Talk:Criticism of the Quran/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

QURAN

this page is supposed to be the "criticisms" of the QURAN, not islam, the quran has been perverted(deliebrately by conspirators and profiteers, and power freaks) into all different sects and "Traditions" and cultures. PLease stick to the criticism of the QURAN, and the QURAN ONLY. And since such criticisms are subjective, and every single person in the world has an opinion, who's opinions are you going to put in this article? judaic "scholars" ? christian "scholars"? either make this article precise well cited criticisms of the verses of the quran, or delete the article.

Censorship

Why is this page being censored?

So before censoring content on this page, first discuss it on the talk page. Read the relevant Wikipedia rules below.

Regarding 1., If you think a statement is challenged, please provide the challenge or reference to the challenge.

Regarding 1. and 2., if you think a statement is likely to be challenged, please explain your reason(s) why.

Regarding 3. If you think material added cannot be 'easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge', please explain your reason(s) why.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources,

1. 3 When to cite sources
   

* 3.1 When adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged
* 3.2 When quoting someone
* 3.3 When adding material to the biography of a living person
* 3.4 When checking content added by others
* 3.5 When uploading an image

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES

any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:
* only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
* make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

Thank you,

Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research. Citing random Qur'anic verses and asserting their significance to the article topic is original research. Hence, it says "... to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." (emphasis theirs) These verses aren't directly related to the topic of Criticism of the Qur'an - it is you who is asserting such, and without backing from reliable sources. As such, it is clarified as followed:

"Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."

There have currently been no secondary sources provided establishing the relevance of the primary material to the topic of the article. ITAQALLAH 21:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"Citing random Qur'anic verses and asserting their significance to the article" - please justify this - which versus have been added randomly?

"interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources" - please justify this - where have these claims been made?

"These verses aren't directly related to the topic of Criticism of the Qur'an" - please justify this - how are these versus not directly related to critism of the Qur'an under their listed topics?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources:

To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should: only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.

Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 02:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Richard. All my assertions point out the fact that you are using your own judgement to decide which primary material is or isn't pertinent to the subject of the article. As you provide no sources establishing the link/significance, and the text itself says nothing about criticism of the Qur'an, it inevitably means that you are using your own interpretive ability to deduce what is/isn't relevant. However, as I mentioned, this is fundamentally original research - coverage is decided by what is mentioned in the third party reliable sources (see WP:V).

I note that your recent insertions however are much improved, so thank you for that (those areas which still rely solely on primary sources I have removed). At the same time, some of the material is sourced to publications not considered reliable on Wikipedia, such as Robert Spencer's or Daniel Ali's. I would recommend you replace the citations with more reliable ones, such as mainstream news reports (i.e. from AP, Reuters) outlining critiques of personalities or whatever. ITAQALLAH 22:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Apes?

"Apes" Versus? Apes as those monkeys of planet of the apes?

I've read the Qur'an plenty of time but I've never knew there is a sura with that title?! What is your source? radiant guy (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

7:166 and 2:65 and 5:60. I agree that it's not clear in the context. Imad marie (talk) 05:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ali Dashti

I made an addition that mentioned how Ali Dashti saw the Fatihad as being spoken by Mohammad rather than Allah and how Dashtim claimed that Ibn Masud agreed with this critique. It has been removed on the grounds of his not being a reliable source. If you wish, we could exclude the reference to Ibn Masud, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with this criticism. We can all turn to Surah 1 of the Qur'an and see what Ali Dashti meant. It is not exactly an extremist point of view. Why should it be excluded? This article should collate a range of critisms of the Qur'an. Epa101 (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ali Dashti himself, like Ibn Warraq and others, would not himself be considered a reliable source as per WP:RS. The requirement is always the same regardless of the article: the source needs to be demonstrably qualified or authoritative in the respective field ("Wikipedia articles should cover all major and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources.", "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy..." See also WP:RS#Scholarship. The last passage in WP:SPINOUT clarifies this also. These authors are unreliable as they have no verifiable education in this field, do not have their works published by academic publishers, and are not recognised as peers in the academic community. With regards to Warraq, his reception from academic scholars has been largely negative as he has been criticised by the likes of Fred Donner and Asma Asfaruddin for producing polemical unscholarly material.

This article had previously been brimming with unreliable commentary from Spencer and Warraq, and on the basis of the discussions above and on other "Criticism of" articles we cleared out these sources. I am sure, however, that many of the central arguments are present or is at least mentioned by academic reliable sources in their surveys of the Qur'an- but it's probably more in the form of literary analysis than negative critique. ITAQALLAH 23:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, we do not use low quality sources for the response side. An aside point: this article should summarize the way the Qur'an is historically criticized, the main themes etc rather than what a single person thinks. --Be happy!! (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that Dashti is "unqualified", for he had in fact studied to become a seminarian, only later to abandon that path. From Encyclopædia Iranica: "Daštī, the son of the Shiʿite cleric Shaikh ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Daštī, of a family originally from Daštestān (q.v.), received a traditional education in Arabic literature and Islamic sciences and philosophy. In about 1918 he left Iraq for Persia, and, despite his family background and education, turned to journalism and politics, becoming the very antithesis of a religious fundamentalist."Jemiljan (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This is quite a strict definition. I would applaud efforts to remain reliable, although most articles on Wikipedia seem to be much less strict than this. It seems quite hard to define this with people who lived long ago, such as Ali Dashti. I would not know what to say about his credentials.

To be fair, Warraq has always stated that he is not a scholar/specialist of Islam. Most of his arguments are, by his own admission, not original. I would distinguish him from Robert Spencer however:

1. Warraq can read/speak Arabic, unlike Spencer;
2. Spencer is a Catholic whilst Warraq is an agnostic;
3. Spencer is closely tied to conservative politics whilst Warraq does not seem to have any strong ideological views;
4. Warraq has been a professor of other subjects, so he is at least familiar with academic principles, whilst Spencer has no such validity. [

[Daniel Pipes]], a Middle East scholar, respects Warraq. So too does the philologist Christoph Luxenberg. I would argue for his inclusion. However, if we are going to draw the line very strictly on this article and say that only qualified Middle East professors are allowed on, then I would have to admit that Ibn Warraq would not be a reliable source. Epa101 (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd imagine that crediting someone for their views/approach (which I believe Pipes does), and recognising a person's academic scholarship are two slightly different things.

I don't think the RS guidelines are that strict... after all, there's actually quite a lot of material available in academic scholarship. Warraq is indeed a noted critic, and if any third party reliable sources discuss any of the claims attributed to him, then of course they merit inclusion. Using polemical sources themselves though isn't ideal because a) they are usually a primary source for their critiques; and b) they don't meet the criteria to be deemed reliable. On the same basis, we don't use speakers like Ahmed Deedat or Zakir Naik as they lack the qualifications in this field to be considered authoritative.

One problem that I've had with article titles like these is that the scope is too linear. "Criticism" here is being used in the negative sense, and it means the article will contain only negative material which itself will be counter-balanced with explanations/apologetics. I've always believed that there's much more to that in academia. Scholars pose alternative and sometimes controversial perspectives. But it's not "criticism" per se, the job of a scholar is rarely ever to pass moral judgement (esp. in modern times). This goes for things like the Hagarism theory or other theses which, while essentially scholarly, go against accepted academic opinion. On that basis, I believe a less POV/more constructive article title would be something like "Views on the Qur'an" or "Alternative views on the Qur'an" so that the linear approach of positive/negative is removed and that we allow breathing space for theories which, while not explicitly or intentionally "critical," simply provide views alternative to what is commonly accepted. ITAQALLAH 14:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can see the policy here. Wikipedia needs to protect itself from edit wars between supporters of Deedat & Naik and supporters of Warraq. It was only a small portion of my edit that mentioned Ibn Warraq. I shall look to see whether any qualified professors mention the point. By the way, there are two academic reviews of a book that Warraq edited here http://fp.arizona.edu/mesassoc//Bulletin/35-1/35-1RelPhilLaw.htm The one at the bottom is very negative, partly due to Warraq's (then) anonymity; the one just above it is much less negative although still with reservations. Epa101 (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the reviews are of two different books. Donner is reviewing "The Quest for the Historical Muhammad." ITAQALLAH 16:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

TheQuran.com

I add it to the critical section as it very reliable and supply Islamic source as well.It is very relevant to the subject.Oren.tal (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

What makes it 'very reliable'? Is this your personal opinion, or is it an assertion based upon the relevant guidelines (WP:EL, WP:RS)? ITAQALLAH 00:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)