Talk:Criticism of Islam

Image of Muhammad

I am trying to add a picture of Muhammad to give the article more context and flavor and it keeps getting removed without any logical explanations. If No one raises any legitimate criticism I will be putting it back. Ibn Sa'd ibn Abi Sarah (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

This has been taken to my talk page here, but I repeat: it was blurry, oversized and the relevance of the image is unclear. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The topic of this article is Islam, not Muhammad. The image is irrelevant to the article topic, it is irrelevant to the context of the section it was put in, and serves no purpose. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I’m happy to have no image. It was the “beloved prophet” in an article about criticism that I objected to. Note also that most if not all of this editor’s edits have been problematic. Doug Weller talk 08:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

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

I'm not opposed to its inclusion, but I don't think it adds much. I'd also like to point out that Criticism of Christianity has no images of Jesus. (at least that I could find while skimming). –Daveout(talk) 13:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It adds as much any of the other pictures of relevant people on the article, yet there is no push to remove them.  And there is actually pictures of Jesus and Adam in that article as well as other religious portraits just like the one I’m trying to add, what is the reason for this defensiveness in this case? Ibn Sa'd ibn Abi Sarah (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I stand corrected. There's a pic of God\Jesus there indeed. I think this makes your case stronger. However, unfortunately, you'll still have to convince other users that the addition of Mohammed's image is an improvement. –Daveout(talk) 17:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It seemed clear to me (especially given the age and art style), if thats the issues I can find others. What is the relevance of the Dante and David Hume images? Breaking up the text and adding relevant images just as mine did, why is this image treated differently? Ibn Sa'd ibn Abi Sarah (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Because Dante and David Hume were "critics", and therefore fairly central to the core subject: that of "criticism". Iskandar323 (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

In this section, a picture of Sigismund Koelle or Ibn Warraq would be more relevant than a Timurid prophet portrait. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Syed Ahmad Khan wasn't a critic (and isnt even mentioned in the article itself), yet you don't bother to remove his image, Muhammad is mentioned many times in this article and depictions of him are relevant to islamic criticism, so again if anything we should be putting a depiction of muhammad from Dante's inferno as well as by charlie Hebdo. Ibn Sa'd ibn Abi Sarah (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is about the image you added, not the rest of the article. Feel free to remove irrelevant images. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

No i don't make unwarranted removals without logical reasons which is what you've done, if you dont provide a reason for this removal I will be returning it. Ibn Sa'd ibn Abi Sarah (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It has been removed by three editors for a range of reasons, so attain consensus before restoring it. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I don't agree with the claim that Muhammad himself has nothing or little to do with the subject of this article. Alongside Allah, he is a central figure in Islam. And many of his immediate actions and teachings are being criticized here. The connection, pertinence or relevance of Muhammad and this article is undeniable in my view. –Daveout(talk) 17:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

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

@Daveout: The image of Muhammad has nothing to do with the subject of this article. Depictions of Muhammad are a controversial issue, they offend many (if not the majority of) Muslims, and should not be added gratuitously, which is the case here. There is zero context for that image in the place it was added. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

So that's the real objection, as I suspected. So happens that WP:Wikipedia is not censored. And yes there's context for the suitability of that image, as Mohammed is intrinsically related to the subject of this article. If there's no policy-based reason to censor the image then I low-key support its inclusion. –Daveout(talk) 19:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The image was primarily not suitable because it was A) a random cropping of a larger image for no apparent reason, B) was blurry and looked shit, C) was chosen seemingly at random (why a Timurid image, why that one? There are many others on Muhammad), D) that section isn't just about Muhammad in general - it is specifically about ethical critiques of Muhammad, with the larger part being about the Aisha saga. The picture chosen spoke to none of that. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Many false statements are there.

For example it was written that prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) was the founder of Islam, which is 100% wrong, he is not a founder of Islam instead he is the last and final prophet of Islam. Adam (p.b.u.h) was the founder of Islam. Corednyion (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Seem apocryphal and impossible since Islam didn't exist until Muhammad invented it. Adam isn't even the founder of Judaism. Please leave your religious POV out of Wikipedia, this is for factual information, not promoting religious beliefs. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Mohamet IS the founder of Islam, just like Jesus of Nazareth IS the founder of Christianity. ALL claims of divinity of someone or something are absolutely UNPROVABLE. Salam. MagnusRegnumAntichristiAdvenit (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

This is equally as opinionated as the person you replied to. Take your religion, even if it is avowed atheism, out of this. 172.59.191.255 (talk) 02:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

What is this longevity?

My native language is not English nor is it any Germanic language and I am having trouble to find myself in this extremely long article. The Table of Contents doesn't really help me in this case.

I humbly suggest splitting this article to several different articles by context.

Thanks. 2A10:8012:17:CDC6:CCEC:CD14:2D36:C718 (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I tag the profiles of users active in editing the article in the last five years (as apparent from the revision history).

User:Extorc, User:MrOllie, User:LizardJr8, User:FyzixFighter, User:Atheist kerala, User:Anachronist, User:LuK3, User:Drmies, User:Donner60, User:Mojo Hand, User:Capsulecap, User:Icelandt, User:Arinaco, User:Averroes 22, User:Bookku, User:Epelerenon, User:Materialscientist, User:Bingobro, User:Balolay, User:El C, User:Begoon, User:Aminiani, User:Dimadick, User:Shellwood, User:Srich32977, User:Foggas, User:LakesideMiners , User:LW001, User:Samf4u, User:Oshwah, User:Excirial. Thanks for giving your opinion on this matter. 2A10:8012:17:CDC6:C0EE:F28C:FE0:91FA (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Running this article through prosesize tells us that this has a prose of 11k words and 69 kb size that puts it into "Probably should be divided, although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." category per WP:TOOBIG >>> Extorc.talk 14:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand that by "prosesize" you meant the Wikipedia:Prosesize tool. Anyway, more opinions are welcome. 2A10:8012:17:CDC6:D4BE:6846:F946:C85A (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

What are the specific proposals? Bookku (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree, let's see what OP thinks the article should be broken out into. It is pretty long. The plethora of quotes in the modern era subsection for example stands out.

Part of the problem here is someone volunteering to write summary sections for each of the sections that would be broken out into a new article. When I separated Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II development I found this to be a considerable task just for one section. What I've also found is that other editors over time have been determined to expand the pruned section far beyond what I think it should be. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I the OP have no opinion about how to split the article, primarily because I haven't read the article, it's too long, dense and general for me to read, at least from a screen and not printed. I ask if people who read the article have any suggestion. No one should wait for my own suggestion. 2A10:8012:17:CDC6:D4BE:6846:F946:C85A (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: In that case I don't think this is going anywhere. As I said, just doing one section on another article took me quite some time to make sure the summary of what I was removing was correct, and people just added back to that section. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'd be glad for more opinions. 2A10:8012:17:CDC6:D4BE:6846:F946:C85A (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

My only involvement with this article was to revert some unexplained content removal a few years ago. I have no opinion on splitting the article. I have not reviewed the article and have no time to spend on it. It is not on the topics I have worked on or am working on. Donner60 (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

There are some parts that shouldn't be part of this article anyway. Like Criticism of Muslim Immigration. Completely out of scope for this article. @Bookku, what do you think? >>> Extorc.talk 06:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I spotted that. A lot of that material is just about anti-Muslim sentiment, not criticism of the religion per se. Some of it could probably just be moved to Islamophobia, and the remainder reworked. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

This reminds me, on some talk pages previously I discussed importance of avoiding common mistake of presenting Muslims as Islam and vice versa. That said.

IMO section Criticism of Muslim immigrants and immigration

• Section heading seems problematic and would need to be changed if first paragraph of section to be retained.
• Table about Unfavorable views and other paragraphs after first paragraph after the table, certainly belong to the article Opposition to immigration, (I have not checked WP:Due and sourcing for that article) .
• First paragraph after the table seem to have some relevance.

Bookku (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I've copied the sourced material to Islamophobia now, so we can trim here. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. This looks a bit better. >>> Extorc.talk 09:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Islamophobia article?

Both this article and the Islamophobia article are extremely long to the level that I can't read them, let along edit them and I am sure I am not the only one, this will become worse for people who's native language isn't English nor any Germanic language. 2A10:8012:17:CDC6:11B3:E598:39EB:6625 (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

There are much, much longer articles than those. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

My apologies if this sounds rude but, if you are not fluent in English, then why would you be editing the English version of Wikipedia? I can read and write French and Spanish, but nowhere near fluently enough to be able to improve articles written in those languages.TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say that I don't speak English fluently. Believe it or not, I speak it near-natively (near-fluently) and have edited in English Wikipedia from time time for many years now. But, as a near-native speaker of English, not a native speaker, I am more prone to cognitive biases when reading such a long text in English from a computer screen. Please go look for some other English near-native speaker with enough knowledge of the mechanics of Wikipedia that would gladly humiliate herself/himself as I am doing here at the moment, to tell you that this longevity is a problem. This article is not a printed book numbered by pages were the reader can comfortably mark continuation with a continuation sticker, this is a "cluster****" if I may be rude as well. 2A10:8012:17:CDC6:257E:5EEC:D909:7D20 (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@ OP-IP I have already already requested @TechBear to WP:REFACTOR and any further personalizing discussion related to same should go to User talk:TechBear or WP:ANI and should not continue on this talk page. Said that.

Agreed that very long texts may make navigation difficult for persons of any linguistic background. We also have Simple English Wikipedia available for non-native speakers. To say non-native readers having reasonably good understanding of English would have additional cognitive biases does not sound convincing; but any way that does not matter when users here are ready to consider proposals to address article length issue. What is important next is well meaning concrete suggestions. Bookku (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The very creation of "Simple English" Wikipedia was in my opinion, a dire mistake. All you English Wikipedia members needed and need to do is to just split and split and more split and of course, more accessibility, the message is screaming to be heard. 2A10:8012:17:CDC6:4494:C93D:FF9C:7893 (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I misunderstood "this will become worse for people who's native language isn't English nor any Germanic language" in your comment. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@ OP-IP 2A10:8012:17:CDC6:11B3:E598:39EB:6625 I do not have issue about WP community considering to find solution for managing article length.

Same time pl. help us understand; What is the relation between Wikipedia article length of any article and native language of any reader or an editor? Usually connecting unrelated things sounds fallacious, unless you can give sound reason. If any such explanation exists then help us understand. Bookku (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello Bookku, please read my reply just above your reply. Thanks. 2A10:8012:17:CDC6:257E:5EEC:D909:7D20 (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

This article is a collection of quotes from various people, most of whom are not experts in Islam. Sadegh Hedayat, for example was a despairing storyteller who ended up committing suicide and it is natural for him to see nothing bright in this world, and it is natural to speak ill of everything, including Islam. Sadiq Hedayat is just an example of those who are not experts but said things about Islam. Many of the quotations in this article, in my opinion, should go to wikiquote if they are so important, but a wikipedia article should be written based on the reliable sources by subject-matter experts.If so, this article would become much shorter.Ghazaalch (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch There would be no second opinion that we all can work towards managing length of the article to an optimum. Also no issues in revisiting quotes to find their relevance and conciseness on quote by quote basis.

In my honest opinion what is supposed to matter is existence of present or past criticism in reliable sources. And if criticism is from any notable figures then that should find space according to relevance. Some critic is expert or not, it is not for us but for other reliable source to say so and any such criticism be better addressed through responses to criticism supported by reliable sources.

It's better to avoid Red herring

Some critic died by committing suicide or naturally or some other reason; and also is notable but not expert, seem to be Red herring arguments. One may feel tempted for non-inclusion of criticism of the version one does not like; but IMHO non-inclusion of criticism and responses there of (both from reliable sources) only leads to loss of credibility of the article, and more off-wiki rumor mongering among Wikipedia readers and self defeating to any likely underline cause of inadvertent stonewalling or obscurantism.

Pl let come point by point suggestions to address length issue. Wish you happy editing.

Bookku (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree. So the first step for us might be to find out which sources would better help us rewrite this article. Cplakidas might have some suggestions. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, unfortunately Ghazaalch I cannot be of much help here, this is not a topic I am terribly familiar with (I rather tend to avoid it, as most times I stumble upon it it is by people who are ideologically motivated). I really don't know what to suggest for improving the present article, let alone a bibliography for it. My two cents would be to reduce the reliance on isolated quotes by famous figures, and focus more on specific topics/points of criticism. Constantine ✍ 18:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Cplakidas, could you name someone who could help us with this? Ghazaalch (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: As I am writing mostly on early Islamic history, the editors I have interacted with are also more involved with that topic, so I don't know whether they are familiar with these issues or want to work on this topic. Of this group, AhmadLX has very extensive and thorough grasp of the theological and historiographical topics, and the scholarly literature, on early Islam. I would definitely recommend to seek his input, at least as a reviewer. Srnec is another editor who was extensive knowledge on medieval theology and historiography, both on the Christian and the Islamic side. Otherwise, I am drawing a blank; at least I would try to contact some of the more active members of WP:ISLAM and WP:RELIGION for help and input. Constantine ✍ 06:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Constantine: Thank you for the encouraging words :) I have neither knowledge nor interest in this area though. And currently not much time either to study a whole new subject. I think Eperoton and Louis P. Boog might be of some help. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ghazaalch, I agree with you (and Cplakidas) that there are way too many quotes in the article. Even more concerning is that they are mostly non-expert views. Surely many "ideologically motivated" Christians, ex-Muslims, atheists, etc. wouldn't have anything nice to say about Islam. Should we collect them all in one place and call that an encyclopedia article? Being famous doesn't necessarily qualify someone as an authority in inter-faith studies. It's their opinion that the encyclopedia article should reflect. For the same reason, I suspect that some sources of the present article would not qualify as reliable upon closer inspection. For example, is William Heard Kilpatrick really an authority to be quoted here? A sensitive topic like this should only be approached with the highest quality of preferably academic sources.

At the same time, it seems that a good place to start might be some of the sources already cited in this article. It's very likely that those also offer counter-views that would balance the article, i.e., it's likely that some of these sources also provide Muslims' responses to these criticisms. Albertatiran (talk) 08:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you all. I'm trying to start working on the article and I'll get more help from you in the meantime. For the time being I am focusing on summarizing the article. After that we could include counter-views, and delete weak-sourced content, etc.Ghazaalch (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

While summarizing the article I noticed that some subjects are discussed in two or three different sections, once in the "History" section as an isolated assertion, next in their related sections (Views on slavery section or Islam and Violence section for example) and then in Responses to criticism section. I think merging these three groups of information would make the article much shorter. To do this, and as suggested by Constantine above, I am trying to focus on specific topics/points of criticism.Ghazaalch (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV/N initiated thread: WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Criticism by non-expert RS, to be or not to be? Bookku (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello Chamaemelum, I was summarizing the article but you restored some quotation again, and then you summarized them in your own way. In order not to interrupt each other, would you like to continue the summarizing? And when you finished, I would try to add some counterviews. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Jesus

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

Yes, this looks relevant to the article. Albertatiran (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

What criticism means

@Chamaemelum: per Wikipedia:Criticism Articles should present the prevailing viewpoints from reliable sources, whether positive or negative., Therefore, criticism does not mean only negative views. Plus I put the footnote inside quotation marks and provided a reference for it, so it's not plagiarism, however I summarized it a little.Ghazaalch (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. I hope the newest edit is a middle ground. I like the summary now. It still doesn't really need to be included, but it's not incorrect. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Chamaemelum: this is what in the sources:

Scholars specializing in the early history of Islam and its transregional expansion have found that the historical factors involved were much more varied and complex than the “conquest by the sword” thesis would suggest.

I changed it to the following and put it in the article:

Historians studying the early history of Islam and its transregional expansion have found that the historical variables at hand were much more varied and complex than the "conquest by the sword" thesis.

But you changed it into:

Juan Campo notes that there were additional factors besides "conquest by the sword" that led to the spread of Islam.

which is not an accurate representation of the source. I have no problem summarizing the text further, but it must represent the source.Ghazaalch (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The term "criticism" refers to at the very least, evaluative judgments, and almost always judgements against specific doctrines, practices, or effects. The passage in question does not present an evaluative judgment but rather an analysis of historical factors.

The passage in question, "Historians studying the early history of Islam and its transregional expansion have found that the historical variables at hand were much more varied and complex than the 'conquest by the sword' thesis," provides historical context someone's take on an understanding of the factors contributing to the spread of Islam. It is not a critique or negative evaluation of Islam as a religion or as a cultural phenomenon. Further, it downplays the role of conquest in the spread of Islam. The spread of Islam was significantly facilitated by military conquest and forced conversions as well, and a criticism article should focus more on the instances of violent expansion than peaceful methods.

The passage you want to add is an analytical statement about the historical growth of Islam. It's about the history of Islam, not a critique of its doctrines, practices, or effects. Therefore, it would be more appropriately placed in an article discussing the history of Islam or spread of Islam of Islam rather than an article devoted to criticism.

The paragraph you've chosen to include the passage in pertains to specific figures (Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos, Paul of Antioch, and Denis the Carthusian) and their individual criticisms of Islam. Your proposed addition is a general opinion analysis of the varied factors contributing to the spread of Islam. Therefore, it wouldn't fit logically or contextually within this paragraph, except as an attempt to refute the historical critics, which doesn't make sense to do here as this isn't a "history" article. Inserting a general analysis of the spread of Islam would disrupt the flow of the narrative. Chamaemelum (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Chamaemelum: You should adhere to Wikipedia policies which says Always present positive viewpoints along with any negative information to give balance.Ghazaalch (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Reverting Ibn Kammuna's creed by Chamaemelum

@Chamaemelum: you reverted ...a Jewish philosopher who may have ultimately converted to Islam and you wrote in the edit summary that read page 22. It says he probably didn't convert..no reason to think he did. and again on page 23: "hard to believe". even if so, irrelevant to this discussion.

1. I know that Ibn Kammuna might not have converted to Islam, that is why I used the word may.
2. that Ibn Kammuna may have ultimately converted to Islam, is not irrelevant to his saying that people converted to Islam "to avoid heavy taxation, or to escape humiliation, or if taken prisoner." He contrasted this to the lack of respected non-Muslims converting to Islam without the aforementioned motives, because converting to Islam is kind of changing his mind about what he said earlier.Ghazaalch (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Source is very critical that he converted to Islam. Why include a speculation which the authors deem likely to be based off of a known misunderstanding? Saying "may", and even including it at all, makes it seem like it's at least probable. Since the source material itself doubts the validity of the conversion, then it's best not to include it in an encyclopedic entry. Further, even if he did convert, the validity of the critique depends on the strength of the arguments and evidence provided, not the personal beliefs of the critic. Drawing connection between his conversion and "changing his mind" about his critiques is your own thoughts, not those of the source. In fact we do not know why he ostensibly converted, and it could be "to avoid heavy taxation, or to escape humiliation, or if taken prisoner", in which case his conversion strengths his critiques. Conversion does not necessarily imply full agreement with every aspect of the faith: there are Muslims who critique Islam for similar things as Ibn, and Christians who critique evangelicals for how they spread their faith. Chamaemelum (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

per WP:DONTREVERT, even if you find an edit unnecessary you shouldn't revert it: Do not revert unnecessary edits (i.e., edits that neither improve nor harm the article). For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in some cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation... Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit Ghazaalch (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Winston Churchill view

Chamaemelum, as we cannot reach consensus on how to summarize churchill view I restore the version before I started summarization. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch I don't think I disagreed with you on Churchill. Reverting to the old version worsens the article. Feel free to put your preferred version of Churchill's view. I will undo the revert and restore your Churchill version. Chamaemelum (talk) 07:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't able to restore your exact Churchill version now, sorry. I will do it later today. Feel free to restore the Churchill section yourself. Chamaemelum (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch OP community banned this morning. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Criticism of Islam

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Criticism of Islam's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "issue":

• From Women in Islam: Nomani, Asra Q. (October 22, 2006). "Clothes Aren't the Issue". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2018-09-22.
• From Islam and violence: Nomani, Asra Q. (22 October 2006). "Clothes Aren't the Issue". Washington Post.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Restored. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Other Islam branches section.

Do note that I have removed this section in the recent changes. Although the section addressed the persecution of Muslims that was covered by the sources, it did not however, cover criticisms of Islam.

Additionally, the sections 'Historical Background' and 'Other Religions' Views' have similar and repeated critiques, so it is best to combine them and trim the redundant information. I'll work on this. Furthermore, since this article focuses on criticism of Islam as a religion, including its laws and ethics, critiques related to Muhammad and Hadiths, which have dedicated articles, should be summarized concisely. StarkReport (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)