Talk:Criticism of Islam/Archive 4

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Bahais

There should be mention of the treatment of Baha'is in IRan and Eygpt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.117.132 (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Islamofascism and Eurabia

I'm a bit perplex about this issue; should this article mention Eurabia and Islamofascism?

I too am perplexed why people think there is no Islamophobia when people write things like above.

Pedophilia of Mohammad

Since Mohammad married Aisha when Aisha was 5 or 6 years old, according to most sources, why can't we even mention Mohammad's pedophilia in this page? Tauphon 16:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

       Because, at the time, it was the custom to wait until the girl had reached adolescence
       before consummating the marriage.

Interesting, I've added it with a link to Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236:

It would seem to be pertinent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.111.159 (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not get it, we should not change the source credibility according to our POV. The sources you are talking about are Hadith!! Many cite from it when criticizing Islam but renouncing it as unreliable source otherwise?Bestofmed (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

To Bestofmed: Such critics are arguing in the alternative — either the Hadith is true on this point which exposes the sinfulness of Muhammad and thus the fallacy of Islam or the Hadith is false which also exposes the fallacy of Islam because the Hadith is among its scriptural foundations.

Your argument would make sense if you were talking about a neutral reference written by a third party — either it is reliable or it is not. But this does not apply to the confession of the defendant as in this case. If he lies, then he is not to be trusted. If he tells the truth, then he is convicted out of his own mouth.

So Hadith is a valid source for condemning Islam, even if it is unreliable. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

To JRSpriggs it's simply because hadith books were wrote about 3-4 centuries after Mohammed death so we can not trust all of them.

So it's simple we trust the hadith that have a quran source those which have benn rapported by neutral independent writer and those which seem logical and we will not trust the hadith which are not logical

We cant take negatively this marriage with the 6 years old aisha.

Because yes mohammed married her at 6 but he didnt fornicate her until she was adolescent at 10.

Also this practise was very in vogue in all world and still being practiced in places such afghanistan and kurdistan.

We can not juge negatively this marriage as the same logic that we cant negatively juge practices of incest cannibalism and pedophilia very in vogue in europe and other parts of the world in even late middle ages in europe.

Another thing we know that pedophilia is bad seen by occidental ethics.

But it can be banalized and being seen as normal thing in soon future.

As per example sodomy porn homo sex and zoopholia sex was illegal and bad seen but now is very normal and ethic.

So why (in the occidental ethic vision of course) pedophilia is bad viewed but zoophilia homo sex bang bang group sex etc etc are seen as banal.

Then you see that all is realtive.

It is very possible that under pedophils lobbying pedophilia will be seen as banal normal thing by occidental vision as zoophilia bisexual transexual and homosexual have done by their lobbiying.

Personally I dont think that fornicating a young girl is pedophily infact the girl can be adult as soon as 8-10 years old.

So the criterium for saying is pedophilia is not age but is the fact of being adult or not.

But even this can not be bad viewed as it was normal and banal for that time ethics .

Per axample romans were practicing incest and polygamies but it was conform with roman society ethics.

And even if it did not this remain just a sexual prefernce detail when looking scientifically and objectively.

About Mohammed pedophily If the girl(Aisha) is mature(adult)at 9 (which is very common in hot countries like sudan ksa etc etc I think we can not speak of pedophily

Nowadays girls in the world are having chidren at even the age of 12 in rather cold countries where adukt age must be higher.

Another thing I think that pedophily was not viewed as a bad practice at that time in that society.

And even in others societies at different times things as pedophily incest and cannibalism were not viewed as impious immoral things.

Knowing that hadith books were wrote about 4 centuries about Mohammed death I think that hadith can not be viewed as a SOURCE.

Mohammed's number of wives at the same time are 4 the surplus were only pleisure(mut3a)wives.

Hanzukik (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Islam and Women

I know, I know, I'm anonymous. But honestly, this section needs some work folks. I don't claim to be a scholar on this kind of thing but the current section reads more as an apology and justification section for why women exist in the legal/social status they do rather than actually discussing what the modern criticisms levelled at Islam regarding women are. I read in the paper about muslim clerics in Australia saying "Women...were 'weapons' used by Satan to control men," and shifting blame of gang rapes on 'immodestly dressed' women, and I'm curious as to why at the very least some mention of this isn't made here. It's not like there is a dirth of material from Amnesty International and other humanitarian organizations that discuss the plight of women in strictly Islamic cultures. Can you (and I refer to people who author, not people who, like me, criticize) do a little more in the arena of informing the casual reader about the details here- There's an entire paragraph (the longest and most informative of the section) that begins with "Some Islamic scholars..." that goes to great lengths to justify the Islamic position. The other paragraphs level some bland and uninformative accusations at Islam concerning women, but this justifying paragraph seems to get the most attention. I'm all for being unbiased, but I'm also for being unafraid. This section seems just plain wrong, both in presentation and content. - Anonymous

Another Anonymous person would like to say - I keep seeing documentaries on Islam being all for women, and the Qu'Ran saying everywhere that women are equal to men..... And everywhere on the news this is not the case whatsoever. And that Sheik saying women not wearing their headscarf are like uncovered meat, and that it's the woman's fault if they get raped...... It's all well and good to say such things are not what Islam is about but when you hear that in many Islamic courts, if a woman accusing a man of rape does not have a certain number of MALE witnesses SHE is charged with the crime instead and put to death. when you hear of women being killed for not covering themselves completely (in black. In the desert). when you hear of Islamic clan "courts" giving leave for a family to rape a woman as payment for some kind of wrongdoing..... These should all get a mention. Criticising the way Islam is apparently warped for the sick purposes of men in power belongs in a criticism of Islam. If it's not the way Islam is supposed to work then how about a section criticising those who take Islam and convert it to something evil, sick and degrading.

So edit it. Arrow740 18:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that the actual content is now in the Women in Islam page. Just go there and you will understand that women are fine and dandy under islam, regardless of non-islamic norms that may prevail. And even on the face of it you have reason to feel disturbed, there are non-islamic cultural norms that make it necessary for the rules in the Koran, such as the weight of testimony in courts, to be there. Be assured, it is a closed system. But go to Leviticus if you want to see worse. The Woman in Islam page is the best bit of apologetics I have read. Even Dr Swift would be proud of that work.202.137.86.214 14:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this a hint to us that the article is wholly deficient? Obviously, it can't be certain that you're the same Anon as before (or rather, I don't feel like checking). As you can see, my sarcasmometer is temporarily out of service.--C.Logan 16:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to the above comments .. I just want to mention that this is not a religion on trial . In the article I have seen these comments : Winston Churchil "The fact that in Mohammedan law every womenn must belong to some man as his absolute property" , and similar comments by Oriana Fallaci , Daniel Pipes , Roberts Spencer and Bat Ye'or .. and they all well-known christians either politicians , writers or scholars , the fact is we heard islamic traditions (and I say traditions for reasons will be mentioned later) in treating women . the more exciting issue is that despite the separation betwwen state and church in europe in modern era , we have not heard for example Winston Churchil saying the same about the old testament (Bible)Genesis-3 (The Fall Of Man) "To the woman he (god) said : I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children . your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you" that was taken literally by judaism and christianity for decades . I'm not comparing religions or assuming that one is superior to another; because everybody sees their own as the ultimate right one . All I'm saying is the comments mentioned in the articles are just personal views that doesn't assure honesty (or at least good intention) behind them . As for the women rights under islam rulings regarding that ,all you should remember is the speech of Mohammed in the pilgrim (shortly before he passed away) "My advice is to take care of women" and repeated that three times before the thousands listenners . about the comment about rapes : the islam ruling is very clear with punishment equally for men and women who commit (with knowing and consent) out-of-lawfull-marriage sex , and that require 4 poeple to testify confirming seeing that (to avoid conspiracy or falsely accusing poeple of such thing) , but if one party of a married couple accuse the other , they don't need the 4 witnesses to affirm (all the accuser needs is to swear four times before the judge that they are telling the truth ) and that ruling applies to the raped women as well (I don't know where the above comment got that raped woman needs 4 witness to confirm her story - and by the way if you swear laying even once before a muslim judge , your testimony will never be accepted before any other muslim judge , and that also to prevent false-accusing poeple). And as for the saying that the immams of the mosques (or other men in the muslim society) blame women for these things to happen , that's what I call traditions (not related to any islamic rulings) , and Qur'an has the same order for men and women to avoid such things (you never see in Qur'an an order singling the women without assuring that men has to follow that same order as well) . Unfortunately the modern muslim society is giving much leverage for men to do what they feel like doing (even if that is against islam teachings or rulings) , while the women are deprived from their rights assured by islam . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.98.90 (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for keeping cool

Just chipping in uninvited... This is for everyone, but you know who you are:

If you're fixing vandalism, 3RR doesn't count. Otherwise it does.
Don't revert edits because they're in bad faith unless it's obvious that they are (i.e. in general, don't).
Don't discuss through edit summaries. That's not what they're for.
To Aminz: stick to the subject. If you're talking about the Qur'an, don't go on a tangent about the Bible.
To Mike18xx: you don't get to criticize other people's theses, no matter how fallacious. Better find a respected peer-reviewed scholar to do that.
Question: Does Robert Spencer deserve a place along serious scholars? Some versions of the article give him too much importance.
Suggestion 1: If something causes a problem and is not that important, better leave it aside for a while.
Suggestion 2: Imagine time has turned back and you're living on 10 Sep 2001. Furthermore, imagine you haven't even heard of anything called "Clash of Civilizations". You need to criticize Islam, not to reflect current hot arguments about it.

Good luck, folks. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Pablo-flores, thanks for your suggestions. Well, actually I don't think providing the context is irrelevant. Slavery was a common feature of the ancient world. I don't think selectively picking the sentences relating to the Qur'an and obscuring the context from which these sentences are taken would be a nice idea, even if we are writing about the Qur'an. I suggest having a very small non-critical sub-section on the slavery itself which is followed by a criticism section and responses to that section. --Aminz 21:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Regards "respected peer-revied scholars" and "serious scholars", these are simply arbitraries in service of an appeal-to-authority logical-fallacy in contravention of the "notable" test. Certainly Robert Spencer thinks he's quite serious about his work, and given that his stated reason for not pursuing a further academic career was because he held the universities to be hopelessly politicized (a rather obvious fact which I think even the most brazen here would find difficult to deny with a straight face), it would be unreasonable to expect him to be favorable "peer-reviewed" given said politicization. Lastly, it's regrettably after Sept 10, 2001 now; and if you think things are rough now, just wait until that Iranian more-Nazi-than-Hitler idiot has his bomb, and Europe slides thoroughly into Eurabia--World War IV is coming fast, everybody has mid-field seating, and is just waiting for the teams to exit the locker-rooms. (If you have no idea of what that portends, pretend the internet existed in 1942, and you're trying to edit Wikipedia past hundreds of Goebbels fans and Greater Co-Prosperity Sphere agents. You'll have fond, fond memories, then, of how calm and peaceful things are TODAY.)--Mike18xx 05:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hahahahah: are you real? You're almost as bad as the people who follow these backwards superstitions.

the simple fact is that spencer is little more than a polemicist and propagandist, he is not an authority in any matter even remotely related to islam and so his opinion is of no significance in an encyclopaedia, except when noted to display current rhetorical trends in the lucrative field of islamophobic jingoism (just ask Craig Winn). ITAQALLAH 06:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Say, that's an interesting user-page you have, ITAQALLAH. No need to guess where you're coming from.--Mike18xx 08:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Mike, you think itaqallah is too biased to suggest Robert Spencer is biased? spencer is not a scholar. Not by any rational account. The lack of a university backing, politicized or not, makes no difference in thise case, and especially in this subject. Robert Spencer writes anti-Muslim propoganda for evangelical christians. It has no place in an encyclopedic article. I would say the same about trying to include published Muslim hate-speech here as well. Oizfar 21:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Mike, assume good faith please. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 19:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

- "Imagine time has turned back and you're living on 10 Sep 2001." Why should we? Why should we ignore history? If you don't want to include Islamic fundamentalists' most heinous crimes or the threat Islamic fundamentalism represents, then you're writing fiction. Why not just jump back to 1938 and make believe the Holocaust never happened? (Like a certain Iranian we all know.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.59.12.138 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 18 September 2006.

I think everybody understands what I meant by "turning back time". In case you don't, I meant seeing the whole history of Islam objectively rather than through the paranoid-hysterical post-9/11 mentality. Violent Islamic fundamentalism has existed for a long time and deserves clear-headed fact-based criticism.

Mike18xx, a discussion is not conducted by calling people "Nazi" who are not strictly Nazi, by using highly flammable terms like "Eurabia" in talking about Islam, or by harassing people because of the contents of their userpage. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that you believe that any criticism is "paranoid-hysterical". Keep on ignoring the throngs of Muslims who riot at the mere rumor of a flushed Koran. See where it gets you. Likwidshoe 10:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just curious why Oriana Fallaci isn't mentioned in this article. She was a critic of Islam, a notable one too. But I don't really understand why we should pretend like 9/11 really happened. That doesn't make any sense at all. If it offends people that they are of the same religion as radical nutjobs, well thats too bad. Cheers - Amused Himself to Death

I guess we should not pretend like 9/11 didn't happen .. the history says it happened and was excuted by radicals or fundamentalists like some of the above comments say . But does this mean anything suggesting that all muslims are radicals or isalm itself is so? well, if any of you think so , history also said alot of things like crusade wars in the middle ages (motivated and excuted by the church) , the colonial era also mentioned by history when Europe occupied the whole third world and literaly treated them as sleves . History also said alot of things about the middle east crises that was the direct effect of the west special interest in that region . History said alot of things as I said , but that's not the place to discuss them . This place is for poeple looking for scholars , academic and verified-documented reviews about certain subjects . I don't like what happened in 9/11 and neither anyone I know , but that doesn't give a pass for anybody to harass muslims or false-accuse islam either because they are outraged by the that disaster (which we all have sympathy for whom they suffer from it and feel sorry it had happened) or for just the hell of it . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.98.90 (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

the quran

the section "the quran" should NOT call the main article "quran." That article has nothing to do with criticism of the quran.--Sefringle 04:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Critics also challange the claim that Islam is of devine orgin, using the verses I mentioned in the article.--Sefringle 19:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest a re-writing of this section to improve it.--Sefringle 03:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Confusion

I am a bit confused about the source of your information about Mohammeds fits. I vividly recall not ever hearing anything about Mohammed having fits or epilepsy.By the way this whole article is compromised of Information taken from sources that are relativley biased. I suggest you read some unbiased articles of islam so as to understand teh true translations of quranic verses from Arabic to English. Arabic is a very specific language so you cannot always rely on english translations. For example an iinsult in urdu ( urdu is based from arabic with the same letters too) would not make sense in enlish bacause it would go like this : you are a donkeys head (???) I mean honestly. I do not wish to make any enemys or anything so please dont think i am trying to be rude. Because im not. MOI 18:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad had to be convinced that he wasn't possessed, and nearly committed suicide multiple times. This was narrated by Aisha and can be found in Bukhari's hadith. Arrow740 00:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Arrow740: Ok, so that's patently false. I am not a scholar, but a well read Muslim who consults scholars and there is no such Hadith in Imam Bukhari's Sahih collection. Please, do not make such claims (such as nearly committed suicide) without a very specific reference. All of the 7 'Sahih' collections of Hadith are easy to reference since they are universally numbered. Also, be sure when reading translations, not the original Arabic, that you are getting the real hadith and not something else. I am usually very disappointed at the poor level of Arabic-English translations Hadith are delivered in via south asia, beirut, etc. The translations from Saudi seem to be the best english translations.

'Muhammad's fits' - This is a 900+ year old story that was started during the Crusades. There are many other similar false stories which sadly have survived. Epilepsy, or 'fits' have very specific characteristics. Many physicians have examined the hadith which reference the physical state of Prophet Muhammad while receiving Revelation from God/Allah, and have concluded many times that they were inconsistent with epilepsy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Scafutos (talk • contribs)

Try using google and you'll find the exact hadith. Arrow740 07:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

any sources for your claims?--Sefringle 07:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Google is not a source for hadith, one needs to find it and read it his/herself in the books, otherwise they are invalid. There are too many sources of corrupted/mistranslated hadith on the Internet.

Said and Orientalism

I see nothing on this page justifying the passage from Said. I see no relevance to the Said passage. This is a page about criticism of Islam, not about the critics of the critics of Islam. Said has pages enough. Why is it here? Lao Wai 22:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree.The part on Said should be removed.Oren.tal 12:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

CHALLENGE

Below is the following section under "Criticism of Islam"

====Criticism of the methods used by critics ==== "terrorists aren't all islamic,and it is also not a fact that only people who beong to the islamic faith are terrorists! people who generalise like that are hipocrits and should rather blame the individual opther than the faith" - Edward Said, in his essay Islam Through Western Eyes, stated that the general basis of Orientalist thought forms a study structure in which Islam is placed in an inferior position as an object of study. He claims the existence of a very considerable bias in Orientalist writings as a consequence of the scholars' cultural make-up. He claims Islam has been looked at with a particular hostility and fear due to many obvious religious, psychological and political reasons, all deriving from a sense "that so far as the West is concerned, Islam represents not only a formidable competitor but also a late-coming challenge to Christianity."^[1] Montgomery Watt agrees with West's historical denigration of Islam but states that the situation has become much better during the last two centuries though many of the old prejudices still linger on. Watt encourages both Muslims and Europeans to reach to an objective view of Muhammad and his religion.^[2] - - The motivations of certain outspoken modern-day critics has come under criticism as a means of indirectly dismissing the neutrality of their works. For instance, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, commenting on quotes from Daniel Pipes' such as "the presence, and increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims...will present true dangers to American Jews", characterizes Pipes' works as "troubling bigotry towards Muslims and Islam".^[3]

I challenge anybody to dispute one of my accusations of the paragraph above. I accuse the section, "Criticism of the methods used by critics" as being:

anti-Christian
Biased
Pro-Islamic
Pro-Terrorist

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.112.92.249 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 23 September 2006.

I would dispute most of that. However it is irrelevant. This is a page on the Criticism of Islam, not on what CAIR or Said think of the critics of Islam. It ought to go even if it is all those things you say. Lao Wai 22:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

yeah, CAIR's name is their disclaimer already! We don't need self-evident disclaimers! otoh, If CIAR is being referenced significantly in the section on violence, one must mention that they don't speak for all American Muslims (as they have links to terrorist organisations). But such disclaimers are unnecissary when your talking about wider issues, not specifically violence. Just don't let people think that CIAR's terrorist appologetics reprissent all western Muslims. 80.11.135.53 20:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I dispute two of your accusations:

anti-Christian

That section is not anti-Christian, since Orientalism is not a Christian matter. It has been present in "Christian" culture 100 years ago as you can find out by reading in the "Old Catholic Encyclopedia", but it is not part of Christian doctrine to regard different cultures inherently inferior.

Biased

Of course it is biased, just as is any other section of that article. NPOV does not mean "No Point Of View", it means "Neutral Point Of View", which means in this case, that all relevant views should get mentioned in the article.

Pro-Islamic

Yes it is, but that doesn't disqualify its inclusion. (see the previous sentence about NPOV)

Pro-Terrorist

That claim is just ridiculous and unfounded. Nothing in that section is anywhere close to pro-terrorist propaganda. Raphael1 13:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to Raphael

I dispute two of your accusations:

anti-Christian

That section is not anti-Christian, since Orientalism is not a Christian matter. It has been present in "Christian" culture 100 years ago as you can find out by reading in the "Old Catholic Encyclopedia", but it is not part of Christian doctrine to regard different cultures inherently inferior.

I should have made this point more lucid. This section is not anti-Christian. This ENTIRE ARTICLE is anti-Christian. Let's face it. If there was a religion that Islam despises today, that's got to be Christianity, the main corroboration being that Christians launched the crusades that took away their, somehow, god-given dream of an Islamic empire from southern Spain to Afghanistan. But the fact that gets lost is that the crusades was an exigent, if not even felicitious, rejoinder to what the Catholic church saw as devastating encroachments by Islamic calliphates into Christian territory. We have to remember that it was Islam that started this whole war, when they waged jihad against Christians and conquered Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and northern Africa, all of which were once CHRISTIAN TERRITORIES before falling into the hands of Islamic fanatics. The point I am trying to undergird is that however many people criticize Islam and however many religions voice their dissent over Islam, Muslims are going to attack Christianity because they need to somehow make-up for the ignominous losses they suffered to the Crusaders 1000 years ago. So even if a Buddhist, Hindu or Jew attacked Islam, Muslims will STILL blame and attack Christians. Need I say more of the absolutely ridiculous allusions to Christianity in the following sentence?

..."that so far as the West is concerned, Islam represents not only a formidable competitor but also a late-coming challenge to Christianity."

I'm pretty sure only Westerners are criticizing Islam. Especially when there is Ali Sina. Or Wafa Sultan. Or Salman Rushdie. I just find it utterly ridiculous how the West and Christianity are always, ALWAYS, used as convenient punching bags if Islam is attacked. If so, how could you blame Pope Urban II when he summoned the crusade? Doesn't he have the right to protect Christianity in the very same way that Saudi Arabia tries to protect Islam by restricting the establishment of any other religion in the country?

Biased

Of course it is biased, just as is any other section of that article. NPOV does not mean "No Point Of View", it means "Neutral Point Of View", which means in this case, that all relevant views should get mentioned in the article.

If an article is biased, then we should institute all our ken to eviscerate these faulty informations, do we not? If the section aformentioned is biased (which it clearly is), then wouldn't I have a duty to delete it?

Pro-Islamic

Yes it is, but that doesn't disqualify its inclusion. (see the previous sentence about NPOV)

Just to remind you, this article is called, "Criticism of Islam" NOT "Criticisms of the Criticism of Islam." If the article was pro-Islamic, then what's the point of creating an article called, "Criticism of Islam." If Muslims want to palliate some of the criticisms in the article by suggesting counter-arguments, that is perfectly fine. But do it in understandable and non-truculent manner. Don't just attack other religions because you presume that people from that particular religion are contributing to this article. And since we are talking about other religions, why don't you go to Criticism of Christianity and find out how many times Islam gets mentioned in a denigrating way?

Pro-Terrorist

That claim is just ridiculous and unfounded. Nothing in that section is anywhere close to pro-terrorist propaganda. Raphael1 13:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You say: Nothing in that section is anywhere close to pro-terrorist propaganda.

Well, here's some things in the past that CAIR ALONE has said (I'm not sure if you could call this pro-terrorist. Probably anti-Christian.)

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran ... should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."

"It is a known fact that [CAIR has] defended, apologized for, and rationalized the actions of extremists groups ... The real challenge for moderates like myself is to prevent my Muslim brethren from [being] deceived by extremist groups that pretend to represent their interests."

If you want more information, go to Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.--205.189.150.1 05:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that the sources cited in this are coming from sources that have a well-defined bias and agenda. But since they are responding to the challenge to their positions, I don't see a problem with this section. Kyaa the Catlord 16:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This section should not be so high in the article, and as no Daniel Pipes is used in this page as he is too critical to go in this article, why is he critised in this article. Maybe so his quotes can be used to denigrate legitamate critism of Islam.Hypnosadist 17:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

How exactly is Daniel Pipes' criticism less "legitamate" [sic] than any other criticism. In fact, its because he is so critical and so well known that he ought to be mentioned more in the article. If articles were created and maintained based on how legitimate or reasonable the subject matter was, then there would be no article on Islam in the first place. --203.59.166.123 19:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear 205.189.150.1, in your response to my "challenge" you are wrong in several ways:

Your Christian territories theory is totally wrong. Iraq or northern Africa has never been a "Christian territory", even if the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia (which states that people "who may have held that Islam is a kind of useful, possibly necessary, transition, between Fetishism and Christianity" are "utterly mistaken") may want to picture it that way.
If you want to remove all biased information (every POV is biased per definition), you'll end up with a blank page.
Just because the article is called "Criticism of Islam" does not mean, that it should contain nothing but a compilation of polemic or truculent criticism.
Your first "quote" from CAIR is neither pro-terrorist nor anti-Christian. Would you call a priest, who says something like "Christianity isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Bible should be the highest authority in America, and Christianity the only accepted religion on earth." pro-terrorist or anti-Buddhism?
Your 2nd quote is nothing but the personal opinion of Seif Ashmawy, which neither proofs CAIR to be pro-terrorist nor does it make CAIRs opinion on Daniel Pipes any less relevant to that article.

Raphael1 18:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Response To Raphael: Regarding :# Your Christian territories theory is totally wrong. Iraq or northern Africa has never been a "Christian territory", North Africa was Originaly part of "Christian Territory" as it was part of the Roman Empire when it adopted christianity, remnants still remain in the gnostic church of egypt and there was once a patriach of Carthage (Tunisia) Patriarchate of Carthage with christianity penetrating africa as far as ethiopia where it still remains,

But I totatly agree with you on your dismisal of this arguement, Islam is a religion and as such believes it to be the true path to God/Allah and as such they are bound to want others to experience what they do, and of course they will see there religion as perfect. If there is any disagreement between Christianity and Islam it would most likely stem from the fact that all religions see them selves as superior to others in reaching God/Allah and want to share this with others but sadly both religions are guilty of being heavy handed in spreading what they see as right, though im sure they only only act out of what they see as the best intrests for those who arent part of there religion (i.e forcing conversions and military actions) and arent really inherently evil

- Im not really a follower of any religion and see them as just theories so ive tried to be fair to them Catintheoven 20:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Critism of the critics

This section should not be so high in the article, and as no Daniel Pipes is used in this page as he is too critical to go in this article, why is he critised in this article. Maybe so his quotes can be used to denigrate legitamate critism of Islam.Hypnosadist 17:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Please post discusion here about this current edit war!Hypnosadist 17:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

notable criticism as well as scholarly assessment of that criticism is relevant in this article, similar sections in Criticism of Christianity and others rightly set the precedent for this (i don't see any critique of daniel pipes currently in the article). some consider that just because this is an article on criticism of islam, only criticism is allowed. the absurdity of such a position is that one would be purging even the most inane and defunct arguments of any notable or academic analysis. and seeing as though there has been notable critique of the methodologies used, justified or not, it is illogical to place it anywhere else except here, lest you end up forcing it into a rather ugly article fork, whereas wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia and not a battle-ground. to those who advocate this, i suggest they first study what wikipedia and its articles are not and then take a look at WP:NPOV. Hypnosadist, feel free to relocate that section to wherever you feel is most appropriate in the article. ITAQALLAH 17:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If the section is moved to the end of the article then it is in line with Criticism of Christianity. But it must be noted that that article contains no attacks on the critcs themselves and very few rebutals to the criticisms. Any criticism of the critics should be om their pages, not here in my opinion. Does anyone object to moving this to the end in=line with Criticism of Christianity.Hypnosadist 18:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What difference does it make to keep it as it is, as opposed to pushing it to the end? So that people are less likely to read that material? That's not exactly neutral. I think it is fine as it is. The article is about, it shouldnt be criticism of Islam. Since when is "Criticism of Christianity" the template this article has to agree with. Responses and opposing theories to criticisms and critiques should be in the body of the article. All 'sides' should be equally represented. ImKidding 03:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If that was the case these criticisms should be in the apropriate islam article but they are forced to be here as they are constantly delete out of original articles.Hypnosadist 11:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. Why do people keep on adding the insane paragraph, "Criticism used by Critics of Islam?" It's not as if Islam has no blemishes. Just deal with it. Islam is not the best religion that this world has to offer and it's record isn't squeaky-clean, either. So stop whinning, grow some wits and deal with it. --205.189.150.1 20:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Islam is not the one that is being the terrorist or aggresor it is the people who use it for terror and agression. By saying that Islam isnt the best religion shows a biased view and should be taken out because some people beleive it is. You are mistaken and really should think before you type and take consideration for people feelings please. Thank you. Ssd175 06:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want sensitivity, read your own sacred texts in your own corner. If you want open dialog and debate, have it here. Your emotional response to statements by 205.189.150.1 regarding Islam's blemishes and lack of objective superior position relative to other religions, is certainly indicative of your unwillingness to stand back and have an honest dialog. I doubt any of us want an encyclopedia that moderates discussion through a PC filter.

Reason for my choice of sources for Oriana Fallaci

There is a logical reason here. Lot of commentary is from Italian sources. My Italian is poor to say the least so as an initial seque of Oriana Fallaci into the text as a notable critic of Islam I have linked to a Newyorker interview as that's in English. I may have the cite wrong though. I'll try and track down the details of the court case that she was presented with for her criticism of Islam to put into the "Muslim Objections to Critics" section. Obviously any court case kind of stymied !. I feel the Newyorker interview encapsulates her criticism of Islam faithfully without bloating this already too long topic. Ttiotsw 12:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Femicide

Why is there even stuff about honour killings in the section on Femicide? All it contains are news stories of honour killings and suchlike which NO muslim scholars accept.

I thought this article was criticism of Islamic beliefs rather than the actions of muslims. we might as well add all crimes perpetrated by muslims to this article if we're going down that route.

- rolls eyes*

I am sorry but would you mind signing your posts with four tildas (~)? What makes you think that honor killings are not accepted by Muslim scholars? You can, no doubt, find scholars in the West and even some in the Islamic world who condemn them. A few. Now. In English. But what makes you think it is not a part of Islamic belief to do so? All part of forbidding the evil and commanding the good. They are, after all, unpunishable in Islamic law and so I'd think most Muslims would assume God approves of them. Lao Wai 13:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If the "honour killings" point was properly connected with Islamn that has proper references, why would should it be eliminated, because muslim scholars have another POV? Referenced points about Islam (if the point is about Islam indeed) should remain. Nonprof. Frinkus 19:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, it's me again. I've never seen a muslim scholar say that honour killings are part of islamic belief. Do you have any evidence? Even from a basic point of view, they are extra-judicial killings which is not islamic in itself. Oh yeah, signing my post ;-) 88.106.153.37 23:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

To my knowlege the talk page is supposed to be used for discussing article content only. You cannot associate honor killing with Islam without evidence supporting that claim. "What makes you think" and "Prove it isn't there" isn't an acceptable replacement for actual knowlege of the matter, and if you have no notable knowlege on the matter, it is better you stay silent. Unless you have the curiosity to do some work towards knowing whether or not that claim is true, discussing the matter is idle chatter of no value in a discussion about content going into an article. ImKidding 02:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Technically, not only can people associate honor killing with Islam, but I presume before you removed it that the article did just that. The question at hand is more properly whether or not the article should associate Islam with honor killing, and there's little denying that Muslim countries have a very disproportionate number of "honor killings" when compared with other countries. Yes, much of it is tribe based, but these tribes mostly consist of people under the jurisdiction of Islamic courts, which when presented with cases concerning this, don't often oppose the practice, implying a somewhat indirect acceptance of the practice by Islamic authorities. The only real question here is which sources would you feel would be adequate to demonstrate this, news media accounts, or do people have to delve deep into accounts of Islamic law being practiced in various countries, and how many countries need to fall under the references? Homestarmy 16:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy, do you know that Wikipedia doesn't allow "Original Research"? Read WP:OR. It's not enough for you to deduce your own conclusions, you must provide sources that validate the content. Also, the femicide section doesn't cite actual criticisms, which leads us to conclude that the editor is doing his own criticizing. That is not allowed either. Wikipedia isn't the place for people to put forward their own editorial pieces. ImKidding 01:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That is why I specifically stated that the real question was which sources. News reports would be easy, thought its possible a case can be made that news reports aren't necessarily indicative of a general trend in a religion. Finding actual justification within Islamic authorities writings would make a much stronger case, thought would probably be harder to locate, since much of it is probably written in Arabic and there's no reason why it would mostly be actually on the internet. So what sort of sources are needed here to substantiate the claim? Homestarmy 15:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"femicide" doesn't belong under this title (unless we're discussing specific fatwahs or theological treatises), but it should be discussed at Demographics of the Middle East or some such: working on sex ratio and gender imbalance, I have noted that countries of the Arab world tend to have a 'normal' male/female ratio at birth, but an extremely high male/female ratio for people above 65, which implies a significantly above average female mortality. dab (ᛏ) 16:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sefringle's recent edits

per [1] i would advise it is highly undesirable to include counter-responses for the simple fact that it would need to be balanced out by the typical counter-counter-response. keep the significant critique under "critics say" and keep the significant Muslim response as "Muslims respond..". having a series of counter responses merely acts as a sitmulant for a succession of "rebuttals"- we have no need to reproduce polemic here. keep it simple: one critique then one tyical response. that is the best way to achieve NPOV. ITAQALLAH 17:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

We now have a science in the Quran article so all this silliness can be moved there and have space created for meaningful criticism!Hypnosadist 17:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to find joy in critisizing other peoples beliefs.Why? Ssd175 06:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed many of the other topics about Islam on this page, for example the morality of the quran section, contains a Muslim rebuddle followed by a critic rebuddle to the muslim rebuddle. Why can't this section of the article have that too?--Sefringle 04:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

why should it? and why should any section have it for that matter? ITAQALLAH 14:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

All criticism is a highly debated topic. An article about the criticism of Islam must include all points, and that includes rebuddles. Critics don't just make one point, and then the the muslims make a counter point, and that is the end. No, that is not the end at all. The debate continues. To keep the page neutral, the point to stop is when we start repeating the same points over and over again, something that often occurs in debates. And while wikipedia has a neutral point of view, that also means we must include the whole debate (until repetition), and both sides of the debate, not cut it off after the first rebuddle.--Sefringle 02:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

er, not quite. wikipedia is not a place to reproduce linear-style debates between critic A and apologetic B. one aspect of islam is highlighted, substantial and significant criticism (and this means from decent sources, preferably not pseudo-academic polemic found on the typical websites) of that aspect is compiled and given in one paragraph, typical muslim response to substantial criticism is compiled and given in the next paragraph; then next aspect of islam. do you see how ridiculous this would become were we to include all rebuttals and counter-rebuttals one after the other, in every article where there are two opposing viewpoints? take for example a typical Sunni/Shi'a debate:

Sunnis claim X. Shi'a respond to X by claiming Y. Sunni dismiss Y by claiming counter-Y. Shi'a respond to counter-Y by claiming counter-X and counter-counter-Y. Ah, Sunnis say, Shi'a viewpoint is defunct on grounds of Z. Shi'a respond to this... ad nauseum.

how tedious! that is not how an encyclopaedia is written. even then, a number of the critical "responses" you provided were pretty meaningless and if there was anything substantial within it, such could have been included in the initial critique. precisely, wikipedia advocates neutrality, and i saw nothing from those recent edits which would conform to neutrality per blatantly giving one side undue weight, and by looking at the standard of these un-academic "rebuttals" i can imagine the type of pointless and useless responses which would be elicited in further rebuttals. we are certainly not here to document the exchanges between website A and website B until in the editor's subjective opinion the debate has "ended" or is now becoming "repetitive".

all notable criticism (from initial critiques and subsequent rebuttals) should be compiled together into one paragraph, with all notable muslim response in the following paragraph, instead of making it helplessly unencyclopaedic. by doing that we can say Sunnis claim X, Y and Z, and these are all the substantial criticisms in rebuttals and counter rebuttals they present. then the next paragraph can be Shi'a in response to this claim anti-X/Y/Z due to such and such. that is far superior to having a line for a response, and then a counter response, and then another, and another, and another ... ITAQALLAH 02:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

How is it neutral to make the muslim response the last response? That is like saying the muslim opinion is more valid than the critics opinion, even if the critics might actually be right in the long run. By continuing the debate a little, the critics might have a really inteligent counter-point that can only be mentioned as a rebuddle to the muslim point and that counter-point would ultimately prove they are correct. By ending with the muslim rebuddles, you are saying that the muslims won the dabate, even if that isn't necessaraly the case. Are you going to tell me that that is neutral?--Sefringle 03:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

no, it doesn't mean that at all. you need to reverse your perspective for a moment: by making such a point, you are implying that your formulation is not neutral either as you are giving the polemicists the final word. such an argument is fallacious, and in fact by such a logic such an account can never be neutral as one of the sides will always be given the last say. we are not here to identify who is correct. we are here to summarize the general, notable criticism made. that is best done in the method i suggested. if the criticism is strong enough then objective readers will realise the futility of the Muslim response, without us even having to vaguely indicate it (by making it lattermost). we are not here to provide rebuttal after rebuttal because the point of the article is to note the criticisms made of islam, and per NPOV balance it through typical Muslim response to that criticism. the significant and notable criticism comes first, because that's the point of the article, and thus the notable Muslim response can come nowhere except afterwards. ITAQALLAH 03:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, but the Critics arguement is currently not the best arguement from the critics of islam. I don't know about the muslim responses though. --Sefringle 07:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll say it again, ALL these criticisms should be on their apropriate pages but strangley they keep disappering off them?!Hypnosadist 02:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

if you're talking about shifting the qur'an/science critiques/responses to the qur'an and science article... i don't think such material would be allowed anywhere near it per the extremely high standards demanded by some of the editors over there :) ITAQALLAH 03:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Split

This article is way too long. Per wikipedia guidlines, I am going to be bold and split it. I started with the Qur'an part to match Criticism of the Bible. I am now going to split out the Muhammad (saw) part. Inshallah this will raise the quality of the article by not being a huge monolithic hate dump. If the article is smaller, that is NOT 100K, somebody might actually read it and edit it for the better. --Striver 05:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The article Islam is longer than this one. However yes if you can split it meaningfully, I think it would be nice and will facilitate more editing for this topic.--JohnsAr 06:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Or you could put the criticisms here nto there apropriate Islam articles just a thought!, i know its not going to happen.Hypnosadist 14:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverted this mass delete, its not a split.Hypnosadist 15:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Crticism of Islam - Menu system needs to be changed

The Menu right now hereneeds to be in place which links all articles critical of Islam together. The Title of the Template says "Controveries related to Islam and Muslims" but there are so many more which should be linked, e.g.:

usage of {main} template under "Criticism of Muhammad" section

of course, we all concur that the link under the "main article" parameter for this section should be Criticism of Muhammad. Humus sapiens insists that the Aisha's age at marriage article be included in the {{main}} template also. i am sorry, but i do not see the logic behind this, for several reasons:

Aisha's age at marriage does not contain a substantial volume of critique. it is not really a primary article for the discussion of "Criticism of Muhammad."
to include one particular critique within the parameter gives prominence to that criticism over the others, suggesting that this critique is the strongest or most frequent, whereas this isn't really the case.
Criticism of Muhammad already encompasses Aisha's age at marriage, it seems rather illogical to include the link here. again, this merely serves as giving prominence to one, specific, critique- whereas we don't see links to Muhammad as a general or Muhammad's marriages or any of the numerous possibilities. why single out one article? in reality, no article should be singled out: Criticism of Muhammad is appropriate and sufficient.

i don't believe there is sufficient justification for implying that an article primarily concerning criticism of Muhammad exists other than Criticism of Muhammad. ITAQALLAH 17:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

ITAQALLAH, Are you trying to say that there's not enough links to exist so that a separate menu could be made for the Criticism of Islam? The menu now has links, look again. They are good links. Thats the right direction for this menu. Its not the best right now, but atleast there's some improvement. --JohnsAr 19:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

please refer to the edit that is being discussed, the diff for which i have provided above. ITAQALLAH 19:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

1)Mohammed's "relationship" with aisha is the one thing most critics are most critical of. 2)Hiding this info 5 links from the islam page and 4 links from criticism of islam and Mohammed articles is just not acceptable. In fact that that "relationship" is not on the Mohammed page just shows the bias pressent in the structure of the articles on islam.Hypnosadist 16:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

it is not the most prominent scholarly criticism. if you are talking with regards to sensationalism, then you may be correct. this critique is extremely recent in comparison to the more scholarly and more prevalent ones amongst historians. nevertheless, there is no reason whatsoever to single out one criticism and label it as a "main article" discussing criticism when the primary focus of that article is not criticism of Muhammad. i don't see how your second point is relevant here. ITAQALLAH 17:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Additions

This article makes no mention of the contradictions in the Quran! I know that you Muslims will claim that saying that Jesus is both in heaven and in hell is not a contradiction, and that when it says God made man out of nothing in one place and out of other things in other places those aren't contradicting each other, but they are. Also daughters get less inheritance than sons (though the passages in the Quran relating to this end up adding up the fractions wrong). That is certainly criticized. Also S. 9:119 and S. 32:4 contradict S. 5:55. There are many other contradictions as well. There should be some mention of this. Arrow740 01:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say that Jesus(A.S.) is in hell? BhaiSaab ^talk 02:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sura 21:98. Here's Yusuf Ali's translation: "Verily ye, (unbelievers), and the (false) gods that ye worship besides Allah, are (but) fuel for Hell! to it will ye (surely) come!" But this is not the place for this discussion. The point is that this is a criticism of Islam; our opinions on it do not matter. It merits inclusion in the article. Arrow740 02:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Arrow, Criticism of the Qur'an may be the best place to address contradictions in Quran. --JohnsAr 02:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't know about that article. Maybe we should form some kind of guild to keep informed about such developments. But many people criticize Islam using the contradictions in the Quran, so there should be at least some mention of it in this article. Arrow740 02:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to participate more although I'm usually tight on time. One way we can get some sort of group formed is having a userbox that says "This user is interested in controversies about Islam", or something to that effect. As you can guess "some people" will try all their best to silence freedom at any cost. I faintly remember some sort of contradictions were present on that Criticism of Quran page but maybe freedom silencers took it out. That never works though, eventually stuff like that finds its way in. Freedom of expression can never be silenced so we are on the right side.--JohnsAr 02:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That it is probably the most ridiculous interpretation of that verse I've ever heard. There is a whole chapter in the Qur'an dedicated to Maryam; Jesus is a prophet, and prophets go to heaven. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Qur'an says in other places that Jesus is "near-stationed to Allah." However verse 98 of sura 21 clearly states that the false gods that unbelievers worship are fuel for Hell, and will surely go there. Well according to the Quran, Jesus is not God. That makes him a false god. Since he is and has been worshiped as God, this verse places him in hell. In fact someone caught Muhammad making this mistake when he first revealed this line. You can read about it here. Arrow740 03:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Answering-Islam is probably the worst source you can use, second to faithfreedom stuff. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want to read it there, then get yourself a copy of the Sirat Rasul Allah and read it therein. Arrow740 03:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've read Sirat Rasullullah and I'm satisfied with what the Prophet had to say. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You have to admit that an open-minded person approaching the issue with no biases would conclude that Muhammad made a mistake and tried to cover it up. Arrow740 08:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Jesus is not a false god. Jesus is a person. There's a difference. You're adding your own interpretation if you think that when the Qur'an is referring to "false gods", it means people. Nay, it is referring to Baal, Moloch, Zeus, etc. These are not people. They are false gods. This is how every single Hadith and Tafsir has understood these verses. You have no grounding for your own special interpretation of the Qur'an.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 21:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Robert Spencer

Have any of you who say he isn't a scholar (ludicrous) actually read any of his books? He is a very good researcher. His work should be better represented in this article. Arrow740 02:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

He's just a polemicist. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

So I guess your answer is "no," bhaisaab. Arrow740 03:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My answer is that I don't have time to waste on his books. As a Muslim myself, I don't have to look to an Catholic polemicist for information on Islam. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Bhaisaab, ofcourse you are a Muslim. Why would you "waste" time on reading Islam-critical books like Robert Spencer's? You dont have to explain it. Hopefully someone puts more of his stuff into Wikipedia.--JohnsAr 11:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If you aren't familiar with any of his work then you should refrain from applying negative labels to him. Arrow740 08:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've read one of his books when my dad forced me to, when I wanted to become a muslim. He's not very convincing. Especially when he was talking about making people stop trading with the "evil muslim countries". It didn't help when I found out that he was catholic. In fact, all Anti-Islam sites use the same exact tactics. ZeroFive1 03:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

He is not a polemicist. He holds an MA in religious studies, and is highly versed in Islamic theology. He is a brave, intelligent man pointing out truths many do not wish to hear. He is certainly not a polemicist. Lord Patrick 21:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

He is a polemicist, the titles of his book are one proof of this. Secondly, his MA dissertation focused on Catholicism, I wrote an MA dissertation that focused on Microbiology, does that make me an expert in Nuclear Physics? ThaGrind 15:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Pointing out facts and logic doesn't make one a polemicist. He calls his books as such to make them more identifiable for his target audience (conservatives, libertarians, and Christians) Lord Patrick 05:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of Women section

I have read the section, and it does state both sides here. I believe a "criticism of" something article should not be just apologist of why such criticism is wrong … but listing what criticisms are out there. No, what exactly about this section needs to be fixed now? Nonprof. Frinkus 16:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Shirin Sinnar Quotation

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

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

Thanks, Shirin Sinnar

Horribly written sections

I suggest a re-writing of the "the quran" section on this page.--Sefringle 01:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Apostasy In Pakistan

The article claims

" many Muslim countries make apostasy from Islam a crime punishable by death, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, and Yemen. Other Muslim countries specify lesser punishments"

That's false.

"There was no law against apostasy [in Pakistan]; however, societal pressure against conversion from Islam was so strong that any conversion almost certainly would take place in secret. " http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71443.htm

OneGuy In Afghanistan the almost execute apostate of Islam.Therefore it should be mention.Oren.tal 12:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Christoph Luxenberg -- a German Professor?

According to the article by François de Blois in Journal of Qur'anic Studies, Christoph Luxenberg is a psydonym of a Lebanese Christian. No western scholar (there are many who are critical of Islam) uses psydonems.

Journal of Qur'anic Studies, 2003, Volume V, Issue 1, pp. 92-97.

According to my information, 'Christoph Luxenberg' is not a German but a Lebanese Christian. It is thus not a question of some intrepid philologist, pouring over dusty books in obscure languages somewhere in the provinces of Germany and then having to publish his results under a pseudonym so as to avoid the death threats of rabid Muslim extremists, in short an ivory-tower Rushdie. Let us not exaggerate the state of academic freedom in what we still like to call our Western democracies. No European or North American scholar of linguistics, even of Arabic linguistics, needs to conceal his (or her) identity, nor does he (or she) really have any right to do so. These matters must be discussed in public. In the Near East things are, of course, very different. [2] OneGuy 21:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Does being born in Lebanon make him unnotable? Arrow740 02:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There are very real death threats against scholars in Europe. Peter Raddatz, Bassam Tibi (why isn't he mentioned, by the way?, they have all received them. And let`s not get started on film-makers and cartoonists. Not everybody has the luxury of 24-hour police protection like politicians and the pope. There are very good reasons for Europeans to write under a pseudonym if they dare to criticise islam.

CHALLENGE: Part 2

A few months ago, there was a tremendous furor over my deletion of the following paragraph (See below) I would like to take the time now to explain and debate those who feel that the paragraph should be included in the page.

PARAGRAPH

=== Responses to criticisms ===

Responses come from both Muslim and some non-Muslim scholars and writers.

Responses from Modern non-Muslims scholars

Such non-Muslim scholars include William Montgomery Watt, John Esposito and Karen Armstrong and the late Edward Said, who sharply criticized Western scholarship of the East. Watt, for example, in his book Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman addresses Muhammad’s alleged moral failures. He claims that “Of all the world's great men none has been so much maligned as Muhammad.” Watt argues that Muhammad should be judged by the standards of his own time and country rather than "by those of the most enlightened opinion in the West today."^[4] Karen Armstrong, tracing what she believes to be the West's long history of hostility toward Islam, finds in Muhammad’s teachings a theology of peace and tolerance. Armstrong holds that the "holy war" urged by the Qur'an alludes to each Muslim's duty to fight for a just, decent society.^[5]

John Esposito has written many introductory texts on Islam and the Islamic world. For example, he has addressed issues like the rise of militant Islam, the veiling of women, and democracy.^[6]^[7] Esposito emphatically argues against what he calls the "pan-Islamic myth". He thinks that "too often coverage of Islam and the Muslim world assumes the existence of a monolithic Islam in which all Muslims are the same." To him, such a view is naive and unjustifiably obscures important divisions and differences in the Muslims world.^[8]

Responses from modern Muslims scholars

Responses from Muslims have come from many Muslim writers, scholars and comparative religionists such as Ahmad Deedat, Dr. Zakir Naik, Osama Abdallah, Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Gary Miller. Within the academia, responses have come from scholars such as Michael Sells, Muqtedar Khan.

Objections to the methods used by critics

Edward Said, in his essay Islam Through Western Eyes, stated that the general basis of Orientalist thought forms a study structure in which Islam is placed in an inferior position as an object of study. He claims the existence of a very considerable bias in Orientalist writings as a consequence of the scholars' cultural make-up. He claims Islam has been looked at with a particular hostility and fear due to many obvious religious, psychological and political reasons, all deriving from a sense "that so far as the West is concerned, Islam represents not only a formidable competitor but also a late-coming challenge to Christianity."^[9] Montgomery Watt agrees with West's historical denigration of Islam but states that the situation has become much better during the last two centuries though many of the old prejudices still linger on. Watt encourages both Muslims and Europeans to reach to an objective view of Muhammad and his religion.^[2]

First of all, this page is "Criticisms of Islam" not "The Criticisms of the Criticisms of Islam." For all those high on religious nationalism, anti-Christianism, anti-Westernism, or whatever the hell anti-ism you are, there is a clear bifurcation between the two terms that you need to understand before you make anymore edits to the page; "criticisms of Islam" refers to criticisms of Islam, and you must accept the fact that your faith is going to be critisized in this page, whether you like it or not. This is an encyclopedia and shouldn't be treated as some sanctimonious entity. I find it highly and absolutely preposterous that those who claim that free speech is a desideratum to any functioning liberal and democratic nation-states are either expurgating or criticisizing the very same texts that, at least, adhere to the topic that is at hand. If you look at the other pages that attack other religions (Criticisms of Christianity, Anti-Judaism, Criticisms of Hinduism) NONE of these pages have something as ridiculous as "Responses to the methods used by critics" or something along those lines.

And for those peoples who are crying foul or claiming that this page is but another corroboration that Westerners are "demonizing" Islam, please look in the mirror. Everyday thousands of Christians are harassed, killed, raped or tortured in the Middle East simply for being Christian. How now is it that those who claim that they are persecuted countries that actually ALLOW for the constructions of mosques, temples, etc., are of nationalities that openly persecute the countries that allow them to be there in the first place? The bottom line, in my opinion, is this: if it is the case that Christians are dying in countries simply for adhering to a specific faith, then it must also be the case that those who live in Christian countries of nationalities that torture Christians should also be subjected to similar punishment. Like the old saying goes: an eye for an eye. Go ahead people: let the debates begin. --Canadia 01:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Treat Muslims poorly, no. The West is already paying the price for allowing in as Muslims in as it has, however. Arrow740 07:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

People say things but have no proof. I am from Syria and have never seen andyone harrassed for being Christian. In fact I have quite a few Christian friends. Please do not talk about things and make claims that are not proven by credible sources. Ssd175 06:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Several points:

1. This article deals with Criticism of Islam. That means, all aspects of "Criticism of Islam" must be covered. How Muslims respond to "Criticism of Islam" is an important aspect of the topic at hand.

2. Criticism of Christianity has a responses section. Also, what anti-judaism is like is irrelevant; one must look at Criticism of Judaism, which, lo and behold, it has a section with counter-arguments from Jews for Judaism.

3. You should NOT delete major sections of this article without first discussing it on the talk page. You do not remove it and then discuss.

4. Your second paragraph: Wikipedia is not a SoapBox. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 06:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll support keeping the criticism sections in as it is cited OK. I feel Canadia has done a WP:POINT edit as this section seems to have been removed by him because of issues extraneous to Wikipedia. Ttiotsw 07:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Canadia has reverted my restoration of the section.[3] I'll repeat it here in case he missed it. Please do not make major changes to the article without first achieving consensus on the talk page. Once consensus is reached regarding the issue, then the section can be removed. But until then, it stays in the article. That's how Wikipedia works. The only exception to this is if the material is a copyright violation or libel.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 05:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think that when a User says "Piss off you fucking anti-American, anti-Israeli, anti-Western anti-Christian monkeys. This is a legitimate edit so piss off. If they are converts and are terrorists, why hide it?", we don't have to assume good faith. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 23:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

--Canadia 04:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)===Response to the naysayers===

1. This article deals with Criticism of Islam. That means, all aspects of "Criticism of Islam" must be covered. How Muslims respond to "Criticism of Islam" is an important aspect of the topic at hand.

Actually, it isn't. As I have mentioned before, Criticism of Islam is EXACTLY what it is. CRITICISM OF ISLAM. This page is not meant to be the "Criticisms of the criticisms of Islam." In fact, if one looks at the reversion closely, one can see that the "criticisms of the criticisms of Islam" section is LONGER than the "criticisms of Islam" section itself. That, to me, is just ridiculous. The proposition that those criticisizing Islam should themselves to subjected to criticisms of the methodologies because they "demonize" Islam is nothing short of hypocrisy. How now is it that those who criticisize people who critisize their religion do so in the name of "tolerance?"

Right now, the response to the criticisms goes on this page, because it is the best spot for it. This is the article that is most relevant to a discussion of how Muslims respond to criticism of Islam. Sourced information cannot just be removed like that, unless you want to move it to a new article titled Criticism of criticism of Islam. But that article doesn't exist, so the information stays here. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 05:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If one begins to read the "criticisms," one can find that there not even criticisms AT ALL. Instead, what they are are a bunch of anti-Western, anti-Christian sentences strung together. There is not a single sentence that does NOT involve the West or Christianity in it. In fact, most of the citations are quotes extracted from books that intentionally derogates Christianity or the West. Here take a look at these examples:

"He [[[Edward Said]]] claims Islam has been looked at with a particular hostility and fear due to many obvious religious, psychological and political reasons, all deriving from a sense "that so far as the West is concerned, Islam represents not only a formidable competitor but also a late-coming challenge to Christianity."

Watt argues that Muhammad should be judged by the standards of his own time and country rather than "by those of the most enlightened opinion in the West today."[18]

So not only are the arguments not germane to the topic at hand ("Criticisms of Islam"), they are in fact anti-Western, anti-Christian rhetoric disguised under the pretexts to defend the critisizers of Islam. Just because these quotes are "sourced" doesn't mean that they are valid.

2. Criticism of Christianity has a responses section. Also, what anti-judaism is like is irrelevant; one must look at Criticism of Judaism, which, lo and behold, it has a section with counter-arguments from Jews for Judaism.

If you look carefully, the response sections aren't two paragraphs long. As a matter of FACT, the responses are a FEW LINES EACH. Moreover, the responses do not target a specific religion, e.g. Islam within the section of "Responses to the criticisms of Christianity."

So what if they aren't that long? Maybe the ought to be longer! And ultimately, just because a similar article has a different format does not mean that we must necessarily follow that format. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 05:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure it doesn't. I have never said explicitly that. What it does show, however, is the absolute pettiness and desperateness of Muslims high on ethnic-nationalism and the degree to which they will go to to "defend" (i.e. attack Christianity) their faith.

--Canadia 23:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This discussion page is for acting like mature adults and not children. To me it seems as if people use religious talk pages (not only this one) as an excuse to insult a religion. Please be respectful in realizing that real people are reading these things. Instead of being hostile why not ask questions and responses by others. That seems less hostile and offensive. Thank you.Ssd175 06:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This page being about Criticism of Islam only means that the criticisms should come first and then the responses. An article on subject X should cover things relevant to X as well. So, clearly this section should be here. --Aminz 13:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This page being about Criticism of Islam POINT PROVEN

--Canadia 17:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

seemingly not. there is no justification for purging legitimate analysis of or response to "criticism" of Islam. Aminz is totally right: this page is about criticism of Islam, not a vehicle for criticism of Islam. therefore, we are to include all verifiable and notable opinions regarding this topic (that includes objective analysis of it as well as typical responses to it), as per our neutral point of view policy, which i suggest you read. ITAQALLAH 18:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Were there ever a phrase that could be of greater help to this discussion, it is this: please use your COMMON SENSE. This page is about criticisms of Islam and by that title, only information germane to the Criticisms of Islam should be included in this page. By intentionally adding citations which critisize the methodologies (actually, these criticisms are not so much criticisms as they are merely anti-Western, anti-Christian rhetoric), all you serve to do is distort the main purpose of this page. As I have said before, if you all are so keen as to voice your own opinions, why don't all of you create a page called "The Criticisms of the criticisms of Islam?" Why don't you go do that? --Canadia 20:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

your suggestion is known as POV-forking, and thankfully has been rejected outright by the community. responses and analyses of critiques are indeed related to this article, please read the NPOV policy as provided above. ITAQALLAH 20:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The main purpose of this page is not to criticize Islam, but to inform about all aspects of critique on Islam. Response to "criticism" of Islam should therefore be included. Btw if you consider that section as being merely anti-Western, anti-Christian rhetoric, you are welcome to add more detailed critique on the methodologies. Raphael1 23:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. It is absolutely amazing and astounding how all of you are reverting back to the same and quite inane proposition that this page is to inform about all aspects of Islam. IT ISN'T. This page is solely about providing the reader about "Criticisms of Islam." Since none of you are willing to take action to rectify this situation (and quite honestly, I am getting sick of having to bootlessly regurgitate my point over and over again), I am going to create a page called "Criticisms of the Criticisms of Islam." And btw Raphael if I started to critisize the criticisms of the criticisms of Islam, then it would initiate a never-ending cycle of critisizms, correct? --Canadia 23:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

if you're getting tired of reiterating your points, you can try addressing the arguments that you have so far avoided. you may first start by explaining why you are blanking large amounts of material despite it being a complete violation of WP:NPOV, and perhaps tantamount to vandalism. ITAQALLAH 14:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The point here is that if you argue incessantly on the grounds of faith, you'll eventually get your stubborn way.

See this is exactly what I predicted you all would say. Are you all even reading what I've posted? I've attached the exact paragraph UNEDITED to another page that is still part othe "Criticisms of Islam" page. How did what I do make it any less valid than what you are proposing? As I've said before, this page is called "Criticisms of Islam" not the "Criticisms of the criticisms of Islam." --Canadia 04:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Grounds of faith? I'm a fucking atheist, and I say the section should stay. Honestly, why are you so scared of the section? Do you think someone is going to read it and convert to Islam or something? You've violated so many Wikipedia policies in your efforts to remove the section that it's not even funny. Please stop being a WP:DICK. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 10:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Go figure. Are you Bush's spin machine spokesperson or what? The two things that came to mind when I read that whining diatribte of yours is: (a) Who the fuck are you, Wikipedia's Gestapo? and (b) Why the hell would I give the flying fuck if you are a babbling "fucking atheist?" I've never said I wanted to section deleted; rather I want the section moved to another page that accurately reflects the topic at hand while still attached to the original page. But yes, I'm sure I've violated many of Wikipedia's policies in my strenuous efforts to "remove the section" so please officer arrest me and put me to jail. How pathetic you are. Next. --Canadia 04:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm Bush's "spin machine" because I want to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Also, I mentioned being an atheist because you talked about "grounds of faith". As I was one of the first which reverted your vandalism, I think that I was justified in assuming you were referring to me.

What the hell are you even talking about? Where did I EVER mention "grounds of faith" or type the phrase "grounds of faith" in any of my arguments? Sorry, I am at a complete loss. Perhaps you could do the honours of finding the phrase "grounds of faith" using Windows's "Quick Search" program and tell me where I ever talked about "grounds of faith."

I've never said I wanted to section deleted; rather I want the section moved to another page that accurately reflects the topic at hand while still attached to the original page.

Again, stop being a WP:DICK. You know I was referring to that section being deleted from this article, something you have already tried to do twice. Plus, what you are proposing has no precedent whatsoever. As Itqallah has stated, this article is not a soapbox for criticism of Islam. Its purpose is to discuss all aspects Criticism of Islam; objections to the criticisms are a very important aspect.

Again, stop being Bush's spin machine spokesperson. Have you or Itqallah even taken the time to read what I'm proposing. Why would I care if what I'm proposing has no precedent? Would not the propositions that are "precedent-setting" have had no precedent's before? Look, stop being blinded by stupidity. What is wrong with simply moving the section to another page while still retaining the section "Criticisms of the criticisms of Islam?" What I am proposing is that we still keep the section "Criticisms of the criticisms of Islam" section, but underneath that attach a "Main Article called: Criticisms of the criticisms of Islam" or something like this.

But yes, I'm sure I've violated many of Wikipedia's policies in my strenuous efforts to "remove the section" so please officer arrest me and put me to jail.

First of all, you have a past history of being disruptive [4], [5], [6]. And, one only has to skim through this page to see how much vitriol is in each of your responses. Hmm, let's see:

Ah yes, the strench of hypocrisy is in the air again. I'm sorry, but are you an administrator? In any case, why would I give the **** if I have a "disruptive" history? Please stop being so politically correct. Yes, I am disruptive and rowdy and rambunctious and blah blah blah, yet I was the first one to call you a WP:DICK. Go figure.

those high on religious nationalism, anti-Christianism, anti-Westernism, or whatever the hell anti-ism you are

Is that supposed to be helpful in improving this article? Is name-calling the people who disagree with you a good way to reach consensus?

Not exactly. Am I to believe that not one person who edited the section 'Criticisms of the criticisms of Islam" was not anti-Christian or anti-Western? Or when somebody edited this page arguing that the page itself (Criticisms of Islam) was actually copied from the "Christian Encyclopedia?" Wake up!

you must accept the fact that your faith is going to be critisized in this page, whether you like it or not

Not everyone who wants to keep the section you vandalized is a Muslim. Please see:

I'll support keeping the criticism sections in as it is cited OK. I feel Canadia has done a WP:POINT edit as this section seems to have been removed by him because of issues extraneous to Wikipedia. Ttiotsw 07:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with what I have said. In fact, I'll say it AGAIN: for those who are Muslim and visit this page, you must accept the fact that your faith, insofar as this page itself is concerned, is going to be critisized whether you like it or not. I'm not sure where you argument is, although I am sure you do have a point here...

So tell me, is his "faith" being criticized in this article, which causes him to disagree with your edits?

They are are a bunch of anti-Western, anti-Christian sentences strung together. There is not a single sentence that does NOT involve the West or Christianity in it

So what? So the objections to the criticisms of Islam involved the West and Christianity. Seeing how your userpage says "This user is a Christian, and likes having a userbox to proclaim this." and "I am Canadian, a native of Toronto and a stalwart defender of Christianity", I think you have a vested interest in removing anti-Christian content from this article.

I do not have the intention of removing anti-Christian content from this page so much so as I have the utmost intention of ensuring that this page presents a balanced view of the topic at hand, which is the "Criticisms of Islam." As well, if I was removing anti-Christian content from this article, I would not be at fault for doing so, correct? Because, afterall, the main goal of Wikipedia is to present information in a diaphanous and impartial manner. And in that case, wouldn't those who post anti-Christian content be real transgressors?

How pathetic you are. Next.

WP:NPA and, for the last time, stop being a WP:DICK. If your next response has any personal attacks in it then I'm going to ask for administrator intervention. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 08:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, your argument is pathetic as it is insane and risible. Are you going to tell me that I shouldn't be personally attacking you when you just called me a WP:DICK which, in Dictionary.com, is defined as:

dick /dɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun Slang. 1. a detective. 2. Vulgar. penis.

In that case, I believe YOU are the one at fault and YOU are the one who should clean up your act. If you are playing with fire, expect to get burned. --Canadia 23:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Canadia, stop deleting text. You haven't convinced anyone here with your argument, and repeating the same line doesn't make the unreasonable arguement more convincing. Islam has a "criticism of Islam" section in it (with a link to this article), Ronald Raegan article includes criticism of him, as does Christianity and so on- it's obviously been the case that articles about something have always featured reviews and responses and criticisms of the subject. You want this article to be the exception in that it should only feature criticisms, and basically be criticism of Islam rather than an article about it. The article is "Criticism of Islam", and the responses and criticisms of those criticisms need to be here as well. Falcon2020 16:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That isn't entirely true. The George W. Bush article has a section solely devoted to criticisms of George Bush (See link here. But at least there is a main article at the top of the section that says "Criticisms of George W. Bush" and "Public Perception of George W. Bush" What I am advocating is JUST THAT. I'm not saying that Criticisms of the criticisms of Islam should not included in the article; rather what I'm saying is that, much like the same way in the case of the criticisms of George W. Bush, there should be a main article devoted to the "Criticisms of the criticisms of Islam." Get it? --Canadia 04:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

the page you created was speedy deleted as a POV fork. please take some tome to review WP:NPOV, so that you understand that this article is not a vehicle for criticisms, it is a medium on which the verifiable opinions of experts regarding the topic of criticism of Islam, its strengths and weaknesses and so on, can be discussed. you are attempting to purge a notable opinion about such criticism. that is extremely tendentious, and of course unacceptable. several editors have had to repeat this to you, and you are currently alone in your perception of what a Wikipedia article is. ITAQALLAH 04:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What I did was merely move the section in question ("Criticisms of the criticisms of Islam") into another article while retaining the original information. I do not know how this can possibly conflict with WP:NPOV or can remotely even be considered as a POV fork, as I have not highlighted "negative or positive viewpoints or facts" (rather, all that I did was move the section onto another page with preserving the information within the section as it was) and have not "createed another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus." Look, I can't even believe this. I haven't changed the information, rather all that I have done is create another page entitled "Criticisms of the criticisms of Islam" while leaving the information untouched. --Canadia 23:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no justification for a separate article for responses to criticisms. Ample numbers of examples have been given where articles featured responses and criticisms to whatever theory or paradigm the subject matter describes. As for your new article, would responses from critics of Islam to those criticizing them go into another article, "Criticisms of critics of criticisms of Islam"? The idea that every single position and response merits its own article has no precedent in Wikipedia, and you cannot invent that rule here. This has all been spelled out for you, and at this point your edit warring is becoming disruptive. Until you get consensus on this talk page, stop with your blanking of text. Falcon2020 20:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah it is this article which is the POV fork! All these criticisms should be in the apropriate articles.Hypnosadist 16:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly there should be a section for criticism in each of the relevant articles (with links), but there's too much material to fold back into the articles, hence these dedicated articles for the overflow. (And related to the above discussion; jeez, things sure went to pot here while I had this article mistakingly off my watch list - of course the responses need to be provided as well as the criticism, this is a discussion ABOUT criticism, so it must maintain NPOV overall). - Merzbow 21:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Let us just delete all this excess talk and start over. This is really getting ridiculous.Ssd175 06:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Evangelicals

What I mean is not that Robertson and Falwell aren't notable overall, but they aren't notable as critics of Islam. Calling radical Muslims "satanic" like Robertson does is invective, not criticism. Should Hitler be classified as a noted critic of Judaism? Hell no - because his statements against the Jews were pure paranoid invective. Likewise, Noam Chomsky would be more notable than Osama bin Laden as a critic of US-Israeli relations, even though bin Laden is a more notable person overall, because Chomsky makes his arguments in a scholarly manner in books, papers, and speeches at universities.

Anyways, you don't have to take my word; a Google search of +"critic of islam" +spencer returns twice as many hits as +"critic of islam" +robertson. - Merzbow 01:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

But the article isn't "Critics of Islam", it is "Criticism of Islam". As criticisms go, those of notable personalities (career critics of Islam or not)are far more heavy on the notability scale, than are those of people like Spencer. I searched "Robert Spencer" on CNN's website, MSNBC, and BBC, and I only got names that aren't of this critic. To the mundane public this man is an unknown. Search the same websites for "Pat Robertson Islam", and you get a list of results. Pat Robertson's condemnations of Islam were headline news at the time, as were Falwell's back in his day. I see people use these google search results all the time, and I think it's wrong to assume these results in any way gauge notability or popularity of a statement. Robert Spencer's career is exclusively in the domain of criticizing Islam, where for Pat Robertson that isn't his professional career. That accounts for your search result difference. It's not that Spencer's criticisms are either more notable or more popular than Robertson's, but that criticism is Robert's sole function and so most people don't describe him as something else like "evangelical leader" or "televangelist". If notability of something can be measured, it would be by the proportion of the overall population aware of it, which we can gauge by the extent to which it was covered by mainstream media. Everything I see suggests Pat Robertson wins this round. Falcon2020 01:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

For our purposes here, notability is most certainly not just a function of publicity. Criticism is a scholarly activity, and so measures of notability for critics like publishing history, venues of publishing, and recognition in their field are right up there with publicity (and this standard is enshrined in WP:RS and AfD guidelines). Let's say George Bush makes a speech tomorrow in which he says that the movie An Inconvenient Truth "sucks ass". Almost certainly this will be more widely reported than any criticism Roger Ebert has ever made, but does this make George Bush a more notable movie critic than Ebert? Heck no. Because Robertson occasionally makes off-the-cuff nasty remarks about Islam barely makes him a critic at all in the scholarly sense we must uphold here, let alone place him above guys like Spencer who have published many bestselling and widely-reviewed books on the subject. The easiest way to see this, even easier than counting Google searches, is to see how many times Spencer is cited as a source in the Criticism of Islam articles vs. Robertson. There you go. - Merzbow 02:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel this is just a linguistic confusion between people who criticize and those who critique. Merzbow is right we do need to count scholarly value higher when dealing with critique of islam. I feel also that there is place in this article for mention of those notable people who say "islam is bad". So i think Pat Robertson should get some small mention but not his specific comments. Hypnosadist 03:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Entirely agree, Hypnosadist. - Merzbow 03:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

And what exactly are Robert Spencer's scholarly qualifications, if that is what defines notability? He is not a scholar of Islam. Falcon2020 03:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Of the set of people who can be called critics of Islam, he's near (and probably on) the top, with many bestselling books and articles written on the subject. I'm not claiming his qualifications compare to professers like Bernard Lewis, but I don't have to, since we're only comparing with other people who could be termed critics of Islam (and I don't know of any professors in the category). If professor Joe Blow at Yale University wakes up tomorrow and decides to become a critic of Islam like Spencer, I'd be there supporting Joe Blow's notability above Spencer's. - Merzbow 04:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is Criticism of Islam. The article is about criticism, not critics. The more notable the criticism, the more prominent it should be. While calling true Muslims "Satanic" is eye-catching, it in itself isn't a notable criticism because it lacks content. The criticisms of Spencer, Ye'or, Ibn Warraq, et al are more notable because they are researched and thorough. As such these criticisms should have greater prominence in the article. Arrow740 04:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I checked WP:Notability, and at least as far as Wikipedia's concerned, you all are right. Of the critics mentioned, I've only read Ibn Warraq's works, and the bit of venom I was able to choke down from his books was more than I could comfortably take. I'm not convinced either Warraq or Ali Sina were ever Muslim, I suspect them claiming to be apostates is more to make powerful marketing gimmick and enrage the conservative muslim crowd. Controversy sells. Are either Spencer's work or Ye'or's more scholarly? I'm not disputing their place here anyway. Falcon2020 04:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ye'or is vastly superior at languages and has produced english translations of never before translated documents that are used in academic circles. Spencer is much better at digging up dirt from historical texts and spotting when academics (such as Esposito) are

playing games such as selective editing, hope that helps Falcon. Hypnosadist 19:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Falcon2020 is a confirmed sockpuppet of the banned User:BhaiSaab. Arrow740 23:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting!Hypnosadist 23:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Undercover Mosque

Should this be added to the see also section. If not do we need a page that lists these sorts of documentries.Hypnosadist 03:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

A subsection or an article is definitely called for. These are highly notable and have received extensive press coverage. Arrow740 05:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What should be in "Criticism of X" articles

Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Views_please:_.22Criticism_of_X.22_articles. on "Criticism of X" articles. --BozMo talk 09:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

garbage links

These links being added here: [7] are both of extremely low-quality and overwhelm the links section unduly with critical links. I encourage editors to remove them on sight. - Merzbow 05:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No,they should be kept.They are good link for criticism.Oren.tal 12:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

alleged garbage links

Merzbow's request should be considered an act of vandalism. It's his personal opinion that the links are of low quality. If you want to see low quality, check out, for example the first link in the muslim responses to criticism section. On that website's home page, there is a link to a whole series of articles dedicated to showing that the Pentagon was hit by a missile on 9/11. If this is Merzbow's idea of "acceptable quality" ... what else do I need to say? ProtectWomen 05:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is called "Criticism of Islam"; these types of links are extremely appropriate to this article. Someone who arrived here to this exact page (regardless of their belief) would undoubtedly have some kind of interest in the subject of criticizing Islam. Whether or not you agree with the arguments and/or testimonials provided at the linked websites, they are offering the viewpoints nonetheless. Please do not try to "censor" something you don't want people to see. Wikipedia is not censored, especially where the material is 100% relevant to the topic --ProtectWomen 06:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please remember, this is an article for discussion of criticism of Islam, not a soapbox for criticism of Islam. It doesn't matter whether we (the editors of this article) think the criticisms or rebuttals are valid. All that matters is that, if they are notable, they are included and discussed in the article. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 00:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please remember, that a "soapbox" refers to the idea of standing up on a soapbox and lecturing- giving some kind of impromptu speech. Extremely appropriate links placed in a section titled "Directories of sites critical of Islam" is not a speech. Trying to imply so would be intellectually dishonest.

Obviously a lot of people aren't going to like the topic at hand and don't even want to acknowledge that widespread legitimate criticism of Islam exists. But Wikipedia is not censored in order to keep people from getting hurt feelings, particularly when the information is valid and relevant.ProtectWomen 19:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The links you added are overwhelming and are of poor quality, as rehashed above; policies and guidelines tell us to use high-quality sources and to not grant undue weight. I also suggest you stop giving bogus vandalism warnings to people who remove them. Please see WP:VAND for an overview of what is and is not considered vandalism. - Merzbow 20:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The external links section is a mess. We have no clear criteria for what is criticism. The Catholic encyclopedia is not critical in the least, it's actually a relatively scholarly viewpoint which attempts to remain neutral. I haven't looked at the Jewish encyclopedia but it wouldn't surprise me if it was similarly not criticism in the sense that this article uses it (although even that is muddled). Most of the links under "directories" are not directories and therefore should surely not be under that title. The problem is that academic sources rarely use criticism in the sense of pejoratives that this article talks about. You need to discuss more than just the current edit war about links... but you need to prune all of the links to make sure they are relevant to the subject at hand. gren グレン 20:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

ProtectWomen, I wasn't referring specifically to you. However, since you've singled me out, I'd like to respond. You stated that since a rebuttal link talked about how the pentagon was hit by a missile, then your links should be acceptable. That is NOT how Wikipedia works. Neither one is acceptable, so don't try to make a point by adding your links. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 19:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

KirbyT, Thanks for your directly reply. Actually I have to disagree with you. The discussion was specifically about the "garbage" excuse as the reason not to allow the links. I provided an example of why the very first link in the response to criticism section(the answering-christianity link) was garbage. Merzbow never offered an explanation for why all of the links were "garbage" much less a single one. Now I do not know Merzbow personally but I found the aggressive tone and lack of support for Merzbow's argument to be less than constructive. So please do not equate my position with that of the other user. Thank you.ProtectWomen 22:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Also Kirby, I was in no way trying to make a WP:POINT in the addition of the links. Again, this article is called "Criticism of Islam" ... The section in question is called "Directories of sites critical of Islam". I think it's obvious by the section title that the sites are not going to be "right or wrong"- just that they are sites critical of Islam. They are not "linkspam" or anything else- they are sites critical of Islam. I'm confused that this simple concept wouldn't be readily apparent to all users here (unless they had a POV agenda). --ProtectWomen 22:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

THis article should be deleted

it isn't a bad article. But it is very predijuce. iT does seriously offend muslims. Wikipedia should not have articles that criticize people's faith or beliefs -by MohsinMirza, who should sign his comments with four tilde (~).

When I see comments like the one above coming from adult humans, it makes me want to die. However, since this spirited little fellow is in 7th grade, it's not such a painful experience.

Young sir, Wikipedia's main goal is to transmit valuable information to our brains, for free. There is an endless amount of things to be learned on this planet and beyond it, and some of it just might upset you. However, this isn't Yourpedia, nor does it belong solely to any particular person or group. :Contributors to Wikipedia try to keep everything neutral, which means that factual information and published opinions are presented in a way that shows no bias towards a particular point of view. In short: this page does not attack Islam; it presents the arguments of reasonable scholars and other persons who have done so in the past and the present. They might be right, they might be wrong, but it is not our job to determine which is which.

To not have articles that criticize other people's beliefs would be censorship, and that sort of thing is definitely not what Wikipedia is about.--C.Logan 09:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not that I agree with the reasons of the original poster--I don't--but your reasoning bothers me as well. To present something as criticism it needs to be active. "Hadith report Muhammad consummated marriage with a nine year old girl" is not criticism. It is a statement of fact. The vast majority of academic writing purports to be neutral and descriptive trying to pass off arguments for how they believe things occurred / progressed. It is not to make moral judgment about the events. This article jumbles many different definitions of criticism

So, I don't think it's censorship to not "criticize" religion. We needn't praise it either. We should report the notable beliefs of and about that religion. In those beliefs we will find that people have been very critical about Muhammad for various reasons but there is not a coherent discourse of criticism that can be discussed. That is why this article is a piecemeal put together from what various sources think about Muhammad's / Islam's moral status. Overall it is not important or encyclopedic (except for on his own article) to know that Robert Spencer thinks Muhammad was an impostor who molested a little girl. It is, however, important to know that hadith report Muhammad consummated the marriage when she was very young and that this wasn't a big deal until modern times when Westerners tended to find it abhorrent and criticize it and Muslims reacted to that in various ways. Then the reader will react. Do they believe that it was okay? They can decide what they want. Neutrality isn't saying Robert Spencer doesn't think Muhammad is moral. It's presenting different notable views of Muhammad and then the reader will decide based on whatever their moral system may be. This article suffers from lack of clear definition or direction. It weaves personal moral criticism with political criticisms and then to cultural criticism and then chimes backs with little rebuttals. What this article ends up being is various editors read something about Islam that they feel is bad and then they cast it in a critical light. Take the "Apostasy in Islamic law" section. Nothing is inherently critical about the fact that the classical jurists described the death penalty. That's just a scholarly assessment of Islamic rulings on apostasy and you can find it to be good, bad, or indifferent. That is why this article is so bad--because it assumes a certain set of moral standards which violates neutrality. There is nothing wrong with having something in an article that someone thinks makes Muhammad look bad. There is something wrong with telling someone Muhammad is bad because of something he did. Without agents of criticism that's what this article is doing. gren グレン 20:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere does this article assume "a certain set of moral standards". The article is simply about "Criticism of Islam". Any notable criticism from a notable critic will be reported on, whether they are criticizing as an atheist, a Christian, whatever. It is long-established Wikipedia precedent (ArbCom precedent) to allow discussions of criticism of X if there are already articles about X and if there is notable criticism of X (as there usually is for controversial subjects). - Merzbow 21:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not disagreed that there is precedent--there is. I just think it's incredibly un-scholarly because it is not possible to present a coherent face of criticism. I equate it to being as stupid as Praise of Muhammad because that would be the opposite of this article--not Muhammad. But, the set of moral standards is not intentional and not where there is active criticism going on. However, with my example about apostasy there is no criticism it's a statement about Islamic law that is not making any moral judgment. It is problematic because the fact that it is here is a moral judgment made by the editor and not by any author. Lewis stating that the death penalty existed for apostasy is not a moral judgment it's his scholarly view. If he said "Islam is bad because Islamic law prescribes the death penalty for apostasy" that is criticism. But, as I've noted it tends to be more marginal views that work in the realm of active criticism whereas most scholars in our tradition (unless you get into the critical fields which view neutrality as a myth moreso) try to write in a descriptive manner. gren グレン 21:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The assertions of Islamic tradition, the Qur'an, and so on put forth in the main articles are implicitly "Praise of Islam/Muhammad" because they are presented without critique. In the same vein you will find in, say, the Juan Cole article (another controversial article), long passages that present Cole's view of things, unchallenged. It is a critical and necessary public service to also report on those who are opposed to the views of notable ideologies and persons. Having said that, I agree that the apostasy section should be re-written to focus around the discussion of criticism of Islamic laws on apostasy; it should not be a general discussion. Nobody is saying this article doesn't need more work. - Merzbow 21:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not true at all. They try to present the prevalent views of the religion--which is not praise in the least. The Islam article is not a praise of Islam section. It is a descriptive article which seeks to explain Islam a religion constructed by Muslims as seen by academic publication. It reserves moral judgment as articles should. The explicit purpose of this page is to bring in moral judgment. A Praise of Muhammad article would be the opinions of (mostly Muslim) people who talked about the great moral or other type of accomplishments of Muhammad. How he brought the Arabs out of jahiliya, etc. etc. My point is that is serves to create a disjunct to create positive/negative articles rather than discussing the various views within other sub articles. For instance, Muhammad's marriages could easily bring up the usually seen as "positive" aspects of his family life and those most Westerners will consider negative. I think it's a very unsophisticated way to deal with the subject if you feel that a criticism page is needed to show critical voices. Clearly, a neutrally written page will highlight different viewpoints. Combine that with our inability to clearly define criticism and even worse, the fact that probably half of the references are descriptive yet we are portraying them as criticism. Take:

Satanic Verses were two verses allegedly argued to have been added by Mohammad when he was tricked by Satan.[58][21]
Quranic verse 4:34 allows Muslim men to beat their wives (lightly) [59][60]
or other harsh punishments for acts like apostasy,[66] homosexuality,[67] adultery,[68] and theft.[69]

Predominantly Muslim countries, like Sudan, Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, frequently criticized the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for its perceived failure to take into account the cultural and religious context of non-Western countries. In 1981, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, articulated the position of his country regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by saying that the UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.[78] (This quote is Muslim countries criticizing Western institutions... there is no criticism of Islam involved... )

I would guess that most of us raised in Western liberal societies aren't a fan of a lot of that... but, it's not criticism. By presenting descriptive opinion as criticism we performing original research. Islam law could state the most abhorrent things but it only becomes criticism with a critic, not because an editor reads it and it offends their moral sensibilities. That is the main problem with this page. Editors see something they don't like about some Islamic ruling and it is added whether it is a critical source or not. gren グレン 06:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"The explicit purpose of this page is to bring in moral judgment." If you mean to report on moral judgments and responses to them, then yes, I agree. I agree with your statements about OR. Arrow740 08:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

gren, I think you're conflating two arguments, and that makes it hard to understand what you're actually advocating. I agree that all sections in a criticism article should revolve around the presentation and discussion of actual criticism, with non-critical material added only for background, not misrepresented as critical. Great, we agree on that.

But you seem to be also saying that Wikipedia should be whitewashed of criticism unless we also include praise. There we will have to continue to disagree; the statements of Islam/Juan Cole/any subject presented in their main articles are not presented as or with praise, true, but they are presented unchallenged. The goal of criticism subsections and articles is to serve the encyclopedic and public duties of presenting notable challenges to those views. Do you now see why a "Praise" section is not necessary? By nature, the "Praise" section would not be contributing any new information - it would just be agreeing with the unchallenged statements already presented. - Merzbow 19:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Prophet of Doom

Deletion of this link was entirely inappropriate. The website HEAVILY references the Qu'ran and Sunnah. If you want to call it a "hate site" it is your right to have that personal opinion, but keep it to yourself. Some people call it a hate site; others would call it an 'anti-hate' site. The answer to the question is none of my business, nor is it yours. We are here to try and make the best on-line resource that Wikipedia could possibly be. Please see my comments in the section above titled alleged garbage links. You are displaying a gross POV by conclusively stating the site is a "hate site".

While the addition of this link to the bottom of the page Muhammad would be entirely inappropriate (I wouldn't do it), it is extremely appropriate and relevant to place it under a list of resource links in Criticism of Islam and also Criticism of Muhammad for that matter.

Notability? Try here and here ProtectWomen 22:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Self-promotion. Remember, Wikipedia's policy on notability states:

"A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other.

What constitutes "published works" is broad and encompasses published works in all forms, including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc.
"Independence" excludes all self-publicity, advertising by the subject, self-published material, autobiographies, press releases, and other such works affiliated with the subject, its creators, or others with a vested interest or bias.2.
Several journals simultaneously publishing articles about an occurrence, does not always constitute independent works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information.
The "multiple" qualification is not specific as to number, and can vary depending on the reliability of the sources and the other factors of notability. For example, several newspapers all publishing the same article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works, while several researchers or journalists all doing their own research on a single subject and writing their own separate articles do constitute "multiple" sources
"Reliable", as explained in the reliable source guidelines, requires the source to have a reasonable level of editorial integrity to allow attributable evaluation of the topic's notability.

The subject-specific notability guidelines expand on these descriptions and include subject-specific details and interpretations. Some may also provide alternative criteria that a topic may pass in lieu of meeting this common criterion, though their spirit is still to ensure than an encyclopedic article may be written about the topic.

Using the prophetofdoom website to establish the website's notability is what prevents the website from being listed here, per bolded part. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 22:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirby, you present a very good argument- the problem is that what you are arguing is not what the issue at hand is.

Let me explain:

I am glad you gave me a direct link to the Wikipedia guideline you quoted because I don't think I would have found it myself. Anyway I'm going to put in bold the key word that illustrates why the evidence you present to support your position is not actually evidence to support your position.

"Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted"[1][2] or "attracting notice".[3] All topics should meet a minimum threshold of notability for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. These guidelines ensure that there is sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about each topic.

A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. . . . .

A topic is notable if. . .Topics that do not satisfy notability criteria are dealt with in two ways: merging and deletion."

I could go on, but I think you get the point. The guideline for notability refers to topics; NOT links. There is a big difference between me starting an article titled The Prophet of Doom and a link to the site (by the way there IS a topic for its author Craig Winn). Your primary source defending your position to remove a link only applies to topics and not links

The Prophet of Doom link is obviously not being inserted as a 'reliable primary source'. The link is being inserted into the article (at the bottom) because it is one of the most prominent sites critical of Islam. I have to say it's getting tiring typing the same stuff over and over, so I'm going to cut an paste something I wrote on my talk page to Netscott:

"Also, I never stated my position about "The Prophet of Doom" website, but to be honest, I think he[Craig Winn] is too critical of Muslims. But that is besides the point. The article is about "Criticism of Islam" ... the section in question is "Directories of sites critical of Islam". Please note that the link is only that and nothing more. A link. The Prophet of Doom is not claimed to be a primary source for the article. Anyone in the public (i.e. non-editors of Wikipedia) who found themselves on that page would likely be interested in what the criticism of Islam was. The directory of sites critical of Islam is not an endorsement of those sites, but a small list of prominent sites presenting arguments critical of Islam. Arguments could be made that ANY of the sites in the Critical Sites AND the Muslim Responses sites listings were "hate sites". That's not a judgment for us to make. It is our responsibility to neutrally provide the information and let people decide for themselves. User:ProtectWomen|ProtectWomen 05:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)"

--ProtectWomen 05:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, it is a hatesite... what other reason does Wikipedia need? (→Netscott) 06:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Two questions: 1) "it is a hatesite" - is this statement a fact or an opinion (one-word answer, please)?

2)The Prophet of Doom website is a site critical of Islam (yes or no, please)? --ProtectWomen 08:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirby, when we have Craig Winn and Prophet of Doom as seperate individual articles, I dont understand how PropheOfDoom.net is not notable. But BESIDES THAT, notability is NOT applicable to External Links. See WP:EL. Looking at this standard, explain to me why ProphetOfDoom.net does not qualify to be here. Also, remember to apply the standards to ALL website links in this section. --Matt57 18:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think PoD is notable enough for a link, the pertinent question is whether it is an extremist site (let's not use the loaded word "hate site", policy uses the word "extremist"). I'm on the record as saying that faithfreedom.org is extremist because of the Nazi comparisons it uses. Can those opposed to PoD present similar quotes? - Merzbow 19:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying a site is extremist because it is strongly critical of Islam? Then we have some "extremist" articles on Wikipedia: Ali Sina. What makes POD or FFI an extremist site by WP's defination? Please point this out. --Matt57 12:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If I recall Sina had a page on FFI where he directly compared Islam to Nazism, among other things. That's extremist according to anybody's standards, I hope. I don't know if there are similar comparisons on PoD, which is why I asked that question. - Merzbow 18:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, so you found one little line on the hundereds of pages of FFI site where Ali compared Islam to Nazism and that makes it an extremist site? We can do that for the whole internet. Please dont bring in your own subjective arguments. Explain to me using WP policy how exactly FFI is an extremist hate site. --Matt57 11:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Protectwomen, I understand your concerns, but the key issue here is notability. a depository of links. Only the most notable websites critical of Islam should be on the list. Therefore, if you cannot provide evidence that prophetofdoom.net is notable (per Wikipedia's definition of notable), then there is no reason to include it there. Matt57, Craig Winn is notable for reasons besides his criticism of Islam. And, just because Prophet of Doom, which is a book, is notable, does not mean that prophetofdoom.net, which is a website, is notable. You cited WP:EL. Notice, however, items 2 and 3 of links to avoid:

2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable sources. 3. Links mainly intended to promote a website.

I believe that prophetofdoom.net does not comply with those two. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 19:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirbymf, as I SAID, notabiltiy is NOT an issue for External Links. The 2 above criteria and the rest in that list, are the ONLY ones that can be considered. --Matt57 20:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

per this discussion, i have decided to go about trimming the EL section of extraneous links. 'religionofpeace' focuses on apparent 'terrorism', SAQ is more relevant in Qur'an, and FFI as Merzbow noted is an extremist hate site. ITAQALLAH 01:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

ROP is a very notable critical site, SAQ should be in both places, and FFI (a very notable site) is not a hate site. Arrow740 05:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

1) no it isn't; 2) no it shouldn't; 3) yes it is. ITAQALLAH 05:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It is still a valid link. The compromise we had a while back about censoring faithfreedom, if you recall was to only have faithfreedom as an external link. Unless your goal is to completely ignore the compromise?--Sefringle 03:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Without endorsing their message, FFI does not present itself as an attack on Muslims, but quite explicitly as an attack on Islam as ideology, with Muslims cast as both its perpetrators and its victims. Many of the writers, so far as I can discern, are themselves apostate Muslims (unless this is a front?) The closest analogies are to liberal Western criticisms of Christianity (generically) as a socially oppressive force, which, while controversial, are common and well within the realm of acceptable political and social criticism, and to Marxist criticisms of capitalism and capitalist societies. While there are bad guys in both narratives, the overall idea is of a society as the victim of its own ideological superstructure.

There are a number of well-known Islamic thinkers and websites which adopt a parallel approach towards Western society, which is said to suffer in all sorts of ways from its failure to embrace Islam - again, both as collective perpetrators and collective victims, for where tradition is concerned, how can it be otherwise? The Qur'an itself says no less, at times advocating very strong measures against a deluded world, assuring vast multitudes of troubles in this life and hellfire in the next while urging them to avoid these problems by abandoning unbelief.Proabivouac 07:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

ItaqAllah, dont worry there are hundereds of other sites critical of Islam. I will bring some new ones in and expand that section (thanks to your attention on this affair). SAQ is critical of Quran and Quran is a significant part of Islam, so the links belongs here. Its a great site and easily categorizes the teachings of Islam. Merzbow is no one to declare FFI an extremist hate site. It is critical of Islam and that is all you need to know and so it certainly belongs here. For that matter, Jihadwatch.com is not specifically against Islam, ApostatesofIslam.com should only be in 'Apostasy in Islam' and so on and then you might as well start talking out all the links like this as you really want to. The fact is this article is the one article people see in the main menu and you know that so you're trying to censor out links. The best anti-Islam sites should be here. I will look up and bring up more sites. Infact we have 3 columns here, we can have more sites if we want. You asked for it. And you took out the links WITHOUT people reaching a consensus here first and that was not appreciated.--Matt57 11:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

i'm sorry to have to say this: but if you're going to interact with others, it would do you well to cut out the superficial rhetoric such as "You asked for it" and "thanks to your attention on this affair", as it comes across as highly obnoxious. the EL section should be balanced as per WP:NPOV and WP:EL, and as such i will remove the links i previously did. the exception is FFI, as per Proabivouac, who at least can argue his point with an air of politeness and civility. ITAQALLAH 17:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

ItaqfAllah, if you want to balance the section, you have to bring in other websites that respond to the criticism. As I said these are relevant links. You dont want to do 3RR war here now, do you? The SAQ links belongs here as I pointed above and I will revert that. --Matt57 18:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

see WP:NOT#LINK, we should keep the numbers of links to a sensible minimum. you wish to include more links, but you are totally unwilling to bring in other balancing links, in violation of WP:EL and WP:NPOV. ITAQALLAH 18:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There arent too many links to be alarmed of. Its a sensible number right now. I never stopped anyone from bringing in other balancing links. Why dont you do that? --Matt57 19:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The following quotes belong to the website:

*Muhammad, Islam’s lone prophet, qualifies as the most evil man to have ever lived.

* Muhammad was the perfect Satanic prophet.

*"Muhammad, its lone prophet, conceived his religion to satiate his lust for power, sex, and money. He was a terrorist."

* "As an expert on Islam and terror, I know that all good Muslims are terrorists and that most all terrorists are Muslims."

*Muslims, like Nazis and Communists, can’t be trusted. Their moral code encourages deception and overtly states that treaties are not binding on them.

*Hitler simply followed Muhammad's path.

*Decadent egomaniacs like Muhammad are deeply troubled and tortured souls

*Pope Benedict IV... Benedict became like Muhammad, demonic, fixated on the occult, demented, delirious, and lascivious.

And lastly:

Winn claims: "Prophet of Doom is the best documented and most comprehensive presentation of the Islamic scriptures ever written."

--Aminz 03:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

So what are you trying to do? Show that the website is not a good website? How are these quotes relevant? Many will agree and disagree with those quotes. Again, Prophet of Doom is a very documented and sourced website about Islam and is highly relevant to the subject, and thats the only thing that matters when we include an external links. Please be fair also bring in some good links from that site as well. I mean the whole site is a treasure of articles. Craig has done a great job on criticising Islam in a very direct way. Add the fact that he has also produced a book, makes link actually deserve a higher importance than some other links, due to the unparalled deep research and study he has done on Islam - perhaps thats why some people dont like his website. You'll notice all of his articles are sourced well and then commented. What you brought is just a comment.--Matt57 12:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Relatively well sourced but suffers from primary sourcing

This article is actually really well sourced. It is one of the best sourced criticism articles on Wikipedia. BUT, most of the sources are primary sources, this article needs to rely on aggregations of criticism in order to exist. Any time a claim is made about critics such as "many critics" one need a reliable secondary source to aggregate those claims, otherwise if Wikipedians do it, we are acting as the secondary source but we are supposed to be a tertiary source. In summary, the article needs sources which aggregate and analyze criticism of Islam. --Quirex 16:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete This article

It really is not right to have a entire article with Criticism of anything on it. I want to put it up for deletion but first I want to see if others agree that it should. Peace:) --James, La gloria è a dio 00:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism articles and subsections are a storied part of Wikipedia. Your AfD nomination would be instantly closed as Speedy Keep, and would possibly count as disruption. - Merzbow 00:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This is well sourced and couldn't really be easily moved to another article. Not to mention that there are thousands of "criticism of" articles on wikipedia.--Sefringle 02:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

General Context to Criticism

To my surprise I saw the following contribution reverted twice: Much of the criticism can not be distinguished from general criticism of religion, such as the issues on belief and science in relation to modernity and creed, religious claims of truth and criticism on practicing ethics and moral standards. Other criticism addresses the Islamic teachings specifically and concerns interpretations and dogmas related to Islam, or the ultimate existentialistic questions on life, suffering and death. Modern criticism evolves wherever Islam exceeds the realms of personal religious experience and coerces mundane ambitions to moral and political influence, especially when abuses are suspected or have been demonstrated, causing a tendency in criticism of Islam to focus on politics and the non-western identity of its traditions.

I hope the people that accuse me of POV and OR will read carefully and notice that this introductory description is neutral and concerns only generally accepted statements.

Much of criticism of Islam is equal to general criticism of religion

(Much of the criticism can not be distinguished from general criticism of religion, such as the issues on belief and science in relation to modernity and creed, religious claims of truth and criticism on practicing ethics and moral standards.)

Criticism of Islam also has a specific religious nature

(Other criticism addresses the Islamic teachings specifically and concerns interpretations and dogmas related to Islam, or the ultimate existentialistic questions on life, suffering and death.)

Cristicism of Islam also has a modern nature, originating from western, modern and secular views

(Modern criticism evolves wherever Islam exceeds the realms of personal religious experience and coerces mundane ambitions to moral and political influence, especially when abuses are suspected or have been demonstrated, causing a tendency in criticism of Islam to focus on politics and the non-western identity of its traditions.)

Please be more specific on why such a contribution to create a general context should be invalid, or otherwise what sensitivities are involved. Rokus01 10:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Rokus01 10:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that there are no sources for this claim. Because the article lacks sources, it is WP:OR.--Sefringle 10:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You are not specific about what "claim" you mean. I deduct you are in doubt about the relation between modern criticism of islam and western, secular and humanistic views? In Europe there is quite a lot of discussion going on, I could refer to a long list of articles and views from philosophers that inherit from the New Philosophers strain. I know about articles and tranlations in Dutch and French of prominent thinkers, but if you insist this is all new to you I will try to find some English versions or reviews. By the way, I think it is unacceptable Wikipedia is enumerating criticism of Islam without introducing any kind of context. To make understand criticism of Islam you should make clear the contexts of religion and understand its critics. I urge strongly to read Wikipedia:Lead section in order to produce a better introduction. Rokus01 22:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is it is still unsourced, and very POV pushing to categorize all criticism of Islam as Criticism of Religion. It is like saying that criticism of religion is against religion in general, and not just Islam, so therefore it is not valid. That is very POV pushing, and certianly does not belong in the introduction, especially since other articles criticizing religion do not contain such blanket statements in the lead.--Sefringle 00:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for giving more clarity, but you are wrong: I could rather ask you to give reliable sources saying criticism on Islam does not have anything to do with criticism on religion in general. Please read carefully: I don't say all criticism on Islam is general criticism. I clearly point out the areas where criticism of Islam coincide with criticism of most other religions:issues on belief and science in relation to modernity and creed, religious claims of truth and criticism on practicing ethics and moral standards. My goal is to distinguish different kinds of criticism. For instance, any Islamic rejection of proven facts could be criticized in a general way; if you want to point out on what page the Koran contradicts common sense or sound feelings you could criticize this as typical Islamic; if you want to criticize behaviour of Islamists that clashes with western views, international law or human rights, you have to convince the Wikipedia readers of your neutral stance (?) and explain in what respect those clashes are to be criticized. Philosophy could help. For instance, the burka: are this items criticized for being oppressive? Maybe, religion is oppressive sometimes and unreasonable in its demands on people (general criticism), but you could also point out any suspect quotes or outright wrong interpretation of Koran (Islamic criticism) or call the practice unacceptable from a modern stance that involves integrating people into an international community. Wikipedia had better use convincible methods to make clear criticism and define such introductory context. Please don't turn upside down the interpretation of POV and we'll get along fine. Rokus01 01:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Much of the criticism can not be distinguished from general criticism of religion, such as the issues on belief and science in relation to modernity and creed, religious claims of truth and criticism on practicing ethics and moral standards.^[10] Other criticism addresses the Islamic teachings specifically and concerns interpretations and dogmas related to Islam, or the ultimate existentialistic questions on life, suffering and death.^[11] Modern criticism evolves wherever Islam exceeds the realms of personal religious experience and coerces mundane ambitions to moral and political influence, especially when abuses are suspected or have been demonstrated, causing a tendency in criticism of Islam to focus on politics and the non-western identity of its traditions.^[12]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokus01 (talk • contribs)

I see you've added some sources, but there are still problems. Let's take this sentence by sentence. The first sentence is sourced to "Britannica 15th edition 25:686, The Rejection of Religion or Religiousness". I am doubtful that this article discusses criticism of Islam specifically - can you verify that it does in relation to what you've written? Otherwise it's WP:OR. The third sentence suffers from the same doubts as the first sentence - can you confirm that the book "The Philosophy of Human Rights" specifically mentions criticism of Islam? - Merzbow 18:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

So you're removing the information because you aren't familiar with the sources and you don't trust him? Very bad faith--Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 23:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

and because it is POV pushing.--Sefringle 23:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The text is exactly the same as the unsourced text he added before, with a couple of cites thrown in. I am therefore extremely skeptical that his cites actually address the topic of Criticism of Islam, and the burden of proof is on him to show that they do. - Merzbow 23:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The protests against my contribution excel in vagueness. First try to understand what it really says here. Islam is a religion and thus is subject to the same criticism as any other religion, this criticism is not my invention but actually well documented, like you can verify in the Britannica article. If you don't agree to include such criticism in the article, this also should be mentioned in the introduction. I think it should, but if it should not we could add something like "This is not included". The last source is written by a very respected and well known philosopher and only one example of thinkers that define the problems of multiculturalism as described, being a conflict between religious or traditional ways within a mundane society. Rokus01 05:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not that complicated. Either you can show us where in your sources the subject of "criticism of Islam" is specifically addressed, or you can't. This is not the place for off-the-cuff philosophy. - Merzbow 05:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Who makes things complicated? The problem here seems to be a lack of understanding that criticism of Islam is contained in general criticism: for instance, oppression of women, homophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, gangs, female circumcision are all problems that surge from Islam, but it would be a political choice to point to Islam only. You ask me here a contradictio en terminis: to show that "criticism of Islam" is specifically addressed by general criticism of religion. Better define "criticism of Islam" in the introduction, if you do not agree this general kind of criticism has something in common with any other criticism of religion, or if multiculturalism does not have anything to do with Islam. What world you are living in? Of course I can show you that criticism of Islam is contained in general criticism of religion. I can also show you that the issues of multiculturalism, including the studies by Paul Cliteur and the essays of New Philosophers against multiculturalism, are more than closely related to Islam. But better convince yourself: Just google on Paul Cliteur + multiculturalism + islam, or google on religion + islam. Otherwise try better arguments to push your POV, since I won't accept utter ignorance on the subject. Rokus01 15:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "no". Thanks for clearing it up. - Merzbow 18:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not impressed by your definition of OR. You even introduce your own kind of OR by suggesting criticism of Islam does not have a general component. Please stop trolling around with nonsense arguments. This just does not prove your neutrality. Rokus01 11:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It is still POV pushing, since it is labeling criticism as "greater criticism" is a way of dismissing it as something else. Secibdly, do you intend to do the same thing to criticism of other religion articles, like Christianity, Buddhism, Judiasm, Hinduism, Atheism, etc.? Otherwise, you are just trying to dismiss criticism of Islam as irrelevant secularist propaganda, which is both a wrong interpritation of criticism of islam, and is excessively POV.--Sefringle 04:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not dismiss anything, where are you afraid of? And of course all religions are subject to general components of criticism. Sometimes this general criticism results in general measures, like the recent French law against wearing religious symbols in public areas that include Islamic scarfs as well as Christian crosses and Jewish symbols. Besides, general criticism applies most to communities that are blind and deaf to such criticism and does not insinuate equal severity of criticism towards all religions or religious individuals. Rokus01 11:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, this article is not about general Criticism of religion. You are free to place your paragraph in that article, where it belongs. It is certainly not obvious how and to what degree anything you wrote is applicable to Islam - it's original research for you to simply state that this is so. You've been reverted by at least 4 different editors now; you can either keep edit-warring against consensus, which I don't suggest, or listen to what long-time editors have been telling you and modify your edits accordingly. - Merzbow 16:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, at least something intelligible, and if you read carefully I was waiting all along for somebody talking sense, since a lot of reverters being all unintelligible are still one big invalid argument to me, and I have the feeling you are just a vocal minority. Anyway, thanks for defining your interpretation of original research, I will try to be more convincing or concise in describing what general criticism has to do with Islam, starting with some valid translations from Dutch were we are -without exaggeration- at the frontlines of this kind of discussions. In the meanwhile I insist on your WP:AGF. To be continued. Rokus01 17:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not enough that you describe what "general criticism has to do with Islam" - the sources you cite must do so as well. As long as you can show that they do, and as long as the text you put in the article reproduces the same arguments the sources are making, then you can avoid WP:OR. - Merzbow 18:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you mean I have to show instead of explain. Here you are. About the sourcing of the three contextual points:

the sourcing of the first one about general criticism has been extended a bit, using also wikipedia articles to redirect and showing the enumeration of headlights as much as possible within the Islamic context
the sourcing of the second point did not raise specific protests
the sourcing of the third point has been changed to a more recent example, unambiguous islam related, and extended.

Rokus01 23:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Still problems, let's take the cites in issue one by one. Cite #1 - need to provide the page number(s) in this book where Armstrong makes this particular argument. Cite #2 - the quote you provide in the cite is an anecdote, it has no obvious relationship to "and criticism on practicing ethics and moral standards". Cite #4 - this is a 300 page document, again need page numbers where this particular argument is being made. Cite #5 - ditto. - Merzbow 00:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

We are not talking about particular arguments here, we are talking about an enumeration of subjects summarizing criticism.

Cite #1: The whole book of Armstrong is about this one single subject: "religious claims of truth", already contained in the title: "Battle of God." This is the battle of truth between religion and against the outside world, about how Jewish, Christian, and Muslim fundamentalists believe in their exclusivist systems of truth and try to advance their causes by all means. Thus I am giving the whole book, not just a few pages.
Cite #2: This quote proves sufficiently that the Britannica cite about criticism on practicing ethics and moral standards by "religions" also applies to Islam.
Cite #4: Here the subject is: "mundane ambitions to moral and political influence". Read Introduction, Section VIII: Religious Practices and Section IX: Islam and European Secularism; In this document the causes of the conflict (islamophobia) include these very subject. To each country this subject is mentioned again. I noticed this reference should be at the position of Cite 5, and Cite 5 should be in the context of multiculturalism. Here I'd better redirect to Political aspects of Islam.
Cite #5: This cite should be positioned next to the subject "multiculturism". Since the reference does not involve a single argument either, but the complete subject "multiculturalism", I will give you here as well the whole book and not a few pages.

I'll present you the adapted version. Rokus01 10:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what more to say to get through to you. We don't summarize whole books here, we summarize particular arguments made by particular authors on particular pages. ESPECIALLY on controversial subjects like this. And please quit with the personal attacks (i.e. your latest edit summary here). - Merzbow 19:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I am pretty busy with other important things. First, I like to contradict a previous statement about my contribution being without any support, since your insisting reverts have already been restored by various users. Furthermore I would insist on a proper Wikipedia:Lead section, since the current virtually oneliner introduction does not do justice to the subject. Merzbow, if you honestly do not know how to put forward your arguments, please don't resort to reverting and destroying information, but rather be respectful and ask third opinion. I honestly do not know where you stand for nor what your deeper concerns would be, nevertheless I feel this is important to you. To resolve this, explore the meaning of WP:AFG and at least assume my contributions are made out of good faith and being honestly convinced a clear description of context is missing badly in the current article. Your arguments are shaky and reverting is too easy. What make you think a subject can not be referred to by a whole book, especially when the very theme of a reference coincides with a footnoted subject? Why should such a practice be different here? I am not selling arguments, I am giving a scope and mention fields of knowledge, subjects, themes or whatever, without arguments, thus stating the mere fact such a subject exists: these subjects are intended to be neutral. Furthermore, the relation of those subjects to islam and religion in general is trivial and to supply literature is rather informative and inviting to further reading than born from a necessity to prove the validity of mentioning for instance "religious claims of truth" or multiculturalism. Not any reasonable human being would contradict common sense or claim contrary evidence. Rokus01 11:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, it isn't neutral. It is dismissive in so many ways, and it makes the points of the article seem less valid. That is very POV and certianly does not belong in the lead of this article.--Sefringle 18:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I can not take this argument seriously: you claim NPOV to yourself and call a broader scope offered by an introductory context dismissive to the argument of this article? You must be kidding. Rokus01 08:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The burden is on you to properly source your edits - see WP:V ("The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.") Your edits violate fundamental Wikipedia policy - see WP:V and WP:OR. You are in violation because you are providing entire books as sources and refusing to specify where exactly in the book the arguments come from. You may be an expert on the subject, but I have no idea if your original research interpretation of entire books is accurate. Sefringle, for one, does not think they are accurate. The solution is simple - only make arguments that are directly made by reliable sources in specific books, page numbers, and paragraphs. Please do not restore this material until you have done so. - Merzbow 18:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I already properly sourced my edit, so please don't remove without being specific about your refusal to be convinced of the existence of some trival subjects of criticism and without asking third opinion first. I complied with the demand of sourcing so don't change the rules of the game. I could ask third opinion for you, since you admit not to have any idea about the validity of your statement saying I should not refer to a whole book. I already explained I am not MAKING arguments, I just enumerate subjects within an overview that should belongs to Wikipedia:Lead section, and the reference serve only to prove the validity of the context, not to put forward any argument. If you want I can add more information to source the link between islam and religious claims of truth, but to any further comments first be clear about what exactly you deem utterly untrue or invalid to justify your reverts and destruction of information. Rokus01 08:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You have not complied with the policy on sourcing. Your cites are NOT verifiable because you are citing 300-page books without telling us exactly where in those books the authors make the controversial arguments you are adding. The burden is on YOU to give us this information. - Merzbow 08:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is your personal point of view. I have been kind enough to supply loads of additional sources, all being quite specific. Don't apply this kind of legalist methods in order to discourage anybody from improving on this article, since the arguments are false and the method is suspect. Otherwise I would even be reminded to the signature of Moslim Brotherhood legalism and Taqqiya, or please be straightforward about the principles you really stand for without fuzzing with phoney arguments. If you really want to show good faith please invoke third opinion on your point of view: you do not represent Wikipedia standards and there is no consensus on your reverts. The context is valid, according to Wikipedia:Lead section and well sourced. Stop pushing in the name of Wikipedia.Rokus01 12:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have repeated myself many times in as clear a language as possible, and you still refuse to respond to my points, and continue with the incivility. The lead section should be a summary of the article. Yours is not a summary, it is an analysis with original arguments. This is getting very tiresome. I know there are others reading this page beside me and Sefringle - can you all please chime in here? - Merzbow 17:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have written a new lead that follows WP:LEAD and Wikipedia policies. It's a straight summary of the article, in as flat and factual a way possible, sourced with page numbers, and contains no information or arguments that aren't already elsewhere in the article. None of the arguments in your version are even mentioned anywhere in the article, a violation of the WP:LEAD guideline: "A significant argument not mentioned after the lead should not be mentioned in the lead". - Merzbow 20:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the lead you propose is already an improvement and I take this as a sign of your good intentions. Whatever your complaints about repeating, you did not mention this argument before but absolutely, an overview should reflect the content of the article. However, your quote makes clear again the confusion of words that characterize our misunderstanding. Realize my contribution was merely meant to establish context to critiscism of islam. Such a context remains unresolved by just naming headlights without presenting some coherence about what criticism encompasses. Please think this over, I'll do the same. Rokus01 12:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but remember that any attempt to establish context that contains advanced analysis or arguments should be sourced directly to an author who makes that analysis in "in relation to the topic of the article" (WP:NOR). The topic is specifically criticism of Islam, not just religion or even criticism of religion (for which there are both articles). I would definitely like to find an author who has written an analysis of the philosophical issues surrounding criticism of Islam, in a neutral way, but haven't so far. Until then, the best we can do in a lead is summarize the article in as flat and as non-controversial a way possible. - Merzbow 17:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

By definition, within any wikipedia article the information is gathered from different sources and turned into a hodgepodge, so beware of abusing the OR predicate by applying it too easily. I agree the arguments within an article should be based on clear facts retrieved from reliable sources, but the coherence is bound by rules of logic and reason in a proces of communication or sheer common sense. It would be okay to find writers you could copy that easily as to supply the entire and exact layout and logic of an article, but this just isn't realistic, I would say even either naïve or malicious to demand. Still I sourced the relation between criticism of Islam to general criticism of religion, between religious criticism of Islam and normal human experience and between modern criticism of islam to criticism of multiculturalism: I even sourced the subsequent examples and demonstrated belief and science in relation to modernity and creed, religious claims of truth, criticism on practicing ethics and moral standards, interpretations and dogmas related to Islam, the ultimate existentialistic questions on life, suffering and death, mundane ambitions to moral and political influence, the tendency in criticism of Islam to focus on politics and the non-western identity of its traditions are all valid subjects within the context to criticism of islam. Your argument is that not any source you know of has put forward all of this together? Let's give an example of how erroneous such a statement would be: greyish yellow, grass green, deep purple, marroon, light pink and orange are all colours, but to prove this you should find a source naming all of this colours together and mention this colours explicitly as being colours?? No! I utterly disagree if this is your stance. The context of criticism of Islam consists of different elements unified by criticism of Islam only, without concern of how those elements are interrelated or of how those elements have sourced dependencies one between the other. Multiculturalism, religious criticism and general criticism of religion are all strongly tied to Islam, but this does not compel us to find sources mentioning all at once, even if there are. The context of criticism should be clear and don't have anything to do with sourced arguments on one single subject. Only next to the context being established, you should be clear about the article constraints and come with an overview like you gave, of about what and what not. You say: The topic is specifically criticism of Islam, not just religion or even criticism of religion. Okay, but does the reader know all of this without a proper introduction saying so and explaining what is the difference? Rokus01 20:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Rokus01, it's not that your lead was obviously false or obviously partisan, but so far as anyone can tell, it represented your perspective on the matter (however worthy this might be,) hence the invocation of WP:NOR. This rule keeps out a small amount of good material along with the bad, so don't take it personally. I suspect that some of your material might well prove sourcable upon a little more investigation.Proabivouac 19:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, like this I will not take it personally. Still a general context to criticism of Islam is missing, and many things are neither mentioned nor explicitly excluded. Certainly this is my perspective, but to deny such a general context including all the things I mention is just another perspective and easy to disprove. Also, I wonder what more should be sourced, or whether even double sourced and approved "my perspective" would cease to be mine.Rokus01 20:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, individual page number cites (and specific paragraphs and even quotes if requested on talk) have to be given, because that is the only thing that makes a controversial edit verifiable. I understand your desire to provide perspective, but Wikipedia policy is very limiting regarding the freedom editors have in this regard. WP:SYN speaks to this as well: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C." The argument "Multiculturalism, religious criticism and general criticism of religion are all strongly tied to Islam" may or may not be true, but it is a very deep piece of analysis that we simply aren't qualified to make on our own by the standards of Wikipedia. - Merzbow 22:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I still can't see the deep analysis here. Let's assume the argument "Multiculturalism (A), religious criticism (B) and general criticism of religion (C) are all strongly tied to Islam" is sourced to your satisfaction on each element, or define according to WP:SYN: A, B and C are true. Note I am not synthesizing A with B or C, or B with A or C. Actually I just repeat three times the INDEPENDENT link to Islam in order to establish context. Another way for saying the same would be: Multiculturalism is strongly tied to criticism of Islam, religious criticism is strongly tied to criticism of Islam and general criticism of religion is strongly tied to criticism of Islam. No new argument is concocted. Don't confuse research to find arguments with original research inventing them. Rokus01 09:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can find sources that specifically tie those elements to "criticism of Islam", then you're on stronger ground and we can discuss how to present them. - Merzbow 16:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

These ties are sufficiently demonstrated by a wealth of Wikipedia links. Rokus01 14:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As a compromise, maybe we can include This is article is about Criticism of Islam. For general criticism of religion, see Criticism of Religion at the top of the article. --Aminz 23:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to add the same quote to every other article criticing religion as well?--Sefringle 02:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That was a suggestion for compromise. I have seen many articles refer to their parent or related articles in this way. --Aminz 02:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with aminz on this one, it is good form to do this and helps tie the encyclopedia together. Hypnosadist 04:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Also agree with aminz.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 04:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Part of me finds the suggestion very silly, as if a woman who wandered into the men's bathroom by accident would need any more of an indicator of this fact than the presence of urinals. I mean, the title sums up the article quite nicely, in giant bold letters. The point of having a 'title' to something is usually to set it apart from something else. Should we cater to people who can't use logic to figure this out? Still, if it's going to put an end to another squabble, then it's worth doing. However, one should expect that the same be added to all other religious criticism pages, and all other general religious criticism should be removed from those pages.--C.Logan 04:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This is fine with me as a further compromise, since one can say that this article comes from two family trees - the Islam family tree and the Criticism of Religion family tree. The Islam tree is already well-represented by the "series" box on the right. I think this should use the "see also" template instead of a disambiguation template, however. I'll make the change and see how it looks. - Merzbow 05:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Merzbow has been very much willing to compromise, Rokus01. Rokus, it doesn't have to be perfect. Would you agree with what we have now? --Aminz 09:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you added this link here, I have added it to every other "criticism of religion X" article.--Sefringle 23:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I could agree on this fundamental difference on perspective of criticism being represented by general religious criticism versus specific criticism on religion instead, leaving most religion specific criticism to other articles. However, modern criticism definitely has other roots and is related to neither a critical view on religious fundamentals nor any rejection of religiousness, instead rather tied to human interaction within society or at an international level. I wonder whether such a third pillar of criticism is sufficiently clear within the established context by now. I would plead for an additional sentence like "Modern criticism focus on the acceptance of universal values and social compatibility." Rokus01 08:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that probably falls under the rubric of "doubts about the moral ideals of Islam and how they are put into practice", since it seems that those who argue that Islam cannot co-exist in modern secular society are really criticizing specific Islamic ideals or practices that prevent co-existence (such as the lack of any distinction in traditional Islamic thought between religious and secular government at all). - Merzbow 08:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I mean, if context could be established in a more concise way, why shouldn't we? Rokus01 10:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Establish Context Part II

Wikipedia articles cannot be used as a source. Both me and Pro and Sefringle have listed at length the reasons why this text isn't appropriate - the lead cannot contain material not in the main text, and it's original research. Please do not stubbornly insist on re-inserting it day after day. - Merzbow 17:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, Rokus, I'm not trying to be an ogre here. Some of the material in that section can be used in the article, with editing, and with more specific citations, but not all in the same place. I am going to make a good-faith effort to incorporate it. - Merzbow 18:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this Sefringle I don't have to take very seriously as long as he does not come up with valid reasons to contradict the validity of the enumerated context.
I already explained very thoroughly why my contribution does not classify the OR criteria. No new arguments come up or derive from other arguments, to each circumstancial item of context it's only the link to criticism of Islam that counts.
The contextual structure is simple and threefold, if some of the explaining could be done later on in the article you are welcome. The lead should establish context, this if different from just summarizing, so nothing of this has to be repeated to work criticism of Islam out within the text: please meditate on the meaning of context, I thought I'd given you enough time already.
Sourced Wikipedia articles that clearly refer to the linked subject should be sufficient to source instead, I can't see any reason why not: besides, this is common practice, we could ask third opinion on this about why this should be different here.

Rokus01 19:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I am working on the incorporation now, am doing it in parts. As for sourcing from other Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources in and of themselves. The other articles may contain cites that are reliable, but those cites should be duplicated into the linking article. - Merzbow 19:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I was able to find places for most of the material in the article, heavily edited. I hope this is OK. - Merzbow 21:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A "Praise of Islam" article

I see this is a 'Criticism of Islam' page. I dont like this article but it is an important topic to people these days. There is no "Praise of Islam" page which contains all the positive views that leaders and scholars have had regarding Islam. Would there be any objection to me starting such an article? I am sure I can find an abundance of sources for content in such an article. Coldbud 18:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

there is objection. Do you see a Praise to Christianity or Praise to Buddhism, Praise to Judaism, Praise to Atheism, Praise to Hindusim, etc. articles? The Islam article praises Islam enough. The last thing we need is even more praise to Islam on wikipedia.--Sefringle 18:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed a few times - most recently here: Talk:Criticism_of_Islam#THis_article_should_be_deleted. My opinion is that such an article isn't necessary for two reasons: we already present the responses to criticism in this article in equal weight, and the main Islam articles (like Islam) present the views of the religion in an uncritical light already, so praise would not be adding any more real information to the encyclopedia. We could always rename this article to "View on Islam" and then invert some of the sections by presenting the existing responses as praise and the criticism as responses, but this seems somewhat contrived. - Merzbow 18:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Views on Islam would be better created as a seperate from this article without any moving.--Sefringle 19:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Then I'll create Views on Islam where all such views can be contained. The Islam article does not contain any praise for the religion that I know of, at least not from non-Muslim observers. I do not know what you mean when you say "the last thing we need is even more praise to Islam on Wikipedia", when all I see on Wikipedia is negative on Islam. Maybe I am missing those pages where there is praise for Islam, so please point me to them. Coldbud 20:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but I'm unsure whether or not this is an April Fool's Day joke.--C.Logan 20:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a yearlong fool. Is my proposition so unreasonable? My view is that on Wikipedia, there should be objective articles on the topics themselves, such as "Islam", "Mohammed", "Jihad" and whatever. If there are articles that elaborate negative views on these subjects like "criticism of Islam", "criticism of Mohammed", "criticism of jihad", then in the interest of neutrality equal weight must be given to the positive views. Why is condemnation of Islam recognized as legitimate content, while praise isn't? Coldbud 20:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, outright... it seems that in light of fairness, a similar article should be made for Christianity, Judaism, and all other major religions- that is, if you carry this idea through. Honestly, I still don't think it's the best of ideas. There isn't even universal consensus on whether these 'Criticism' articles should exist in the first place... technically, its a POV fork, which is a very, very bad thing: the only reason these articles stand on their own is because the 'Criticism' section of each religion's main page grew to a viable point. If I were you, I would first attempt to add a small "praise views" section to the main Islam article, near criticisms. Even so, I don't see a real need for such an addition. I don't quite see a praise article standing on two legs, to be honest.

For what reasons do you find this addition so necessary? (I don't find Islam to be that much more maligned than Christianity... honestly, I feel that the majority of criticism is voiced towards the latter.)--C.Logan 23:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am not a Christian and am not educated on the details of that religion, so I can't really participate in discussions over the comparison between Islam and Christianity articles on Wikipedia. I do think Islam is portrayed here in the most negative light, where worst interpretation of Islamic ideas are given more emphasis than moderate ones. There are people who think and say things negative about Islam, and others who say things that are positive. To only shed light on those views that malign Islam and to cut the discussion of its positive aspects down to only those which are responses to negative ones is unfair and does not seem fitting for something that should be neutral and educational. If articles can be devoted to a particular view on Islam, then an article on the other view should also be in existence for neutrality's sake. Otherwise the same article should contain matter positive and negative with fair weight to both views, with responses to both views. Coldbud 00:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason that a "Criticism" article is inherently encyclopedic but "Praise" article isn't is because again, the main article on a given subject is obligated to present first and foremost the views of the subject in a factual manner, without judgment. Thus the Islam article will say "Muslims believe Muhammad was a prophet" and the Christianity article will say "Christians believe Jesus rose from the dead". It is a time-honored tradition and an encyclopedic duty to present the views of those who disagree with the beliefs of a notable subject, and those disagreements are presented as criticism. In contrast, praise does not add anything new - praise simply repeats the views of the subject, which have already been presented. - Merzbow 00:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, I second Merzbow's point. I believe that any main article is inherently positive by nature- it doesn't mean it isn't neutral in tone, but the profession of facts and beliefs itself with descriptive reasoning and arguments for those beliefs is essentially as close to a 'praise' article as we need for any topic...--C.Logan 00:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the view that an article providing positive views would not be informative. Content telling of how scholars admire how Muhammad forbid the killing of civillians would raise a few eyebrows, particularly when the World sees, and this article seeks to confirm the view, Muhammad as a mass-murderer. That another scholar admired the fact that Muhammad lived the life of a common man despite having the power he won in his lifetime would also raise eyebrows amongst the readers who are being convinced that Muhammad was some self-serving materialistic warlord. There are plenty of such opinions and views. I'm being told only those that portray the religion as being bad and its founder of being a monster are informative, those that remark on its achievements and his virtues are to be kept out. To me, that's censorship. Coldbud 01:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A list of current pages dealing with Muhammad, and general views of him: Non-Islamic views of Muhammad, Islamic views of Muhammad, Depictions of Muhammad, Praise of Muhammad in poetry(considered for deletion), Muhammad before Medina, Muhammad in Medina, Historicity of Muhammad, Christian view of Muhammad. Islam itself has many as well, including Islam and animals, Prisoners of war in Islam, Islam and children, among others. If you want to make a positive contribution, I suggest that you start with these already established articles, as many of them need great improvement. Another article concerning views is not really needed, as it's entirely likely the material you'd want to include is already included in an existing article.--C.Logan 02:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could expand on the "Response to criticism" section. Actually, that would not be entirely unreasonable since criticism does not necessarily have to be negative. I understand your desire to balance out the article, but the concept of a [Praise of X] article seems so... bizarre. I'm not sure why though. So my best suggestion is to present other perspectives in this article. -- tariqabjotu 02:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point. Criticism is not always negative, even though this article is completely negative. Can we adjust this article so that it is meant to cover both positive and negative views of Islam, rather than just the negative? Coldbud 02:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

While the word 'criticism' does not technically refer to negative views alone, it has come to mean that almost exclusively in common language. When you see "Criticism of ____", you expect to see a presentation of negative views about a subject. I can safely guess that the vast, vast, majority of Criticism articles on Wikipedia exist solely to express negative views about a subject. If you are really so adamant about this, perhaps you could use your user page as a testing ground for compiling materials that you're hopeful to include, as I am currently unsure as to what you would include in this supposed article. It would then be easier to discern what belongs in existing articles and what might actually warrant inclusion here, or an article of its own (because you asked). If it's merely response to criticism, then it is appropriate, as long as it is from a reliable source, and not your own opinion. If it's outright praise, then that is a different story.--C.Logan 03:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If outright criticism can be recorded here, outright praise can be as well. "Response to criticism" is not the same as "Praise". I would support changing this article to "Views on Islam" to cover both criticism and praise, with responses to both as needed. Coldbud 22:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: Coldbud (talk · contribs) has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of our old friend His excellency (talk · contribs) by CheckUser and banned. Therefore I've struck out his comments. - Merzbow 20:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Merzbow, the original banned user was Shams2006 and he keeps coming here. Shams, if you read this, can you please stop contributing to Wikipedia because it doesnt work that way? Thanks. --Matt57 23:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

i don't see how you endorsed Merzbow's action above, but offered a blocking threat when others did virtually the same thing to another user evading their block. ITAQALLAH 00:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually the original banned user was His excellency (talk · contribs), Shams2006 was just (another) one of his post-ban sockpuppets. - Merzbow 00:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Matt endorsed striking Coldbud's edits but threatened Itaqallah for striking David York's edits during his block. --Aminz 00:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk edits are something else - people should know that a user has been banned and thus the discussion is not valid anymore so people arent responding to the banned user. Edits in article are something else. Answer this very simple question for me: If I'm a user who makes good edits but one day I go mad, making sockpuppets and get blocked: should all my good edits be reverted? Yes/no? I cant beleive that we are discussing this to this length. --Matt57 00:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

the only edits that are reverted, are those made while the editor is blocked (i.e. not supposed to be editing) and still editing through sockpuppets. previous good edits are irrelevant, and unaffected. whether these contributions are article, talk, template etc. based is also irrelevant. the fact that they are major edits, makes it all the more necessary to revert them.[8] ITAQALLAH 01:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that, if I'm a really bad sock puppet and decide to make a great sourced article while I'm banned, then my article should be deleted? Do note that the admin said that, it depends on a case by case basis and "If it's an unquestionably good edit, then I would say it shouldn't be reverted". --Matt57 01:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to account for ridiculous, virtually impossible scenarios and "what ifs". when they are blocked, they should not be editing. simple as that. they can make their contributions after their block, if they are apparently so good. i think you'd do well not to quote bbatsell any further, as you have been found to have misrepresented his position. furthermore, he clarified what he meant by those comments, and stated that they were inapplicable to this incident. ITAQALLAH 01:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone should make a Criticism of Atheism article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.78.202 (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There already is one. See Criticism of atheism. Captain panda 23:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Double standard

Compare this article with Religious antisemitism and Criticism of Judaism. According to the standards laid out in the first article, so-called "critics" like Pat Robertson, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Bat Ye'or are not "critics" but anti-Muslim bigots. It's known as "calling a spade a spade". My suggestion is to rename this article to Anti-Islamic sentiments or move the more libellous and hateful garbage from the likes of Robertson (who calls Muslims "devils" and believes all Muslims will burn in hell) and Bat Ye'or to that article title. We must not tolerate this hatred here. See WP:NPOV. Wikipedia of all places should be able to differentiate between what is legitimate criticism and what is obviously hateful and xenophobic rhetoric ("Eurabia" being a perfect example). That the hatred and prejudice towards Islam and Muslims is widely tolerated and accepted is proven with this article, which rather than about "criticism" is about hatred of Islam. Khorshid 02:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. It seems that you're easily offended. Please don't get so riled up.--C.Logan 04:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

See Antisemitism - if I was a Jew, would you be saying that??? Please keep your patronising attitude out of this discussion, otherwise you may be blocked for incivility. We do not tolerate bigotry here - I understand many people hate Muslims. Wikipedia does not tolerate such hatred. Khorshid 11:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I was uncivil? It seems that you jump to conclusions about other people's motives. I was simply trying to suggest that you calm the flame a bit, but I can see that you'll have none of that. Sorry if you misunderstood me.--C.Logan 20:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I could easily do without including Robertson, but Bat Ye'or is critic who comes from a scholarly POV. - Merzbow 05:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately Bat Ye'or promotes anti-Islamic and anti-Arab conspiracy theories. If you're telling me that people like Bat Ye'or are legitimate critics of Islam, then Holocaust denialists and anti-Semites like David Duke and Robert Faurrison are legitimate critics of Judaism. Like I said, double standards. Muslims are the devils, after all, right? According to our Christian friends, we're all going to hell, so who gives a crap, right? The guy up there, a Christian, tells me "I'm easily offended". You know what?! Damn right I'm easily offended. Easy to talk like that when you're not the one being shoved around and stereotyped as a terrorist. I'm sick of that kind of attitude. If you guys want to promote conspiracy theorists and bigots as "critics" of Islam, then Wikipedia has lost its credibility, and considering Essjay controversy, its not surprising. But I urge Muslim editors not to give into this bullying. There is a distinct difference between bigotry and criticism, and so far, this article is of the latter variety. So much for "Christian tolerance". Ha, what a joke. Khorshid 11:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The guy up there, a Christian, tells me "I'm easily offended"

Does the fact that I'm a Christian affect my assessment? Whether I'm a Christian, an atheist, a Bahai, or a Scientologist, I would still tell you that you need to keep a cool head. Anger isn't going to help you in getting your point across. And please don't stereotype Christians- it makes you guilty of taking the first steps into practicing the very thing that you're condemning.--C.Logan 20:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't even bother responding to him, he's clearly only here to troll. - Merzbow 22:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

C.Logan, I am with you here. There are people here on Wikipedia whose job is only to silence the criticism of Islam. Khorshid, Robertson and others are notable critics and their comments belong here. Your only focus on this article should be on how to improve this article.--Matt57 23:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

<reset> I think after the sentences like "Robert Spencer is especially vocal, having written many books, one titled The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims.[16] Bat Ye'or has studied the phenomenon of dhimma in detail, and stresses "the incompatibility between the concept of tolerance as expressed by the jihad-dhimmitude ideology, and the concept of human rights based on the equality of all human beings and the inalienability of their rights.", we can add some (see ...) to sections where these criticisms are discussed and provide answers to criticisms there. --Aminz 22:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that there has been a fair amount of "criticism of criticism" discussion already (unless you're referring to a document that already exists in Wikipedia). Please discuss it in the CHALLENGE: PART 2 section.

Also: I'm reverting Khorshid's edits, as his "conspiracy theory" addition is unsourced, and seems to be POV, and because Pat Robertson IS a noteable critic, and therefore, by definition, belongs in the "Criticism of Islam" article. And did an incorrect revision. Whoops (forgot to also revise the totallydisputed tag). Kjoery 12:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. thanks! --Matt57 19:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

POV article

This article does not explore criticism of Islam, but criticism of actions by some Muslims and Muslim governments and claims that they have an Islamic basis. This is POV and controversial in itself, as there are many Muslims who also oppose this and criticise human rights violators and abuse of women. In the Shia tradition, for instance, there is a tendency to separate religion from the affairs of the state (Iran's current regime is an abberation). Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, who is the most important source of tradition in Shi'ism as Najaf is more important than Qom, has generally advocated secularism and condemned sectarianism. But there is nothing in this article that shows this. It is mostly about Sunni extremists. This article only states that "The Quran is criticized for advocating the death penalty ... for acts like apostasy, homosexuality, adultery, and theft." The largest Muslim country Indonesia has seen two Gay Pride marches, but you can't even organise a Gay Pride march in Moscow! Clearly, Muslim countries can be more tolerant than non-Muslim countries - intolerance is not something that comes from Islam but from human nature. So there must be something on the refutation of criticism of Islam in order to balance this article.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It is very difficult finding reliable source in English from a Shi'a background. If you can find some, that would be great. - Merzbow 22:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a problem, but Shi'ism of the Najaf seminary is traditionally secular and this is followed by 80 per cent of Shi'i. The problem is if you start on this, you could end up with 10 volumes of books on the subject. Islam is not uniform and is not hierarchical. There is no Vatican. The problem with this article is that it takes the worst examples of Islam and develops a critique against Islam, when there are are Islamic critiques of extremism. We really need good Islamic scholars, rather than outsiders, to write this article. I do not think I am qualified to contribute. I am a secular person of Muslim heritage, but I don't think most people here are able to explore the themes in this article in depth. This is the problem with Wikipedia; amateurs writing about subjects they do not fully understand.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 22:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"In the Shia tradition, for instance, there is a tendency to separate religion from the affairs of the state (Iran's current regime is an abberation)."- It seems true to me. --Aminz 23:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think the velayat faqih in Iran is a tyranny. There should be no compulsion in religion. No man has the right to another's life, which is his first right. No man should strap a suicide belt to his chest and kill innocents and himself. These are the fundamentals of Islam. Those who preach otherwise are straying. But this article make no distinction between doctrine and action. All are the same. In that sense, it is an ignorant article. Any Muslim or those with an understanding of Islam will see this is an ignorant article. So, I am not bothered. You can write what you want, because those who view Islam without prejudice will know the article is wrong. I am not angry about this. I am just disappointed.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hamid, the article does criticize Islam itself. Please read it carefully. --Matt57 23:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There is criticism within Islam of all the bad points of Muslims made in this article. To me, it seems that all the worst examples are put together in a criticism, when Islam encourages people to use their minds and be rational about interpretation. If some kids decided to kill some people in Pakistan accusing them of violating Islam, then many Muslims may seriously question the doctrinal basis of their actions. Talib means student. Taliban means students. They are not scholars, they are people who were never given true guidance. Now Islam is Taliban and no-one is listening to the scholars.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

As an example, look at the Apostate section. It says "The penalty for apostasy, in Islamic law, is death." - which is true. The hadiths exist which sentence an apostate to death and this is Islam, not Muslims. I dont see how your objections are valid. --Matt57 23:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

But for nearly all Muslim countries, apostasy is not punished by death. Why? Because there is a difference in interpretation and because Sharia is not applied in the same away across the Muslim world - sometimes it is not applied at all. I personally know a marja who disagrees with your interpretation of hadith. Who are you to decide? Who am I to decide? These are matters of debate, not fact. Personally, I think the ultimate judgement lies with God and not man, so why take a life? But you obviously know more than me because I was only born into Islam and you are a Westerner and you obviously are superior in your knowledge and experience. Presumably, you read Classical Arabic, are educated in Qu'ran and Haditha, know the Imams, etc. I am just another stupid Arab terrorist who wants to kill you because all Arabs are insane and deceitful religious fundamentalists who like to blow up Buddhist statues.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The article has many related sub articles, such as: Apostasy in Islam. Here you can find the actual hadiths and Islamic laws that order the death sentence. The mention of this happening in real countries is important, because they are obviously following the laws of Islam. Are they not? The fact that moderate Muslims dont follow these laws, is not of relevance here. The destruction of Buddhist status by the way was something Mohammed also did when Islam began, when he destroyed the 360 idols in Kaaba but this is off-topic. I dont see how your discussion is trying to improve this article. Islam itself must be criticized in this article.--Matt57 00:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hamid, your qualifications are irrelevant. MY qualifications are irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is the sources we bring to the article. We need to limit discussion on this page to concrete suggestions to improve the article. - Merzbow 00:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You are not offering a criticism of Islam but of interpretations of Islam. Today, more than 40 died in Shia and Sunni clashes in Pakistan's North West Frontier Province. Interpretations have led to such divisions and sectarianism that Muslims are killing other Muslims in the name of Islam. I think it is terrible and is not sanctioned by religion, but this is where interpretation matters. Muslims are not unified so there is no unified Islam. Do you think you can presume to give an accurate criticism of Islam? What you are doing is giving an atheist's rejection of Islam, not criticisms of Islamic doctrine, which are always subject to varying interpretation. It might be satisfactory to Islamic expiationists and atheists to take a literal view of Islam, but I don't think these views are adequate. They are just views.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If you think there can be more interpretations in criticising Islam, please add them to the article. --Matt57 01:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

My point is that various sects/schools criticise each other. That's why they exist, whether we like it or not. It is very easy to take some Salafi viewpoint or the practices in the Islamic Republic of Iran and set it up for criticism, portraying it as Islam. In fact, these are also criticised from an Islamic standpoint. I personally can't be bothered with having to research so much and do not think I am qualified to do so. I am just saying that if you want to have an article on criticism of Islam, then please ensure that you do not conflate concepts and actions and show that you understand what you are criticising rather than just pick this and that hadith and sura (which are often taken out of context by both Islamic extremists and opponents of Islam).--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well yes sorry, if you want to see changes in the article, you'll have to do them yourself. Just make sure you follow Wikipedia policies. People can disagree with the content but if thats all they do, it doesnt do anything. As they say, you have to be the change you want to see in the world. Try taking a break and come back after a few days, you might have ideas on what to do and how to go about it. --Matt57 01:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

None of us are saying Islam is some monolithic thing. Most of the critics do not say so, and most apologists do not. The extremists on both sides would, actually, have us believe that only they are presenting an accurate portrait of Islam, positive or negative. And don't feel that you must be qualified in some way to edit here. All you need to do is dig up some article or book on the subject by a reliable source and quote or summarize from it in an appropriate place. We're just reporters, not researchers. - Merzbow 06:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the title is a bit misleading. For instance, there are criticisms of the niqab from both non-Muslims and Muslims. Is this criticism of Islam, criticism of the interpretation of Islam or criticism of cultural practice? For non-Muslims, it might be a criticism of Islam and related to perceived gender inequalities in Islam. For Muslim critics, the niqab is unnecessary and not advocated in Islam. But given that this article is about "Criticism of Islam", it only allows the non-Muslim criticism of supposedly Islamic practices and not the Muslim criticism from a doctrinal point of view. I don't know how one gets around this to ensure that the article is balanced and fair. Do you understand what I am trying to say? I will endeavour to get more information at some point for this article, but cannot do this now. However, I hope you will bear in mind my points.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I feel that the article sounds like a giant apologetic as it is, I understand your argument. Perhaps you could add a section devoted to these Muslim criticisms of certain interpretations. Simply clarify that there are Muslims who feel that the popular criticisms are not representative of all Muslims, and elaborate on the "evil Muslim" practices which are criticized by reasonable Muslims as well.--C.Logan 11:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to characterise anyone as evil because of their cultural practices, even when I disagree with them, because I think most people try to do what they think is right and can often act out of ignorance and poor education as well as political manipulation. But I think it would be good to have a section on critiques within Islam of certain practices and doctrines which are also criticised from outside religion. I will do so in a few days when I have time.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I know. I was just mocking the characterization made by outlets like Fox News. Anyway, lets see how far this indentation can continue. I'd like to see if the universe will collapse after we've reached a certain point.--C.Logan 18:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Tell me about it. My nose is squished against the left wall of my room while writing this post. Someone reset the indent or I'll suffocate. On another note we really need to find RS for translations of Tahrir-ol-vasyleh. Quotes from the notable author of this book can be used in articles critical of Islam.--Matt57 20:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

<reset> just a note in response to the last comment, articles aren't ever supposed to be critical of Islam. they are supposed to report on criticism, its responses, and so on. ITAQALLAH 22:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Though you're responding to a particular comment, let's fix your statement.

"just a note in response to the last comment, articles aren't ever supposed to be critical of their subjects- whether it be a religion, an organization, etc. they are only supposed to report on criticisms made by notable experts/personalities, or by a community of people as a whole, its responses, and so on."

There we go...--C.Logan 03:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

that sounds about right.. ITAQALLAH 21:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Fasting and Ramadan

I've noticed that there isn't a section on Fasting in this article. I've no doubt that people have criticized this month-long fast, so there's probably space for it here. I'm going to do some serious google-searching in a bit (just got home), but if anyone has any opinions, sources, etc. at hand, that'd be useful. Some potential issues with Ramadan I've noticed so far are:

~~People with certain diseases like diabetes.~~ Thanks for the clarification.
Fasting at younger ages, ie. the 'teens where people undergo rapid development & changes
Dehydration

Other things that I plan to investigate:

There are reccomended dietary plans, but how many people follow them?
How does eating before sleep, and in the early morning compare to diets that involve eating a full meal at noon, and two minor meals at the beginning and end of the day? How about a full meal at dinner, minor meals at noon and in the morning?
Can any chemical imbalances result?

Note that in all of these issues I'll be looking for critics, but if it ends up being based more on the science of Ramadan, it might be better placed under Sawm. Kjoery 21:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do believe that the old and the infirm (and possibly others) are exempt from the fasting, though I could be thinking about lent. It's possible that some who join in the fast may consider their religiosity before their health, however.--C.Logan 21:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Most diabetics don't fast because they need to take insulin and moderate their sugar levels. Islam does not require weak or chronically ill Muslims to fast during Ramadan. All the pillars of Islam are contingent on the Muslim being physically able to safely perform those actions. Preserving one's health is paramount above all these practices. Ksyed 22:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Kjoery, thanks for the initiative. I hope you can find critics that would talk about:

Economic losses: Possible loss of productivity and energy (not even water is allowed for the entire approximate 12 hour fast from 5am to 5pm)
Economic losses on an international scale when people shorten the day for fasting and change their work routines
Secondary health risks after eating too much food after breaking the fast

I doubt anyone has done surveys and studies to study these effects but even if you can find opinions on these from notable critics, it would be great. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a criticism of Islam, but rather a criticism of taking breaks from work in general. Good luck trying to take away my Spring Break, which I am enjoying at the moment.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 04:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Fasting from 5am to 5pm is a pillar of Islam. Criticism of Fasting is a criticism of Islam. ~~Come on Kirby, you've claimed that you left Islam. Show us some good work on this article.~~ --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think kirby was referring to the "Economic losses" topics you brought up. Although I don't see how taking breaks are related to Ramadan (it isn't a month-long holiday), I do think that it would be extremely hard to link health effects to general worker production, but it might have been done. Kjoery 16:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, lets avoid making personal statements, as it really doesn't help advance discussion Kjoery 16:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I removed my comments. Here are some helpful links. This one is from a Muslim writer, talking about the benefits. Some of these benefits might actually be detriments if checked: [9], and here is one good one which is what we want: [10]. So maybe if you took terms from this 2nd link and googled on it, you might find other sources talking about the same thing, which we could quote and reference. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

find a good source actually criticising Islam for the rite of fasting. ITAQALLAH 17:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Women in Islam

Haddad and Esposito state that

although Islam is often criticized for the low status it has ascribed to women, many scholars believe that it was primarily the interpretation of jurists, local traditions, and social trends which brought about a decline in the status of Muslim women. In this view Muhammad granted women rights and privileges in the sphere of family life, marriage, education, and economic endeavors, rights that help improve women's status in society...However...the Arab Bedouins were dedicated to custom and tradition and resisted changes brought by the new religion.

the inequality of Muslim women happened because of the preexisting habits of the people among whom Islam took root. The economics of these early Muslim societies were not favorable to comfortable life for women. More important, during Islam's second and third centuries the interpretation of the Qur'an was in the hands of deeply conservative scholars, whose decisions are not easy to challenge today. The Qur'an is more favorable to women than is generally realized. In principle, except for a verse or two, the Qur'an grants women equality. For example, Eve was not the delayed product of Adam’s rib (as in the tradition for Christians and Jews); the two were born from a single soul. It was Adam, not Eve, who let the devil convince them to eat the forbidden fruit. Muslim women are instructed to be modest in their dress, but only in general terms. Men are also told to be modest. Many Muslims believe the veiling and seclusion are later male inventions, social habits picked up with the conquest of the Byzantine and Persian Empires.

--Aminz 02:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Critics of Islam

Somebody put this at the top of this page. I am moving it here.

The related Category:Critics of Islam has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page.

--Sefringle 21:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Length of sections on Muhammad and the Qur'an

The sections on Muhammad and the Qur'an are essential and should not be as very short as they became. I therefore restored most of their old longer text yesterday. My intention was to present a slightly shorter version then was originally presented, and then slowly shorten it further to a reasonable length. These sections were originally moved for being too long.

My edits increased the section on Muhammad from about 100 words to about 3500, and the section on the Qur’an from about 150 words to about 6000.

I was therefore surprised that User:C.Logan (?and User:Merzbow) edited to make them even longer and resist my shortening attempts. I therefore think that it would be useful to have a discussion on exactly how long these sections should be.

Remembering that there are separate articles for these two subjects, my suggestion is that we aim for the section on Muhammad about 1000-1500 words, and the section on the Qur’an about 2000-3000 words. In both cases I think all sub-sections should be preserved.

I would be very pleased to hear other editors comments. N-edits 23:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not resisting anything. 95% of Wikipedia articles are too long as it is; right now I'm trying to hack another 20 KB off Islam, for example. If what you're removing is either not sourced or is present in a sub-article, then generally just remove it in the former case or remove or summarize it in the latter. In other cases it's best to ask on talk. - Merzbow 00:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware that you lengthened it considerably, but you also removed some of the information which was previously present. I have no real issues about this article's development, as long as it isn't being censored. I simply wanted to restore some of the text which you'd removed before your bulky addition, as there didn't seem to be any reason for it's outright removal. And, if you did intend to gradually shorten the article, couldn't you gradually revise the text that was present instead of deleting it outright? While I'm aware you aren't any sort of vandal, I'm generally critical about large amounts of text being removed without an specific explanation for their removal. --C.Logan 00:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Merzbow, ive checked the history more carefully, you didnt stop my shortening- On the contrary! I think that other sections are less important and should be shortened first- Muhammad and the Quran are so important.

CLogan, I am not at all censoring, I am proposing a much more informative version than the current tiny sections on Muhammad and the Qur'an, but details such as whether a critic was in the Church of England seem to me to be unnecessary detail in such a long article. These can go in other linked articles.

For the time being I will proceed trying to achieve the lengths of these 2 sections I have outlined above, over the next few days - This question of length is certainly still open for discussion, but i would like to get a feel for what it would look like. N-edits 14:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I was actually talking about specific criticisms which you removed without rephrasing or replacing. I don't know if you noticed, but I wasn't concerned about your removal of the "Church of England" fragment, but I was concerned that you removed a few extra words, and made the sentence nonsensical. That's the only thing I re-added into that particular sentence. Again, I'm more concerned over the removal of specific criticisms which you had originally deleted before adding your body of text.--C.Logan 20:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The length of those two sections should not be expanded that much, that is what sub-articles exist for. We just noticed yesterday that you had simply copy-pasted the entire contents of the sub-articles into this main article, a 60-kilobyte+ increase. You were reverted by two different editors, and yet you've done it again (and I've just reverted again). Please gain consensus for any major changes like this in the future, thanks. - Merzbow 17:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

N-edits, if you would like to expand the sections, do so, but keep it short. This is just a summary, and the people can easily see the full version by clicking on the main article links. See Wikipedia:Summary style.--Sefringle 02:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Habibz

User:Habibz appears to be a sockpuppet of User:His excellency. This is not to say that some of this sock's recent contributions were worthless, but I attempted to keep what was salvageable and put it back into the article in an appropriate manner. The contention that critizing Islam is a form of bigotry was a total violation of WP:OR. Habibz also claimed that Daniel Pipes position was one thing, but his source did not support it. Suggest doing a checkuser, this is definitely a sock (even if it is not H.E.). The uncivil style [11] is similar the uncivil style of H.E., also H.E.'s contribs show extensive editing to Criticism of Islam --ProtectWomen 21:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Other criticism

Lack of link to the Jihad article

I am sure I am neither the first or the last to query lack of such a link. I suggest a link be created to a new page such as "Jihad of the sword", and from that page, to the more general Jihad article on WikiPedia

Thanks for your tolerance of the views of a new person on this discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.126.113 (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

moon God

Some experts criticize Islam and claim that Allah is the moon God.I don't know if it is true or not but it should be mention as part of the aspects that criticize in Islam. http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/skm30804.htm http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-moon-god.htm Oren.tal 12:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

if the criticism of notable then we should be able to find some reliable academic sources documenting this. ITAQALLAH 13:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be academic. Arrow740 00:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it does have to a reliable publication process and trustworthy authors. Smmurphy^(Talk) 06:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Quran error about Jewish faith

The subject shifted to criticism of Quran.Oren.tal 09:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

American thinker

Is this a reliable source? Most would say no. If anyone disagrees please explaining why, else I'll remove this.Bless sins 21:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an article about criticism of islam. Criticism doesn't necessarily have to be scholarly. It just has to be notable to belong in this article.--Sefringle^Talk 03:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

this article is about Criticism of Islam, and just like other articles, content must be reliably sourced. notability has nothing to do with article content. ITAQALLAH 03:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So it fits and is a reliable source. Thanks for the answer. Likwidshoe (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

History of criticism section

C.Logan, would you please explain this edit [12]. It is giving excessive space to one person Ibn Kammuna. The details can be moved to his own article. --Aminz 10:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Page semi-protected for a week

Due to persistent IP vandalism I have semi-protected the page for 1 week. Feel free to comment here or or my talk page if you have any comments. Georgewilliamherbert 18:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

External links section

Is there anything wrong with the external links section? I don't think so. But I have somebody trying to remove an external links section at Religion of Peace which I based as much as I could on the format of this article. How did you agree what goes into this section? Mike Young 12:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Human rights section

i have just noticed that a large number of the statements in the human rights section are highly opinionated and need sourcing, balancing, and attribution. i have tagged the section for now, and will seek to fix up the passages soon. ITAQALLAH 10:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Execuse me, but why my article here was deleted? it was titled "Our point of view", I replied to the guy who talked about Muhammad's pedophillia, and I stated the ages of his wives when he married them, but unfortunately it was deleted, with all of the links I posted! and even more, some of my sources were changed! (And I mean the arabic version of wikipedia, in Muhammad's wives articles, they changed Aisha's age when he married her from 19 to 10, see here http://ar.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D8%A3%D9%85%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%AA_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%A4%D9%85%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%86&diff=1001389&oldid=913613 and they stated nothing about it in the talk page! so please can anybody tell me what did I do wrong? thanks everyone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.233.115.92 (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be the only contribution you've made on this IP, so I can't quite figure out what you're saying. If your issue is with the Arabic Wikipedia, then I'm unsure why you're bringing the issue here.

In all honesty, if you titled something within the article space "Our point of view", I can take a few guesses as to what the problem with your edit may be.--C.Logan 16:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Discrimination against non-Muslims

Hagia Sophia was a ruin before it was converted (better rebuilt) into a mosque. The text seems to say that it was taken over by Ottoman Turks which is not true. Best describe of the status here. Smart_Viral^(talk) 09:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the level of "dilapidation" present in the church, it was, in fact, still in use as a church at least to the point of the evening of May 28th, 1453, less than 24 hours before the city would fall to Turkish hands. It was still in use as a church, and was still considered the central building in Eastern Christianity, until the day of conquest. Shortly thereafter, Mehmed II did indeed "take over" the structure, converting into a mosque (inspiring bitterness in Eastern Christians which remains to this day).

You seem to base your argument on the phrasing of a Wikipedia article: "The sultan Mehmed II ordered the immediate cleanup of the church and its conversion to a mosque." To you, this means that Mehmed "saved" a dilapidated church which had fallen into disuse- when this isn't the case at all (the dilapidation was caused in part by natural disaster, and repairs were, in fact, undertaken). Need I remind you that Wikipedia is not a source, and even to that point, the text in the article in question has no given source either. Even considering all of this is ultimately doesn't matter whether or not Mehmed came in to "restore" a dilapidated structure, because he still, unarguably took the structure away from the people that owned it, and changed its purpose. I don't know how the facts of the matter can be twisted or interpreted in any way which would deny this fact.--C.Logan 14:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It had to be cleaned up because it was full of corpses after the massacre. It was a beautiful church until it was devastated by Mehmed II. Ironically Muslims want the Cathedral of Cordoba returned to their use. Maybe when they give back Hagia Sophia...Islam does not "save" churches.141.156.87.150 23:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Men allowing to beat wives

I know this is already mentioned in the critisim of the qu'ran about how men are only allowed to beat them lightly, but it should be mentioned on this page as well. Women who misbehave [not praying, not reading the quran, and just not being honest] should first be talked to. Then if she still does this, she should be talked to more firmly. Then your allowed to just lighly hit her on the back. This should be more clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TelusFielder (talk • contribs) 04:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The info included is sourced, and therefore shouldn't be removed just because you have a problem with it. If you think the info is important, then you should probably find a source which supports it, and attempt to incorporate it. Additionally, that article notes that this interpretation is largely confined to modern interpretations of the text- something worth noting if such information is included.--C.Logan 04:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You can "only" beat your wife "lightly"-sheesh.141.156.87.150 23:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I dispute these claims about beating wives. It is a mistranslation of the original yadribuhun which is more accurately translated as strike or discipline - ie wives can be disciplined with a light strike whereas the connotations of beating are that of abuse.

The sources quoted are questionable - the first source is Yusuf Ali's translation which is now several decades old and has been superceded by more recent and accurate translations e.g., The second tafsir of Ibn Kathir is again a translation problem akin to that above which is contradicting by numerous jurists. I think this point needs to be updated if that's ok with you Logan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk54 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed wikilink on word scriptures

I removed a wikilink on word scriptures in the intro, as it didn't link to a definition of scriptures, but instead linked to the article: Criticism of the Qur'an. This seemed to be pushing a POV. It may be worth checking other wikilinks in this article, to see if they link to what is expected.--Lester 14:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't really find that link to be an issue, but I've followed suit and removed a few other links in the intro. For example, it says that critics criticize Islam on philosophical, scientific, and theological grounds. However, these all link to the Islamic versions of the fields. Obviously, they criticize Islam "on scientific grounds" when it departs from science; they are not criticizing "Islamic science" as it is. The same applies for "philosophical". However, they do criticize the theology directly, so I didn't see it proper to remove this link.--C.Logan 18:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The text where I deleted the link was this: "Some critics oppose Islamic scriptures and teachings". As the second sentence of the article, I wanted a neutral definition of what an "Islamic text" is, not an article that says how bad the Qur'an is. Even though this article is itself critical, the links o definitions should all be neutral. Thanks--Lester 14:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

if it is article about criticism then the link may be critic about Islam and don't have to be neutral.Otherwise we can not put any link to web site that criticize Islam.Oren.tal 12:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Not so. Wikipedia itself must be neutral, and when we provide a Wikilink for a definition of a word, it must also link to a neutral definition. Lester 20:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Move of Apostasy section to Human Rights

I think we should move the section on Apostasy to the heading of Human rights. Apostates do not necessary criticise Islam. They may "quietly" change religion, as such it is more of a "Human rights" issue than a "Intolerance of Islam to criticism" issue Mike Young 17:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Added November 28, 2007: How can Mike Young dismiss the Intolerance issue by saying apostacy is merely a "quiet change" when apostacy in Islam is a capital offense,and the punishment is death? This is the sort of politically correct attitude and belief by some that completely misses the points made by those of us who see Islam for what it is, an essentially intolerant collectionf of views toward non-muslims.

The "Intolerance of islam to Criticism" is clearly the fundamental issue behind the death penalty prescribed for apostacy. For all who think it's just human rights, Apostacy is about Islam and intoerance for any form of denial that Islam is the truth and answer for enlightened people. They cannot handle any criticism (hence the lashes for an English school teacher for allowing students to name a Teddy Bear Mohammad, or Salmon Rushdie's death penalty, or murdering people for films about Islamic treatment of women. It's all about Islam, human rights is the outcome, but the source of the problems is their religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.227.83 (talk • contribs)

I think you are misunderstanding what Mike is saying. Some Muslims become dissatisfied with Islam and change to another religion without ever explaining why they choose to leave it. Even if one does explain, his reason would probably fall under some heading other than his (possible) disapproval of how they treat apostates. In other words, mere apostasy is not criticism.

However, the persecution of apostates, where it occurs, is eminently worthy of criticism as a violation of human rights. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

note section

Don't you think it should be the most lowest.I mean nobody intersting to pass on it,unless he came there from the text.Therefore I susgest to put it the lowest.132.72.70.37 23:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, on a related note, I'm pretty sure the section should be called "references", and the current section by that name should somehow be consolidated into it (I didn't care to check if they were already listed, but if they were, then the redundancy is unnecessary).--C.Logan 00:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Article 18

This grants Muslims the right to change or renounce their religion. This right is not compliant with Shari'ah, which specificly forbids it [13] (see Apostasy in Islam).

The reference does not support the supposition. → AA ^(talk) — 23:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, it does say that. Muslims believe you are not free to change your religion from a Muslim to anything else (and debate about what penalties should be imposed). Article 14 specifically allows this, so that is why the Islamic countries will not sign. Mike Young (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

the about.com website generally isn't considered a reliable source. secondly, it constitutes original research (in particular, WP:SYNTH) to make links not explicitly established in the sources, such as the claim of incompatibility with Article 14. thirdly, if a relevant reliable source is found, the opinion must be attributed. ITAQALLAH 19:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

So the problem is that the statement is true, but for the sake of neatness we have to find a better reference? Is that right? Mike Young (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

truth isn't the issue - i am sure many people would take issue with the claim of contradiction, especially those who may not see Islam as monolithic - so my concern here is not what i think is necessarily "true." the issue is (always) verifiability. the specific analysis of the relationship between Article 18 and Islam must be present in an appropriate source (and then attributed to it), as per our content policies. ITAQALLAH 20:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, found a better link, and inserted it. Mike Young (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Mike, the issue is original research. as with the previous source, this source says nothing at all about Article 18. it is your own original synthesis which makes the comparison. i have explained above why opinions on this matter differ, and Ghamidi's opinion is one of many. ITAQALLAH 12:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

i see you have replaced the renaissance link with one from HRW. this is better, though this is a direct criticism of Iran and its ithna-`ashari government. i will change the text accordingly. ITAQALLAH 12:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Have rewritten the sub-section. I think the reference to article 18 should stay, as much of the rest of the article talks about it, I have moved the paragraph about Iran's rejection of article 18 a footnote. I have moved the section on Malyasia, as it is not about a human rights convention. I have substituted a better paragraph for the "Shiria is compliant with human rights" argument. I don't see why you need to challenge the lack of ability to convert from Islam in the Cairo declairation. It may have much to criticise it, but it does have the virtue of being short and readable. Click on the link. It takes two minutes to read. Read it and you will see it has is no right for Muslims to change their religion in the it. Mike Young (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

please consider that there are multiple interpretations of Islam. not everyone will agree with yours, or of a particular group or government. declaring a monolithic position on an issue of controversy like this is simply unwise and not neutral. the mention of article 14 is out of place here, there is no pressing reason to mention it if it lacks the required verification. ITAQALLAH18:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast response. Unfortunately with all religions, you can always find somebody who does not believe any particular view. The minority view (that there is not a problem with human rights) is mentioned in the last paragraph. The idea that the death penalty does not apply to sane adult males is around, as you say, but is still a minority view, the idea that there should be no punishment for the conversino of a sane adult male is much rarer. The verfication about article 14 is in the footnote (religated from a paragraph). Mike Young (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Restructure

I have restructured the article. The aim of this is to reduce redundancy and make the article clearer. Note the following:

Except for a very few obvious, literally contradictory and unreferenced statements. I have removed nothing. If you can't find your favourite paragraph, please search for it. It will turn up, but it may have been moved.
The restructuring at least puts everything in a logical order, and was done to make things clearer. This will make it easier to find an argument. It will also make it easier for Muslims to find the response, and to see which arguments do not have a response if they wish to add one.
This restructuring reveals that the article is uneven, for example there is a lot about apostasy, but almost nothing about women in Islam. There is a long listing of who critics are, and a long list of responders, but less on what the arguments and responses actually are. If the article looks uneven at the moment bear in mind it was before, it was just it was less obviously so.
I have decided to try to separate the criticisms themselves from who made them. So I have a list that includes who the critics are, and a brief section on what they say. There is then a structured list of what the criticisms of Islam are, with the responses, if any, grouped together. The criticisms seem to have references, and most, but not all, have responses.
Remember that a listed criticism is a statement that the criticism has been made, not that the criticism is valid or true.

Mike Young 21:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

i see a few general problems with the restructure. material in an encyclopedia should be written in proper prose (please see WP:LAYOUT)- several parts of the article seem to resemble sets of lists and bullet points. the lead is especially problematic in that regard (and bloated as a result), i would prefer that the previous version of the lead be restored. there are other areas which i think are an improvement, such as the better categorising of critiques. along with this restructure, i would like to see us ensuring the use of reliable sources (which document the criticisms) in the place of partisan ones (which make the criticisms); as well as a better balance of critique vs. responses. by the way- in a matter unrelated to your restructure, i have removed the section based on Sperry's claims as per the consensus reached here. ITAQALLAH 22:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Er let me see:

Prose vs lists: Perhaps Prose is better than just plain lists (although some people seem to like and want lists, there are loads of "list of...." articles, which show the demand for it). The nature of this particular article does tend towards bullet points: people usually want to make several points about the same subject, list several authors etc, and this is difficult to do coherently using prose. The idea of bullet points was invented to overcome this very problem, and is becoming more common in modern prose. (the only disadvantage is that it is worse if you read it aloud). I have tried to avoid plain lists, so for example I added a couple of lines (usually taken from their own Wikipedia pages) for some of the critics or responders whose only appeared as names.

The problem with reliable sources. I am only copying in the pre-existing references. But the real problem is that there is no definition of reliable, and being reliable is not quite the same as important. If Jerry Falwell or Osama Bin Laden make a statement about Islam those statements becomes important because of who made it, not necessarily because it has any acedemic validity.

Balance of critiques and responses. Again I have only restructured what was there. The restructuring may make any lack of balance more obvious, and show where further work needs to be done.

Section on Islam and War. Sperry's section on Islam and War was in before the restructure, I didn't notice the fight about it. I'm going to stand back from this one. If anyone else wants to restart this debate, please do so.

Mike Young 13:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

i will try to see if the lists can be condensed into decent prose while maintaining its clarity. with regards to your other points, i do understand these issues were pre-existing. i was thinking that a renovation in structure may be an incentive for us to work collaboratively in addressing the other problems present in this article as well. regarding sourcing, a person making a claim doesn't have to necessarily be reliable, but at the very list the claim needs to have been transmitted through a reliable source (i.e. in continuation of your above example, an OBL statement appearing on a mainstream media outlet) - so we can cite that source instead of the primary source (this helps us determine which claims are important as opposed to which claims a particular editor personally feels are important). ITAQALLAH 14:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

one major issue that i am having with the current version is that in most sections, especially ones containing lists, there has been no attempted neutralisation by presenting alternative views which dispute critics' assertions. the article should ideally present both sides of the debate, but in many areas, it's one-way traffic. ITAQALLAH 16:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is neutral as it says what the criticisms are, not if they were true. As I have said before, I have only restructured what was already there, so this is not a restructure problem, but rather a problem with the original content. Please feel free to add any responses you want. I will add any I come accross. The best way is probably to just put "(Muslim response^[13])" if you want to add one. Mike Young (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a secondary issue to me. The article still isn't in the least encyclopedic. Take the "Apostasy in Islamic law" section. It starts with a quote of Bernard Lewis explaining law--not criticizing it. The rest of the section goes the same way. This article isn't "explaining things the editor thinks are bad about Islam", it's "criticism of Islam". That means we need to supply criticisms in the sections. That's the first step in making this article actually follow its title--once we get to that point we can try to reform style and make it a good article. gren グレン 03:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

But one can not explain criticisms unless he explains shortly what is being criticized at the beginning. These explanations if come from critics tend to be unbalanced. --Aminz (talk) 05:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

They are unbalanced in relation to Islam. They are not unbalanced in relationship to Criticism of Islam. Criticism is opinion and we have defined it in this article to be critical opinion. Here is the problem with this article we have no (okay, one or two exceptions) secondary sources about this subject. Everything is primary. Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'or, etc these are all critics but what we need is someone who discusses them. But, we can still make an article out of primary sources (since we have looser rules of WP:NOR for that). But, this article is fundamentally different from Islam because what you want is for Islam to be neutrally represented in this article... and this subject just doesn't represent Islam neutrally. My hope is that readers are intelligent enough to realize that an article about critics of Islam and their criticism is not going to be neutral towards Islam since ... the title clearly states it's not... gren グレン 05:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think you raised an important point. We need a source that describes the views of critics of Islam in its 1400 year history. Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'or are simply contemporary critics and relying too much on them is undue. For that we need secondary sources that describe Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'or et al and other historical critics. --Aminz (talk) 05:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"True" or "False"

This article states: "Islam has been critici[z]ed on the grounds that it is not true."

However, this is a highly invalid, and by extension untrue itself. Only propositions (statements) can be "True" or "False." Religions, (although they contain propositions), are not themselves propositions and cannot be "True" or "False." Carlon (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If it contains a false proposition (indeed many false propositions), then is it not reasonable to say that the religion itself is false? JRSpriggs (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There are some "True/False" statements which a religion makes. Example: "Mohammed flew to heaven from Jeusalem on a winged horse" this statement is either True or False. "The Koran is inerrent, and internally consistent, it contains no contradictions" is either Ture or False. Many criticisms of Islam consist of attempting to disprove such True/False statements. Mike Young (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Untitled Comments

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda. Nor is it a forum for general discussion. This applies to articles. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia may not use propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, political, religious, or otherwise. So why is this question and response style page cluttering Wikipedia??? Thriving1 (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Thriving1

Ha-ha, that's a good one. Wikipedia is a super-magnet for ideologues anxious, desperate, to defend their religion and editorally persecute those who disagree. Many articles have been taken over by these ideolgues who guard the site 24 hrs a day--and instantly delete any comentary with which they disagree. Anthing having to do with race, Jews, Hitler--many of the left-wing politically correct entries--are guarded over with fervid care by zealous cadre of acolytes. Try it yourself. Try to add a sentenced to these sites and see how long it remains in place. An hour in some sites. Rarely overnight. Complain to higher Wiki authorities and you will be banned for "Attacking (enter religion here)].Tholzel (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

^ Edward W. Said, Islam Through Western Eyes, The Nation, January 1, 1998
^ ^a ^b Montgomery Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, London, Oxford University Press, 1961, p. 108, ISBN 0-19-881078-4, [14]
^ "Who Is Daniel Pipes?". CAIR official website.
^ Watt, W. Montgomery (1961). Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. Oxford University Press. p. 229. ISBN 0-19-881078-4.
^ Armstrong, Karen (1993). Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet. HarperSanFrancisco. p. 165. ISBN 0-06-250886-5.
^ Esposito, John L. (2002). What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-515713-3.
^ Esposito, John L. (2003). Unholy War : Terror in the Name of Islam. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-516886-0.
^ Esposito, John L. (1999). The Islamic Threat : Myth or Reality?. Oxford University Press. pp. 225–228. ISBN 0-19-513076-6.
^ Edward W. Said, Islam Through Western Eyes, The Nation, January 1, 1998
^ Britannica 15th edition 25:686, The Rejection of Religion or Religiousness
^ Britannica 15th edition 25:692, History of the Philosophy of Religion, Islamic Concepts; Basic Themes and Problems in the Philosophy of Religion
^ A new generation of nomally independent philosophers, closely linked to the heritage of New Philosophers, agree on a stance against multiculturalism: 'The Philosophy of Human Rights' Paul Cliteur. De filosofie van mensenrechten. Nijmegen 1999
^ insertref

[1] Edward W. Said, Islam Through Western Eyes, The Nation, January 1, 1998

[Watt1-2] Montgomery Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, London, Oxford University Press, 1961, p. 108, ISBN 0-19-881078-4, [14]

[3] "Who Is Daniel Pipes?". CAIR official website.

[Watt-4] Watt, W. Montgomery (1961). Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. Oxford University Press. p. 229. ISBN 0-19-881078-4.

[5] Armstrong, Karen (1993). Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet. HarperSanFrancisco. p. 165. ISBN 0-06-250886-5.

[6] Esposito, John L. (2002). What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-515713-3.

[7] Esposito, John L. (2003). Unholy War : Terror in the Name of Islam. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-516886-0.

[8] Esposito, John L. (1999). The Islamic Threat : Myth or Reality?. Oxford University Press. pp. 225–228. ISBN 0-19-513076-6.

[9] Edward W. Said, Islam Through Western Eyes, The Nation, January 1, 1998

[10] Britannica 15th edition 25:686, The Rejection of Religion or Religiousness

[11] Britannica 15th edition 25:692, History of the Philosophy of Religion, Islamic Concepts; Basic Themes and Problems in the Philosophy of Religion

[12] A new generation of nomally independent philosophers, closely linked to the heritage of New Philosophers, agree on a stance against multiculturalism: 'The Philosophy of Human Rights' Paul Cliteur. De filosofie van mensenrechten. Nijmegen 1999

[13] sertref

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]