Talk:Criticism of Muhammad/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Where are we At

talks have stalled it seems so where are we at.

I think that any material which isn't a direct and clear criticism be removed. Iβn Kᾱτhir ^τᾱℓк 09:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, welcome back. I don't think anything stalled; we all just needed a break.

In principle I agree. Where we disagree is what constitutes direct and clear criticism. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

To start this page isnt The history of Criticism of Muhammad so the article needs to undergo that transformation, the entire structre is wrong, i think once that has been done it would be eisier to identify what can stay as much of the material pampers to that history notion [which is why it isnt of any notacible quality] rather than concentrating on the critisism itself. Once the categories are redefined than most of these quoes wont have a place as the headings are confusing when you keep in mind it is ment to discuss critical issues and not be a history lesson. Iβn Kᾱτhir ^τᾱℓк 22:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you care to propose a structure here, or create a draft in your userspace for others to consider? ~Amatulić (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism by Source i think is the most effective method, it is the structure of the critisism of jesus and moses pages. Iβn Kᾱτhir ^τᾱℓк 06:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

We've come a long way in removing some persistent trash from this article, though I agree it can still use improvement. Organizing the article using criticism by source will allow us to remain consistent with the other articles. Planuu (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I know of no requirement to be consistent with other articles whose structure is also questionable. A structure that works in one article won't necessarily work in another. Criticism by source wouldn't be best in this case, because some criticisms (such as the one regarding Aisha's age) are leveled by many different sources. It would seem rather monotonously repetitive to have a section for each one. This article should be about criticism, after all, not about critics. We could rename the article to Critics of Muhammad I suppose. But as an article about criticism, it seems best to organize the article around specific criticisms. Right now it's kind of a hodge-podge, with sections about sources and sections about criticism. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Spellburg is the only one mentioned in that section worth keeping, rather than repeat the criticism over and over again you keep the one by the most notable and most qualified to comment on the issue, the quality of the article will improve in that manner as well, i think that is why the criticism of Jesus and Moses pages are of a higher quality. Iβn Kᾱτhir ^τᾱℓк 07:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It almost sounds like you're trying to censor the article, which is not how it's done here. The articles on Jesus and Moses are irrelevant to this article. The criticism of Muhammad have been more or less centred around his dubious activities, not his historical truths and that's why the article on Jesus and Moses are more reflective of truth and such I suppose.. Jesus and Moses were more historical characters, not bloodthirsty warlords like Muhammad was! --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal opinions however have no place ;-) Were does Criticism come from if not from Critics? Find the most collective critisicm, such as the Muslim Conquest, his Marriage to Ashia Ect. Trivial Criticise by one or two critics are not important enough, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Τασουλα (talk • contribs) 16:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the no repetition structure. I would rather see one section per criticism. Moreover, some of the material that doesn't fit this new structure should probably be moved to Medieval Christian views on Muhammad. Wiqixtalk 16:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Where talking about structure of the article not your personnel opinion of the prophet muhammad, keep the insults to your self or learn history from scholars not tabloid websites. Iβn Kᾱτhir ^τᾱℓк 21:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of Danish cartoon which resulted death threats

How about including the Danish cartoons of Muhammad which brought death threats to the cartoonist? [:File:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png] --Freespeech2008 (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No, for obvious reasons. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not, they were criticism of Muhammad. They're pretty relevant. Abyssal (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

They were depictions of Muhammad. The pictures constituted editorial opinions and parody, not quite the same thing as criticism. We already have an article on that topic. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal Of Hate Filled Image

I removed the image in which it was shown that our beloved prophet is being tortured in hell,it is an image which hurts my feelings,I dont care if it is a fresco or a view of what europeans think of our prophet but the truth is no one except god can decide who goes to hell so stop putting such images that hurt other peoples feelings and learn to live in peace,stop creating conflict,the views of people regarding our prophet make no difference to us,we forgive them as they have not read the quran and are ignorant about the greatness of our divine prophet,we forgive them for those comments and that image,blessed be they who hurt the divine thinking they can gain something by it.Muzammil901 (talk) 07:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCENSORED. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It was the wrong justification for the right edit. This article is supposed to be for criticism of Muhammad, not for the western world's conceptions of Muhammad. I am beginning to think that we need to draw the attention of the wider community to the article. (PS: I left a note at WT:WikiProject Religion/Interfaith work group) I see the following options for what this article could be about:

1. Honest criticism of Muhammad as a person and/or of his status in Islam. (Excluding mere abuse and other baseless negativity.)
2. Views on Muhammad in the western world. (Including the large amount of positive views.)
3. Everything negative that we can find about Muhammad.

The article seems to have started as type 3, while pretending to be of type 1. This is how it escapes deletion as a POV fork of Muhammad. The image is not appropriate in an article of type 1, just like this image (depicting an actual piece of art by Martin Kippenberger) would not be appropriate in the article Criticism of Jesus. Hans Adler 10:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hans, your comments, above, are spot-on. I'd like to see it be of type 1 (and I think Criticism of Jesus is a good example), but it is of type 3. What can be done? JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

<sarcasm>I note that the problems here would probably be resolved rather quickly if believing Muslims were capable of the same negative approach to Christianity that the Christian and atheist majority here is taking to Islam, and if they were editing Criticism of Jesus accordingly. This does not happen because Islam recognises Jesus as a prophet. If it did happen, it would force the community to apply the same standards to both articles. Maybe I should ask the Hindus for help with Criticism of Jesus.</sarcasm> Hans Adler 10:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism and suggestion

I've just read the article (as a casual reader) and my first impression is that it still needs some work (but I suspect that was already evident to those who've already posted above). My main criticism is the structure of the article but I'll get to that shortly.

First of all, though, I've noticed here and at Muhammad, that there is little, if any, mention of the possibility that Muhammad may not even have existed. I seem to recall reading some notable author (possibly Ibn Warraq or someone of that cut) who called Muhammad's very existence into question. Consequently, I was surprised not to find anything here about it. And even if my memory is faulty, I'm still confident that someone somewhere would have questioned the historicity of someone who apparently lived so long ago and about whom so little reliable evidence seems to exist.

Secondly, I note that Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq et al are included in a sidebox but why aren't more (if any) of their arguments included in-text? Instead, we start off with Jewish and Christian views (which is reasonable) but then get bogged down in namecalling.

And why non-religious views is subheaded under the bizarre title of "Personal motives" (What the...?) is beyond this reader's understanding. Which brings me back to my main point: I'd like to propose a new layout for this article, which I've outlined below.

1 Perspectives

1.1 Contemporary criticisms

Perspectives of those people and cultures who lived in the region and were directly affected by Muhammad's actions

1.2 Jewish criticisms

Past to present

1.3 Christian criticisms

Past to present

1.4 Criticisms by other cultures

Perspectives, if any, of Hindu, Chinese, African cultures

1.5 Modern criticism

Modern critics who don't best fall into any of the previous categories. They could be subheaded if necessary.

2 Points of contention

As is, but including a section on Muhammad's historicity (sources permitting)

Let me know what you all think. Thanks. -- LordVetinari (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The historicity of Muhammad appears off-topic to me, and is already covered by Historicity of Muhammad. And I am not sure that I agree with your proposed structure -- or that I don't. Hans Adler 16:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's arguable whether it is off-topic but, regardless, don't you think there should at least be a more obvious link to Historicity of Muhammad? Perhaps just a sentence mentioning historicity which links to the main article. I had no idea the Historicity of Muhammad article existed until you mentioned it. Not surprising because the only link to it in this article is hidden away in a tiny sidebox being smothered beside the main body of text. As for my proposed structure, I'm not going to push for it's acceptance; I'm just presenting the structure that I, independent of both this topic and it's editing, would have expected to find. LordVetinari (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

As I stated in a previous section above, I like a structure framed around criticism rather than around critics. The problem is that it may have too many sections, risking repetition of criticism that spans multiple time periods and cultures. I'd prefer to see an article that covers the major criticisms (slavery, laws, women, underage marriage, religious criticisms, etc.) rather than criticism organized by time period and culture. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

LordVetinari, thanks for providing such useful and coherent suggestions, your effort is appreciated! That being said, I tend to agree with Amatulić that a structure based on individual topics would probably be a more efficient presentation simply in terms of reducing duplication. Still, anything that leads to an improvement in the article is worth considering. Doc Tropics 22:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you DocTropics. Although I understand both Amatulic's point of view (criticism not critics) and your own (efficiency), I'd like to elaborate on mine as my views have sightly changed and, also, I don't think my original concern was presented clearly. I think I agree with Amatulic's suggestion as outlined on 25th of March. We need to keep in mind, though, that some criticisms have been official or popular views within certain cultures. Therefore, it needs to be emphasised that some of the individuals cited are not presenting their own personal criticism but simply giving good expression to the views of their community. I'm happy to see Amatulic's structure come to fruition as it makes sense, avoids repetition and is efficient. However, we need to avoid falling into the trap of giving, for want of a better term, "equal weight" to St John of Thingburg (895-943 AD), on the one hand, and Dr Jennifer Something (1958-) on the other. Where the former elucidates prevailing community opinion the latter offers a structured analysis following the dictates of modern criticism under a scientific methodology.

My concern is based on the fact that, under the section labelled Contemporary Western criticisms, the first significant sentence describes the two-word opinion of Jerry Falwell. Seriously?! Granted, he's contemporary (if only to modern readers), he's western (in a west-east sociological dichotomy) and he's critical (if you equate name-calling with criticism), but why is he included in this section? Why is he included at all? The same section sees the well-written views of Ayaan Hirsi Ali reduced to as much substance as Falwell's brief rant. I've read both Hirsi Ali and ibn Warraq. Their writings are structured, lucid and intelligent. It needs to be emphasised that they are no in sense in the same class of critic as an evangelical christian and a politician.

What do I suggest, then? Adopt Amatulic's structure but rely primarily on modern critics as their methodology is more structured, their research has more depth and their final opinions are less likely to be hindered by inter-religious rivalry. Pre-modern critics and their modern counterparts (I include here both Luther and Falwell) are hindered culturally and philosophically, making them less reliable as sources. This doesn't mean that all Jewish/Christian critics should be discounted, of course, merely that "more weight" should be given to those who present rational and structured criticisms.

LordVetinari (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

We should probably also add a section; something like "Responses to Criticism" to include and expand on info in the second paragraph of the lede. Currently the info is sourced and relevant, but doesn't seem to appear in the body (although I may have missed it). Doc Tropics 22:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Isolating the responses in a separate section breaks NPOV for the same reason that isolating criticism in a separate criticism section breaks NPOV. Responses belong near whatever it is they are responding to. Hans Adler 22:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about those responses, just to the text in the second paragraph. The info I mentioned doesn't seem to be covered elsewhere, that's why I'm suggesting a new section. These are not responses to individual criticisms, but actions against critics in response to their statements...separate topic. Doc Tropics 23:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Our Religion Is The Religion Of Abraham

We Muslims have been told by the Quran that if anyone asks us about our religion,we are to tell them that our religion is the religion of Abraham who was never an Idol Worshipper.

Worship of anthropologic objects and having excessive love for anthropologic objects like idols and human beings is indeed a sin against the god who created us because the life given to us is a test and just like god sends water in the form of rain to revive dead lands and create crops,so also human beings will be resurrected by will of god,the god of Abraham,the god of Isaac,and Ishmael,and Moses,Jesus and finally Muhammad(s.a.w),the last and greatest of the prophets,all had one message,"Your god,our lord is One".

I really feel this is one of the best articles on Wikipedia though the inflammatory content of this article needs to be reduced as it is counter productive,you call Muhammad(s.a.w) a pedophile,my question is this,Joseph married Mary(Maryam in Arabic) when she was 12 and his age at the time is matter of debate some saying its 20,some 40 and some even 90,does that make him a pedophile,the fact is at that time,child marriages were a custom among all people,we Muslims consider Mary to be holy,she is one of the most respected figures in Islam,my question is when we respect your holy figures why cant you have the same respect for Aisha and the prophet,why this name calling and this excessively inflammatory content,who are we to decide the age of consent,it is for the girl and her father or mother who decide it.Please read this:http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htmMuzammil901 (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You do understand that not everyone who isn't a Muslim is a Christian? Badger Drink (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Jerry Vines

The following is what is more or less heard from people who are for keeping the quote:

"Spencer's books are surely reliable sources for Spencer's own views, irrespective of whether they are reliable for anything else."

My question is if I go on CNN and give a talk on US ecconomy -a field that I have no expertise in- can it be used in Wikipedia as a reliable source? Based on the argument that my own words are reliable sources for my own views?

I guess what we are mis-interpreting Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources in the following sentence:

"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves "

Jerry Vines, is by no means giving information about himself in that statement.Kazemita1 (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No he isn't but that isn't relevant here. If you search Google Scholar for Jerry Vines and Muhammad, you find plenty of reliable sources that provide coverage of what Vines says about Muhammad, sufficient to warrant inclusion in this article. Spencer is just one source. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Amatulic. You insist that we include Jerry Vines' statement here even though we know he is not familiar enough with the history to call Aisha Muhammad's last wife? Does not that indicate Vines is lacking the expertise on the subject(to have his words in a Wiki article)?Kazemita1 (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It really isn't up to us to make judgments about someone's knowledge. If other reliable sources saw fit to cover the statements Jerry Vines made, then that meets the WP:GNG criteria for inclusion. Where is it required that a critic have perfect background knowledge for leveling criticism? Criticism is often rooted in ignorance or selective knowledge. If it weren't then disagreements wouldn't arise. 06:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I would love to see a reliable source that confirms Muhammad was demon-possessed.Kazemita1 (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of reliable sources throughout history have engaged in criticism or speculation about Muhammad; arguing, for example, that he had epilepsy, had a mental illness, was a pedophile, is the Antichrist, and so forth. It is ridiculous to expect to find sources that confirm any of these things. You won't find a reliable source that confirms the non-existence of Jesus either, but sufficient sources examine that topic that we have a whole article on it. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If Mr Vines has made any substantial, intelligent criticism of Muhammad, then his statements should be included. However, if his comments amount to nothing more than name-calling, then they have as much significance here as the teasings of a schoolyard bully. After all, this is supposed to be a serious article, not an opportunity to decribe every negative thing we can find, as Hans Adler pointed out. LordVetinari (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you LordVetinari for the point. Dear Amatulic, please find a reliable source that examines Muhammad being demon-possessed. And a reilable source that examines Aisha being his last wife, but not the second one.Kazemita1 (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Please refrain from creating standards for inclusion that don't exist, and refrain from redefining "criticism" as something other than what it is: the passing of judgment about the merits of something. This article isn't called "Examinations of Muhammad", it's called "Criticism of Muhammad". Criticism need not be accompanied by detailed examination, although it's more interesting if it does.

Plenty of reliable, even scholarly, sources describe this statement from Jerry Vines. Plenty of scholarly sources examine the phenomenon of anti-Islamic and anti-Muhammad attitudes. Wikipedia doesn't dictate how readers should judge the intelligence of any criticism; the standard is significant coverage in reliable sources. While I agree that this "name calling" isn't a detailed criticism accompanied by a detailed rationale (as opposed to the "name calling" by others such as Martin Luther or Geert Wilders), the coverage by reliable sources is so pervasive that Wikipedia violates its mission of being encyclopedic by omitting it. At the very least, it should be included in a separate, general section devoted to anti-Muhammad attitudes. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I am just asking you to support your own statements, like this one: "you find plenty of reliable sources that provide coverage of what Vines says about Muhammad". and Vines says Aisha was Muhammad's last wife and that Muhammad was possessed by demons.Kazemita1 (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The "2nd wife" comment is irrelevant, and not a criticism. I already supported my statements. Go to scholar.google.com, type "jerry vines demons" or something similar. I see sources like the New York Times and academic journals such as Review of Religious Research 47(2) and 48(1), Journal of Islamic Literature and Culture 7, and Patterns of Prejudice 38(2) — as well as sources cited in the Jerry Vines article, and several books on books.google.com. How many do you want? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

By reliable source I actually meant a source other than Jerry Vines himself. (Who wouldn't say I am right?). The scholarly sources that include Jerry Vines' statement are mainly using it as a means to criticise Vines himself, not Muhammad. They could be used in an article titled "Criticism of Jerry Vines" not in this article. If you want to have this statement (or similar) in this article, you need to bring a scholarly source in which the author (a scholar) portrays Muhammad as demon-possessed.Kazemita1 (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, Jerry Vines is a perfectly acceptable source for his own statements, particularly if they include reasoning to support the name-calling. Such a source would be acceptable due to its notoriety and coverage by other reliable sources. Similarly, Bertrand Russel, Thomas Aquinas, and Friedrich Nietzsche are acceptable sources for their own statements, and they are quoted in Criticism of Jesus. I'm not saying Vines is comparable to them, but Vines is certainly a notable contemporary figure (worthy of his own Wikipedia article) whose comments about Muhammad receive wide coverage.

Second: Did you look at the sources? They quote Vines in the context of anti-Islamic attitudes, not criticism of Vines.

Third: Your personal judgment about what should and should not be included isn't backed up by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Once again, please don't invent your own criteria for inclusion. significant coverage of a statement is the threshold, not whether a scholar has argued whether Muhammad is demon-possessed. And by the way, a scholar making such an argument would likely not be acceptable as a source (see WP:FRINGE) unless that argument was cited or discussed in multiple other sources. If Vines makes a statement that reliable sources ignore, then it would violate WP:UNDUE to include it. But that isn't the case here.

Finally, policies aside, I do agree that a notable person spouting off a label without accompanying reasoning is a pretty weak candidate for criticism even though it fits the definition of criticism. I haven't read Vines' full speech (I don't know if it's available, even), so I can't determine if he explains his labeling, as opposed to similar name-calling by Geert Wilders and Martin Luther, who do go into some detail explaining their views. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

On one hand, Vines is a notable, contemporary Christian commentator with a large audience, and he is certainly a RS when it comes to his own opinion (even if he misspeaks about certain technical details). On the other hand, he's also pretty much an ignorant douche-bag and I certainly wouldn't want him representing my point of view.

It seems that there are really two separate issues: The "demon-possessed" bit more closely belongs with theories that Muhammad might have had a tumor, been epileptic, or was otherwise non compos mentis, if it belongs anywhere at all (debatable). The charge of pedophilia however, is significant, notable, and historic....it needs to be clearly addressed. Doc Tropics 22:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus on name/label calling or what?Kazemita1 (talk) 06:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Check out my recent change. I removed the quotation from Vines but kept in that both Vines and Wilders have referred to Muhammad as a pedophile. As Doc Tropics stated, the charge of pedophilia is significant and notable, so it needs to be included. Naming a few examples without actually quoting them should, I hope, be satisfactory. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I still think this is the wrong article for this kind of information, but in that form [1] I consider it acceptable. Hans Adler 18:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Vines is certainly not a reliable source on Islam. But we're not citing him, we're citing reliable sources demonstrating that his criticism of Islam is noteworthy. "Noteworthy" hardly means "correct". And this is hardly the only reliable source that discusses Vines' statement. this book by Baylor University historian Thomas S. Kidd and published by Princeton University Press, discusses it in some detail. Moreover, Kidd says that this particular issue is hardly unique among Christian critics of Islam, particularly right-wing Protestants: "For many Christians, the possibility that Muhammad had sexual relations with a nine-year-old girl has provided salacious evidence used to denigrate the Prophet's character".--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, nearly every source I've ever seen specifically includes the "demon-possessed pedophile" bit, not just "pedophile" (or else give the full quote). We need to follow that, in the very least because it shows how inflammatory the statement really was. It's hardly well-reasoned, measured criticism that we're dealing with.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

But it's the criticism specific to Aisha age we're concerned with here, not criticism specific to one critic. The controversy around Aisha concerns pedophilia rather than possession. Geert Wilders, as far as I know, didn't use the "demon possessed" descriptor, but Wilders and Vines and others have all described Muhammad as a pedophile — regardless of whatever other adjective they attach to it.

The topic of demon possession seems like a separate issue to me, fitting better with what Martin Luther has to say about Muhammad. The problem is whether sources can be found that link such comments to the possibility that Muhammad had a mental illness. The sources I have seen on this topic of Muhammad's possible mental disorders don't discuss it in the context of criticism. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't let our own arbitrary categorization of criticisms downplay what the sources actually report. I would go with something along the lines of, "Some critics have used the possibility that Muhammad's wife Aisha was nine years old when their marriage was consummated to criticize him," sourced to Kidd's book. Then in a separate sentance, "Southern Baptist Convention leader Jerry Vines called him as a 'demon-possessed pedophile', additionally referencing the idea that Muhammad's revelations came from demons". Also sourced to Kidd's book, which discusses this as well.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary? I don't object to "demon possessed" appearing in the article. I just don't agree that it belongs in the Aisha section. That section isn't about the sources of Muhammad's revelations, it's about charges of pedophilia. Where Muhammad's revelations came from is a separate topic of criticism. The fact that one source might lump them together isn't a reason for us to do the same. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It is, considering that nearly all the sources reporting on Vines give his quote specifically as "demon-possessed pedophile" (or else give the entire line). Removing the "demon-possessed" bit has the effect of watering down what Vines said, and isn't borne out by the majority of sources reporting on it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to be any clearer: The section is not about Jerry Vines. It is about criticism related to Aisha's age. This is a common criticism, and the section should focus on that. For the same reason, the section shouldn't quote Geert Wilders as calling Muhammad a "mass murderer and pedophile". Pedophilia is the criticism for that section, not mass murder or demon possession. There is no issue about watering down what Vines or Wilders said because they also said things unrelated to pedophilia. Anyone can look at the sources to see the actual quote. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Vines is only mentioned here at all because his little tirade made international news. As such we need to report what the sources on that tirade say accurately. If we're not going to do that, why bother mentioning Vines at all? There are other sources that confirm that Aisha's age is a fairly common point of criticism.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

At the heart of this discussion is the question, "Whose critiques of the Prophet matter?". Certainly, we can agree, that a news report of a "man on the street" interview that contains a relevant view, would nevertheless not become encyclopedia content (even though easily citable). I would propose that critiques matter enough to receive mention (i) if they are grounded, historically, through the careful work of scholarship, or (ii) if a critique, in its nature, captures the Zeitgeist in a relevant place and historical period, and in so doing, rises to the level of being representative of a broad universal opinion, both in its accuracy in capturing the opinion, and in its wide dissemination. In this regard, Mr Vines views are not the views of a scholar of Islamic history or of a related field; he is no Fazlur Rahman Malik. On this basis, his inclusion in citation is rejected. However, Mr Vines opinions may be considered as relevant to the second category: he may have captured a sufficiently wide-held perspective, and may have achieved a broad enough dissemination of his opinion, to be seen as a spokesperson for that perspective. However, note: Being representative of a broadly held perspective might entitle one to citation, but it also demands careful scrutiny. If the broadly held perspective is historically or otherwise factually inaccurate, its citation as representing a widely held perspective must (from a scholarly perspective) be accompanied by the necessary factual corrections or qualifications. Widely held does not mean correct. Finally, my personal perspective is that while Mr Vines perspectives might, in small or large part, align with the views of informed scholars, it is they, and not he that should be cited; and if Mr Vines views are considered relevant in terms of the representing a reasonable demographic, there are likely better, less error-prone, and less self-promoting representative views that can be cited. Too much time has been spent on this matter. The goal of wiki is to produce good, accurate articles of lasting educational value. Let's get to it. Meduban (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Perspectives on Muhammad

Please see Category talk:Perspectives on Muhammad#Reverts by Doc Tropics. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Tags

The article has been tagged for over a year, as having neutrality issues. Are there still concerns, or can the tag be removed? If there are concerns, what still needs to be fixed? --Elonka 03:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

History

"Criticism of Muhammad has existed since the 7th century": It is implausible that there was no criticism of an historical figure during his life, much less one of his stature and living impact on much of middle eastern society.
--Wikidity (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Questioning His Psychological And Medical Condition On What Basis

I want to ask on what basis is his psychological and medical condition being questioned,is it for destroying idols at Kaaba or is it for indirectly ordering deaths of Banu Qurayza as they were killed by the decision of Sa'd ibn Mu'adh who was himself a Jewish convert to Islam.If you are questioning his psychological and medical condition on basis of destroying idols then what about Torah and Bible that say Idols are created by man and are fit to be destroyed.what about one of the ten commandments which itself forbids worship of any idol.So how can you question his psycological or medical condition on this basis when the Christian and Jewish religious texts support destruction of idols and influence people to destroy them and to stop worshipping them,so why is psychological and medical condition of Muhammad being questioned and on what basis when infact he is a man who changed the entire world.Aylo54 (talk) 13:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

If you have information from reliable sources that discusses the mental health implications of other religious or political figures destroying objects of veneration from other religions then you're free to add that information to relevant articles. Abyssal (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The main basis for the section in this article is contained in the very first sentence: "Muhammad is reported to have had mysterious seizures..." which suggests several possible conditions. Please note that this article is only about criticism of Muhammad, not any of the other figures you mention. If you have questions about our article on Lenin, the place to ask is Talk:Vladimir Lenin. And while it's true that Muhammad changed the world, so did Adolf Hitler....not all change is good. Doc Tropics 17:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Just one person can not decide either some change is good or bad.Islam is fastest growing religion.People like Lauren Booth ,Daniel Streich ,Wayne Parnell,Muhammad Ali reverted to Islam.About 100,000 British people converted to Islam,the number doubled in 10 ten years[2].on an average day 14 people in Britain convert to Islam.So majority thinks that that change[Muhammad PBUH] was good. We should let people decide,they should not be forced to adopt certain person's opinion. [[[User:Maria Anwar|Maria Anwar]] (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)]

No one is being forced to do anything and your comments regarding the growth rate of religions have no bearing on the discussion at hand. Wikipedia is reporting verifiable theories based on reliable sources and your only argument for deletion seems to be "I DON"T LIKE IT!" which falls short of being a valid reason. Doc Tropics 01:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Bro\Sis, whatever i wrote,i wrote with reference.The good thing is they are of wikipedia itself.So i am right here.Here let me tell if i write books today, tomorrow it will be the "source",but the point is people are biased 1st they write books and articles against something specific(say Muhammad pbuh) and then use it as a "source".Only one person can't decide either these sources are biased or not.[[[User:Maria Anwar|Maria Anwar]] (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)]

You removed the work of several independent scholars and replaced them with your personal opinions: don't you find the flavor of irony rather bittersweet? Doc Tropics 21:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That's the point Bro,who entitled them independent ,unbiased and honest in there opinion?Just one or two guys?? They are not even scholars.A scholar is the person who is broadminded and see an issue completely with pros and cons not just "assume" things by himself.[[[User:Maria Anwar|Maria Anwar]] (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)]

No, you're missing the point. This article is about criticism of Muhammad. So we write about criticism that can be found in reliable sources. Criticism need not be unbiased. Your personal views on this matter are irrelevant. If you have a problem with the source, take it up on Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard. All that matters, for the purpose of an encyclopedia, is what sources say, so that's what we report. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Read 'Muhammad:A Story Of The Last Prophet' by Deepak Chopra.The book describes everything there is to describe.Aylo54 (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad: Only three possibilities

Muhammad was either really a true messenger of God, or a psychotic who sincerely believed to be one due to his delusions, or a liar and impostor. I do not see any further possibilities. So into what category do those non-muslim orientalists put Muhammad, who deny all those three possibilities? (And what about Joseph Smith, the prophet of Mormonism?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.169.214 (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, where do others who don't share those two opinions put him? For one, I put him in the category of historical leaders, who today has a bunch of strange, unverifiable and controversial stories surrounding him, mostly written in a book that has probably been horribly altered over the years. --Nutthida (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Just because you don't see further possibilities does not mean there aren't any. This is simply a variation of Lewis's Trilemma, a logical fallacy, similar to a false dilemma, that draws a conclusion from restricting choices to only 3 possibilities.

Another possibility is that he's an ordinary man who came across some writings in a cave, and realized that it worked for him, after which he evangelized those ideas. Or he was a military general who needed something to keep his people together. One could come up with many things.

Joseph Smith isn't relevant to this discussion, although his traditional revelation story parallels that of Muhammad. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Violence?

Some historians assert that Muhammad proclaims a religion of violence, only shrouded by poetry and actions that are otherwise holy. I'll let you guys make that decision for yourself. If you want to edit the Wikipedia page to reflect this alternate perspective, go ahead do so, but my hand will have no play in that. I'm only providing the alternate perspective. After all, this is the "Discussion" page. Do with the info as you wish. Farewell.
COice6 (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Wording

In the "Late 20th Century" section we have this phrase > "Rudi Paret agrees, writing that "Muhammad was not a deceptor," I believe "deceiver" is the better word to use, it's definitely more common in use than "deceptor". In fact if you Google "deceptor" you'll get mostly Transformer results. Festus Mcracken 18:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Festus Mcracken (talk • contribs)

The Marriages of Muhammad

The statement- "Khadija a widow whose age is estimated to have been 40 though most scholars believe her to have been about 29 based on the number of children she bore to Mohammed" We the Muslims are not agree with this statement, all Muslims, including all the Scholar of Islam, totally agree that prophet Muhammad married Khadija when she was 40 years old and Muhammad was 25 years old. And it is a historical fact. Muhammad remained monogamous to her for more than 24 years until she died. When Khadija died, prophet Muhammad was 50 years old.

"Critics have countered that Khadija was a rich widow, much older than Muhammad, who financed his religious group, and that being disloyal to her would have cost him dearly" We Muslim totally disagreed with this. Khadija was so much attracted & pleased after seeing the sublime and exalted character of Muhammad that she wished to marry Muhammad, and did. If one looks at the life of Muhammad and history of Islam, he/she will find that this allegation is totally false. Islam was not spread by money, or help of any human, or by sword. Allah himself spread his deen(Islam) through the world.

Regarding Ayesha's marriage with Muhammad, Ayesha reached puberty when the marriage was consummated. All the scholars agreed on that. And it is historically proved from various narrations. Today's world it is scientifically proved that a women can reach puberty in 9 year because of surrounding and weather.

Regarding the wife of Muhammad, Zaynab bint Jahsh, the story with the reference to Tabari is totally wrong. We do not agree with that. This thing didn't happen. The divorce between Zayed and Zaynab took place for many reasons, mainly that the Zainab was from a noble family and Zaid was a freed slave and this made their marriage unhappy. Then Allah commanded Prophet Muhammad to marry her. It was done for social reform. The real story behind the marriage is referenced in Tahfeem ul Qur'an by Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi (see commentary on sura 33 verse 37(See footnote 69 to 73) Link-http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/33/index.html#sdfootnote69anc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad kamrul (talk • contribs) 19:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

---

To the person above, I'm not sure why you're bothering, this page is very biased. Look at the comments and absolute hyperbole above.

"who today has a bunch of strange, unverifiable and controversial stories surrounding him, mostly written in a book that has probably been horribly altered over the years."

These are the editors of the page. lol. "Probably" lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.161.196 (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

'We the Muslims'.lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by XXJohnTheKnightXx (talk • contribs) 11:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad kamrul, your claims about various aspects of Muhammad's life would be more believable if you had verifiable and independent sources to back up your claims. Who are the "scholars agreed on that"? Where has it been historically proved that Ayesha reached puberty when the marriage was consummated? Brough87 (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the post above mine. All that would need a source. I'm interested in this-can reach puberty in 9 year because of surrounding and weather. Weather affects puberty? --BeckiGreen (talk) 06:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Film heavily based on Reliable sources not a valid source?

With the possible exception of Abdullah Al-Araby (who appears to be reliable, ex-Muslim, so he knows what he's talking about), the following writers have been vetted by various Wikipedia editors and generally regarded as reliable sources for the subjects they write about: Robert Spencer (author), Serge Trifkovic, Bat Ye'or, Abdullah Al-Araby, and Walid Shoebat. Would someone please explain to me why a film (Islam: What the West Needs to Know) that essentially aggregates what these writers say is somehow "fringe"? -- Frotz(talk) 23:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the "fringe" label, but this film's primary purpose appears to be a critique of Islam, not a critique of Muhammad and not a critique of the Quran. Rather (I'm going by the article, not having seen the film) it uses the Quran and Muhammad's teachings to support its critique of Islam. Therefore, a link to it belongs in the article where it's most relevant, criticism of Islam. It seems like a stretch to put it here. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll go with that. -- Frotz(talk) 23:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangila Rasul

This quote is not note worthy and obscure, the author is anonymous and not of any standing in the intellectual community so i think it should be removed and something more substantial should be found.

"However, the anonymous author of Rangila Rasul, writing under the pseudonym Chamupati, wrote in response to this contention that had Muhammad considered Khadija to be his mother rather than making her his wife, it would have been according to the Arya scriptures.[28]" Iβn Mᾱsῡɖ ^τᾱℓк 06:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Is the 'multiple issues' tag really that necessary?

I mean it's there since "June 2010" (more than 2 years now). It could only mean two things

1. It is not doing what it's supposed to do (encourage people to resolve the issues). This failure might be due to either of the following facts
   • that the tag was unfounded in the first place.
   • tag is obsolete now.
2. It's a POV in itself.

I propose we remove the tags immediately since the issues that are raised are not really issues which could not be solved within 2 years. And yet if someone or some group claim(s) that the issues are not solved even after 2 years, then that claim is in itself a gross violation of WP:NPOV.  Brendon is here 15:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There are too many problems with this pages. Wikipedia is based on WP:NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.0.132 (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You're sure this page is really a criticism? Because it reads more like an apologia. Every little criticism is followed by an iffy "explanation" excusing the action, using 3 times as much text as the initial criticism. (because they're jumping through hoops to do it.) I mean seriously, does anyone REALLY buy that he walked past a tent with his son's naked wife and "the wind blew the door open" so he could see her naked? "Er... ahh... the WIND blew the door open! Yeah, that's what happened! I wasn't TRYING to look at her naked, it was the wind!" And after that, when he decided that HE wanted her, Allah made it so that Zayd was no longer attracted to her?! How convenient for Mohammed! Gee, that all worked out just GREAT for him! And yet this gets a 3 paragraph "explanation" (excuse) by "scholars." Does anyone with even half a functioning brain in their skull buy that? I seriously think people with a lot more objectivity need to rewrite this whole thing. RyokoMocha (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

And therein lies the WP:NPOV violation. If each criticism is followed by a rebuttal, the rebuttals always have the last word, which positions this article as presenting each criticism as invalid. Wikipedia should not be taking sides, or even implying that we're taking sides by how the content is arranged.

The rebuttals should be removed. This is an article about criticism. Wikipedia articles are not debate forums. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree; the placement and weight of the rebuttals is inappropriate given the nature of the article. Some can simply and easily be removed, others should be rewritten to conform with policy. Doc Tropics 17:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've made a few changes and will await responses. Please note a badly mangled ref, currently #78, which needs help. I fixed the "break" but can't tell which of Watt's texts it was referencing. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Doc Tropics 15:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

For an article on criticism, there seems to be an inordinate amount of space taken up by defence of Muhammed.

One element that is not considered is what whilst mass murder and slavery may have been not uncommon in the ancient world, it was not normally committed by religious leaders. Muhammed is unique in this respect amongst the founders of religions.203.184.41.226 (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

- It seems utterly bizarre to allow any unsubstantiated allegation to be made against Muhammed with no rejoinder permitted. This is why this article is not NPOV. It is also clear in this discussion that far from attempting to be neutral, many users also have a clear bias towards accepting this criticism. ironically, their views may be changed if they gave equal opportunity to the retorts. Or does wikipedia suggest we create a page stating: "Refutations of the allegations made against Muhammad?"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobVienna (talk • contribs) 18:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a Christian Apologetics page. It would seem appropriate, IMHO, to have one for Islamic Apologetics, to handle attempts at "Refutations of the allegations made against Muhammad." The apologetics don't really belong here. TomSwiss (talk) 06:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's part of wiki policy to have these rebuttal comments in criticism of pages, taking them out would violate that. I don't think having them makes the page apologetic since many of these comments are not in for there accuracy but as a matter of record so balance needs to be there to stop the page from turning into a defamation of page instead. Iβn Mᾱsῡɖ ^τᾱℓк 11:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibn.masud (talk • contribs)

Actually, no, that isn't part of Wikipedia policy. Individual criticisms can be accompanied by a discussion to provide encyclopedic coverage, but presenting each criticism followed by a rebuttal gives the appearance that Wikipedia is presenting a viewpoint that each criticism is invalid. That is a gross violation of WP:NPOV. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Amatulic, creating two articles one for criticisms and one for refutations is not inline with our content policies (see WP:POVFORK and WP:STRUCTURE). Also, since these refutations were made in response to the allegations found in this article they are perfectly relevant here. Furthermore, the recently removed refutations were written by scholars more familiar with the primary sources.[3][4][5] To remove the scholarly views and keep the politically- and religiously-motivated "criticisms" unchallenged rather reduces the neutral stance of the article. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 18:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Do not misrepresent my comments. Nowhere did I suggest a POV fork. The article creates a bias by following every criticism with a rebuttal; even if the criticism is valid and the rebuttal is garbage, the format of following each with a rebuttal gives the appearance that Wikipedia has aligned itself with the rebutters. The subject of criticisms need not be defended by anyone, given this article's scope. Criticism of Jesus is an excellent example that treats criticism of Jesus in an encyclopedic way, without including rebuttals, and none are required. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

But the article also creates bias if it systematically excludes the views of historians who commented on these criticisms. These scholarly views are on-topic here and there is no other article where they are fit (unless you're suggesting we should create a "refutations" article, which is a POV fork). And I'm not suggesting that we should follow the criticism-rebuttal structure. But when a right-wing politician or a religious kook asserts something about history, it is rather natural and encyclopedic to allow actual historians and academics to comment on it. It is also possible to find historians who affirm rather than refute such an assertion. In other words, the views of historians and academics commenting on these criticisms should not be excluded from this article. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 06:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Many of the view points are invalid and do need to be balanced, as far as i'm aware accuracy and truthfulness where not a criteria for these comments to be on here. Iβn Mᾱsῡɖ ^τᾱℓк 00:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

What matters is Verifiability, not truth. The problem here is the perception that any criticism must be "balanced" with rebuttals. This article isn't a debate forum. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, since truth is not relevant it should be balanced to stop this article from turning into a defamation of page and to keep it neutral. This article isn't a venting ground for anti Islamic sentiment. Iβn Mᾱsῡd ^τᾱℓк 14:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

This page is about the criticism of Muhammad, and some of what is said here has truth to it. Your opinion of defamation will undoubtedly be radically different from the opinions of others. Brough87 (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this an encyclopedic article?

For one thing, some random unknown Hindu writers from the 1920s and and their and their obscure books are being rehashed with absolute lack of proportion.--117.253.198.143 (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It appears from looking at this article, you are correct. Any random person can make a criticism of Muhammad, and for it to be accepted as valid for the purposes of this page. It doesn't need to be substantiated, as long as its in a book, it appears worthy of inclusion. - I do wonder of course as to how appropriate that is. On this page there are several allegations being made,with no rejoinders permitted, regardless of the weight of the evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobVienna (talk • contribs) 18:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Awful.

The grammar in this article is awful. This is one example of many I have found- Prideaux, Frank R. Freemon says, thinks Muhammad had "conscious control over the course of the spells and can pretend to be in a religious trance. Says? Thinks? Also,why only one Parentheses?--BeckiGreen (talk) 06:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It is unfortunately common in many articles that they are heavily edited by contributors who do not speak English as their native language. While many of them include useful content, such contributions often require significant editing for coherence, grammar, spelling, etc. Furthermore, those same articles are often subject to edit wars, multiple blankings, and reversions which can leave the text fragmented. The cleanup process tends to be constantly ongoing in such cases. Thanks for bringing up this specific case, it certainly needs fixing. Feel free to jump right in  : ) Doc Tropics 17:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 November 2012

Section: Christian Criticism, Sub-Section:Middle Ages, second paragraph/line 5- remove "recoungs" and replace with "recounts"

Beezle24 (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Monty₈₄₅ 20:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Biased.

The entire tone of this page does not reflect the title. This page is a rebuttal of criticisms, not an exploration of them. Whoever is responsible for this page should be ashamed of themself. The amount of violence committed by this person is staggering. The amount of sex partners he had is staggering. Shouldnt a criticism of him, as a person, squarely lay this out and explain why some consider it wrong? Or the economic and political power than his preaching gave him? Why not an exploration of what new teachings God gave him in contrast to what power he gained (enlightenment vs. usurpation)? The title of this article is inaccurate in its current state. The part (of this page) where the reader is asked to consider his actions in context of violent dark ages is particularly biased. This man presented himself to the world as a prophet of god, not a murderous charlatan living in the dark ages. What measuring stick does this page think we should use to judge his life? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.42.22 (talk • contribs) 29 September 2012

Why is this unsigned? it should be removed. To answer your post its for balance and accuracy many criticisms on here are baseless and if a true rebuttal was permitted it could easily be proven most of these quotes are simply a collection of statements being presented irrespective of how accurate they are, not an exploration of history itself. regarding your "sex partners" comment[grow up, he was married to them they weren't his partners] polygamy itself is permitted in the bible and practiced by many of Gods prophets, further it was a norm throughout the entire world up until modern times so the criticism is baseless. Iβn Mᾱsῡɖ ^τᾱℓк

It's unsigned because the anonymous editor who wrote the comment didn't sign it. I just rectified that. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request, 26/03/2013

Section: Points of contention, Sub-Section: Aisha; Replace Paragraph 2:

According to the Sunan Abu Dawood, Aisha (second wife, born 45 years after Muhammad) is quoted:

"The Messenger of Allah married me when I was seven years old. The narrator Sulaiman said: or Six years. He had intercourse with me when I was nine years old."

— Sunan Abi Dawud, #2121 / Book 12, Hadith 76 / Book 11, Hadith 2116

This description is in accordance with the legal and moral definition of Child sexual abuse in the vast majority of modern societies.

The original paragraph 2 contains the same assertion, but should be replaced with this content due to preference of an original source and higher quality of content. --STTill (talk) 07:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Collapsed invalid decline of this request and tangential discussion

Not done: See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ RudolfRed (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC) The assertion in the FAQ is fundamentally flawed because it contradicts the intent of the article. Muhammad is the objective source of the absolute and final moral standards in Islam. The historic context is thus irrelevant for the relevance of the portrayal of his moral behavior. --STTill (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Still Not done: This point is already adequately covered in the section/paragraph concerned. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Even though I don't agree, I suggest a replacement with paragraph 2 since my text uses an original source. STTill (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC) May I point out that Talk:Muhammad/FAQ concerns the article Muhammad, not necessarily this article.Jeppiz (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Another reason to invalidate the initial denial of my request. --STTill (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC) I am slowly beginning to understand what's going on here. The discussion has already been re-opened by an IP user; I will go ahead and put the initial denial of the request and this tangential discussion in a collapsed box so that it doesn't affect further consideration of this request. I will also recuse myself from reviewing the actual request since I have been involved. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

To continue this discussion:

There is no "preference of an original source" on Wikipedia: See WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, which is essentially what you're proposing to use. Furthermore I fail to see how a quotation from a Hadith is relevant, or why it would need to replace a perfectly good paragraph that says something completely different.

Furthermore, asserting in the article that this quotation fits with the legal description of child sexual abuse constitutes original research, which is not allowed here. You would need to find a reliable source that makes this connection; otherwise this interpretation doesn't belong in this article.

For these reasons, I am marking this edit request as  Declined. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY is in fact supporting my request. The very nature of an Hadith is perfectly satisfying the requirement for reliable sources regarding subjects of Islam:

• "... a saying or an act or tacit approval or disapproval ascribed either validly or invalidly to the Islamic prophet Muhammad"
• "Hadith are regarded by traditional Islamic schools of jurisprudence as important tools for understanding the Quran and in matters of jurisprudence."

I clearly do not violate WP:NOR because I solely recite reliable sources in the articles context and reliable sources have "published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article".

It should be clear and obvious that the quality of content and references in the existing paragraph #2 is inferior to my requested change of content. --STTill (talk) 07:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

In the Aisha section, nowhere exists your assertion that "this description is in accordance with the legal and moral definition of Child sexual abuse in the vast majority of modern societies." That is original research. It is your personal opinion. You have not provided any reliable source backing up this assertion. You have not provided any reliable source that makes a connection between child sexual abuse and Muhammad. Without any backing for that assertion, there is no value added in quoting a primary source, particularly when this article is about criticism, not Islamic jurisprudence. For the fourth time,  Not done, for glaringly obvious reasons as previously stated. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality?

What happened with wikipedia? Has it become too big for it self137.44.120.222 (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This comment is invalid as it proposes no edits. Additionally, the concept of neutrality has no relevance to criticism. Beezle24 (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Scope

The scope of this article seems to be advised against in the Wikipedia guidelines.[6] Perhaps change it to "viewsof Muhammad" or some such, which there is a number of variations on? Judaism's views on MuhammadMuhammad in IslamMedieval Christian views on Muhammad FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This does fall within the scope of the guidelines for topics related to religion. Parallel examples would include Criticism of Buddhism, Criticism of Judaism, Criticism of Christianity and Criticism of Hinduism (not to mention Criticism of religion). EastTN (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Examples that are even closer to this article include Criticism of Moses, Criticism of Jesus, Criticism of Ellen G. White, Criticism of Mother Teresa and Criticism of Pope John Paul II. EastTN (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

And according to guidelines, none of those articles should exist in the first place. FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read all of the guidelines, including those that specifically address religion.

"For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets." EastTN (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

161.215.18.51 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC) doestoevsky said that about mohammed in the idiot, not about himself. part II chapt 5

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

typo

In the last sentence of the section, 2.1.2 Zaynab bint Jahsh, the word "prophet" is missing the letter "h."

Good catch! I've fixed it. EastTN (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

dates of critics

Think it's a good idea to show that some of the critics are 19th century, otherwise readers may think these are more recent. That's not meant in any way as a judgement for or against the criticism. Sceptic1954 (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Separate section for them perhaps? Dougweller (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea if anyone wants to do the work. Perhaps there is a slightly better way of conveying what I wanted to convey in my edits. Sceptic1954 (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Quoting error (wrong number of quotation marks)

There's either one too many or one too few quotation marks in the following sentence in the "Treatment of enemies" part:

Geisler also argues that Muhammad "had no aversion to politically expedient assassinations," "was not indisposed to breaking promises when he found it advantageous" and engaged in retaliation towards those who mocked him."

I'm assuming their should be an extra quotation mark before engaged, but I'm not sure if that actually is a direct quote, so I figured I'd just point it out for now. --Jezzamon (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criticism of Muhammad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.islamonline.com/cgi-bin/news_service/profile_story.asp?service_id=1154

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Aisha - Some modern Muslims sentence

This sentence that alludes to some random opinion and that uses as sources a non-functioning link, obscure websites with no named scholar or scholarly source. It can not be relied upon as good source or even balanced for that matter! Removing. Can be reinstated when better sources are provided. NOTE!l It still should be noted as Fringe theory, not backed by general academic consensus (whether it be in Islamic country or other) IBestEditor (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

You are correct. In fact, the reference claims that her age at betrothal was at least 14, not 12. In any case, the reference does not seem very good in general. 45.49.230.166 (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll replace it based on a RS that has been quoted on this talk page. Eperoton (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

This sentence about Aisha doesn't make sense: "when the marriage was consummated until she had reached puberty." What does the word "until" mean here? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Muhammad's wives

I think this section can be easily expanded to encompass the following extra criticisms:

• Muslims defend his marriages to more than four women by claiming that each extra marriage was conducted for a greater purpose; but each example they present is effortlessly dismantled. They say he married Zaynab to show the legitimacy of marrying your adopted son's wife; however, wouldn't a simple Quranic verse permitting such an act be enough to make the point? They say he married others to forge alliances or to support widows and divorcees; however, there are other, effective, ways to achieve these goals, instead of contradicting your own teachings on marriage limits. And if he can marry more than four to achieve these puported goals then why isn't any other Muslim leader since Muhammad permitted to replicate his example?
• His extra marriages appear at least partly driven by his lust, which was growing in parallel with his increasing power and success. Of all his marriages only his first wife, Khadija, and Maria the Copt bore him children. So what happened with his other wives? Muhammad taught his followers to have children (to increase the size of his Ummah), yet he left the vast majority of his wives childless (bummer!). Either he was infertile, most of his wives were infertile, or he didn't practice what he preached (just like marrying more than four wives). Most likely, he didn't practice what he preached because he realised that burdening himself with so many children from so many different wives would simply hinder the likelihood of success of his quest for power — he was already busy enough. These extra marriages were above all about selfishly quenching his sexual desires — his wives were merely glorified harem girls.
• His marriages appear partly an Arabian tribal statement: "I'm the big boss, so i get to surround myself with more women than youse."
• Muslims defend his marriages by claiming he didn't do it for sexual gratification because if he had then he wouldn't of been married to Khadija for some 25 years. However, he was loyal to Khadija for the simple reason that she was the breadwinner of the family and, according to the accounts, an intelligent and independent lady. Anyway, he probably married her in the first place as one of his earliest steps in his quest for power.

Would anybody be willing to help find reliable sources that support the points above? I'm a little too busy at the moment. 49.195.91.84 (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how these points qualify as "criticism". Speculation and original thought, yes, but there's no place for that on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

While I would not exactly call it original research, the would-be critic would base such points on detailed knowledge of Muhammad's motivation and personal life. Based on which primary sources? For example, the question of whether Muhammad was fertile or infertile would require us to have some medical sources on a man who died in the 7th century. The article Children of Muhammad lists 7 children, but most died in infancy or otherwise young. Only a single child survived Muhammad himself. Dimadick (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

"growled like a camel, foamed at his mouth"

The article quotes Philip Schaff as making the allegation that Muhammad "growled like a camel, foamed at his mouth". But Schaff doesn't quote any sources. A google search does not yield anyone else who may have made a similar allegation. And, most important, Welch does not validate this allegation, which is an impression the article creates by putting it immediately following Schaff's description. Welch merely talks about seizures, and in a different paragraph, about accusations of epilepsy, which were far more common in the West.

Thus, the section would start with Welch's description of Muhammad, as he is the more reliable source, followed by how Western authors like Schaff used this description to paint a particular image of Muhammad.Bless sins (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The text is reporting a criticism. It clearly indicates both when this was said, and who said it (Schaff). The article never implies that Schaff is correct (Welch's description is included in the very same paragraph). It merely quotes Schaff as illustrative of this line of criticism. EastTN (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Epilepsy

I can offer nothing with regard to Muhammad's condition, but I can note several errors in the article and in quotes about epilepsy itself.

"Andrae writes that "[i]f epilepsy is to denote only those severe attacks which involve serious consequences for the physical and mental health, then the statement that Mohammad suffered from epilepsy must be emphatically rejected.""

The problem with this statement is that epilepsy comes in many forms and most often does not involve serious consequences for physical or mental health at all, other than the seizures themselves.

"William Montgomery Watt also disagrees with the epilepsy diagnosis, saying that "there are no real grounds for such a view." Elaborating, he says that "epilepsy leads to physical and mental degeneration, and there are no signs of that in Muhammad.""

Epilepsy rarely leads to physical or mental degeneration, and only in the most severe life-threatening types. I know I'm arguing with Watt, not with the article, but there are some seriously factually wrong statements in here, and it actually wholly undermines Watt's argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrell.wade.burgan (talk • contribs) 05:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Right! Citable "rebuttals" may be added! Be WP:BOLD! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Biased.

The entire tone of this page does not reflect the title. This page is a rebuttal of criticisms, not an exploration of them. Whoever is responsible for this page should be ashamed of themself. The amount of violence committed by this person is staggering. The amount of sex partners he had is staggering. Shouldnt a criticism of him, as a person, squarely lay this out and explain why some consider it wrong? Or the economic and political power than his preaching gave him? Why not an exploration of what new teachings God gave him in contrast to what power he gained (enlightenment vs. usurpation)? The title of this article is inaccurate in its current state. The part (of this page) where the reader is asked to consider his actions in context of violent dark ages is particularly biased. This man presented himself to the world as a prophet of god, not a murderous charlatan living in the dark ages. What measuring stick does this page think we should use to judge his life? 107.222.205.242 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you. Most of this article is completely biased. I strongly disapprove most of this article. I'd appreciate it if this was at least in Muhammad's perspective. I am Muslim myself and I find this article quite discriminating to God, Muslims, and especially Muhammad. Mohamed Boutaleb (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

And neither of you seem to understand what an encylopedia is, specifically the Wikipedia project. This is not the place to "explore" criticism. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and it is not a place to synthesize conclusions. An article on criticism can only report the criticism that has been leveled against Muhammad by notable critics, as found in publicly available and reliable sources. It is only natural that reporting the criticisms will come across as biased or discrimminating, because this article is about the criticism, not a debate with multiple sides.

If you see anything specific that goes against Wikipedia's editorial policies, then by all means suggest specific changes or improvements. But general complaining, as you have both done above, are not constructive comments. It is compoetely irrelevant if you are offended or if you are Muslim. All that matters is, does this article accurately describe the criticism that Muhammad has received, as published in verifiable and reliable sources? If you see areas of the article that does not serve to answer the question, then call them out. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The bias for excusing/diverting the criticism is clearly there - check sections on marriages and Aisha - one sentence on the fact of Aisha's age, five big sentences of relativism --Connosocon (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The policies were only made to insult Islam and promote the Idea that Quran is just a book made by Muhammad (ITS A FACT). Do you see the so-called 'policies' in any part of WP other than in Islam related articles. i dont kno why im saying this but at some point i have to let go of my emotions. i cant control it, and i think its human to not control it. the so called policies are just made up. There is no NPOV, no nothing. Thats just it. They keep on saying it is an encyclopedia. Watever. Its a biased one. All this is just emotion. and thats what WP needs to improve there is no NPOV, if there was NPOV so many Muslims wouldnot be complaining. the tone and everything is just cruelsome. A.A.Wasif | Talk 11:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I want this page down...can anyone remove this article..?? Killer nerd (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

i agree: the bias is obvious. The section on criticism from the 21st century is a tedious and prolonged discourse on how sincere muhammad was. It seems the concept of wikipedia does not always work, nor is it always understood eg the person asking for the page to be taken down. Andywhatever (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

And nobody seems to have comprehended the comment I made 2 years ago above, on 11 June 2014.

Anyone who wants the page taken down is free to go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and request it. However, a page will not be deleted just because some people find it offensive. If you find something specifically wrong, either fix it or suggest an improvement. Complaining will not result in improvements. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

If someone is offended by the pedophilia, rape, slavery, debauchery, intolerance, hate, violence, etc then be angry at and dismissive of the person or ideology that created it, not at the person who documents it truthfully. Dear follower of the religion of peace, please do not try to kill poor Amatulic for keeping this article "fair and balanced" as per the wikipedia gudielines. Only bias I see here is from the blind followers. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Who are we talking about

I'm confused as to the topic of this article without a visual representation of the topic of discussion. If we're going for a secular consolidation of rational thought, there needs to be a visual representation of the central character. Compare with articles on Jesus or Buddha. A religion's qualms should be overridden by academic inquest. 204.11.146.1 (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried reading a sentence or two? That should have cleared up your confusion. Some articles have pictures in the lead while others don't, and criticism articles often don't (Criticism of Jesus, for instance), since their subject is the criticism rather than the individual criticized. Eperoton (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Eperton, your smart play on words is no substitute for the "real commonsense". Criticism of the person does not exist without the person e.g. leg can not exist without the body, though body can sustain itself with a missing leg. Muhammad is the central, main, focus theme when he is being criticised. Just put his photo as requested by the OP. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)