Talk:Criticism of Islam
new article
Criticism of Islam is entirely on-topic in this article, however, editors will be bound by scholarly and encyclopedic standards. Such a standard is set by the Catholic Encyclopedia, which attributes all opinions to scholars. It is alright to say that Martin Luther called Muhammed a devil, because Martin Luther is a notable early modern Christion author and theologian. Unattributed rants or essays have no place here, or anywhere on Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 12:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- Hey, nice work Dab! Zora 13:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Biased Nature
It is important to recognize that borrowing large sections of this particular article from the Catholic Encyclopedia is precisely the reason why this particular article is full of biases. JuanMuslim 17:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
More sections
I don't want to add anything because I fear my own writing... but, I was thinking of these two opposition to hadith. This comes from Qur'an aloners that believe you need nothing more than the Qur'an for guidance (and is relatively non-notable since you wanted good sourcing I am not sure if you want this included) and from scholars Muslim and non-Muslim alike who question whether hadith are accurate representations of what Muhammad could have said. Hadith#Western_academic_views_of_hadith will be a good basis for that section. I also wonder if we should add opposition to Islamic society... which of course would come from a stance of "a society based on Islam is violent"... Although I don't typically think of him as sensationalist Robery Spencer seems to typify that view. I also know that Fazlur Rahman critiques what he thinks of as stagnation in learning at Al-Azhar before the reforms and how he doesn't appreciate how Muslims scholars would analyze analyses instead of creating new work. We also need opposition to liberal Islam because there has been plenty of that with Amina Wadud and female imamizing. gren グレン 17:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- hey, I don't own the article, go ahead. if people don't like it, they will challenge it, and you should then be prepared to either back it up or remove it. Most of the anti-Islamic Ali-Sina type of criticism is directed at society, so I guess that is pretty much part of an anti-Islamic attitude. Although even critics of Islamic society are fond of making remarks about Muhammad the pederast every now and again. dab (ᛏ) 20:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- I added Qur'an and hadith sections with mostly information from hadith and higher criticism. My problem is that I haven't read many suitable articles about hadith / Qur'an criticism. I know that some argue against the Qur'an from an internal coherence viewpoint but I don't know which authors do that without it digressing into a diatribe. gren グレン 09:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
THis article to should be moved
I think the article should be titled "Criticisms of Islam," not "Opposition to Islam." Opposition is active, criticism is passive. This article appears to be about intellectual criticism, not real-world opposition. --Zeno of Elea 06:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- I think the title should stay as Opposition. Opposition to Mormonism already exists and is working well. On another religion, the Baha'i Faith had a problem on how to deal with criticism, and a page called Baha'i criticism got voted for deletion for being too POV. If it's titled criticism, then it invites people to put in their own opinion. A new page was made for Baha'i apologetics and that seemed to work well for that case. Cunado19 07:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with the move. Unfortunately, Criticism of Islam was already blank-protected, because of an Islamophobic diatribe that had been vfd'd there. I think it's nonsense to vfd articles based on content. Content can be changed, what is deleted is invariably the title. This article is aspiring to document academic/theological/political criticism, not to be a critique itself, and has therefore every right to be at Criticism of Islam. If you put this article on WP:RM, I will support the move. However, this is not important. Focus on improving the article first. By improving, I mean obsessive detail in citation and documentation, not heaping up of Islam bashing websites. dab (ᛏ) 07:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- Criticism is broader and as of now this article has criticism and opposition. Ali Sina is definitely opposition so that could become a sub-article if this gets large enough. I agree with the move... well, Criticism of Islam not criticisms I think. gren グレン 09:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- This page should be move to one titled: "Alleged unsubstantiated critcisms of Islam by Infidels." How dare anyone call the Holy Prophet Mohammed (pbuh), a devil!!? The Prophet was the last messenger of Allah. Would have Allah blessed him with many victories in battle if he was a devil? I think not! Saduj al-Dahij 20:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Chem1's revision of Qur'an section
Chem1 revised the Qur'an section to read that Uthman imposed the Quraish dialect and suppressed all other dialects. This is an explanation of the differences in proto-Quranic texts that is found in Islamic apologetic literature (it turns any differences into minor matters of dialect, which do not challenge the "uncorrupted Qur'an" belief), but it is not supported by what we DO know about the proto-Quranic texts. The Islamic records (the three variant Qur'ans held by Ali and (I forget their names!)) and the Sana'a texts seem to be converging here, in that the Sana'a records indicate that the Islamic records might be correct in their assessment of the differences. The differences were not ones of dialect, I gather, but just a few words here and there, and verse order. The Qur'an article covers this. Zora 22:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- If only I had time to rewrite this article. Unfortunately I'm too busy studying. --Zeno of Elea 00:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- let me guess. Your "rewrite" would plunge us into endless edit-wars and circular discussions? Maybe contributing, with some caution, rather than wholesale rewriting would betide better results, in cases such as this? dab (ᛏ) 20:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yes thats what I meant. contribute. --Zeno of Elea 21:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- let me guess. Your "rewrite" would plunge us into endless edit-wars and circular discussions? Maybe contributing, with some caution, rather than wholesale rewriting would betide better results, in cases such as this? dab (ᛏ) 20:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
History
Zeno, I saw your history edits... it seems pretty correct as far as I can see... except... I am not sure about the Muhammad-Antichrist link. The rest is almost common knowledge (well it should probably be sourced but it's not as important since it's rather general) but the antichrist reference I do not know about and would like to see sources if you have any. From this search Apparently Eulogius called Muhammad a praecursor Antichristi because he rejected Christ's divinity. From the first source it seems that he is the precursor antichrist... which makes sense since it surely wasn't end times (and I don't think most Christian theologians of the time thought it was).... it says that Augustine believed there were many antichrists (those utterly opposed to trutH) and those who called Muhammad such were writing in that tradition. Perfectus a Martyr of Cordova thought Muhammad was the false prophet announced in Matthwe 24:24.
This comes from Saracens: Islam in the Medieval European Imagination. by John Victor Tolan. - Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231123337 pages 90-92. I can't speak for its credibility except for to say that it's Columbia University Press... which... is rather notable. Of course around the Crusades and year 1000 apocolypse claims were on the rise -- I attended a lecture on that actually... the belief among many christians that they year 1000 would bring the end of the world. In any case, that surely brought resurgence in thinking Muslims were an anti-christ-like force... but, I'm not sure how specific they got.
Image
I have an interesting proposition. I was looking up information for the above section and I found Reading Medieval Images: The Art Historian and the Object edited by Thelma K Thomas, Elizabeth L Sears. University of Michigan Press - ISBN 0472067516 -- On page 56 it shows a rather interseting image which at my first glance appears to be a little image of Muhammad in a Christian text... this also talks about him as the Antichrist and other interpretations... all of this is available at http://print.google.com/ for anyone wanting to see (copyright issues with the image unknown). gren グレン 12:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Undeletion
This article is no longer the mere "collection of links" that it was, in June, when it was vfd'ed before. It is substantive.
I suspect that advocates of Islam are trying to suppress its contents, for the purpose of promoting Islam. So I'm putting this page on my watchlist.
All religions should be appraised. It is an historical scholarly tradition (at least in the West) to do so.
To be fair, we must delete all articles which criticise any religion or (better yet) keep them all.
The same thing happened with a series of articles user:IriskPunkTom was trying to create on religious persecution. He was trying to organize available knowledge about how followers of each of the major religions have perscuted those of other religions. That attempt in no way violates NPOV, and neither does the present article.
I suggest a series on "opposition to X" articles - one for each major religion. Uncle Ed 17:02, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
I am not an advocate of Islam, nor am I Islamic. This article was VFD'd. Recreation of VFD'd content satisfies CSD. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 17:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
N.b. IrishPunkTom's series was an attempt to get round any chance that an anti-Islamic article created by Germen (on an anti-Islamic crusade) survived VFD. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 17:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
"I suspect that advocates of Islam are trying to suppress its contents, for the purpose of promoting Islam. " That's not really a very NPOV thing to say is it?
I could equally say "I suspect that haters of Islam are trying to slander it, for the purpose of supressing Islam. " ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 17:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
- "I suspect that haters of Islam are trying to slander it, for the purpose of supressing Islam." This sums up Ril's reasoning for trying to delete this article. He is here to defend Islam from "slandering" because he thinks that this article is "supressing Islam." --Zeno of Elea 08:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
moved from top of page
from the old talkpage {{deletedpage}} Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Islam
— since the previous article was deleted due to its content rather than due to its title, there is now the suggestion to move Opposition to Islam to this title. dab (ᛏ) 11:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I hope I haven't made a mess of this now. This talk page should probably be moved to Talk:Criticism of Islam now, to coincide with the article title. sorry. dab (ᛏ) 06:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Ril, you are completely off track here. Nobody is suggesting that this article be deleted. The stuff you moved from the top of the page relates to the old article, and was just put here for reference. You know, like, transparency, so that there is a link to the old vfd. That was about a completely different article. This article is fine, nobody will suggest it be deleted, ok? dab (ᛏ) 17:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
ah, wait, I see you are suggesting deletion? lol. you think this is a recreation of deleted material? let me quote some of the stuff that was deleted:
The True Meaning of Islam
There is no denying it, for one who has actually read the Qur'an that Islam influences peace and solidarity, that is why men and women from all around the world have come to accept this faith.
* Islam is the worlds most rapidly growing religion * Islam has 1.2 Billion followers
Then why is it that many refer to it as a religion which promotes hatred. If so are we admitting that over a sixth of the worlds population are supporting terrorist movements, just as many American News Agencies have claimed before. *In this world their exists 21 nations that are based on Islamic law.
* 48 nations are predominanetly Islamic * Millions of Muslims exist in many other countries in some cases forming over 40% of their population.
Medieval Prejudice
After the Crusades Anti-Islamic propaganda started to develop
* When the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem 40,000 Muslims were killed * At the time the Muslims were far more powerful and technologically advanced than their Christian counterparts * Without the Crusades Western society would have never succeeded throughout the ages * Europeans recovered from a period of Barbarianism after they succeeded into using the advancements of their enemy * As a report by Karen Armstrong suggests:
and so on. then, this essay was cut down to a collection of links, which were then deleted as without content. Later, I created Opposition to Islam, paralleling Opposition to Mormonism. Then we decided to move it to Criticism of Islam. It's a new article, not a recreation of deleted material. Are you saying the same article would be fine at Opposition to Islam but not here, because someone happened to write a pov essay under this title at some point in the past? I thought not. dab (ᛏ) 18:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
- Can you cut it off please? People are trying to write an article here. Which part of the above statement did you not understand? dab (ᛏ) 18:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
VfD speedy deletion
If someone wants to recreate the article, please go to Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. Unilaterally recreating a VfD-deleted page, no matter how much bluster and special pleading and attacking of one's critics goes with it, isn't acceptable. (See also: Wikipedia:requests for arbitration#Ed Poor.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
- that's so much nonsense. nobody wants to recreate anything, what would we be doing on vfu? very well, so I moved it back to 'opposition', since apparently common sense seems in short supply just now. dab (ᛏ) 18:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Mel if there is a policy at Wikipedia which forbids creating a NEW article with the same title as a deleted one, please quote it.
This is a worthy topic, and the material in it is fresh. Please indicate on this talk page which policy the current content of the article violates, and we'll discuss how to fix that. Don't say "it was rfd'd before", because that's irrelevanet. Uncle Ed 23:11, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
great, now the edit history is lost. Ril, you have been told by three different people now that it is not a speedy. stop adding the template. read the talkpage. You are just being disruptive at this point. dab (ᛏ) 07:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- The edit history seems to, for some bizarre reason, be at Criticism of Islam, the redirect. If you want, after this mess settles down, I can merge the page histories. --cesarb 11:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Detailed Criticism
There are essentially no details of the criticisms made against Islam, here. I'm thinking of starting with expanding on the "Muhammad" section by creating subsections such as "Early Life," "Military Career," etc., etc. in order to elaborate on the specific criticisms. Anyone have any suggestions? --Zeno of Elea 08:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- just make sure you attribute every statement to a notable author. If you want to concentrate on the opinion of a particular author or book, it may be worthwhile to create an article about that for greater detail. Muhammad has been criticized for 1400 years now, and we must aim at giving a balanced picture of that here. dab (ᛏ) 10:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- Why would it be neccessary to attribute every criticism to a specific author? Muhammad has been criticised for 1400 years, but all of the criticism is based on the contents of the Sira, hadith and Qur'an. For example, nearly everyone famaliar with Muhammad's life has read about the Banu Qurayza. This incident is commonly leveled against Muhammad in criticism of his deeds. Another simple example is Aisha. According to most of the traditions, Muhammad had sex with Aisha when he was around 50 years old and she was around 9 years old. This and other of his relations are commonly criticized. Do we need to say "such and such author critizes Muhammad for beheading an entire tribe of 900 Jewish men and having sex with a 9 year old girl?" What does it matter which authors reference these criticisms - there are literally thousands of authors that could be said to reference these particular points about the Banu Qurayaza and Aisha in their criticisms. Muhammad might have been ciriticed for 1400 years, but there is only a small finite amount of actual information about his life upon which criticisms are based. There are many thousands of books of publication which criticize Muhammad, but there are certain common and well-known themes that permeate criticisms of Islam and Muhammad that are based on the history of Muhammad as known from the earliest sources. You seem to be trying to impose an arbitrary limitation on the extent to which detail can be described in this article. And no I don't want to turn this article into a collection of book reports. --Zeno of Elea 10:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- Not at all, it is certainly permissible that these things are are mentioned as 'common' criticisms levelled against Muslims, I would have no problem at all with such an edit. However, saying that Muhammad was involved in the beheading of 900 men itself does not amount to 'criticism'. After all, the episodes are exclusively transmitted by his adherents, and are certainly not intended as such. 'Criticism' means contrasting these actions with his own laws etc. If you do not attribute the critical remarks to authors, you'll end up writing an essay. It will also be interesting, how this criticism formed during the Christian Middle Ages. Who was the first Christian theologian who discussed the Aisha case, that sort of thing. We are not interested in contemporary Muhammad-bashing so much as a study of the history of that pursuit. dab (ᛏ) 10:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- I suppose that the affair of the Banu Qurayza comes under allegations of genocide, as in this case the seed of an entire clan was deliberately killed. The affair of this clan is part of Muhammad's wider effort to expell all Jews from Arabia after what historian critics commonly refer to as his "falling out with the Jews" after he failed to convert them. The other allegation of genocide leveled against Muhammad is the eradication of pagan Arabs, a civilization of which virtually no trace is left except for what Islam adopted of the Arab paganism. --Zeno of Elea 11:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- sure, this can all go on Banu Qurayza. For the purposes of this article, we are interested how the event was used in criticism. When was it used to question the character of Muhammad, in Jewish literature and in Christian literature? Before the Crusades? After the Crusades? Only in modern times? These are the references we need, what exactly happened is a matter for the main article. Here, we want to know how the event was portrayed by individual authors for the purpose of criticizing Islam. To drive the point home, this article is not a "criticism of Islam", any more than the Islam article "is" Islam. The only article that is what its title says is Main Page, the others are about the topic of their title. This one is about criticism of Islam, i.e. we need to talk about the critics, their views, and the history of their ideas. dab (ᛏ) 11:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- "When was it used to question the character of Muhammad, in Jewish literature and in Christian literature? Before the Crusades? After the Crusades? Only in modern times?" This is irrelevant. It only concerns the history of criticism. I do not understand this Judaeo-Christian centricism. When was the first time that Christians read Ibn Ishaq's Sira and then wrote critical historical analysis of it? I don't know, and I don't see why I have to know such minute historical details in order to describe the commonly criticised stories of the well-known classical book "Sirah Rasul Allah" by Ibn Ishaq. Maybe you would like to research the obscure history of when was Ibn Ishaq's Sirah first criticized by Christians, Jews, Hindus, atheists, Buddhists, Taoists, Deists, etc. etc. I personally think that it is quite irrelevant. Once again, I refer you to the simple example of Aisha, who "consumated her marriage" with Muhammad at age 9 when Muhannad was around age 50. This is clearly a criticism that is commonly and undeniably made against Muhammad. Does it matter who the first Christian was to criticize Muhammad for his marriage with Aisha? I don't think so. I think it's quite irrelevant. What IS an interesting question is the general historical question of when did different civilizations first become aware of all of the Islamic literature, such as the Sira, hadith, Quran, etc - who were the first non-Muslims to critically analyze this corpus of literature? That seems like a mildly interesting question that is relegated to the "history" section of this article.
- "Here, we want to know how the event was portrayed by individual authors for the purpose of criticizing Islam." Once again, you are attempting to impose your arbitrary rules and edicts. Why should we be interested only in how particular events were portrays by individual authors? Again, I refer you to the issue of Muhammad's relation with Aisha. This common criticism is beyond the theory of some particular individual, it is widely repeated by thousands of authors in electronic, print and other media, both in the past and in the present. If you are interested in the obscure history of criticism of Aisha's relation with Muhammad then please feel free to research this issue and add the historical information you find. But it would be quite absurd to write down a list of all the individual authors who criticize Muhammad for his relation with a 9 year old Aisha. We ARE talking about criticism of Muhammad when we reference the story of Aisha. We do not need to track down the first person to ciriticize Muhammad for having sex with a 9 year old in order to acknowledge that it is a common criticism of Muhammad (and after all this article is about common ciriticm of Muhammad). --Zeno of Elea 11:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- sure, this can all go on Banu Qurayza. For the purposes of this article, we are interested how the event was used in criticism. When was it used to question the character of Muhammad, in Jewish literature and in Christian literature? Before the Crusades? After the Crusades? Only in modern times? These are the references we need, what exactly happened is a matter for the main article. Here, we want to know how the event was portrayed by individual authors for the purpose of criticizing Islam. To drive the point home, this article is not a "criticism of Islam", any more than the Islam article "is" Islam. The only article that is what its title says is Main Page, the others are about the topic of their title. This one is about criticism of Islam, i.e. we need to talk about the critics, their views, and the history of their ideas. dab (ᛏ) 11:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- I suppose that the affair of the Banu Qurayza comes under allegations of genocide, as in this case the seed of an entire clan was deliberately killed. The affair of this clan is part of Muhammad's wider effort to expell all Jews from Arabia after what historian critics commonly refer to as his "falling out with the Jews" after he failed to convert them. The other allegation of genocide leveled against Muhammad is the eradication of pagan Arabs, a civilization of which virtually no trace is left except for what Islam adopted of the Arab paganism. --Zeno of Elea 11:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- Not at all, it is certainly permissible that these things are are mentioned as 'common' criticisms levelled against Muslims, I would have no problem at all with such an edit. However, saying that Muhammad was involved in the beheading of 900 men itself does not amount to 'criticism'. After all, the episodes are exclusively transmitted by his adherents, and are certainly not intended as such. 'Criticism' means contrasting these actions with his own laws etc. If you do not attribute the critical remarks to authors, you'll end up writing an essay. It will also be interesting, how this criticism formed during the Christian Middle Ages. Who was the first Christian theologian who discussed the Aisha case, that sort of thing. We are not interested in contemporary Muhammad-bashing so much as a study of the history of that pursuit. dab (ᛏ) 10:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- sure, I agreed such criticism is "common", and that you should mention it. Far from irrelevant, the history of this "commonality" is notable. Muslims have "common" answers to all these "common" criticisms, and they all go to the main articles. You can of course cite contemporary authors making such criticism, but they will only be a tiny part of the discourse. Muhammed lived in the 7th century, so surely 7th (or 8th) century criticism would be far from irrelevant, it would be the most relevant of them all. 21st century criticism is also relevant, but only by authors who are not as naive to ignore the 1400 years preceding them. dab (ᛏ) 11:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- 7th or 8th century criticism of Islam? Such as? Maybe you should read a book about the history of this subject first, dab. You don't sound like you have expertise in this subject, yet you are intent on sounding like you do. I would recommend reading "Saracens: Islam in the Medieval European Imagination" by John V. Tolan (Columbia University Press 2002). This is to say nothing of your unfounded claim that the older criticism is the more "relevant" it is to an article about such criticm. --Zeno of Elea 12:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- Zeno, I was making a point here. I know there is no '7th century criticism of Islam'. If you won't bother to listen to my point, I won't bother explaining it to you further. Just make your edits, I am sure they will be scrutinized for fairness. dab (ᛏ) 12:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- 7th or 8th century criticism of Islam? Such as? Maybe you should read a book about the history of this subject first, dab. You don't sound like you have expertise in this subject, yet you are intent on sounding like you do. I would recommend reading "Saracens: Islam in the Medieval European Imagination" by John V. Tolan (Columbia University Press 2002). This is to say nothing of your unfounded claim that the older criticism is the more "relevant" it is to an article about such criticm. --Zeno of Elea 12:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- Why would it be neccessary to attribute every criticism to a specific author? Muhammad has been criticised for 1400 years, but all of the criticism is based on the contents of the Sira, hadith and Qur'an. For example, nearly everyone famaliar with Muhammad's life has read about the Banu Qurayza. This incident is commonly leveled against Muhammad in criticism of his deeds. Another simple example is Aisha. According to most of the traditions, Muhammad had sex with Aisha when he was around 50 years old and she was around 9 years old. This and other of his relations are commonly criticized. Do we need to say "such and such author critizes Muhammad for beheading an entire tribe of 900 Jewish men and having sex with a 9 year old girl?" What does it matter which authors reference these criticisms - there are literally thousands of authors that could be said to reference these particular points about the Banu Qurayaza and Aisha in their criticisms. Muhammad might have been ciriticed for 1400 years, but there is only a small finite amount of actual information about his life upon which criticisms are based. There are many thousands of books of publication which criticize Muhammad, but there are certain common and well-known themes that permeate criticisms of Islam and Muhammad that are based on the history of Muhammad as known from the earliest sources. You seem to be trying to impose an arbitrary limitation on the extent to which detail can be described in this article. And no I don't want to turn this article into a collection of book reports. --Zeno of Elea 10:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Protection?
If -Ril- keeps wrongly marking this for speedy deletion, editors might want to have the article protected against vandalism; if so, let me know. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- I wouldn't do that. I think anything blocking this opposition to Islam article will construed as bias and will cause unneeded hassle. If -Ril- keeps on doing that (which seems to be more or less vandalism at this point) then either he can be dealt with or the minor effort of removing the speedy can be done. gren グレン 08:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- if Ril keeps going, I will start to issue short blocks for disruption, rather than protecting the article (which is still in its formative phase). dab (ᛏ) 10:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- Well, don't do it yourself (you're involved in editing the article); either go to AN/I or ask me. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- I will; but the case seems to be closed now anyway. dab (ᛏ) 08:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- Well, don't do it yourself (you're involved in editing the article); either go to AN/I or ask me. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
is Rushdie a Muslim?
as far as I know, if you get yourself takfir'd, you are essentially 'excommunicated', i.e. not considered a Muslim anymore. Is it possible that whether Rushdie is a Muslim is a disputed question (I don't know)? dab (ᛏ) 19:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- Rushdie does not claim to be a Muslim, as far as I know. --Zeno of Elea 01:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- No, he's not a Muslim.--JuanMuslim 15:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Ethical criticism
- Here follow's Germen's section
Main article: Islamic ethics
Contemporary ethical criticism on traditional and islamist islam focuses on several points.
- Lack of reciprocity. The Golden Rule, "Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you", does not occur in the Qur'an. In the 40 hadith collection of Nawawi, there exists an incarnation of this rule, but it is valid exclusively regarding brothers, i.e. Muslims (as the Qur'an forbids considering a non-Muslim as a brother). [1] [2]
- Human rights. Islamic law contradicts the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights at several points, e.g. regarding the freedom of religion, slavery, treatment of homosexuals, treatment of women etc. Many Muslims regarded this as a problem[3]. In order to address this problem, the Islamic Conference has published a separate Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in 1990, which is compliant with Shari'ah. [4].
- Discrimination of women and non-Muslims. Critics argue that women have less rights than men and that infidels have less rights than Muslims. Muslims argue that men are the protectors of the women (Qur'an 4:34) and that infidels must return the favour of the protection by the islamic state.
- Ethical priorities. According to islamic ethics, violating dietary rules or sexual indiscretions are as bad as violation of the human rights of others. For example, killing an infidel does not carry a death sentence[5], but illegal sexual intercourse does[6]. The Qur'an considers worshipping other gods besides Allah as a sin which is worse than any other sin (Qur'an 4:48).
- Glorification of war and violence. Critics state that islam regards armed jihad as a religious duty. Muslims stress that armed jihad is only one of several kinds of jihad.
- Human right violations by adherents of islam. See main article Historical persecution by Muslims.
The ethical criticism on traditional islam has led to reform movements within islam, e.g. liberal islam movements and the Qur'an only movement.
- End of his section
Germen. You make many unsourced assertion and much of it is original research. Firstly... I don't think many liberal Muslims will tell you that "ethical criticism on traditional islam has led" to their reforms... also, they'd capitalize Islam. The Golden rules stuff from Ali Sina is nothing... when we made this dab specified respectable and notable sources... that is not. "Islamic law contradicts the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights" is, as you should know by now, a worthless statement as there is no cohesive Islamic law... also you might want to state who is claiming it contradicts the UNDHR... and you talk about such thing as a general compliance with sharia that does not exist. Sharia is Islamic law has different instantiations. Cite a critique of women's rights in Islam or Islamic lands... use print.google. There are also many region specific case studies like apllication of sharia in Sudan... because, Sudan has law that they call sharia... As you should also know by now quoting hadith is not quoting Islamic doctrine, it is a source for it and must be weighed and put into context by those interpretting it... which incidentally isn't you in an encyclopedic source. Also not citing sources that gloss over the jihad question is not good... I believe there is stuff you can take from jihad probably. Religious conflict and Islam is the correct article and I'm sure that can be linked. Just to remind you... (beause Dutch might be like French) we captialize relgion's names (well, proper nouns) in English so please keep that in mind. gren グレン 16:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Gren, I added several sources. All of my statements have been sourced, so I cannot understand why you term it original research. You can allege that I concentrate on content of the criticism rather than on names of critics. The reason of this, evidently, is that facts are more relevant than names. It is not highly informative to read the opinions of a group of people. It is more informative to read a summary of the criticism on a point-to-point basis. I have added now more than 20 references, so I think the "original research" epithet, if ever warranted, has been made obsolete by now. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 14:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- For instance you say "Frequently cited, e.g. by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer and Ali Sina are"... you have to use what they say, and cite it from their books / webpages. What you do is say they cite certain things... where do any of them (besides Ali Sina, which there is great contention about whtether or not he is legitimate) quote Islamonline or Islam Q&A? or Afrol news? No, it is original research to presume that they complain about those exacy sources. You must cite what Robert Spencer says, not attempt your own synthesis... because that is original research. Look at what Sorna added, it's cited with no original research. The thing is, you are citing various Islamic doctrines that you disagree with and calling it opposition... You cannot cite, on opposition to Islam, hadith and then say that it is opposed... I'm sure it is opposed... but by whom / what groups?, and do they say that they oppose that hadith... or do they cite something in general. That is what this article is about... not showing something that should be opposed and calling it opposition. As dab said to be, there can be deep criticism of Islam.... but it has to be sourced and done better than this Germen. It has gotten better... but, this is not up to standards... and please, stop citing hadith unless someone refers specifically to it. gren グレン 12:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Hello viewers of talk page ~ I added a paragraph on Jihad and Human Rights for the Ethics section. It is strictly paraphrasing from the Robert Spencer source, which I think is probably the main idea behind this and other highly controversial Islam articles (using sources). Let me know if this is what you were looking for, and suggestions, etc. Thanks. Sorna 19:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Germen, Wikipedia:Footnote3. Read it. Do it. You screw up the links to every other reference when you don't follow the page's footnote format. Any link in "[ ]" ruins the numbering scheme. gren グレン 11:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm, woah, FFI is down. DOS attack or something? gren グレン 12:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed, probably the action of a hasanat junkie. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 13:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
yeah, Germen, at least get the format right. Controversy is bad enough without you forcing people to clean up your formatting after you. dab (ᛏ) 13:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Cleaned up. Note that imho the benefits of this footnote standard do not warrant the extra work. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 14:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Understandable and for websites it is not worth it. But with the addition fo Sorna's section we were referencing texts... which is the way this article should go. If you wish to use one of the other footnote styles then feel free to but this style seems to be the most prevalent of late. gren グレン 20:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
POV tag
Gren, can you please indicate which points in this section are POV accordng to you?--Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 11:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Vote for Deletion
This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 01:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Satanic Verses
Why no mention of the satanic verses - not the book by Salman Rushdide, but the actual verses themselves?
- Why SHOULD they be mentioned? There's an article on the Satanic Verses and they are mentioned in the article on Muhammad. It's not as if Wikipedia were trying to hide them. If they were mentioned, I suppose it would be as one of the standard criticisms of the character of Muhammad (Islam is bad because Muhammad was bad and then a laundry list of criticisms). Zora 05:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- "Why SHOULD they be mentioned?" because they are a standard criticism of Islam. What you refer to as a "laundry list" happens to be the subject matter of this article. --Zeno of Elea 07:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Why do non-Muslims feel as if they have to post every criticism available? And why do Muslims feel as if they have to respond to every criticism? --JuanMuslim 15:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
move
Can we move this to Criticism of Islam now, without trolls jumping out of the woodwork? This article passed VfD now, and I think there was consensus for the move. If there are no objections, I will move it in a few days. This will not be an opportunity for another VfD. dab (ᛏ) 06:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Fine by me... in fact, it makes more sense. gren グレン 08:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- done :) dab (ᛏ) 17:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Germen
I am hoping you will fix up your mess before others have to. Blanet quoting Islam Q&A is not proper, it is obviously not criticism and it is original research to add that as you do. So do not, it is just bad. You do not need to bold everything either. Remove Sorna Doon's section was a bad idea. Sorna is a better writing than you and actually sourced her assertions to criticisms from the books she read... not citing Islam Q&A and opposition. They might have criticisms of Islamic sects but those do not represent that. Here is her section:
- I think the current list is much more readable and informative than the previous information. Accusing me of OR is ridiculous because I provided 75% of all links in this article. It seems you apply different standards for different people. But why does this not surprise me. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 16:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
===Jihad and Human Rights=== Critics such as [[Robert Spencer]] believe that it is not only extremist Islam that preaches the violence encompassed in Jihad, but also Islam itself, though deep within the Qur’anic text. He argues that though Islam does not explicitly preach the violent form of Jihad, the primary problem lies in moderate Muslims' denial that violence practiced by extremist Muslims can indeed be read in the Qur’an. According to Spencer, a move toward human rights and peaceful assimilation in the west calls for moderate Muslims' rejection of traditional aspects of Islam such as jihad, [[dhimmitude]], and shariah. {{ref|Spencer2}}
- This part does not belong here. This is not ethical criticism but political criticism. There are more critics than Mr Spencer only and they regularly cite those points. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 16:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
You have also stopped using footnote3 style, which I recognize is hard considering the number of changes but, maybe if you don't make such rash edits that will need to be changed constantly it will work out better. Right, and laundry lists don't make for good articles. gren グレン 08:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 16:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Definition of Islam
It is a problem when Islam is defined by its opponents (and I count myself among its opponents) that we perceive the worst, the extremist and wahhabi as being representative. By listing criticism of verses of the Qu'ran under Criticism of Islam we are endorsing the definition of Islam that violent extremist muslims offer, and opposing that which moderates offer. Similarly intolerant and violent passages can be found in the Bible but most people would give credit to mainstream christian excuses for these verses.
The opening paragraph attempts to clarify this with limited success. The problem is that criticism, to hit home, should be specific. What we have is a collection of different kinds of criticism of a non-specific Islam. That there is an internal debate within Islam is mentioned once, yet this is a critical perspective on the criticism of Islamist extremism. Oddly it appears under Political Criticism, where I expected to find the most damning criticism of the Islamist political movement.
Would it be better to organise criticisms in sections according to the specific ideas or problems with Islam that they criticise, rather than by type of criticism?
As most of the criticisms can be applied to many other religions, perhaps a Criticism of Religion page is also called for. But I may edit this page later if see a good way forward. --ExtraBold 20:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Well said, ExtraBold. It seems to me too that accepting the Islamist's version of Islam as the "real" Islam is exactly the sort of thing that the Islamists want.
- A large part of the problem, it seems to me, is the Sunni Muslim abhorrence of "fitna", or conflict. Sunni Islam has been defined as an "orthopraxy" rather than an "orthodoxy". As long as you say the shahada and profess to be a Muslim, you're accepted (in theory). Which allows for enormous variations in doctrine, and even allows Sunni Muslims to kill each other in the name of Islam, with both sides insisting that "We are the REAL Muslims" -- no one anxious or able to excommunicate either side. This allows the critics to insist that jihadi Salafis do represent the REAL Islam. Zora 21:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- I am in full agreement and that is what we are trying to do. As dab said, there is "hard hitting" criticism of Islam, but it's not in the article. I think there are some notable people against Islam as a whole, but it should be noted that their criticism is a mix of defining Islam and pointing out that their definion is correct through historical events. If we can make criticisms as you seem to want to make and source them then we might get a good article. We need someone interested in dealing with some of the crap you have to take on these articles... if you can do that I'd be very pleased :) gren グレン 22:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- OK I have had a go at the introduction. I think it is better, but I am still not entirely happy with it. The problem is perhaps that although Islamism isn't Islam, it can't be divorced from it either. Islam should take some (POV amount) of the blame for Islamism. Criticism of Islamism still to come... --ExtraBold 13:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- I think I might agree with the point you make but the wording as it stands no. Some brand(s) of Islam obviously influenced Islamism. However, if we cross the line (as I feel some users do) of defining (violent/misogynist) Islamist goals as inherently Muslims then you get the problem. Viewing all forms of Islam from above as a whole then we cannot and should not escape dicussing Islamism in its social/political/religious context. So, in that sense it can't be divorced from it -- but, your average Sunni can complete divorce himself from it. Is that what you were saying? gren グレン 14:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- I think the concept of Islamism is totally bogus. It's a word that is used by very few Muslims. Most I've spoken with reject the concept all together. The term was developed by several terrorist experts to differentiate between the various Muslims. So the way the term was used at the beginning was very awkward. It assumes that Islamism is necessarily linked with terrorism. Maybe, if a the article could begin by specifying the flavor/methodology of Islam that they are criticizing.--JuanMuslim 02:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- I think I might agree with the point you make but the wording as it stands no. Some brand(s) of Islam obviously influenced Islamism. However, if we cross the line (as I feel some users do) of defining (violent/misogynist) Islamist goals as inherently Muslims then you get the problem. Viewing all forms of Islam from above as a whole then we cannot and should not escape dicussing Islamism in its social/political/religious context. So, in that sense it can't be divorced from it -- but, your average Sunni can complete divorce himself from it. Is that what you were saying? gren グレン 14:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- We really need to be wise about this. In the future, for example, there could be a Criticism to Liberal Islam another about Criticism of Traditional Islam another for Criticism of (choose a word) Islam. --JuanMuslim 15:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
POV
This article is tooo one-sided. It needs to be rewritten to provide a more balanced view about Islam. --JuanMuslim 02:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well, this article, while it can have responses to criticism, is going to seem very crtical. That's just the nature of the article. Just like Islam isn't going to have everything explicity questioned on it even when many of the tenets are crticized. Sorna Doon 17:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- That's one of my concerns. The title could be "Criticism of Islam" and another article could be "Support of Islam" or "Benefits of Islam". The problem is that regardless it will be POV by the essence of such an article. Criticism never ends. And criticism doesn't end at legitimate concerns. True, false, opinions, etc. It would be ideal if only legitimate concerns rather than falsehoods are discussed as criticism when in reality then are just plain inaccurate. When people read an encyclopedia, they expect accuracy, consistency, and a degree of professionalism. I'm concerned that's just not happening many times. --JuanMuslim 01:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- "another article could be "Support of Islam" or "Benefits of Islam"" JuanMuslim, I don't think you really understand that you are editing an ENCYLOPEDIA, not a Dawah pamphlet or an Islamic personal website. Obviously articles with titles like "Benefits of Islam" are not appropriate as Encylopedia content. --Zeno of Elea 18:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- That's my point. What's the opposite of criticism though? From [7], antonyms for criticism include commendation, approval, compliment, praise, raves, defense, and praise. So articles can be both about criticism of something as well as its opposite. --JuanMuslim 20:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Muhammad
what happened to the section about Muhammad? Critics of Islam typically begin by heaping abuse on Muhammad, so I thought that was an important part. It appears to have been cut out of the article, but I don't see any reasoning on talk. dab (ᛏ) 08:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
The article was vandalized by an anon and the vandalism was not reverted properly, so not only the Muhammad section but also sections regarding History, Hadith and even the external links had been removed. I've been working on restoring the content that was vandalized. -- Karl Meier 23:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- "Critics of Islam typically begin by heaping abuse on Muhammad, so I thought that was an important part." Heaping abuse on Muhammad? dab, I don't think that you have any sort of neutral approach towards criticsm of Islam. In this instance, you are acting as if there is no logical or reasonable criticsm against the character of Muhammad - any criticsm of The Prophet (PBUH) is "heaping abuse." Seeing as how this is your attitude towards the subject of Criticism of Islam, I don't think that you have the even-handed point of view required to constructively approach this article. --Zeno of Elea 18:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Muslims believe that if someone attacks Islam on Muhammad's pedophilia or the violence of Islam then they (the Muslims) can justify all that by simply citing something similiar in the West. For example if you tell a Muslim that Muhammad was a pedophile he will immediately tell you that "12 year old girls get pregnant in the USA". Or when you tell them Islam is violent they will mention the Crusades. They really believe that if they point at something similiar in the attackers own camp (Muslim believe that anyone who is criticising Islam must be a westerner Christian) then the attackers argument is NULLIFIED and the bad act about Muhamamd or Islam is JUSTIFIED. But they are not aware what they argue is a recognized logical fallacy called ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM. When you tell them they are committing a logical fallacy they can't understand you either. They will just go on rambling the same stupid shit. Ohanian 14:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Read wikipedia policy on No personal attacks and please learn to space your paragraph correctly. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Nobody likes abuse.
- So tell me, since when was Prophet Muhammad a contributor to wikipedia. Ohanian 06:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Please look at your comment before you respond. Your attacks are against Muslims as a whole. Here is an example of one: "They will just go on rambling the same stupid shit." I am glad that you read the policy, though. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 10:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Anti-Islam/Islamophobia
The whole section "Anti-Islam/Islamophobia" looks like original research to me, and I think it should be removed if it doesn't improve. What is something like: "Anti-Islam is the criticism of the Islamic religion based on alleged mischaracterizations, stereotypes, and negative prejudices." based on, and where does this defintion of "anti-islam" come from? -- Karl Meier 23:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
The section is based off the article entitled Anti-Catholicism:
Anti-Catholicism is religious or political opposition to the Roman Catholic Church, particularly of a kind employing alleged mischaracterizations, stereotypes and negative prejudices. Anti-Catholicism typically applies only to those instances in which Roman Catholics are persecuted or discriminated against for their beliefs by other Christians; Roman Catholics may also be the target of persecution of Christians generally. --JuanMuslim 23:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Karl, I see your point... but I also see it's a road you don't want to go down. If that gets deleted then half of "Ethical Criticism" will get deleted as well. Stoning of married adulterers you mention is "mandatory in all five schools", which isnt' exactly true (and it would require more than your severely limited sourcing). The Saudis are Wahhabi and don't follow a traditional school, etc. Islam Q&A is not mainstream Islam... Severing of thieves hands has conditions added onto it by all. If I'm not mistaken the hadith says that if you steal more than the value of a shield and most rulings talk about habitual stealing. So many generalizations. Not forgetting that you are citing Muslim sources which, once again, is not "criticism of Islam" but the Muslim viewpoint. You have to show the critics and what they cite, not whomever wrote ethics (Germen?) citing Islamic sources and then saying in passive voice, "this is criticized". Juan's section needs some help I think, but if that is removed, the ethical section which suffers from similar problems must be removed as well. gren グレン 19:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- That's a good point, you made. A person who steals food out of hunger is also an exception. There are actually several exceptions or various viewpoints that aren't represented. Islam is a comlex religion just as Christianity and Judaism. --JuanMuslim 04:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- Are you serious Gren? Do you want to say something like that if I delete "your" unsourced, original research crap, then you'll retaliate by deleting what you believe is "my" unsourced, original research crap? I wonder if that is the way they make neutral articles at EB... Anyway, to make it clear, it isn't me who has been writing the "Ethical Criticism" section, and it also seems to include descent references for almost all of the information that is included. More references is allways nice, but the criticism that is mentioned in this section, is in many places is in many places so obvious and well known that a reference isn't strictly needed. (See: "The Fatwa against Rushdie was heavily critizised", "Death penalty for practicing homosexuals" has been critizised, criticism of "alleged discrimination against women and non-Muslims and so on..) Another thing is that your claim that "islam Q&A is not mainstream Islam" is just your opinion and not very interesting. If you want to add responses to the criticism, then please do that and remember to use proper and well known references. The new word "anti-islam" and it's definition that was pulled out of the thin air is not going to stay. There is no substance in that part of the "Muslim Responses" section. I am sure other editors can do better than that. -- Karl Meier 12:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- Karl, so there's such a thing as anti-Catholicism but not such thing as anti-Islam? A keyword search on anti-Islam using Google returns 207,000 articles. --JuanMuslim 04:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- Are you serious Gren? Do you want to say something like that if I delete "your" unsourced, original research crap, then you'll retaliate by deleting what you believe is "my" unsourced, original research crap? I wonder if that is the way they make neutral articles at EB... Anyway, to make it clear, it isn't me who has been writing the "Ethical Criticism" section, and it also seems to include descent references for almost all of the information that is included. More references is allways nice, but the criticism that is mentioned in this section, is in many places is in many places so obvious and well known that a reference isn't strictly needed. (See: "The Fatwa against Rushdie was heavily critizised", "Death penalty for practicing homosexuals" has been critizised, criticism of "alleged discrimination against women and non-Muslims and so on..) Another thing is that your claim that "islam Q&A is not mainstream Islam" is just your opinion and not very interesting. If you want to add responses to the criticism, then please do that and remember to use proper and well known references. The new word "anti-islam" and it's definition that was pulled out of the thin air is not going to stay. There is no substance in that part of the "Muslim Responses" section. I am sure other editors can do better than that. -- Karl Meier 12:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- That's a good point, you made. A person who steals food out of hunger is also an exception. There are actually several exceptions or various viewpoints that aren't represented. Islam is a comlex religion just as Christianity and Judaism. --JuanMuslim 04:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Ethical SectNPOV
Just to clarify Germen, nowhere near addressing my (and others) POV concerns. Your addition says more than "one dinar" what was your source for that? Hadith say the value of a shield. Some sources say you can steal for necessity legal. Other says don't cut off hands unless habitual. Some say don't cut off hands. You didn't address in the least the issues of using Islamic sources and passively saying "this ruling is criticized" nor the fact that you over generalize. You can't really think that quoting a Fatwa from Islam Q&A is criticism of Islam? Now, if you have any intra-Islam criticism that might work, but, you are not doing that. gren グレン 02:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- "Some sources say you can steal for necessity legal. Other says don't cut off hands unless habitual. Some say don't cut off hands." gren, this is not the appropriate place for such absolutely ridiculous apologetics for Islam. The Qur'an very clearly commands the Mohammedans to amputate hands as a punishment for theft. Yet you are claiming that "some say don't off hands." WHO says this? They obviously aren't Muslims, since they would be directly contradicting the Qur'an and about 1400 years of Islamic legal tradition. And this claim about "habitual" stealing? What is the source for that? You seem to be very active in demanding sources for anything that could be seen as criticsm of Islam, and yet you don't seem to think that your silly apologetics need be accompanied by any kind of citation. I don't see how you are capable of even knowing whether or not this article is NPOV. --Zeno of Elea 18:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- They obviously aren't Muslims, since they would be directly contradicting the Qur'an and about 1400 years of Islamic legal tradition. That is a ludicrous assertion. Really, whether it contradicts majority legal precedent or what you see as being in the Qur'an is irrelevant, if they're claiming to be Muslim then they are Muslim. I realize I have not cited my sources and I feel no need to yet as I am not writing in the article unlike the sections that are there. I would duly source my material if I added it to the article. Also, the burden of proof is on the person that says "All Muslims believe", not on the person asking them to prove that claim. I want you to fix up the crap that is there now. I don't deny that a large number of Muslims scholars have fallen on the side of amputation, however most also follow hadith which put limitations on this. You will find that the Qur'an alone Muslims (at least the free-minds brand) reject the cutting off of the hands and explain the Qur'an verse as having a more metaphoric meaning and they are not the only ones to have believed that. I know this is not sourced but I am not writing in the article as of now. I will bother to cite a greater diversity of views which you fail to cite but you still managed to ignore the cruxt of the issue.
- That is, your sources are not critiques. You sourced an Islamic site saying that cutting off of hands was legal/necessary. Besides this not showing anything about being indicative of Islamic views as a whole it shows no sign of any active critique. Hence, the critique is coming from the author of that piece, whom I believe was you. You must cite a critique, it's amusing because the section Alleged lack of reciprocity is the best cited section in Ethics. It shows an active critiquing party (Ali Sina) talking a flaw within Islam, or some aspects of Islam. So many of the sections lack that. I know there are tons of credible sources (Amnesty International for one) that would be appalled by amputation of the hands of thieves, so, perhaps find talk about a specific case of a law in a Muslim country that is claimed to be inspired by Sharia. Or find one of the many critics of Islam who say that Islamic law calls for this, cite them as the critique, not the "Islam is often critiqued" wording we have now which is a way to avoid actively citing these issues. I know you typically find critical view of Islam and add that and, if you can source them with something credible that is more than fine with me. We also have some Muslims who typically disagree with you, they will hopefully source their attempts to balance you and we'll produce something about the third grader's paper we have now. You always attempt to portray apologetics in a negative light but the response to the attacks (criticism) of the sources that you must cite are necessarily apologetics. Because they are responding to attacks. It would be nice if you could use that word in some normal sense instead of always in a pejorative manner. Remember in your response, please lay out your opinions about directly citing critics and not just citing issues and saying they are criticized -- because that has been my main issue with this all along. gren グレン 01:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
POV template
Karl, please do not delete the POV template. -Template:Totally disputed- The article is not up to Wikipedia standards. Dude, why don't you start working on the Criticism of Christianity article? Clearly, your intention is to give people a biased, distorted, prejudicial view about Islam. Otherwise, you would work on both sides of the issue - criticisms and responses to criticism. The article will fail to meet Wikipedia standards as long as it continues to be one-sided. And, unfortunately, most attempts by other editors to make the article non-POV is met with animosity.--JuanMuslim 04:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Runnymede Trust usage: Eight features attributed to Islamophobia:
- Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
- Islam is seen as separate and 'other'. It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.
- Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.
- Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a 'clash of civilisations'.
- Islam is seen as a political ideology and is used for political or military advantage.
- Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.
- Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
- Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal
- Why are you making bad faith accusations against me, Juanmuslim? I am not opposing that common muslim responses to criticism should be included, but I do oppose your PoV editing and the fact that you insist on including original research in this article. There is nothing wrong with that, so please aviod any personal remarks directed towards me in the future. Another thing is that I dont know why you are copying the whole Runnymede Trust usage of "islamophobia" into this talkpage. Could we stick to the topic please? - Karl Meier 10:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- I am not accusing you of anything. I am stating reality. According to the Runnymede Trust usage, the current article is Islamophobic. I wish you would with every criticism add a response to the criticism. That would be nPOV. --JuanMuslim 19:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written according to NPoV, not according to the opinions of some islamic organization, that promote the view that criticism of islam is what they call "islamophobic". Also, as I already said, you are welcome to expand the section with the muslim responses. Just aviod any original research and PoV editing. Actually, I even think the responses to the criticism should have their own article at some point (with a link to that article from the lead section). -- Karl Meier 20:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- Why are you making bad faith accusations against me, Juanmuslim? I am not opposing that common muslim responses to criticism should be included, but I do oppose your PoV editing and the fact that you insist on including original research in this article. There is nothing wrong with that, so please aviod any personal remarks directed towards me in the future. Another thing is that I dont know why you are copying the whole Runnymede Trust usage of "islamophobia" into this talkpage. Could we stick to the topic please? - Karl Meier 10:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with you in this Karl but that doesn't sidestep the issue that a bunch of the ethics section is original research already. You will notice that stoning of adulterers, for example, is backed up by Muslim views, not criticism of stoning. It also ignores the depth of Islamic opinion on the subject, it is not just a clear statement that it is supported because by all five schools, especially not with modern interpretations of those schools. That is why this article deserves the tag, not because it's "Islamophobic".
- I'm against separating responses being on a separate article because it will inherently create a Muslim POV and a Anti/Un-Muslim POV... instead of a discussion between the two. I'd rather see this break down to Criticism of Hadith, Critcisms of Qur'anic origina, etc. before I saw it Criticism of Islam and Responses to critcism of Islam. gren グレン 01:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Muslim Critics
The Muslim critics within the Critics of Islam section is needed. But, the Muslim critics could also have been Muslims with an entirely different methodology/viewpoint. --JuanMuslim 15:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- This gets very very intricate. You have the reformers (within each sect), the minor differences (among the four Sunni madhhabs which are played down as being critical of each other in modern times), the huge differences (Ahmadiyya, Sunni, Shia, Druze (which is contentious even calling them Muslims)), you have the rather large differences (Salafi, Deobandi, Wahhabbi, Sufi, Liberals, Progressives all within the vague sense of Sunnism). We need to define on what terms we are taking this before we start on such a vast endeavor, and we need explicit criticism... not just, "they aren't us so that's bad". gren グレン 01:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I think that the article needs to begin by stating the methodology/idea about islam that is being referred to primarily. Or it should have a different name. Or it should have a more extensive description of the different flavors of Islam. The first thing a particular Muslim would say is "I don't believe in that particular things stated at all" or "I do believe in that but you don't understand why." or other statements. I mean wouldn't it bother you if such an article discussed Christianity using theology or standpoint of a Christian sect you don't agree with. You make a good point. This article has all the complexities that the article entitled Criticism of Christianity has. I think we could learn a lot from that article on how to write this article. --JuanMuslim 21:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
User:Zeno's recent edits and User:AE's reverts
I have added a good amount of information to the history section. This article is far from complete and Criticism of Islam is a very broad subject that covers a wide and disparate variety of events, subjects, historical periods, literature, etc. User:Anonymous Editor has reverted these edits, describing them as a "frenzy." I believe that describing another user's edits and good faith efforts as a "frenzy" is an example of a Negative personal comment, in violation of the policy against personal attacks.
User:Anonymous Editor is claiming that:
- (a) he is "adding content from the old article" which I removed
- (b) that i replaced "95% of the article"
- (c) that my edits are "POV"
- (d) that my edits are a description of "so many irrelevant events and aspects"
- (e) that i have done my edits to create an "anti-Islamic" article
- (f) that i went on a "frenzy"
My responses, respectively are:
- (a) I removed very little content in my edit. Mostly I removed statements such as "which Muslims reject." This article is about Criticism of Islam. Muslims reject virtually all criticm of Islam. Does this mean that everytime we describe a specific criticism of Islam we must note that it is "rejected by Muslims?" Clearly not. In any case, if User:Anonymous Editor feels that I have removed something important, he can do a diff and add whatever he thinks is important. Reverting all of my edits is an outrageous action on the part of User:Anonymous Editor. The section which I edited contained serious factual errors, for example it claimed that the earliest historical criticism of Islam came from Church writings, when in fact this is not true (there are critical poems by non-Muslim contemporaries of Muhammad that are older).
- (b) I did not replace 95% of the article. I only edited the history section, and in fact I replaced/deleted very little content - I mostly ADDED content, as the diff will show. ADDING is not the same as REPLACING.
- (c) If Anonymous Editor feels that my edits are POV then he should first explain WHY before reverting. An article titled "Criticism of Islam" is clearly going to cause some people to become confused about what is POV and what is NPOV. I ask Anonymous Editor to recall that is understood by consensus that this article is about the POVs of people who are critical of Islam. The purpose of this article is to describe a specific POV (i.e., critical thought on Islam) in an NPOV manner.
- (d) If Anonymous Editor feels that my edits are merely "irrelevant events and aspects" then he should elaborate in the talk page and explain what exactly his concern is BEFORE plunging the article into a revert war.
- (e) Anonymous Editor has violated the "Assume Good Faith" Wikipedia policy by suggesting that I am editing "to create an anti-Islamic article." According to the policy, such comments can be deleted on sight. Therefore it is not a justification for reverting.
- (f) Describing another user's edits as a "frenzy" is a negative personal comment, i.e. a personal attack. I fail to see how such a comment can justify Anonymous Editor's reverts. -- Zeno of Elea 11:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- I think that if someone makes frenzy decisions then that's just an observation not a personal insult. We should also avoid overreacting. I mean we should all be aiming to make the article nPOV and accurate, etc. That way we can become a functional team. --JuanMuslim 16:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- I note that JuanMuslim is further insisting on joining his fellow coreligionists Anonymous Editor in making personal attacks against me by describing my edits as a "frenzy." -- Zeno of Elea 23:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Since when is saying "frenzy" a personal attack? I would have said the same thing if it was a Muslim editor. What is closer to a personal attack is stereotyping by saying that all my "coreligionists" are going to take my side and make personal attacks against you. Please read wikipedia policy for more details. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
User:Zora has also entered the revert war, siding with User:Anonymous Editor. Her reason for reverting is:
- "this is not a forum for attacking Islam"
Zora, I am aware that Wikipedia is not a forum. Perhaps you mean to patronize me, or question the good faith of my edits my suggesting that I am turning this article into an forum for attacking Islam. We must be very precise about what we mean in this case. The article is called "Criticism of Islam". In less formal words this mean that the article is about "written attacks against Islam." I was specifically editing the history section. I corrected a serious factual error which stated that the earliest criticism of Islam is from the Church writings, which is clearly incorrect as my edit demonstrates. Furthermore, I added missing information about the history of Criticism of Islam. In other words, my edits were a description of the history of "attacking of Islam" (as you put it), i.e. the history of criticism of Islam. Zora's claim could just as well have been "this is not a forum of Criticism of Islam." Well what does that mean? Are we to refrain from describing Criticism of Islam in an article titled Criticism of Islam? Perhaps Zora is working under the VfD theory, i.e. the idea that Criticism of Islam can just be deleted away - there have already been a series of failed VfDs against this article, so that won't work. Maybe Zora can elaborate on the reasoning behind her supporting Anonymous Editor's revert war? --Zeno of Elea 11:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- I have not been following this article closely, but I was bothered by Zeno's recent edit. It is true that Muhammad's opponents criticized him; however, that could have been conveyed in a sentence, or a short para. Zeno had to quote all? most of? the poem, and then add a POV essay about how Muhammad believed in murdering people who criticized him. The intent was clearly NOT a survey of critical attitudes, but criticism, pure and simple. If Zeno's material is to be salvaged, it should be split between the 7th century (this is what Muhammad's opponents said of him) and the 21st (this is what contemporary critics say re Islam and free speech).
- I didn't have the time last night to rewrite the article, and I certainly didn't today, what with going to see Serenity and all <g>. I'll see what I can do about salvaging some of Zeno's material tomorrow. Zora 08:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Zeno, you seem very keen to blame others for reverting your massive edits. But one question: Why did you start the discussion after a "revert war" was started? It seems if you were going to replace so much information with other material (much of it pov) into an article that has always been the topic of controversy, you should have discussed your edits before you reverted fully 3 times. Also, like Zora said, you did write a pov essay and also attempted to tie in everything in history that you could possibly think of and turn it into criticism (example, the schism). But, once again I repeat, the discussion should start before you involve yourself in a revert war. Remember it takes more than one player in a revert war. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Page Protected
An admin has protected the page after User:Irishpunktom and User:Zora joined User:Anonymous Editor's side of the revert war, while User:CoolCat and User:Karl Meier joined my side. I would like to reiterate CoolCat's statements to Zora in the edit history: "please explain large removals on talk. and do it slowly instead of one go". Neither the person who started this revert war (User:Anonymous Editor), nor those who have supported him, have bothered to explain ANYTHING in the talk page. Now the article has been protected and the revert warriors still refuse to engage in discussion, despite the fact that I have been calling for discussion for a long time now, as can be seen here. I hope the people who are deleting my edits will finally come forward to explain their reverts. -- Zeno of Elea 23:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps, they had more important things to do today than to sit in front of a computer explaining themselves to you. Patience is a good word.--JuanMuslim 07:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- If you want to remove very large sections, you are atleast supposed to explain yourself Juanmuslim. If you don't have time to explain why you want to delete most of the article, then you shouldn't do it at all. The way it has been done here with Anon editor inviting users such as Zora to his revert war, by leaving a message that is in violation of Wikipedias rules regarding no personal attacks ("Zeno of Elea gone crazy again.") is surely not the way to do it. -- Karl Meier 09:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Karl, if one is going to replace entire sections on an already controversial article in the first place, then he/she needs discussion to explain his/herself more than the person who removes/reverts. Zeno should have started discussion when she started making the edits; not after a full 3 reverts had been done by her. JuanMuslim is correct in saying that I had better things to do with my time, when Zeno did not discuss her edits in the first place. Btw, Karl I did not invite Zora or Irishpunktom; they came at their own free will and they had every right to. a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- If you want to remove very large sections, you are atleast supposed to explain yourself Juanmuslim. If you don't have time to explain why you want to delete most of the article, then you shouldn't do it at all. The way it has been done here with Anon editor inviting users such as Zora to his revert war, by leaving a message that is in violation of Wikipedias rules regarding no personal attacks ("Zeno of Elea gone crazy again.") is surely not the way to do it. -- Karl Meier 09:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know why you're accusing me of deleting large sections. I'm not like you who deleted the entire section on Islamophobia. I also find it problematic how you intimidate wikipedians from contributing, though I know that isn't your intention. This is a good suggestion on how to handle personal attacks based on no personal attacks: "If you are personally attacked, you may remove the attacks or may follow the dispute resolution process or both. In extreme cases, the attacker may be blocked, though the proposal to allow this failed and the practice is almost always controversial." --JuanMuslim 10:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- I provided you with a valid explanation for removing your original research, so there was nothing wrong with that. You can't just make up your own definition of a word and expect it to be included here. And it's not that I oppose, that Muslim responses should be included. For instance, did I oppose what BrandonYusufToropov wanted to include? Did I delete all of it? I sure did not. I tried to edit what he had contributed and address a what I believed was PoV problem here and there. If things are done properly I will not oppose it. Also, I didn't remove a whole section, so I don't know why you accuse me of that. Regarding the personal attacks I think the best way to "handle" them, is simply to avoid them. -- Karl Meier 11:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- You did delete the paragraph about Islamophobia. Refer to the section again. You didn't allow anything about Islamophobia to be mentioned. I didn't make up the term. You're just unwilling to allow people to see a difference between reasonable criticism and Islamophobia. I also explained it as well, and I guess it doesn't matter what I say anyway. I'm getting very tired of the reality found in Criticism of Wikipedia. I just don't have enough time to give this much commitment to Wikipedia. And, everyone thinks they're an expert; they deal with accusations by ppl who don't know anything about you; they provide a narrow viewpoint; they take a nPov article and make it POV; they fear adding/editting for fear their time will be wasted; no respect for one another. And this criticism applies to me as well.--JuanMuslim 12:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Um, Anonymous Editor and I are kinda on the outs right now (he wanted some wording in Muhammad that I thought was too pious) and he didn't invite me to the revert war. <sob> I've had this article watchlisted for ages and only felt moved to intervene when I saw Zeno's addition. So don't blame AE for my presence. Zora 11:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I am not taking sides. My protect request was strictly based on large (over 6k) and constant removals/additions to the article. I have not read either version. --Cool Cat Talk 13:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Zeno, the protection of this page is fully adequate to resolve the current disputes. There is no reason start crying, that your version was not the one protected or that you did not get a chance to continue the revert war. a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
you should not remove large sections from an article without discussion, provided that they contain text that has been arrived at through discussion, and an emerging consensus. Similarly, you should not add large sections of text to a contentious article without discussing them, particularly if you are in one of the 'camps' in contention. You add large swathes of text without discussion, they will be removed without discussion. You have a point to make? Beat out a consensus on talk. Baad 18:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you Badd (a.k.a dab) for clarifying what I said before. a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Changes to Introduction and History Section
Following is a justification of the edits that I have made to the article.
Introduction paragraph
Analysis of current version
The current version reads:
- Over the centuries, many people have offered criticisms of Islam and the actions of its followers. Critics of Islam have included philosophers, academics, journalists, scientists, and other people from all walks of life. This article outlines some of the major criticisms that have been offered through the years. As with any religion, various critics have found fault with Islam for theological, ethical, and political reasons. Any criticism of a religion may arise from three points of view: From a secular viewpoint, which is not limited to atheism. From that of another religion. From within the religion itself, such as from sectarian differences and smaller movements within.
Objections:
- The introduction paragraph used to begin with "As with any religion, various critics have found fault with Islam ..." This was deleted by an apologetic editor. Why? It is an important that criticism of Islam is not notably unique from criticism of any other religion. All relgions come under criticism and that is an important point to note. This has been replaced by the sentenced "Over the centuries, many people have offered criticisms of Islam and the actions of its followers ..." This article is not about criticism of Muslims (i.e. "followers"), this article is abotu criticism of Islam. Also, the phrase "over the centuries..." is very vauge and, to be perfectly honest, starting an exposition with the phrase "over the centuries ..." sounds like a average, high school freshman style of writing. Important information about the commonality of criticism of Islam with criticism of other religions has been deleted from this article. I ask again, why? IN my opinion, the only reason that someone would delete such information from this article is because they want to portray criticism of Islam as some sort of unique phenomena which indicates belief in the idea that Islam is a very unique (read: "divine") religion that is uniquely under attack in a "war on Islam" - an idea that is commonly promoted by Islamists.
- The paragraph claims that criticism of Islamic arise for theological, ethical, and political reasons. This is not completely true because it conveniently fails to mention many other types of criticisms of Islam, specifically scientific and pragmatic reasons.
Proposed changes
Something along the lines of:
- As with any religion, various critics have found fault with Islam for theological, ethical, scientific, philosophical and practical reasons. Critics of Islam has existed since the earliest times of Islam, some 1400 years ago, recorded in the poetry of Arab pagan contemporaries of Muhammad. Criticsm of Islam forms a class of literature that has grown and developed over the course of 14 centuries and has involved people from all walks of life. This article described the major kinds criticisms of Islam, notable authors in this class of literature, the history of critical thought on Islam, and the Muslim response to criticsm of Islam. There are three general sources of criticism of a religion, arising from three points of view: From a secular viewpoint, which is not limited to atheism. From that of another religion. From within the religion itself, such as from sectarian differences and smaller movements within.
Comments
Hmmm, while I don't understand all of your reasoning I only object to some. I personally don't think "over the centuries" is too good, but I think it's better than starting with "as with other religions" because, well, that really has nothing to do with this article... and personally I found that to be more apologetic. You think how it is now is trying to make Islam sound unique while I was thinking it was trying to hit home the point that "Christianity had slaves too" and other things that Muslims say to try to make Islam not look worse than Christianity, etc. In any case, if you really prefer that I wouldn't argue too much.
"Criticsm of Islam forms a class of literature that has grown and developed over the course of 14 centuries and has involved people from all walks of life." --I don't like that sentence. Criticism has not exactly developed. Certainly some has but I think that conjure imagery of a mass of works... like, science, getting more and more accurate -- which, I don't think is the case, at least not from a neutral viewpoint. It may be that many critics think that it is developing into a foolproof case -- but, that's of no matter.
For, "Critics of Islam has existed since the earliest times of Islam, some 1400 years ago, recorded in the poetry of Arab pagan contemporaries of Muhammad", I would change to "Critics of Islam have existed since the rise of Islam, some 1400 years ago, recorded in the poetry of Arab pagan contemporaries of Muhammad" -- although, I'm not sure if there was any early Jewish/Christian direct literature against Islam -- as from the Jews in Medina? If so, that could be quickly appended. Of course later with Sassanid and Byzantine interaction you get a lot more writing about Islam since they were more literate people.
Those are my opinion -- I don't see a huge difference (besides that one sentence) so, if you can get others to agree, I wouldn't really mind having it changed some. gren グレン 10:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind changing parts of the current version to add that. But fix the numerous spelling errors, grammar errors, change "found fault" to "criticized", and remove this sentence: "Criticsm of Islam forms a class of literature that has grown and developed over the course of 14 centuries and has involved people from all walks of life.". Also please source your assertions on Pagan poetry that criticized Islam. a.n.o.n.y.m t 13:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
History section
The history section is very important. As is the normal format of Wikipedia article, the history of the subject is described immediatly after the introductary paragraph, under a section titled "History." Criticism of Islam has a long history, over 14 centuries of history to be precise. It is important to fully grasp what 14 centuries of literature regarding the second largest religion in the world. Islam is vast, its history and practice is vast, and the critical literature surrounding all this is also vast. This is an encylopediac subject that deserves as thorough an exposition as any other encylopediac subject on Wikipedia. The subject of this article is regularly stereotyped, by certain Wikipedia editors, as being "Islamophobic," "anti-Islamic," and certain users regularly attempt to stereotype critics of Islam as "rednecks," racists, etc. - one Wikipedia user (who I would rather not name) once went around trying to portray a critic of Islam as a Christian from the Southern United States when in fact it was not known where the critic is from or what his religion is. Criticsm of Islam is an article about a detailed, encylopediac subject, just like Islam is. That this needs to be said is evidenced by the fact that articles under this title have been voted on for deletion many times, and have occasionally been deleted from Wikipedia.
Having said that, a thorough exposition of 14 centuries of criticism of Islam, from all over the world, is a very big undertaking. Entire monographs are written about this subject concentrating on only a few centuries and specific countries. It follows that the "History" section of this article will not be small and will cover many places, times and events. The story of Criticism of Islam begins with poetry written by Muhammad's advesaries and covers a vast amount of time and space outlined by the vastness and endurance of the Islamic empires and the modern Muslim nation-states.
Objections to current version
- The current version of the article asserts, "The earliest non-Muslim sources of criticism and opposition to Islam are found in the medieval ecclesiastical writings of Christians such as John of Damascus..." This is factually incorrect. The earliest non-Muslim sources of criticism of Islam were not ecclesaistical writings, they were poems written by Muhammad's advesaries.
- The issue of Muslim responses to criticism: The history section (and indeed the whole article) are full of resposnes from Muslim websites and quips that "some Muslims reject [insert specific criticism of Islam]." But no where in the article to the violent resposes to criticism made by Muslims. The only NPOV way to go about this is to include ALL kinds of responses from Muslims, including militants and not just apologists. This is especially true in light of the history of Muslim responses to crticism, as told by the early Muslim sources, i.e. killing of poets by Muhammad who were critical of him.
- The article asserts "The earliest records of explicit criticisms and oppositions to Islam are found in the early Muslims' writings about their pagan Arabian adversaries and the Jewish inhabitants of south Arabia at the time, particularly the Jewish tribes of Medina, who claimed their scriptures were misquoted by Muhammad. Muslims, by contrast, have argued that the Qur'an, as divine revelation, is corrective of Jewish and Christian scriptures, and that discrepancies between the two are to be understood as evidence of corruption of the earlier texts." First of all, not all of these exlicit criticisms are found in Jewish writings they are also found in pagan Arab writings. Furthermore, the comment that, "Muslims, by contrast, have argued that the Qur'an, as divine revelation, is corrective of Jewish and Christian scriptures, and that discrepancies between the two are to be understood as evidence of corruption of the earlier texts" is completely irrelevant. YES, we all know the Islamic polemic that the Jews and Christians corrupted their own religious texts. But this article is not about "Islamic criticism of other beliefs and religions," this article is about "Criticism of Islam."
- The current history section makes many large ommissions and is by no means complete. Shiah criticisms of Sunni Islam and vice versa are completing missing, and no description of the history of the schism between Shiahs and Sunnis is given. Nor is there any description of the responses to criticism between these two sects. Also missing is a history of the post-Islamic philosophical criticisms. NONE of the modern criticisms of Islam, or their history, is mentioned in the article, except for a passing mention of "orientalists" whose work has supposedly led to "talk of a clash of civilizations" and the (questionable and unsourced) claim that as result of academic criticism of Islam, "criticism of Islam and Islamic practices have increased markedly, especially in the non-Muslim media." Here we have the all to common quip at the "non-Muslim media" which is supposedly "markedly more critical" of Islam, a claim commonly parroted by Islamists. Also COMPLETELY missing are the historical criticisms of Islam from the political sciences, e.g. the claim that Islam is incompatable with democracy and secularism and that negative consequences have resulted from this. There is no mention of the historical rise of Islamist conflicts and terrorism and the fact that critics commonly suggest a causal relation between Islamic teachings and the proliferation of violent conflicts, terrorism and dictatorial regimes, perpetraded by radical extremists and militants. Etc. etc., in my opinion the history section makes very large ommisions that are very convenient for liberal Muslim apologists who are no doubt horrified to see a secular, encylopedia article about Criticism of Islam.
Proposed change
My changes can be seen through the diffs of the revert that occured before the article was locked. Since the History section covers a wide range of topics, as I noted, and this should be organized by sub-sections according to the chronology and sources of criticism. I can describe all of my changes in more detail, but I think this is futile because despite every effort to ask those waging a revert war to delete my additions kindly explain their objections in specific terms on the talk page, they have ignored all requests and refused to comment on the talk page.
Comments
[please insert relevant comments here]
Page Protection
I realize that my edits are extensive and this may cause confusion or information swamping. Therefore I propose that the page be unlocked, and I will make my changes little by little, subject to consensus on the talk page and editing by others.
-- Zeno of Elea 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Can we just wait until there is discussion about the aspects of your big post? It may take a few day but discussion there first will be of great help. gren グレン 22:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Gren. Any major action will not benefit your case. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Question for Zeno
With all respect: If it's not POV to reference, in the introduction, that a) other religions have, as a matter of history used violence to quell criticism...
... and it's not POV to reference, in the introduction, that b) Islam in particular has, as a matter of history, used violence to quell criticism...
... why is it POV to reference, in the introduction, c) faiths other than Islam that have, as a matter of history, used violence to quell criticism? BrandonYusufToropov 10:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
section - Political Criticism
From: --JuanMuslim 23:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I think the following should be moved to the political criticism section. This is better described as political criticism. This is common political criticism of islam....
Human rights issues
Frequently cited, e.g. by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer, Qur'an-only Muslims and Ali Sina are:
- Stoning of married adulterers
- This is mandatory in all five Shari'ah schools [8] [9] [10] and is practiced in countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and local Shari'ah courts in northern Nigeria. Critics regard this punishment as cruel and barbaric.
- Severing the hand of thieves
- According to mainstream Islam, the severing of hands of thieves which stole more than a dinar value of goods is prescribed by the Qur'an in sura 5:38 [11] but this is denied by Qur'an-only Muslims. Critics again regard this punishment as cruel and barbaric.
- Death penalty for practicing homosexuals
- According to traditional Islam, men (and sometimes women) who engage in homosexual acts must be executed [12] [13] [14]. Critics regard this as intolerant and cruel.
- Alleged discrepancy between Islam and the UN Declaration of Human Rights
- According to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer and several others, there exists a discrepancy between orthodox Shari'ah (as codified by the five madhabs) and the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and several Muslim-majority countries such as Malaysia and Saudi Arabia have refused to ratify the Declaration. Many Muslims regard this alleged discrepancy as a problem [15]. In 1990 the Islamic Conference published a separate Cairo Declaration of Human Rights compliant with Shari'ah [16].
- Alleged discrimination against women and non-Muslims
- Critics argue that in Islam women have fewer rights than men and that infidels (non-Muslims) have fewer rights than Muslims. Muslims argue that men are the protectors of women (Qur'an 4:34) and that infidels must 'return the favour' of the protection given by an Islamic state.
- Human-rights violations by adherents of Islam
- See Historical persecution by Muslims.
- It could be moved, but really, why bother? These offensive regulations are steeped in Quranic doctrine. One can perceive these to be tantamount to political criticism because of Islamic countries' reliance on the Quran as a legal base, but they appear to be fine in their current context on the page. IMHO, of course. --Michaelk 05:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- Because politics, laws, regulations, and punishments falls into the realm of the political - country. Death penalty is by a country. The list falls into the political category. --JuanMuslim 03:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, implementation of any laws (including religious) are by country. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 03:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Because politics, laws, regulations, and punishments falls into the realm of the political - country. Death penalty is by a country. The list falls into the political category. --JuanMuslim 03:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Modern laws are mostly not religious -- they claim to be based on religious law... which is fine, but what they are based on is important. The criticism of the law itself is not exactly a criticism of Islam unless the one writing the critique expresses it as such. However, the five sharia schools are important theology. I think this section generalizes about them (hence my NPOV insistence) however, it does belong here. Everything must be put in context, etc. gren グレン 06:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- The issue isn't about deleting the information about stoning of..., etc. That's not the debate. But rather about which category the info should be found. Is the information better described as political or ethical? Clearly, its political. --JuanMuslim 15:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Hindu criticism of Islam
Since we have a section of criticism of Islam from other religions, we can (as I had tried) have a section on Hindu critiques of Islam, based mostly on 19th century critics, including:
1. Swami Dayananda Saraswati, the founder of Arya Samaj in his critique of modern religions Satyarth Prakash devotes a whole chapter to Islam. Ref
2. Swami Vivekananda's (arguably the best known spokesperson of Hinduism in the West) critique of Mohammed and Islam from the viewpoint of Yogic spirituality.
3. Best known is the Vedantic criticism of Islamic absolutism in religion and morality, and there are many books on this.
4. 19th century theological debates between Islamic and Hindu scholars
5. Aurobindo's critiques.
Other possible sources (I just spent 15 minutes on finding these sources, I am sure there are many others.) I had tried including some of it which was later deleted. An editor believes this should not be included because the scholars mentioned above are "Hindu Fundamentalists" and incompetent in English.
- Actually what I said was that it is a copyviolation of this site:[17] and it is clearly, which you later admitted. I was happy to edit the section beforehand, until I found out that it was copied and pasted. I told you that is unacceptable in wikipedia and vandalizing articles as your history showed may get you blocked from editing.
- Secondly I asked you whether you have any sources which tell about Hindu critics of Islam and you gave me the five things you listed above. I said that so far the only one out of these that I have actually seen criticize any aspect of Islam is Dayanada (the ONLY one you sourced) and he spells the Qur'an about 5 different ways throughout his document. He barely seems like an academic on the subject either as his source shows. He also uses derogatory and childish language. He just takes line by line from the Qur'an disregards any other interpretation and attempts to use derogatory language as a rebuttal. Barely an academic on the subject. I thought Pat Robertson had a foul mouth, but this guy is totally insane.
- And in response to your question on why it was removed I told you that it was a copy and paste job. I have already rationalized why it has been removed; it is your job to come up with rationalizations and accurate academic sources to why it should be inserted, especially since you believe it is so necessary. I also said that if it is fundamentalists who are criticizing then that will be indicated in the article. Lastly I would like to point out once again that the article is not about just religious differences between religions (which would be infinite between hinduism and Islam), but it is about specific criticism. Thanks. a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- If copyvio was the only problem, I hope you will in principle agree that this section should exist, and help us rewrite it. I thought we are here to edit an encyclopedia and this article was meant to provide objective information on criticism of Islam, rather than pushing personal judgements on who is a scholar and whose language is childish. The fact that Arya Samaj is well known to hundreds of millions of people and has millions of members, and that Satyarth Prakash is considered to be the Bible of Arya Samaj, is sufficient. One might hold the view that the Q'uran is the most derogatory and unscholarly book ever written and Muhammed was a criminal, but that does not justify the deletion of any articles on Islam on wikipedia. Perhaps you can point out what vandalism you are refering to (i am pretty sure i was involved in none), and what significance does it have to this discussion. I am not terribly interested in this article anyway and fortunately have better things to do. I hope you don't also delete stuff on the talk page.
- Oh I agree that it should exist in principle and as I said before that I might help write a short, non-copyvio version. But you have to provide better sources on where exactly these inviduals criticise Islam. If you are just here to attack different elements of a religion, that will not be a productive manner to edit this article. One can easily conduct from the only source you gave on what type of "academia" this guy represents and I will let others determine that for themselves. There is a wide space between scholarly criticism and blatant attacks on a religion without interpretation. Notice how I am not attacking Dayanada's religious beliefs (seems to be a misconception with you), but rather his ability to criticize without any interpretation. You also said "Satyarth Prakash is considered to be the Bible of Arya Samaj": Is this guy a hindu or not or is it a sect of hinduism? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- The original copyvio material added is here: [18]
- Oh yes, Arya Samaj can be described as a Hindu "sect". It would help if you try to look at "Hinduism" not as an organized religion, so you can be a strict atheist (see Carvaka) and a devout Hindu at the same time. It might also help to know that Swami Dayananda did not know any English at all. Also, please note the spelling of his name, and that fact that your judgement of the quality of his critique is irrelevant. I would also like to point out that to millions, a remark like yours on Swami Dayanand might sound equivalent to what any insult to Muhammed might sound to Muslims.
- Okay thanks for clarifying that. But his critique will still need to be be observed, because according to your logic, anyone can start a sect of religion and then criticize a completely different religion without any real academic study on that religion. I once again point out how I am not attacking Dayanada's religious beliefs (seems to be a misconception with you), but rather his ability to criticize without any interpretation. Considering negative remarks, it was probably not nice to say that "Muhammed was a criminal" on your part. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- First, thanks for stopping to accuse me to be a vandal. Second, everyone can see that I did not say anything about Muhammand. I just pointed out that individuals can have justified or unjustified judgements about other religions or famous persons. But these personal judgments are not relevant in an encyclopedia, nor is somebody's ignorance about Who's Who in Hinduism.
- Ofcourse you have to check the importance of a person's status when you are talking about adding him/her to an article based on another religion, I thought that would be easy to understand. This is especially the case when that person considers himself qualified enough to criticize a completely different religion from his practice. As dayanda's work shows there is a lack of interpretation and rather criticism based on personal opinions regardless of academic study. Like I said before, there is a wide space between scholarly criticism and blatant attacks on a religion without interpretation. As for vandalism, you vandalized the Islamophobia article resulting in its protection; just don't do it again. Thanks and hope that has settled this issue. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- In what way did I vandalize Islamophobia? I recommended it for a vote of deletion, which I think is fully justified. In fact, IMHO getting a page on a VfD locked is a serious breach of wikipedia policy. I am only moderately surprised that you don't know about the importance of Swami Dayananda's status, because I doubt you know anything at all about Hinduism. In that case, it would be wise to not act as an authority on this subject.
- "anyone can start a sect of religion" Within the framework of Hinduism, absolutely anybody can start a "sect." In fact, some would argue that there are as many "sects" of Hinduism as there are Hindus, because each Hindu has his own unique perspective of religion and God.
- "and then criticize a completely different religion" You have repeated this "competely different" argument again and again. I still do not see why since Hinduism and Islam are very different, Hindus cannot criticize Islam. To me it appears that higher the contrast between two religions, more is the scope for criticism of one by the other.
- "without any real academic study on that religion." No. And if you are implying that Swami Dayananda did not do any academic study of Islam, then this is your personal judgement, and perhaps this judgement can be better informed by, for example, reading the biograpy of Dayananda, or even reading the Satyarth Prakash without any prejudice.
- I am absolutely not engaging with any discussion with you on this. I brought the issue here so that other editors can think about it. I could have talked to you on your own talk page if I thought it was worth my while.
- In general, (I dunno about this specific case), I agree with the user:Anonymous editor that Wikipedia should be very careful with adherents from one religion criticizing the other religion. The reason is that I have seen and heard blatantly ignorant and biased criticism of Hinduism by Christians, and ditto by Muslims. They do not know and understand and do not want to know and understand. Andries 18:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- 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.--a.n.o.n.y.m t 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). 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 [19] 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. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Only academics can criticize?
I don't think that is right. We need to cover BOTH academic theories, and common stereotypes, misconceptions, and slanders. Not all of them, just the common ones. Zora 12:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, but what separate's common criticism and somebody's personal opinion? What allows a particular person with almost no credentials for criticising another religion to be included. There are no sources which claim that, in this case, one person's criticism is what is a common stereotype, misconception or slander. If a person lacks apparent effort in analyzing common interpretations of a religion and criticizes with derogatory terms then they should not be added. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I must add that academic criticism and theological criticism are two different things, and we do have a section on theological criticism. I think it is always a bad idea to debate the quality of theological theories since they may or may not based on rationality. All criticism that is not "academic" is not a slander or a misconception. This note has nothing to do with my comments on Dayanand above. Okay, for example, religions like Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism that consider Ahimsa to be the biggest dharma criticize Islam from their POV, pointing out how Islam (atleast sometimes) tends goes contrary to what THEY consider the most important ingredient of being religious. Where do you put such criticism? To me, all criticism of any religion is inherently POV, the only thing to be ensured is that we present these POVs from a neutral perspective.
- Emphasis on religious difference is not criticism necessarily. All religions are different and just because they are different does not mean that every element of criticism must be added between the adherents of two religions. Yes, common stereotypes, misconceptions and slander may be added but with a source that shows that this is a common criticism coming from one religion. Personal opinions of one person of a religion (example Dayanand) does not mean that all adherents commonly criticize the same aspects. Only common aspects of criticism that are sourced properly should be added. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)