Content deleted Content added
Line 503:
::Yes Andries is correct when stating that just not anyone can insert criticism on a religion. Look, it isn't dayananda's status in Hinduism that I doubt, it is his qualification for criticizing Islam. I was using the example that if I were to start a religious sect, completely unrelated to hinduism, I ''would'' have the ability to criticize hinduism but that still does not make me qualified enough to add my criticism into an encyclopedia article if I haven't any academic scholarship in Hinduism. Once again, the article is about criticism and not just differences between religions. I also want to give a chance for other editors to comment as you fail to understand what an encyclopedia should include.--[[user:Anonymous editor|<font color="green">'''a.n.o.n.y.m''']] <sup>[[user talk:Anonymous editor| ''t'']]</sup> 18:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
:::On the other hand, I am afraid that a person like the Christian [[Martin Luther]] must be mentioned because he was influential, however the article should explicitly state that he had no credentials to do so (I think, please check, that Luther hardly had knowledge of Islam and had not read the Koran, and probably not even met a Muslim in his whole life). [[User:Andries|Andries]] 19:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
:::: Well Andries, although Dayananda was just one reference, and my original content wasn't even based on his critique, I must point out that as a reformer he had a lot of influence on hundreds of millions of people, and unlike Martin Luther, he had debated with a large number of Islamic scholars of his time. The 130 years old Arya Samaj has chapters in [[India]], [[United States]], [[Canada]], [[Guyana]], [[Surinam]], [[Trinidad]], [[Mexico]], [[United Kingdom]], [[Netherlands]], [[Kenya]], [[Tanzania]], [[Uganda]], [[South Africa]], [[Malawi]], [[Mauritius]], [[Pakistan]], [[Burma]], [[Thailand]], [[Singapore]], [[Hong Kong]], and [[Australia]]. I think we ought not be judging the quality of one's critique on our own: first we might not be competent enough to do that, and second, a personal POV has no place on wikipedia. We can possibly use the influence of the critique in deciding what is important enough to be in the article. In early 20th century, the direct influence of Dayananda's work was the launch of '''Shuddhi Movement''' [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGGL%2CGGGL%3A2005-09%2CGGGL%3Aen&q=shuddhi+movement+OR+campaign&btnG=Search] in India that reconverted thousands of Muslims (and Christians) into Hindus, and had major political implications. Again, to make matters clear, let me point out that I am not a member of Arya Samaj, nor do I personally give a damn to what Dayanand said, but I cannot emphasize more that this is not relevant while we write ths encyclopedia article.
::No one that dayanand's sect does not have adherents but that still does not make him qualified. Please source any of these debates he had with Islamic scholars. The importance of a critique and how common it is are '''very''' important in an encyclopedia article or otherwise any single person can add what they think about a religion into an encyclopedia article. This would not be an encyclopedia then. Read my comments in the section below about what makes up common criticism and the need to source it. --[[user:Anonymous editor|<font color="green">'''a.n.o.n.y.m''']] <sup>[[user talk:Anonymous editor| ''t'']]</sup> 19:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
== Only academics can criticize? ==
| |||