Szvest 18:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
This 'context' complaining is ridiculous. The article is full of quotes and views from both modern and ancient sources. Karl never took exception with the use of "Catholic Encyclopedia" or "Jewish Encyclopedia"; the paragraph following has quotes, including Bat Ye'or's. Karl doesn't mind that. Martin Luther's been cited by someone here, calling Muhammad the 'devil'. No complaints? Suddenly he's now aware of context, and limits that awareness to this one paragraph. Regardless, I'll be the better man and hear your complaints if you can elaborate on them. Explain what 'context' is missing here, and what elaboration could put the comments within context and I'll consider your views. The edits as they are reflect their sources pretty well. His Excellency... 18:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that this selection quotes doesn't represent modern criticsm of Islam, in a way that is fair, balanced or acceptable in what is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia. Also, this is not a place for random selections of quotes. There is another project for that. It's called Wikiquote. -- Karl Meier 18:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Explain why the content isn't 'fair or balanced' . Explain the difference between these quotes and all the others that are structured in exactly the same way. You're holding this paragraph to a standard you don't hold the rest of the article to. Right now all I see is that you don't like the content, nothing else. It's cited, it's sourced. Until you explain exactly where the content is faulty, you have no justification for deleting the content. His Excellency... 19:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

OK well i do think the whole Modern criticism of Islam section needs to be organised better and this will give much of the context that Karl wants, and that is needed. Unless you know who many of the people mentioned are you do not know why they are criticising or from which POV. And i think the scholars should be first then the ex-muslims, Atheist/Agnostic thought then the right-wing christian evangelists finally the polite critics like lewis.

Also i'm not sure if Franklin Graham is really notable enough when we could have a longer more in context Pat Robertson quote, like one of the more modern. The fact these "holy men" go in for name-calling not reasoned debate is thier doing, but it is notable for thier notability ALONE!Hypnosadist 20:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hypnosadist, an encyclopedia entry isn't a piece of investigative journalism. Notability is what's paramount. The REASON for this is because we want the article to speak in a tone that would mirror what an informed public would note. The majority of people don't know who Robert Spencer is. I didn't know who Daniel Pipes was until I took a closer look at the issue of islamophobic propaganda in the US. For all the talking we've done on Bat Ye'or, she's really only known amongst those who are activists in the field. She gained some notability from her use of the phrase 'dhimmitude'. Pat Robertson's criticisms, as well as Jerry Falwell's and Jimmy Swaggot's and Graham's have all recieved media attention by CNN and BBC. They've been noted and discussed, and even made fun of. They're the most notable, and they should be mentioned first. To shift things around would suggest the article has an agenda. A POV.His Excellency... 22:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not particularly bothered about the order rather that the different critics have thier affiliations noted so the athiest scholar in comparitve religion Sam Harris is not lumped in with christian fundamentalist preacher Franklin Graham and this gives thier criticisms more meaning through more context. Given your reasoning on notability i agree with H.E. that Pat Robertson should be the first named.Hypnosadist 23:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the criticism should stay. Whether it's ridiculous or not is not for us to judge - it's still criticism. BhaiSaab talk 00:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to edit slightly to give it more context, nothing will be deleted in this edit.Hypnosadist 12:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Oh didnt see the protectioon i'll write my edit below to see what you think.

Modern criticism of Islam Modern criticism of Islam comes in many varieties and from various corners. The most notable of recent criticisms include those expressed by political and religious leaders, and by official institutions.

Such notable critics include personalities such as Evangelical leaders and preachers such as Pat Robertson, who expresses the view that "Islam wants to take over the world and is not a religion of peace, and that radical Muslims are "satanic", and that Osama Bin Laden was a "true follower of Muhammad". [6] [7] Jerry Falwell, another popular American conservative Baptist minister, characterized the prophet Muhammad as being a 'terrorist'.[8] Franklin Graham (another baptist preacher) described Islam as an 'evil and wicked religion' and suggested that those who believed Islam to be "wonderful" should "go and live under the Taliban somewhere". [9]

Many critics are non-Muslim scholars who are outspoken in their views. The members of this group include Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, and Bat Ye'or. Robert Spencer is especially vocal, having written many books, one titled The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims.[10] Bat Ye'or has studied the phenomenon of dhimma in detail, and stresses "the incompatibility between the concept of tolerance as expressed by the jihad-dhimmitude ideology, and the concept of human rights based on the equality of all human beings and the inalienability of their rights."[11]

Atheist Sam Harris, author of the bestseller The End of Faith, is skeptical that moderate Islam is even possible, arguing that Muslim extremism is a consequence simply of taking the Qur'an literally.[12] Nobel-prize winner VS Naipaul, a Trinidadian-born British novelist of Hindu heritage, has sowed controversy with his criticism of Islam. He claims it has had a "calamitous effect on converted peoples", destroying their ancenstral culture and history.[13]

There are also outspoken former Muslims who believe that Islam is the primary cause for what they see as the mistreatment of minority groups in Muslim countries and communities. Almost all (if not all) of them now live in the West, many under assumed names because of a perceived danger to themselves. Such people include Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, and Ali Sina. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has focused on the plight of Muslim women, saying that "they aspire to live by their faith as best they can, but their faith robs them of their rights."[14]

Several scholars do not self-identify as critics of Islam but are not afraid to criticise some of its aspects. Bernard Lewis is perhaps the most well-known member of this group. For example, he holds that unbelievers, slaves, and women are considered fundamentally inferior to other groups of people under Islamic law though he holds that even the equality of free adult male Muslims represented a very considerable advance on the practice of both the Greco-Roman and the ancient Iranian world.[15] [16]

Just a few minor edits and word changes but it helps identify the people involved.Hypnosadist 13:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


Firstly, I want to state that I see no reason why the whole chunk that was part of the edit war should be removed. They are far more notable than Ali Sina and even moreso than Ayaan Hirsi. However, the section does come off as sensationalist. It is little quips that you'll get in the news because they will catch people's attention--they are not an attempt to explain the views of Robertson or Falwell. They are important because they represent a 'popular criticism'. Meaning, they have many followers and don't go in depth in a system of criticism so much. I think we should definitely cleanup the section and user sources that give a more complete context. gren グレン 07:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The case of Atefah Sahaaleh

This story http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/5217424.stm i think should be placed in this article and as it is very strong stuff i want to put it here first. Where should it go? Should it have its own section? Or just be used as a source to be used on many different sections?Hypnosadist 02:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about these recent ideas for additions. Unlike that Robert Spencer/Bat Ye'or crap, this stuff is noteworthy. I'd suggest a section titled something like "Application of Shariah". To my knowledge, when people criticize Islam, 9 out of 10 times it's because of practices directly tied to the religion and not this ancient mumbo jumbo. This piece is definitely noteworthy, as was the case of the pregnant woman almost killed in Nigeria. His Excellency... 04:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, it should. But in Persian, her name is "Atefeh Rajabi".--Patchouli 06:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Not notable. Someone random nobody is hanged in Iran a few years ago; how is that notable enough to be included in the Criticism of Islam article, which is supposed to cover over 1400 years of Islam? Avoid recentism please --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 05:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This is very notable for many reasons; First is that this story was covered by the BBC in an hour long documentry. Second and most important it contains in one package many of the most critcised aspects of Islamic theocracy in action. Just to explain these to you is that Aisha's marrage is used as the reason to have a very low age of concent. This combined with the fact that women are guilty for causing sexual temptation under most religious fundamentalist thought (including Islam), means that a 13yr old gets in several abusive (Violent) relationships with 40+yr old men, and its her fault.That the State finds her guilty of a Faith Crime (a violation of the UNCHR), sends her to jail several times were the guards beat and rape her on a daily basis (but thats ok because she's a immoral girl) and then hangs her in public for these "crimes!!!".

In short virtually every non-terrorism based critcism of Islam Theocracy is shown in crystal clear detail with the Short and Brutal life of Atefeh Rajabi(she is not a nobody, may GOD have mercy on your soul).Hypnosadist 14:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Being covered by BBC makes her notable for inclusion in her own article. But 1 hour of fame on TV doesn't make her notable enough to include in this article. Especially since her death had NOTHING to do with all of Islam, since Iran is a Shia country, and 90% of Muslims are Sunni. At best, she can be included in a Criticism of Shia Islam article, and even then I would vote against it. An average woman being abused a few years ago is not notable enough to be included in a timeless article that is supposed to cover 1400+ years of Islam. In 20 years, nobody except her close relatives will give a shit about her. But in 20 years, people will still debate Aisha's marriage to Muhammad, the Crusades, the Qur'an, and other timeless criticisms that will be there forever.

Take a look at the Criticism of Christianity article. There is nothing in there about a few random Catholic priests molesting children. What you are saying is the equivalent of asking for a certain abused child to be referenced by name, along with other criticisms of Christianity such as Biblical accuracy. And I think that is very wrong, since it gives undue weight. And a few Shia in a dictatorship in Iran that abuse women shouldn't be included in the Criticism of Islam article. That's my logic, and I hope you understood it. Thank you. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 05:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

First i would like to say that i think she should be used as an exemplar in several sections as criticism, as oposed to given her own section. Some of those would be Aisha's marriage to Muhammad also the Alleged discrimination against women and non-Muslims and Severe punishments sections. Second is some logic for you, Shia's are muslims therefore anything done by a Shia is done by a Muslim. Third Iran is one of the countries implimenting Sharia according to its constitution, when its state apparatus under absolute religious authority of GOD through the the Qur'an Judge in the name of GOD and Islam they are ISLAM. This is in the view of the Iranian Government, most of the west and most importantly under the wikipedia rules on notability what Ali Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad think is TRUE ISLAM vastly more notable than some guy in America. Hope that logic helps you.Hypnosadist 15:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

PS This is the pages you were looking for Roman Catholic sex abuse cases and Cases of child sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church and they do need work as strangely some people keep trying to remove information on the grounds of their religion, wonder why?Hypnosadist 16:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


All you do is say "she should be used as an exemplar", yet fail to provide to reasoning for it. I already explained my reasoning against this.

Yes, Shia's are Muslims, but they are also Shias. A criticism of Shias is not necessarily a criticism of Islam, which is why my proposal, to create a Criticism of Shia Islam article, you can add her in. But some random person looks at this article and sees the Atefah example, he wouldn't know that it ONLY applies to Iranian Shia Islam, and that it has nothing to do with the rest of Islam whatsoever. My example, however, Aisha's marriage to Muhammad, belongs in this article because it applies to 99.99% of Muslims. Same thing with the Qur'an. However again, some Shias in Iran that abuse a woman 2 years ago is not notable enough to be covered in a criticism of 1400 years of all of Islam.

And yes, Iran is an "Islamic government", but they are still Shia Muslims there. Remember again that Shias are only ten percent of all Muslims. If you want criticism of Islam, it should focus on the majority of Muslims, or the ninety percent. Again, this is going to give undue weight to the issue. This isn't even a matter of "true Islam". This is a matter of representing what Islam even is, accurately. My proposal is to create a splinter article for Shias if you want it to be on Wikipedia that desperately. Or maybe even this article itself can be split into two parts.

And yes, I already knew those pages (the sex abuse) existed, and that further amplifies my point. They have their own articles, separate from the Criticism of Christianity article. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You have not provided any evidence that what happened in Iran (and continues today with some other poor girls no doubt!) was anything to do with a unique theological distinction from Sunni Islam (Sufism for that matter). Is the Hudud different, if so please tell me how.Well my Iranian Muslim friend lets go through section by section then so you can see what she is an example of.
  • Aisha's marriage to Muhammad section. She and what Amnisty say about her treatment should be added to this section as it is Aisha's marriage that is stated as the reason for the low age of sexual consent in IRAN. In effect she is raped because of Aisha, this makes it a notable inclusion, as if the Prophet can have a young wife so can a good muslim man. Hamas a sunni organisation say in their motto "the Prophet is the model" and aisha is part of that model.
  • Severe punishments i think her repeated floggings and final public hanging for "immorality" count as Severe punishments that are proscibed by the Qur'an and Hadith and so she should be added here as more proof.
  • Alleged discrimination against women and non-Muslims yep i think what happened to her counts.
Hope that explains how she fits in to criticism of parts of Islam that have lasted 1400years.Hypnosadist 11:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Unless there's evidence of notable criticism of Islam based on this case, it's oiginal research. It would be understandable that you feel outrage on this application of Shariah, but for it to be here a source has to reflect that outrage. Do you know of European or American political figures or commentators who have spoken of the issue? I found an Amnesty report critisizing that matter, but it doesn't point to Islamic theology. The Atefah article itself could use some bolstering. His Excellency... 17:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Your right H.E. that complaints need to be by notable people or groups, the Amnesty report covers the question of incompatability of some rulings under Sharia law in Iran and UNCHR. Also i think she can be used as a primary source for the Severe punishments section without any question of OR. As to the link of Aisha's marriage to Muhammad thats OR at the moment as i have no source to link that to the Low age of concent and then to her entering abusive relationships due to being too young to get herself out. I'm sure someone will go through LGF to find them for us H.E.Hypnosadist 22:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You have not provided any evidence...

Do I need to? The burden of proof isn't on me. YOU are the one that needs to find a Sunni school of thought that agrees with the jurisdiction of the Iranian Court that judged her.

Aisha's marriage to Muhammad section...

How is Aisha related to this? This woman was raped at the age of 16 in an act of fornication. Aisha was married and didn't have sex until she was ready. And even then, it was only with her husband. The age of marriage in Iran has nothing to do with Atefeh Rajabi since she wasn't married. Enough with the red herrings please.

if the Prophet can have a young wife so can a good muslim man.

Not only is this factually wrong, it is entirely irrelevant. Again, Atefe Rajabi was not married.

Hamas a sunni organisation say in their motto "the Prophet is the model" and aisha is part of that model...

So now you are consulting Hamas for your theology? Since when are members of Hamas notable Islamic scholars? And Aisha is not part of that model, since she wasn't a prophet. She was simply one of the many women whom the Prophet married to give a home.

i think her repeated floggings and final public hanging for "immorality" count as Severe punishments that are proscibed by the Qur'an and Hadith and so she should be added here as more proof...

Show me where the Noble Qur'an or Hadith proscribe floggings and public hanging for being raped. Please, I'm dying to see this. People claim this bullshit all the time yet I've never seen any proof.

yep i think what happened to her counts.

She is not notable, as per above.

--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 22:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You want the proof read the link on the BBC, see was kiled because of her "Sharp tongue". She was flogged repeatedly for immorality. The Aisha (which i'm not going to talk about the FACTS as apperatly even mentioning she says it herself is islamophobic) link is that the Iranian age sexual consent is very low that ment a 40+ year old had sex legally with a 13 year old, and this law was enacted because of Aisha by the Islamic theocracy of IRAN.Hypnosadist 11:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Nono, I'm asking for book number, author, etc. of the Hadith which states the punishment for being raped. Otherwise, I would politely ask you to stop using that. And again, Aisha was married to the Prophet so it doesn't have any relevance to this case here. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

1)She was flogged for having pre-marital sex not for being raped. That that pre-marital sex was rape is to add yet more horror to this story. 2)I never said she was flogged for being raped. 3) You want to know the Hadith she was flogged and tortured and finally killed under, ASK THE IRANIAN COURT for the details because i don't care. It was an islamic court offering islamic justice in the name of Allah and his prophet, and if you think they have Islam wrong Please tell them about it not me! it might just save another girls life.Hypnosadist 10:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC) PS I'll go through one more time the relivance of Aisha. Aisha married the prophet when she was young (the Iranian spiritual leaders think at 9). This makes it culturally acceptable for an old man(40+) to have sex with a young girl(less than 16). So thats exactly what happened a 40+ year old ex-army officer had sex with her and she gets punished for it (but guess what, yes thats right he didn't, not even a trial). All these trials were carried out by a court claiming islamic authority, i don't make that claim of them! Please i've tried very hard to explain this to you, if you are still having difficulty i'd get some books on womens rights and read them and come back to this area.Hypnosadist 10:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so she was charged with the crime of pre-marital sex (even though it was in fact her that was raped)... that still doesn't help much. There is not a Law in Sharia or anywhere in the Hadiths that proscribes stoning for fornication. And so you admit that you have no idea why the Iranian court sentenced her in this fashion, yet you also state that you don't care, and that it is MY responsibility to do your work! If you want this to even have a chance of being mentioned in the article, you should provide the Iranian court's official documents and reasoning behind their verdict. Again, some random Shia Iranian court is not notable enough to be included in 1400 years of criticism of Islam.

And no, just because Aisha got married at a young age does not mean it is culturally acceptable. Many things that the prophet did, such as taking care of and providing for more than 4 wives at a time, are forbidden for other people. And his marriage to Aisha was another one of those things. And besides that, it is an anachronism to even use to word "marriage" to describe Aisha's relationship with the prophet, since "marriage" 1400 years ago in the desert certainly meant something different than it does today in the United States. Given the extraordinary circumstances revolving around Aisha, it is clear that she was the exception not the rule. And again, this is not relevant, because Aisha was married and they had consentual sex at her request. This man, whom you did not even name until now, was not married, and the girl was raped by him. There is no similarity.

And it doesn't matter if the court claims "Islamic authority", that doesn't make them an authority on Islam, and certainly not a notable enough authority to be included in 1400 years of criticism of Islam. I could go out right now and shoot some people for my faith in Jesus, that doesn't mean it should be added to the Criticism of Christianity article, even if I claim to be an authority on Christian studies.

And then you mention books on women's rights... I already have an authoritive book on that. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 00:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes the Ayatolas of Iran notable authorities on Islam, vastly more so than some guy called Kirby.Hypnosadist 11:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Which ayatollah was directly involved with this case? And you didn't answer my points. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 00:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Adolf Hitler never sat down and signed a paper consenting the killing of every victim of the Holocaust. Therefore, he was not directly involved in the massacres.--71.107.229.136 03:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Montgomery Watt

Reading through the article, I noticed it mentioned this guy way too much. Is there no other author that agrees with him or is acceptable enough to slash in and replace some of his responses to criticisms? Anonymous 22:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

We have also for example John Esposito, but I haven't read his works. --Aminz 05:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Shirin Sinnar Quotation

A quotation appears in this article that attributes to me a view that I do not hold; in fact, my article cited by the wikipedia entry explicitly rejects that view.

Please remove the quotation. If you'd like to see the original article, you can read it at http://web.archive.org/web/19991109075328/www.jaring.my/just/UNhr50An.html

Thanks, Shirin Sinnar

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I read your article at the link provided, and I agree that the source is being misquoted. Unfortunately, because this page is protected from editing except by sysops; we will just have to wait until one responds to this.
On a different note, I hate to sound naїve, but how exactly do we know it is you? While your IP address indeed shows that it is from the Bay Area, other than that there is no evidence of you actually being Shirin Sinnar. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 09:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Great parts of the article should be merged with Islamophobia

The standard bearer of Neutrality is how other similar articles are treated, other religions have two articles critiscism of X where biblical inconsistencies are mentioned, and anti-X where others attack the religion.

Examples: Criticism of Judaism vs Anti-Judaism Criticism of Christianity vs Anti-Catholicism or Anti-ProtestantismFlanker 08:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

NO NO NO this article is about legitamate critisim of the ideas, concepts and most of all the actions of Islam as evidenced by the people who believe in it(and say they are doing it in the name of islam), not rants or insults. The problem with this article is its not critical enough, and the criticisms used are not relivent to the modern world (i don't care that some christian scholar in the middle ages thought Mohammed was possesed by the devil, they thought that of a lot of people). The fact that criticism is often called islamophobia is one of the criticisms missing from this article. Also the 25 million plus people enslaved under the rules of islam is not given enough prominance etc. I mean come on terrorism does not even get a mention, what a joke.Hypnosadist 10:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Your stance is far removed from a neutral one, this article is very western centric and the evidence of anti-islam bias is that all critiscism of X are entirely biblical and logical inconsistencies, christianity in particular has a darker history than islam if we assume that followers represent the relgion, for every UBL there is a Hitler, terrorism a crusade. I just ask for balance and to avoid western centric bias.Flanker 21:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


Said was not a Muslim. We should move him to non-Muslim defenders of the faith.

Criticism of Islam has been removed from vertually every article on each subject so it has all been dumped here. This is an encyclopedia it is about Facts, facts such as Islam explicitly says you can own another human. This encyclopedia is not h:ere to push your agenda of moral relativism, a crime is a crime. Terrorism has supported by many notable Scholars of Islam, this article is not about what muslims would like to be criticised about but what Islam is criticised for.Hypnosadist 09:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I question your neutrality re: this article all I propose is that it given the same treatment the other two major religions of the region are given. Read the articles linked criticism of christianity and judaism only deals with biblical and logical inconsistencies, in the bible slavery,rape, murder is sometimes promoted too.Flanker 15:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality has no meaning here. I'm in arbitration over the islamophobia-driven fighting that's gone on through these pages, The only consensus I can find amongst the arbitrators is that they don't give a shit about the biases that are obvious here. Ami Bidhrohi 15:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Its not my neutrality is not the issue its the neutrality of the article. There are many critical articals such as Roman Catholic sex abuse cases. All the criticisms keep getting dumped here off the articles they should be in. The Criticisms of the Prophet should be in Muhammad but no its not there. Help the criticism get in the right place.Hypnosadist 16:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Again Neutrality is what I am after not convinience or encyclopedic value, I find it POV that neither Christianity nor Criticism of Christianity has any of what is present here despite a much darker history than Islam. So if they are relegated to anti-x then so should this article that is mostly islamophobia opinion.Flanker 14:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
This is an encycolpedia, facts presented by scholars are what is important not your opinion of whether cristianity or islam has a worse history (or present). That criticism of Islam is Islamophobia is your POV that is both irrelivent and insulting.Hypnosadist 17:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
This is supposed to be an encyclopedia that is NEUTRAL and free of regional bias, if the term Islamophobia disturbs you then anti-islam may be a more neutral term in accordance to standards, I just linked to Islamophobia because it anti-islam redirects there.Flanker 18:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Change suggested to title of 2 Alleged intolerance of Islam to criticism

The section ...2 Alleged intolerance of Islam to criticism uses the weasel word "alleged". There are criticisms in the section with factual evidence which satisfies the dictionary definition of intolerance i.e. Islam is not tolerant of the examples of critics listed. A better title is simply something like, Criticism of Islam's Intolerance of its critics which I feel is better as apostates are viewed as critics and the section actually mentions examples of these critics and the factual evidence of the intolerance they receive. I'm not too concerned if it is death, fines or prisons that are used to punish apostates; the issue is that any apostacy is tolerated ?. The answer is no thus the criticism of intolerance still stands. If the situation is one in which a balance of judgment was needed then the content should clearly indicate what the two sides are. Sticking in alleged and then only one side is implying there are balancing arguments. Given the title of the whole article is Criticism of 'x' then the section 2 heading is not alleged as it is consistent with that title. The same criticism could be placed on the Christian doorstep too with respect to intolerance of apostacy (specifically apostasy a Fide) though nowadays modern secular society makes this particular aspect of canon law unenforcable and thus just a footnote. Ttiotsw 06:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

H.E.'s concerns

H.E. had concerns about Robert Spencer as a reliable source. I agree with him. --Aminz 10:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis's quote on Slavery

Would you please read the source before reverting back my edit. You can find the article by Lewis here: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/lewis1.html .

Lewis says: "Both the Old and New Testaments recognize and accept the institution of slavery."... "The Qur'an, like the Old and the New Testaments, assumes the existence of slavery. It regulates the practice of the institution and thus implicitly accepts it." --Aminz 04:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but Lewis says "far-reaching effects". It is WP:OR to remove the quote. --Aminz 04:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The erroneous insinuation is that the Bible also "regulates the practice" (of slavery). "It", particularly the New Testament, does not. I will persistantly delete any vague attempts to equate the Quran and Bible along these particular lines.--Mike18xx 04:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I will use the exact quotes of Lewis to aviod any possible misconception. --Aminz 04:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not use Lewis (whom I consider to be a notorious bonehead regardless of his "notability"), or anyone else for that matter, to introduce moral-equivalence logical-fallacies. Those are like crab-grass in an encyclopedia, and must be drowned in harsh chemical-pesticides in order to preserve the health of the lawn.--Mike18xx 04:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

WHAT?! Please note that Bernard Lewis and Watt are the two most famous scholars of Islam that I know.--Aminz 04:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Famous" is irrelevant; accuracy is relevant. (Frankly, *none* of these writers are "famous" in any remotely popular conception of the term; e.g., The Beatles are famous, Lewis and Spencer are not.)--Mike18xx 05:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Mike18xx, as long as wikipedia is concerned, Lewis and Watt could be quoted. Cheers, --Aminz 06:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You are greatly in error if you believe that "name-dropping" to promote a logical fallacy of equivalence passes muster at well-managed encyclopedias.--Mike18xx 08:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Mike, Please note that Bernard Lewis is "not" a Muslim. Furthermore, his work that I am refering to is published by Oxford Univ Press. How can it be a "logical fallacy"? 'The Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing has written that, over a 60-year career, Bernard Lewis has emerged as "the most influential postwar historian of Islam and the Middle East."' --Aminz 08:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Your note is irrelevent to my argument. I will leave you to research what a moral equivalence logical fallacy is on your own time. Suffice to say this: If your (as an editor) counter-argument to an ethical criticism (e.g., criticisms of slavery) is, essentially, "But-but these other guys did it too!, according to this famous dude!", you're committing one -- because what a non-Islamic entity is doing is irrelevent to an article critical of aspects of Islam. When I can such a passage, it's due to lack of relevency and commission of a logical-fallacy, not lack of appreciation for the notability of your famous dude.--Mike18xx 09:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the responses to critics is also part of the article. That quote furthermore puts the issue into its context which is necessary for understanding the case. Criticizing Islam for what everybody did isn't honest at least. --Aminz 09:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Aminz i think you are wrong on two counts. First in wikipedia other people/ countries/ faiths involved in the slave trade are criticised, for example Britains part in the trans atlantic trade. It would be dishonest of me to criticise Islam without the refference to my peoples involvement in slavery, but i do so i'm honest. Second error comes from the claims Islam makes about itself and its link with slavery. Islam claims to be the PERFECT word of a PERFECT GOD on what is moral and what isn't, and that this Morality is immutable over time. So according to Islam slavery is Moral, not only 1400 years ago or 700 years ago but also today. So as Islam claims that slavery is a moral (mandated by God) trade it is right to criticise it more today as i doubt you could find a Jew or Christian to say slavery is moral.Hypnosadist 14:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Hypnosadist, I understand your points especially the second one. The very same point was also made by Watt. I think your point is a good one and should be added to the article as soon as you could fine a peer-reviewed scholarly source supporting your view. My argument is however that Lewis belives that "The institution of slavery had indeed been practiced from time immemorial. It existed in all the ancient civilizations of Asia, Africa, Europe, and pre-Columbian America. It had been accepted and even endorsed by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as other religions of the world." He doesn't say only Islam accepted slavery. Similarly, "The Qur'an, like the Old and the New Testaments, assumes the existence of slavery." He doesn't say only Qur'an assumes the existence of slavery. I was adding the context to the quote of him. --Aminz 09:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes Aminz as usual you are quoting Lewis exactly and in correct wikipedia policy, thats why i didn't delete it when i checked what you posted (more to read his work which i havn't before), i'm just saying in my (meaningless on wikipedia) opinion he is misrepresenting the context of slavery in the new testiment. Out of interest this line of reasoning was used by some to validate the atlantic slave trade, its debunking was one of the victories that led to the end of that evil trade.Hypnosadist 17:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Hypnosadist. Hypnosadist, I have also had such experiences where I felt an scholar, even a notable one, makes strange arguments. Unfortunately, I don't know famous academic scholars of the Bible to be able to find another view on the context of slavery in the new testiment. I hope you know some. --Aminz 21:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I talking to a Quaker friend of mine, and given their place in history of both Christianity and Slavery he should be able to get me some cool references.Hypnosadist 14:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no fallacy committed, unless people are actually claiming that it was ok because others were doing it. And of course, that is not the case. All that is being said is that it is unfair to single out Islam with reguards to slavery when other societies at the time were doing it to. And that's just a simple answer. If you want to take this a level further, I can easily point out the true fallacy being commited. Slavery 1400 years ago in the Arabian Peninsula is not what most readers imagine when they read the word slavery.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 04:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

WTF Kirby! Slavery is slavery, there is no good kind of slavery! The slavery that my country (Britain) was part of (either roman or atlantic) was not nicer because my ancestors did it (or in the case of Rome were victims). The one thing i agree with you is "Slavery 1400 years ago in the Arabian Peninsula is not what most readers imagine when they read the word slavery." most people especially in the rich west think slavery is a bad job with no wage. It is the complete lack of control over any aspect of your life, you have the right to be worked to death, the right to be raped and or beaten, you have the right to starve and be thirsty at your masters whim. Kirby please tell us about how "Slavery 1400 years ago in the Arabian Peninsula" is nice, tell us the rules and how they are inforced (or not as the case is), then sell me one of your children into slavery under those rules (bet you don't want to!).Hypnosadist 13:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Hypnosadist, I also think that it's "right" to criticize slavery (in Islam and wherever/whenever else). But Wikipedia is not intended for criticism or praise of anything (it must only cite, correctly, what others have said). You and the other editors need to discuss on how to present the Islamic teaching and actual workings of slavery, based on scholarly research, not what any of us think of slavery. Forget "what people would think", forget logic, and explain what the Qur'an is talking about when it talks about slavery, without using inflammatory and quite possibly inaccurate comparisons. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Having just read the document provided i'm shocked by Lewis' lack of understanding of basic logic. Things like "From many allusions , it is clear that slavery is accepted in the New Testament as a fact of life." maybe thats because slavery was a fact of life in the roman empire. How about that no known civilisation at that time or before had existed without slaves, maybe that was why they thought it was a "fact of life". Then he goes for the classic Epistle to Philemon, which is written about a slave who is christian to a non-christian master, and states the slave should serve his master as he would christ (as opposed to slitting your master's throat as he sleeps, which would not be very christian). This is not the same a saying slavery is legal which both lewis and this article are now trying to say. If you read the whole section its easy to see this is due to determanistic thinking (ie God made you a slave) in christianity not "acceptance".Hypnosadist 00:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Bernard Lewis is a *hack*.--Mike18xx 05:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Hypnosadist, why don't you bring neutrality to the article by quoting other scholars. Lewis is a notable and respected scholar and he has published his work in Oxford press. --Aminz 09:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The source for Photograph is unreliable

The source of this photograph is http://www.pcpages.com/ani/polgr/inani/lop/thenow4/thenow04.htm

This page is not reliable according to WP:RS. --Aminz 04:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you're claiming something doesn't mean that it's true. Pony up your evidence.--Mike18xx 05:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Image:Girlvic.jpg comes from a Website with a bias against Islam. However, this does not warrant its deletion per criteria at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion.--Patchouli 05:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
It is irrelevent whether or not the website has bias against Islam. However, the website does not state where the image came from, and whether or not it is copywrighted. Given the amateur quality of the website, it will not be likely that the webmaster created the image himself, and probably copied and pasted it from somewhere else. Thus, without any knowledge of its copywright status, it cannot be used on Wikipedia. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 06:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
If we want to play an speculation game, then I think it has been posted by an Iranian expatriate whose news outlet was shut down by the mullahs. It isn't our job to allege copyright infringements without proof.--Patchouli 06:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Folks, I have nominated this image for deletion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2006_September_6 (It appears at the end of the list). Please post your arguments there. Thanks --Aminz 06:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the discussion there. --Aminz 06:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/i/Talk%7ECriticism_of_Islam_Archive_3_0119.html"