Talk:Criticism of the Qur'an

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A summary of this article appears in Qur'an and criticism of Islam.

This is not a forum for general discussion of Criticism of the Qur'an. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (major fields): Philosophy of religion

	Islam Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit · refresh) Some of the sections, particularly "Apostasy in Islam", should be either removed or lengthened. Badbilltucker 02:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving inactive discussions.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents 1 Error in the Quran about Jewish faith 1.1 Use WP:RS please 2 115 Surahs? 3 war and violence 4 Christians and Jews in the Qur'an 5 Why is Harun Yahya an unreliable source? 6 War and violence section 7 Screenshot from submission 8 What "criticism of the quran" is all about 9 Answering-Islam.org 10 Criticism 11 Revert war 12 Quran vs Science 13 Minor fix please 14 Quran word of Muhammad or the third Caliph 15 Restructuring 16 qoutes from the Hadith 17 Robert Spencer 18 Skeptics Annotated 19 Move suggestion 20 Ali to Shakir 21 Answering Islam 22 Severe punishments 23 Apes? 24 Ali Dashti

[edit] Error in the Quran about Jewish faith

This is an article about criticize of the Quran.don't erase this topic.This is NOT soapbox. This is fact.Those verses are appear in the Quran.Next time you will erase it I will report on your vandalism to administrators.If you have something to say then response .I think it should be added to the article.

In sura 9:30 Quran claim that the Jews believe that Ezra is the son of God.However the Jews don't believe in that and have never believed.We should also mention that in the article.don't erase this topic.In discussion people are allowed to bring point.

a few translation: Yusuf Ali "The Jews call 'Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God."

Pickthall "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah"

Shakir "And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah"

Sher Ali "And the Jews say, ‘Ezra is the son of ALLAH,’ and the Christians say, ‘the Messiah is the son of ALLAH"

Rashad Khalifa "The Jews said, "Ezra is the son of GOD," while the Christians said, "Jesus is the son of GOD!"

Irving "Jews say: "Ezra was God's son," while Christians say: "Christ was God's son."

And of course anyone that know Arabic can check the Quran in the original version .A transliteration of the first part of sura 9:30 in Arabic is:

  Waqalati alyahoodu AAuzayrun ibnu Allahi
  waqalati alnnasara almaseehu ibnu Allahi

as you can see the two line parallel for both Jews and Christians.

An Arabic translation of the Quran that say [9:30] The Jews said, "Ezra is the son of GOD," while the Christians said, "Jesus is the son of GOD!" These are blasphemies uttered by their mouths. They thus match the blasphemies of those who have disbelieved in the past. GOD condemns them. They have surely deviated. http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/noframes/ch9.html This is an Islamic website.

Also explenation about this topic: http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Quran/Versions/009.030.html

modern Jews don't claim Ezra to be son of God, nor does there seem to be any such claim in the Jewish scriptures, Talmud, or later writings.

This is NOT my research.this verses are documented in the Quran:

http://www3.alislam.org/showVerse.jsp?vn=30&ch=9&tPN=384

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html

You can also find many more.Anyway it is a fact that the Quran say that and it also a fact that the Jews don't believe Ezra is the son of God and also have never believed.

I have supplied link to the Qu'ran verse.Oren.tal 07:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oren.tal, as discussed here, this is pure OR. Find a reliable secondary source and read up on the relevant policies and guidelines (WP:OR, WP:RS) to understand why this cannot be including in the article in its current form. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 09:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

since I put links to Islamic web site this is NOT persoanl research.I just mention fact about the Quran that claim that Jews believe Ezra son of God and I supplied all source for it. Therefor I am going to put it back. Because I mention facts.I mention the verse and what is Ezra in the Jewish view.Oren.tal 09:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Blogs and polemic websites (whether on Islam or any other religion) are not reliable sources to interpret those verses of the Quran. You need to find a scholarly source who makes this interpretation. Have you read up on the policies and guidelines I referred to above? It would help your Wikipedia activities to familiarise yourself with them. I have reverted your changes and I'm sure if you add it in again someone else will too. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 09:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

AA I think you have a mistake. I don't speak about the sources I have introduced in the discussion of criticize of Islam. I put link to Quran translation web-sites that run by Muslims and all of them approve what I say.I have not making up by myself.So before you think to erase it again check all the sources I supplied. After that come with answer. Wait that I will explain to you and then continue to other. Don't erase only according to your own opinion. Thank. Oren.tal 09:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oren.tal, I think you're failing to understand what original research is and how to use primary sources correctly. I have not removed this material based solely on my own opinion (although I am absolutely entitled to do) but you have been advised by C.Logan and Itaqallah in the Criticism of Islam talk page where you initiated this topic. I have copied across their comments since the subject has moved to this page. Once again, read-up on WP:NOR. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 10:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. we are looking for sources, and not arguments. if you believe it merits mention, please provide some scholarly sources relating this critique. i believe that excludes polemical websites. ITAQALLAH 21:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is considered your research. Essentially, you are presenting an exegesis of primary sources. This is original research, and is essentially forbidden on Wikipedia. What I'm telling you is that you should find a reliable source which backs up your assertions regarding the above verses. Let me reiterate. We should take great care to present information from secondary sources, as primary sources tend to allow multiple interpretations. So, for you and I the above verses mean one thing, and for another person they mean something entirely different. I'm used to this concept, as it happens during Biblical discussions all the time. Therefore, we should stick to secondary sources- for example, if a known expert has mentioned this verse in a publication/book, then we can cite him/her for support in this matter. But as it is, this is merely your own interpretation; that is, unless Jochen Katz is considered an acceptable source on the subject (which doesn't seem to be the case).--C.Logan 21:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) I mention verse in the Quran.If you are Muslims that know Arabic then you know this verse.There is verse in the Quran (sura 9.30) that claim that the Jews believe Ezra is the son of God.You can check th source I have added.On the other hand the moderen Jews don't believe in that and there is no any evidence to that in any Jewish scriptures.I also mention article from web-site that refer to that contradiction.So it is not my personal idea or opinion.I heard about that subject.I checked it and found it true.You should supply real reason for problem.Because I supplied more than one resource.Oren.tal 10:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC) The Quran say explicitly that the Jews believe Ezra is the son of God.There is nothing here about understanding.Oren.tal 10:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC) pay attention to all the sources I have added.Oren.tal 10:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as you're not reading up on the policies and guidelines, let me quote here:

"Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight."

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources."

None of the sources you've cited conform to the above and they are mostly polemical sites. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 10:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A web-site that run by Muslims and offer translation of the Quran,is reliable source for translation of the Quran.I also add article about that subject.For criticism we can use in anti-Islamic web-site and the thing has been done until now.For example there is used in faith-freedom articles.I supplied link to articles about the subject.I also supplied link to the translation of the Quran (only academic and Islamic web-site).I also supplied link to Jewish database about Ezra.Check all the source I supplied one by one.Read them all.If you want I can change the sentence from "However, this claim seems inexplicable" to "However, no Modern Jews..." ,if that what bother you.Since I mention only fact and not opinion there is nothing there as personal.Oren.tal 10:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC) plus there was used in Jihadwatch as source and answer-Islam is not less reliable.Oren.tal 10:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not know the dispute in detail. Quran do not claim that ALL Jews and Christian have this believe. I think even at time of Muhammad all Jews do not take Ezra as son of God. I also understand that many Jews nowaday might not say Ezra as son of God but we need strong sources to claim that NO (not even a single) Jew nowadays have this Shirk. Hence I do not find any error at all.--- A. L. M. 10:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

O.K. then write in the response section.I have mention enough sources.I called the section criticism and not error (even though it is an error in my eyes),because one thing for sure people criticize the Quran for that.But I will totally support in your right to response to this section.Of course the response should be true.There is no evidence at all about any Jewish ever that claim such thing,so take that into account.Oren.tal 11:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Which is exactly why it's original research. C.Logan said it nicely above, that we cannot start doing "exegesis of primary sources" or rely on our own (or polemical website's) interpretations of what it means. A reliable secondary source must be used to present this information. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 11:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, it is probably a fringe theory anyway if there aren't any reliable secondary sources that can be quoted (as the text has been around for 1400 years). → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 11:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This is original research.I have supplied article of answering-Islam (reliable secondary sources) that speak about this.If you have something to say about this subject then write in the response.Second I have supplied primarily sources when I put link to Islamic web-site.The verse appear in the Quran.The debate is not on this.If you claim that there was any Jewish group that called Ezra son of God then write but also added real source for your claim.C.Logan haven't seen all the sources I have added the article.Oren.tal 12:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

answering-Islam should not be used in wikipedia, other than it own article. It is as bad as faith-freedom and company. --- A. L. M. 14:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are saying that Ezra was never considered son of God by any Jewish group. Then it is a big claim and obviously false. I have a deadline in few days. I will give you many sources after my deadline. --- A. L. M. 14:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

answering-Islam can be used to describe the current criticism of Islam.And the site has been used and also has been mention in the list of web-site that criticize Islam. What ever you claim about the Jews s you should write in the response and also supply reliable source.Which mean not anther Islamic source.You should find historical or Jewish.The fact is that today no Jewish claim Ezra is the son of God nor does there is any such claim in the Jewish scriptures, Talmud, or later writings.Oren.tal 16:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I say no modern Jews claim Ezra to be son of God, nor does there is any such claim in the Jewish scriptures Bible,Talmud,Midrash,Misnha or any later writing that claim such thing like Ezra son of God.What ever you have to say about the Jews that you claimed did believed then write it in the response.

"H Z Hirschberg proposed another assumption, based on the words of Ibn Hazm, namely, that the 'righteous who live in Yemen believed that 'Uzayr was indeed the son of Allaah. According to other Muslim sources, there were some Yemenite Jews who had converted to Islam who believed that Ezra was the messiah. For Muhammad, Ezra, the apostle (!) of messiah, can be seen in the same light as the Christian saw Jesus, the messiah, the son of Allah."

—Encyclopedia Judaica, pp. 1108

"...Ezra having been raised to life after he had been dead one hundred years, dictated the whole anew unto the scribes, out of his own memory; at which they greatly marveled, and declared that he could not have done it, unless he were the son of God. Al Beidawi adds, that the imputation must be true, because this verse was read to the Jews and they did not contradict it; which they were ready enough to do in other instances."

—George Sale, The Koran: IX Edition of 1923, London, pp. 152

→ AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 15:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Muslim sources can NOT be used as evidence to what the Jews believed especially in an article that criticize Islam.Oren.tal 16:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Look closely (and maybe readup) on the above sources. They certainly aren't "muslim sources". → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 16:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

you missed that part in the sentence that say "According to other Muslim sources"

My source say what I claim.about the verses we both agree.There is a fact that no modern Jewish claim Ezra is the son of God and there is also anther fact that no Jewish scripture claim that also.As for what you say,well you can write it as well and the response section.Oren.tal 17:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC) This is not original research since I put link to the article of answering-Islam. I have been told by a few people that it has source.

[edit] Use WP:RS please

[1] I have remove this. It is because. You have used following.

1. Wikipedia article as a reference.
2. Use of answering-Islam. Which is not a reliable source.
3. No other reference say what you are claiming. They are misused.

--- A. L. M. 15:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

For mention of criticism it is a reliable source.It is not less reliable than faithfreedom that also have been used.Next time speak before you erased. Oren.tal 16:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There were enough atheists that offer me helped in case Muslims will try to censor anything.I only mention fact.Plus I removed the link to the wikipedia article as asked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal (talk • contribs)

There's nothing to censor. All you need to do is add a couple of reliable sources to backup the "criticism" claim. As you see above, I've added two sources which provide valid explanations of the quranic verse. But you should refrain from reverting changes against consensus. Add some reliable sources and all will be OK. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 16:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Faith freedom should also be removed. I will remove all material added using it also. --- A. L. M. 16:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

ALM If you will continue to vandalize this article and other by deleting I will report on you I am going to put back what you have removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal (talk • contribs)

[edit] 115 Surahs?

I edited the article here because it seems odd that a source would claim 115 surahs and not 114. If someone has the source, it would be nice to know if he does cite 115 surahs. "Hussein 'Abdul-Raof, a professor of Arabic and Middle Eastern studies, states that sura 115 sura was the last Sura revealed (and thus not Sura 9)." I deleted it because there is no source for 115 surahs.

the source says 103, not 115. ITAQALLAH 21:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] war and violence

It wan not original research since he supplied sources.132.72.149.74 14:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

for criticize answering-Islam is reliable source.Plus there was also has source.Do not erase that again.132.72.149.74 14:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

it's not a reliable source. see WP:RS. also, see WP:OR. ITAQALLAH 14:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

for criticism you use in web site that criticize not in pro-Islamic site.Therefore it is reliable when you mention the argue.As you see,I am not the only one that want that.So you better stop erasing all the time.Oren.tal 14:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made." your sources don't fill these criteria. ITAQALLAH 14:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because you don't like it or what it say doesn't mean it is not reliable source.I hold it as a reliable source.Beside of the source where taken from Islamic web-site.Oren.tal 15:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

you must explain why the source is reliable. again, i must point you to WP:OR. Wikipedia articles are not a forum for novel soapboxing. ITAQALLAH 15:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not erase my discussions.Thank.132.72.149.74 14:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

newest discussions go at the bottom, see WP:TPG#Layout. ITAQALLAH 14:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Your source itself do not say itself reliable. It make only a claim saying "as far as I know" [2]. I think that is you who has written it there too? Right? --- A. L. M. 15:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the additions with this comment:

"These are a few examples of excerpts of Islamic literature that receive much critism:"

Criticism from whom? Please discuss here first. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 16:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christians and Jews in the Qur'an

Criticism = "The practice of analyzing, classifying, interpreting, or evaluating literary or other artistic works."

• Criticism does not mean just negative analysis and hide the positive view of quran towards the People of the book!
• Also it is not OR (WP:OR), as it refers to published facts, ie Quran.

~atif - 12:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

OR says: "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;" - and thats what you tried to do. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am asking who's interpreting in what way? Pls read the quotes AGAIN and tell me where does it say to "curse" or negative view of the People of the book? These verses are all praising the people of the book, no matter how differently you can interpret verses quoted.

It does not introduce any synthesis, these are just verses taken from Quran. Read from a neutral POV and you will find they are nothing but "praising" the People of the book, whand they MUST be mentioned in criticism of Quran ~atif - 15:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have to use this, you'll have to reduce them to short sentences like the rest of the article, and not to huge quote farms. Make sure your input is compatible with the rest of the article. If I started expanding on the verses already linked, it would make the page long. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

ok, I will abridge the content. Thx ~atif - 02:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Any quran references need a secondary source. Alone, it is origional research, as the qur'an is an interpritation. What one person says can easily be interprited as meaning something else. So a secondary source is needed for interpritations. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles).--Sefringle^Talk 03:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Question: Does the same apply to hadith? I've often wondered how to include hadith that seem to either support or contradict parts of the Qur'an, but was under the impression they were in the same catagory. I agree about your edit, in any event quoting things without context is fairly useless. Gtadoc 04:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

yes. It applies to the hadith too. Exactly. Who is to say which interpritation is the right "context"? That is all interpritation, and can easily be interprited differently by different people.--Sefringle^Talk 04:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Interpretation may happen to certain verses and not all. Read the 3 interpretations by Yusuf, Pichthall and Shakir (site), they all mean the same. Interpretation may arise to some verses due to context, choice of meanings of arabic word etc. By your logic, then all verses reference in People of the Book should be removed? I can point many articles where quranic verses have been referred without secondary source, pls help to scrub those as well. Anyways, I have added the secondary sources. ~atif - 09:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Read all three interpritations of verse ^{[Qur'an 9:5]}. They are all the same too. This verse can easily be inteprited (and critics often have interprited it this way) to say Islam is a religion of terrorism. However, this is disputed by many muslims, and the reason is that the qur'an is an interpritation, meaning different people have different views on its meaning. And yes, if there are quran references as a primary source in the People of the book article, secondary sources should be added, or the qur'an verses should be removed as origional research. That said, it looks like the entire article is just about origional research. That is probably why it is tagged with {{unreferenced}}.--Sefringle^Talk 13:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As an example of interpretation regarding the verses referencing people of the book: I've heard many a mufti explain to me that they thought those sections only referred to people of the book during the time of the revelation of that verse, not to ones today. Clearly alternative interpretations are possible. Gtadoc 17:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

216.99.52.170 20:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)== Maulana Muhammad Ali ==

Why is this person a reliable source for the material being attributed to him? Arrow740 06:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Spencer is anymore reliable than him. --Aminz 06:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

They are being used for different things. Arrow740 22:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Maulana Muhmmad Ali is well known translator and commentator of the Quran. His works have been endorsed by the Al Azhar University[3] and Pickthall [4].Sufaid 12:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

He is not being used as a source of responses to criticism. Arrow740 22:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes he is. Sufaid 06:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

How so?--Sefringle^Talk 06:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

How not so?Sufaid 12:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think to choose a person as a reliable source or not is very subjective. Wikipedia should not lose its spirit as neutral encyclopedia. We should not force somebody to be reliable or not (as we see Arrow740 doing). Everybody with established reputation and record can be used for reference and we should not force our POV on this collaborative work call wikipedia! ~atif - 03:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"We should not force somebody to be reliable or not (as we see Arrow740 doing)" - that's one of the nicest things anyone has said about me on wikipedia. Arrow740 01:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Your lame sarcasim won't help solve anything

[edit] Why is Harun Yahya an unreliable source?

pls tell me with convincing evidence else I will re-insert his source for Jews and christian section? ~atif - 09:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

He's a polemicist with no qualifications. We can't use him for religious scholarship. If he were explicitly responding to specific criticisms that might be something else. Arrow740 09:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• I will not call him a polemic as you can see almost all of the books he has written are NOT against other religion! Take a look at his site here and in fact you can find none here. He is against creationism, Darwinism. He is not like Ahmed Deedat who refute some of the contents of Bible.
• regarding your second point that he is not responding to specific criticisms, sorry you are again wrong. The site I am referring to (http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/people_of_the_book.php), its intro specifically says "However, nowadays certain circles are trying to give Islamic morality the wrong image. The religion of Islam commands people to create an "abode of peace and well-being" on the face of the Earth, but those circles try to show the opposite of this as if there was a conflict between followers of other religions and Muslims. ". So in the whole article he is specifically responding to the criticism we have on this article. Have you read the site? ~atif - 14:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740, be sincere and honest, do not make edits to fool others. You made edit here summarising that it is for Surah 9 section of the article, but quietly you reverted the Christians and Jews in the Qur'an section also. You were asked to give answers to the Talk page (Why is Harun Yahya an unreliable source?), but you did not any except your rhetorics without any basis. Do a favour of being honest, or I will take it to admins. ~atif - 02:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I will put it gently by observing that Adnan Oktar has no credentials in this field; the curious need only to visit his Wikipedia article to see just how wildly inappropriate it would be to treat his work as that of a respectable scholar.Proabivouac 02:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Is respectable scholar a requirment to be an RS? Sufaid 06:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac Adnan Oktar is no worse than Spencer or James Arlandson (this guy says "Islam codifies and legalizes rape") who are quoted so many times in this article. ~atif - 15:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War and violence section

i noticed, going over this section, that it reads utterly like a devotional screed to the every pondering of Spencer. i have mentioned previously that this section needs a substantial rewrite to make it resemble something at least vaguely encyclopedic. we must also address the excessive usage of Spencer: he isn't a reliable source on Islam, yet demanding that responses be from high quality sources smacks of double standards. let's get one thing straight: there is no such thing as an unreliable polemic tract being a "reliable source for criticism" (the latter would, in fact, be a reliable source which documents criticism). we don't have one standard for criticism, and another standard for everything else. if we are resisting the insertion of individuals like Yahya et al., as we rightly should, we must apply the same principles to all personalities employed here. ITAQALLAH 19:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the section does not devote much space to his pondering. If you can find people like Watt making his argument of moral relativism, that's one thing. If you can find polemicists making ad hominem attacks against critics, that's fine too. However, a propagandist spouting clearly nonsensical apologetics is another. Many of these "responses" do not belong here. They are either cobbled together from propaganda sources or original interpretations of reliable sources. Arrow740 01:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

actually, the number of times one sees "Spencer writes...", "Spencer notes...", and other such combinations, really makes the text quite irksome to read. i think both the criticism and responses sections need substantial trimming, as well as the removal of sources of dubious reliability- such as Spencer and Arlandson. ITAQALLAH 13:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

commentary on edits

i have been requested to comment on each of my edits "one-by-one", so here i am. the premise of all of these edits is that article content must be sourced to independent third party reliable sources (see WP:RS, WP:V). reliability is gauged by repute in academic/scholarly circles, quality of the publisher (i.e. university press or another well respected publisher), any relevant qualifications, and the nature of the material itself. while going through this writeup, i found myself repeating the fact that my edit summaries explained the policy/guideline based removal quite clearly. thus, in those instances where the edit summary is sufficient, i have written "RTES" (refer to edit summary):

• [5] -- tweaks with wording; removal of usc link to primary source
• [6] - RTES, source is unreliable and does not meet WP:RS. verse-spam is unencyclopedic.
• [7] - RTES, Arlandson (and likewise americanthinker.com) isn't a reliable source, as has been proven in previous discussions. his field is women in early Christianity, not Islam.
• [8] - RTES, the TOC looks extremely messy with so many needless and unencyclopedic subheadings. responses material trimmed to summarize main arguments.
• [9] - mukto-mona is an unreliable source, whitehouse.gov isn't a reliable source for what "Many Muslims and non-Muslims believe"
• [10] - RTES, nothing in terms of critique anyway.
• [11] - RTES, two sections on closely similar topics merged to improve TOC layout; reduction of convoluted discussion on both sides.
• [12] - copyedit, and addition of material from a reliable source offering alternative view on progression of verses. this has been opposed on OR grounds, so i will not reinstate this for now.
• [13] - RTES, again, trimming of apologetic, insertion of better sources.
• [14] RTES- exact same argument already given in previous paragraph;
• [15] - RTES, insertion of RS material about objections to the narrative.

as all have been explained (the edit summaries were more than sufficient), the productive edits (barring the Firestone material) will be reinstated. thanks. ITAQALLAH 23:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If you think that Spencer is not a reliable source for criticism of Islam then you're quite wrong. Arrow740 05:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

please explain how Spencer meets the WP:RS criteria. you have been avoiding this question for some time. it requires some extraordinary doublethink to be able to demand impeccably reliable sources on every other article, then miraculously forget those very standards on POV-magnet articles such as these. so, fire away. ITAQALLAH 15:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is about criticism of Islam. The critics are the best sources for this material. They are as regards criticism quite reliable. In articles which are not about criticism, we do not use them. Arrow740 18:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

don't you believe, that if the topic of criticism of Islam is so notable (and not merely an internet fad, or opportunistic sensationalism), that we should be able to document objectively where/how Islam has been criticised using independent reliable sources (i.e. academics who have discussed it). as in example, an article with the topic of 'Muhammad in Islamic piety' would only discuss the issue so far as what has been covered in academic sources - we wouldn't start using islam.com, Zakir Naik or other typically unreliable individuals. the use of non-Western Islamic scholars may be an issue, but that's pretty irrelevant to my example. that the title indicates a POV-fork (perhaps a better title is "Views on Islam"?)doesn't mean this article may become a cesspool for whatever critique can be synthesised. if you could explain how Spencer, or even Winn/FFI/Arlandson/Anonymous Arab Christian author, meet WP:RS, then we can discuss further. ITAQALLAH 18:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If you think you can succeed with an AfD, try it. Otherwise this article will contain more than rebuttals. I can compromise on Winn, and admit that FFI is not clear cut. But don't bring this Spencer canard again. Arrow740 18:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

why would you "compromise" on Winn and perhaps FFI, yet not so on Spencer? disposing of Winn isn't much of a compromise anyway, and he shouldn't be used as a bargaining chip so that other unreliable figures may be overlooked. i don't think an AfD is in order, i think a rename to a more neutral title is. at least then, the focus can be on those views that have been documented in reliable sources, not on having to promulgate fringe theories because their proponents are "critics". what do you think? ITAQALLAH 18:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshot from submission

Use of the screenshot from submission has been limited to that article not this one. see Image talk:Submission screenshot.gif

[edit] What "criticism of the quran" is all about

Is the quran the "revelation of an angel"? Or was it made up by Muhammad himself?

[edit] Answering-Islam.org

I don't think that it is a reliable website. If anyone differes, feel free to point out why.Bless sins 17:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bless Sins...Like any website or person with a point of view on religion, the website is just arguing a point, and seems to do it fairly well (although i only spent a couple of minutes there). What do you find wrong with it? CWPappas 07:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

On wikipedia we can't just use "any website or person". On the contrary we are to use WP:Reliable sources. Please also refer to WP:V for more info.Bless sins 02:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I believe the following sources are unreliable as well. If you object, please explain why.Bless sins 02:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Faith freedom
2. Robert Spencer
3. Jihad watch

We have already been through this. See /Archive 1.--Sefringle^Talk 05:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, perhaps you could explain how the aforementioned hate websites are reliable. thanks in advance. ITAQALLAH 15:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't dismiss websites you don't agree with as "hate websites." That's hate speech, and it's wrong. Arrow740 18:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

would you prefer "crankish", or "Islamophobic"? let's return to the issue: how are they WP:RS compliant? ITAQALLAH 18:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This debate is quite rediculous. We have been over this already, and the "Islamophobic" (or similar) arguement is Ad hominem. --Sefringle^Talk 00:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

instead of dismissing the debate as ridiculous, why don't you demonstrate how these sources meet WP:RS? ITAQALLAH 01:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

None of them meet RS, anymore than do Islamic websites. They're partisan sources.Proabivouac 00:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I find what is said on Answering-Islam.org interesting even if someone deems it not to meet some Wiki acid test for reliability. I do have a print copy of the Koran, but I don't have easy access to it right now...does "Answering-Islam" misquote the Surah and, if not, then what other explaination is there for the contradictions contained therein? If the Surah are quoted correctly and the website-in-question is trying to refute the claim that the Koran is perfect, then why isn't their material admissible as valid criticism of the Koran? Please be specifiic... you asked me to "refer to WP:V for more info", but why don't you make your point directly instead of having me hunt elsewhere for something that supports your argument?

As I said on Tuesday, Aug. 21, I only took a quick look at the site but I didn't see anything that I would consider an example of islamophobia. I took another look tonight; "Answering-Islam" even has links to Islamic websites with opposing points of view. Simply being critical of some passages of the Koran, or even for the Islamic faith as a whole, does not constitute islamophobia (check the Wiki page on islamophobia for a definition). As for the issue of being unreliable, certainly if you are looking for examples of criticism of the Koran, you have to expect that those sources may not be altogether islamophilic.

In addition, after having read WP:V it occurred to me that Wikipedia itself possibly does not meet its own standard of reliability! It says, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Wikipedia doesn't do that! I've heard all kinds of criticism outside of Wikipedia about Wikipedia's lack of fact-checking and accuracy. Articles and edits go up without any filtration whatsoever and which editors have been asked for credentials? If someone put up an article on how Neil Armstrong found pigeons eating popcorn on the Moon during the Apollo 11 mission, how long would it take before someone took it down? How many people could read it and believe it to be fact in that time? Some responsible editors spend all their time doing nothing but reverting vandalism. CWPappas 07:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

sources used in any article should be reliable. just because a source makes a critique, and an editor finds that valid or invalid, doesn't make it noteworthy. articles, as WP:V/WP:RS specify, need to rely on third party reliable sources. there is general comunity consensus on this point. on this article, that translates to independent academic sources who have made note of the kinds of criticism directed against Islam/the Qur'an. this isn't really the place to debate whether what a particular source says is true or not. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source: you're right; that's why we don't self cite. Wikipedia is only as good as its weakest link, and the criticisms of Wikipedia you describe are precisely due to its failure to stick to conveying material from reliable sources. as it stands, the above websites are self-published and partisan (hence unreliable), and as with any other article, we should stick to reporting what reliable sources mention concerning this topic (as opposed to popularising those we feel are valid). ITAQALLAH 23:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

that translates to independent academic sources who have made note of the kinds of criticism directed against Islam/the Qur'an. Not quite. Reliable sources for criticim are those which state the views of the critics. On other Islam-related articles, you are right. But not on criticism articles. Criticism articles present notable views on topics which may or may not be from experts, yet there are thousands of articles on wikipedia where these views are represented. While your second arguement may have merit, that "criticism of..." articles may not belong, it is quite irrelevant as long as they exist. If you want to get rid of criticism of articles, that is a completely different issue, but so long as they do exist, these sources are reliable sources for criticism. That consensus has been established many times already.--Sefringle^Talk 21:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Reliable sources for criticim are those which state the views of the critics."-- "reliable source for criticism" is a misnomer, any source which makes criticism can be paraded as a reliable source under this faulty premise. partisan sources do not become reliable except on articles about themselves. see WP:V#Questionable_sources. furthermore, as these sources are forwarding the criticism themselves, they become primary sources on this article, making them even more unreliable.
• "On other Islam-related articles, you are right. But not on criticism articles." our policies and guidelines are applied uniformly throughout all articles- no double standards- don't you agree? these sources do not meet the standards listed in WP:RS. what is required here is discussion of the topic in secondary reliable sources (and i'm sure there is), that's how we know what's noteworthy; instead of forwarding material just because it's present on a crankish website. i refer to my previous example of an article like `Muhammad in Islamic piety` - where we would report the issue using academic reliable sources, and not what's found on Islamic websites. "That consensus has been established many times already." - actually, WP:V and WP:RS enjoy general consensus - and they both discourage the use of partisan sources. no such consensus exists to use partisan sources outside of articles on themselves. ITAQALLAH 23:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes what you said in the first bullet applies to questionable sources, not partisan sources. As for the second issue, primary sourcing alone doesn't equate to unreliability. You will have to explain this point better for me to more accurately respond to it.
• " our policies and guidelines are applied uniformly throughout all articles- no double standards-" You know as well as I do this is not the case on wikipedia. There are thousands of double standards on wikipedia. Besides "double standards" is a very subjective term, and to call this a double standard is an opinion. Attempts to change the double standards on wikipedia often fail, because what is a double standard to one party may not be to another. Partisan sources have gotten "no consensus," meaning no consensus for inclusion or removal. But as primary sources, I think they are acceptable. As secondary sources, no.--Sefringle^Talk 00:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sefringle, partisan sources which promote fringe material generally are questionable sources. ("Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight.") also see WP:RS: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." as you know, questionable sources may be used as primary sources, but only in articles about themselves.
• i'm not interested in digressing into the issue of double standards here, the point is that all sources used in this article - and every other article on Wikipedia for that matter - should conform to WP:RS and WP:V. Sefringle, i would invite you to please demonstrate how they meet the aforementioned content policy and guideline. ITAQALLAH 00:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Partisan sources promote a particular POV. That alone does not mean they have a "poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight." You will have to explain how each one of these sources you disagree with the inclusion of has no editorial oversight or a poor reputation for fact-checking. As for the second part, I agree there.--Sefringle^Talk 02:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, the websites aren't only partisan, they are crammed with fringe theories. if you disagree with that, can you provide reliable sources which document the critiques these sources make. if you can, why are we using the unreliable sources in the first place then? as for questionable sources having "poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight." - this is a notion that can only be disproven by providing evidence suggesting otherwise. we cannot assume they engage in academic peer reviews of the material they publish if there is no evidence of it. ITAQALLAH 02:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

False dilemma.--Sefringle^Talk 05:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, i agree that it would be a false dilemma if there were any other alternative answers available. either a self-published website (which these websites are) has a scholarly peer review in place to vet contributors' articles, or it doesn't. you need to show that they do, not me proving they don't. ITAQALLAH 17:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, there is nothing in the policies you showed me that says every opinion expressed on wikipedia has to be "scholarly peer reviewed" for inclusion. And second, you need to show me that the sources are questionable (by the definition provided on WP:V), since you are the one claiming they are. I never said a word about whether or not the sources were "scholarly peer reviewed". So the burden of proof is on you, not me. This is a criticism article, thus presenting the views of notable critics, whether scholarly or not. It isn't an article on the tenants of Islam.--Sefringle^Talk 02:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, per WP:V, "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Thus, you need to find reliable sources for all content you insert. Needless to say you need to prove their reliability if questioned.Bless sins 05:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Simply, Answering-Islam.org cites passages from the Qur'an and interprets what its authors see as contradictions as being illogical and, therefore, an imperfect book. It also points out passages that seem to contradict claims by others (theologians, etc.) concerning fundamental aspects of Islam. I can understand that any criticism of the Qur'an will be viewed as "fringe" by those who truly believe that it was devinely inspired, but criticism it is. What would make Answering-Islam.org unreliable would be if they either misquoted the Qur'an or if there was a flaw in the logic that lead them to their conclusions. As for the issue of self-publishing, WP uses a lot of sources that are self-published...any reference to a newspaper or television network included. Honestly, doesn't Answering-Islam address a lot of questions asked by a lot of people therefore making the criticism noteworthy and not fringe? Please, everyone, try to check you personal beliefs at the door and edit this article with detachment and neutrality. CWPappas 07:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Let's make this clear. In order to be included in this article, content must actually criticize the Qur'an. Randomly quoting verses doesn't cut it. Another point is that this article is about criticism of the Qur'an, not criticism of Saudi Arabia. Bless sins 00:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

first of all the verses are not random; they are linked to appropiate secondary sources.--Sefringle^Talk 03:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert war

Please end the revert war on the Jihadwatch link, and discuss it here, or this goes to WP:RFPP. Hornplease 07:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

it has been ascertained above that partisan websites cannot masquerade as reliable sources: they don't meet WP:RS and they wouldn't be used anywhere else on this encyclopedia except as primary sources. in fact, even in this article they are being used as primary sources. the kind of sources we are supposed to be using are reliable secondary sources which objectively discuss the topic. ITAQALLAH 14:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've read the archives.

Could someone who disagrees spell out their objections to the above statement? The archives are unclear.Hornplease 20:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"Reliable sources for criticim are those which state the views of the critics." If that's the assumption on which we are proceeding, it is inaccurate. Reliable sources are those that report notable criticism. Its not our job to determine that Spencer's criticism of Islam is notable but Bal Thackeray's is not. Hornplease 20:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is Spencer, who's sold millions of books on the subject, not a reliable source for criticism? I disagree with removing the material. - Merzbow 02:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

i'm thinking that we should be able to find reliable documentation of the main arguments in Spencer's works (the premise is, of course, that his works are prominent enough to have been discussed in reliable literature i.e. mainstream US book reviews, which is a given if some of them are best-sellers). that also helps against excessive usage which is an issue with the current war and violence sect., and i think the article is quite unbalanced in that regard. the websites mentioned above aren't likely to have the same kind of coverage, and reliance on these kinds of sources should be reduced IMO. ITAQALLAH 03:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There is as of yet no consensus to remove this material. Spencer is as close to an authority on criticism of Islam that we've got, articles on his website are reliable on this subject. As far as I've seen professors don't engage in religious criticism, that's not their job; we may as well cleanse Wikipedia of all material critical of any religion if that's the standard being demanded. - Merzbow 00:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No consensus to remove, and no consensus to stay, either. Robert Spencer is most assuredly not "as close to an authority on criticism of Islam" as we have got. He is a notable critic of Islam. Someone aware of his work and of others is "an authority on criticism of Islam. Many, many academics in religious studies document the criticism of religions and study major critics and evaluate notable arguments and the milieu in which they are made. Jihadwatch is a primary source for criticism of Islam. What part of this is difficult to understand? Hornplease 00:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Note Itaqallah has made a similar point five days ago, above, which has not been responded to while an irresponsible edit-war has been conducted. Hornplease 00:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, we certainly are not going to regard a man that charges Islam as being a "violent", "intolerant" religion to be a reliable source. Please see WP:RS#Extremist_sources. And you claim that there are no critics of Islam more reliable than he is wrong. Try Maxime Rodinson or William Muir or Jane Gerber. Learn to look beyond Spencer/Warraq/Sina etc.Bless sins 01:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

ad hominem. Any highly notable criticism (such as Spencer/Warraq/Sina, etc) is a reliable source for critical viewpoints. At worst, they are primary sources on criticism. That alone doesn't make them unreliable or extremist. Sefringle^Talk 01:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The policy on extremist sources, which I personally have doubts about, is ad hominem. Take it to that talk page, and I might agree with you.

If you can find a reliable source from a scholar of criticism of the Quran rather than from a critic of the Quran saying what Spencer says, then you might have a leg to stand on. Hornplease 01:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The policy is also very vague as to what sites are extremist and what sites are not; almost as if leaving it up to the consensus of the article writers to determine whether or not the source is extremist or not.--Sefringle^Talk 02:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, Sefringle, but my Latin is not so sharp. So I don't exactly know what you mean by "ad hominem", nor am I about to read an unsourced article to find that out.Bless sins 01:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a fallacy, and if you bothered to read the article, you might know what I am talking about; I'm not going to explain what can easily be discovered by reading the article.--Sefringle^Talk 02:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please demonstrate how any of them is a "reliable source". If you can demonstrate that, then you will be able to put into wikipedia that Muslims are "evil" are all the other crazy theories that these narrow minded individuals come up with.Bless sins 01:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You demonstrate how the responses are reliable sources first. You need to give more specific examples as to how they are not reliable sources, other than the "muslims are "evil" are all other crazy theouies..." arguement, because, as I already pointed out, it is ad hominem. --Sefringle^Talk 02:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It is up to the editor who wishes to use a source to prove they are a reliable source and not for others to prove otherwise (see negative proof). If any of the critics that are being mentioned as unreliable have had their work in peer reviewed journals or cited by other scholars, then they should be given some weight in this article otherwise they would be considered Extremist sources. → AA ^(talk) — 06:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Peer reviewed journals" don't publish criticism of religion. That is not the job of scholarly journals and not within the scope of professors' work. Go to Scientology, for example, one of the most notably heavily-criticized religions around, and you will find few, if any, criticism cites from professors. In short, there is no consensus in Wikipedia for requiring criticism of religion to come from peer-reviewed sources. Merzbow 08:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Have any of these critics in question had their work published and agreed upon by other reliable sources? We can't just have any extremist's views used on Wikipedia just because they are notable for something or other. We still have to adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:V policies. → AA ^(talk) — 08:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Peer reviewed journals" don't publish criticism of religion. They do, however, review the work of notable critics. This is what I have said several times.

Scientology is not a reasonable comparison (obviously.) I think you would do better to consider Christianity. I personally, without having to look, know of Science and Christian Belief, Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, the New Humanist. There are no doubt several others. Other than journals, books reviewing criticism of religion are published regularly by major academic presses; consider, for example David Martin's "Does Christianity Cause War?" from OUP. Major sociological journals are also full of articles studying the effects of religious indoctrination on societies. For Richard Dawkins, for example, I would recommend not quoting him but any of the studies of his critiques, such as Dawkins' God by Alistair McGrath; again, published by Blackwell.

Obviously, the equivalent holds true for Islam and for textual criticism of the Qur'an. If we are writing a genuine encyclopaedia here, then directly quoting mavericks like Spencer, who have no review of their work - no quality control, as it were - is unacceptable. If we are using this as a soapbox to repeat polemic, however... Hornplease 17:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The policy and guideline would therefore suggest that these "critics" views are not represented in any articles apart from their own.

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves.

→ AA ^(talk) — 17:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Scientology is not a reasonable comparison (obviously.)" No, not obviously. Islam has only very recently begun to come under serious examination in the West. And who fact-checks Dawkins' books? They are not peer-reviewed either. He's as much a maverick as Spencer (and if you read his books, he's far more polemical). - Merzbow 05:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

And again Hornplease, I don't know why you keep insisting that only reliable sources that cover other reliable sources are reliable, not the reliable sources themselves. So far you're the only person I've encountered on Wikipedia who advocates this. McGrath is no more reliable than Dawkins. - Merzbow 05:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If I am the only person who has explained this to you, I apologise. I hope, however, that you will respond to the actual points that I have made with more care. McGrath is not "as reliable a source as Dawkins" in one very particular way: McGrath is a reliable source about Dawkin's criticism. If you are to pick and choose what Dawkins has to say, nothing prevents massive edit wars about what part of that primary source of criticism should be included - because you are not a reliable source on what Dawkins' major arguments are. Similarly, if the criticism of the Quran is to be handled in an encyclopaedic manner, then simply quoting from "critics" is both bad research methodology, and not in line with our policies on original research and reliable sources. We need to quote from reliable sources on criticism, not reliable sources of criticism.

(Personally, I would like to see Dawkins removed as a primary source from the criticism of religion article. However, he is not quoted directly there, but paraphrase, and those paraphrases are broadly in line with major reviews of the recent work of the "God critics", so I do not see it as particularly urgent.)

I urge you to read this again. I am not saying "reliable sources that cover other reliable sources are reliable, not the reliable sources themselves"; I am saying that some things are primary sources. A notable critic is a primary source for criticism.

(In any case, where does it say JW is reliable?) Hornplease 06:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think we have clarified what the problem is. Since you calim you want reliable secondary sources about criticism, that is an acceptable addition, but it does not justify the selective removial of sourced content which is presented as critical views. Since you think content which is primary sources should be removed, prehaps you can show me the policy which prohibits primary sources? As I have said twice now, primary sources alone is no reason to selectively remove quotes which certian users doesn't like. There is nothing wrong with those sections which you removed. And I did explain how JW is reliable as a primary source; it is reliable as a primary source presenting the views of critics; see the above section. Spencer is paraphrased here as well and not quoted directly, so how this comparision to Dawkins fits is unclear.--Sefringle^Talk 18:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow and Sefringle are, obviously, right. Arrow740 06:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing. That does not count as discussion,however.Hornplease 06:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? Arrow740 06:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was clear. You have not contributed to the discussion. Hornplease 07:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If my reasoning is unclear to you, say so. Otherwise, address it. Arrow740 07:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, the moment I see any reasoning, I will address it. Hornplease 07:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I would believe you, but you have already demonstrated the falsehood of that sentence on this talk page. Arrow740 08:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

How? where? what reasoning should I see? What have I not responded to? Point me in that direction. Hornplease 08:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hornplease, the problem is you fundamentally misunderstand what constitutes a primary source. This was discussed to death already in the Ahmadinejad article and you were unable to convince people there. Again, from WP:NOR: "Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claim... An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, is a secondary source", "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about... Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance". A critic of religion writing about that religion is undisputably a secondary source. The primary source would be the documents he is analyzing - most notably, the Qur'an. - Merzbow 21:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This is subtly different from the MA article. (Incidentally, I do not misunderstand what a 'primary source' is; my livelihood depends on my not making that error. The writer of NOR was told at the time that he/she was being unclear. If you read the talkpage, you will see that there is considerable discussion -in which I am, unfortunately, not really a participant at the moment -on how to make the divide clearer.) And "unable to convince people there" means you and two others, so don't make it sound like I took up arms against a sea of enemies. If it is you objecting in both places, perhaps it is you that misunderstands the nature of sourcing? I have made this argument elsewhere successfully, I believe.

Please take a look at the title of this article. This is an encylopaedia article about the criticism of the Koran. It is not a location for criticism of the Koran. The primary sources of criticism are critics: "documents or people very close to the situation being written about." Secondary sources "draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims;" in the case of this article, claims about the nature and scope of criticisms of Islam. Spencer is a man who is, more than anyone, "very close to the situation being written about". By quoting from people notable as critics, you are conducting OR about the nature of their criticism. (Unless you are choosing passages that they themselves set up as representative of their opinions, but thats another story.)

Your claim that "A critic of religion writing about that religion is undisputably a secondary source. The primary source would be the documents he is analyzing - most notably, the Qur'an." would be correct - in the Koran article. If Spencer is an RS, go ahead and put him in there. I will not object. The simple truth underlying the intuituin that Spencer is a notable critic but not an encyclopaedic source is that we should be quoting those who can summarise his criticisms, note those that are particularly novel or have seized the public's imaginations. Not the passagese that some WP reader likes. Hornplease 03:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a completely novel interpretation, against what policy explicitly says. If you disagree with the definitions and examples in WP:NOR, the burden is on you to get it changed first. - Merzbow 06:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And by your logic, a History of the Roman Empire article couldn't quote historians of Rome at all (including modern historians), because they would be primary sources, but the Roman Empire article could. Clearly an absurdity. - Merzbow 06:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You've claimed its novel before; that's hardly true, given that you can't quote a single piece of policy that contradicts it, while I can quote policy that explicitly supports it.

Incidentally, your "History of the Roman Empire example is valuable: Historiography of the Roman Empire, if it existed, should avoid quoting historians directly. Consider Decline of the Roman Empire. There's a reason the former article is redlinked. The latter "references" several historians but is based on secondary work treating Gibbon et al as sources. Hornplease 07:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, "Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims", and "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about". This article is not about meta-analysis of criticism of the Qur'an. We are not writing "about" the critics, it is not "Criticismiography of the Qur'an", just as "History of Russia" is not "Historiography of Russia". This article is about the Qur'an, just like "History of Russia" (which references dozens of "direct" historians like Conquest) is about Russia. - Merzbow 17:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

(Deindent) No, the title is "criticism of the Qur'an", and the article is about criticism of the Qur'an. I am puzzled by how you can argue differently in the light of the big, boldface title of this page. I note you quite happily duck the Decline of the Roman Empire article. In any case, the history of Russia article studies the history of Russia and quotes those who are experts on the history of Russia. This article studies the criticism of the Koran and quotes those who are experts on the criticism of the Koran. (Not those who are notable critics.)Hornplease 10:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hornplease has a valid point. Only qualified critics should be used as reliable sources in this article. Don't just cite any [redacted per WP:NPA] :D216.99.52.170 20:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Decline is a sparsely-sourced article that needs a lot of work, as compared to the Russia article, which has innumerable cites. But I'm glad you brought this up again, as it gives me another opportunity to quote policy: "An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, is a secondary source." - Merzbow 21:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! And a scholar's interpretation of the criticism of the Koran is a secondary source. Come on! Follow the policy you yourself quote! Look at the title of the article! Etc. Hornplease 21:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

See the refs in the first paragraph of Criticism of Islam. These critics have been written about and reviewed. Once established as reliable and notable on the subject, they can be used as references in articles about that subject. "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." This is basic stuff. - Merzbow 00:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

They are not established as reliable on the subject of Islam. They have been established as notable as critics of Islam. They have not been established as reliable students of criticism of Islam. Lockman indicates that Pipes is a notable critic of Islam; we should quote Lockman on what he thinks are Pipes' major points about the Koran, rather than attempting original research by quote-mining Pipes ourself. This is basic stuff. Pipes is not an RS about criticism; he is merely a notable critic, which is all that the citation indicates he is.Hornplease 12:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you think Pipes is a RS? And, I suggest you review the meaning of "original research" - quoting another writer is never original research. Alexwoods 14:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"Quoting another writer is never original research": yes, it is. If the writer in question is producing work that is the direct subject of the article, namely "documents or people very close to the situation being written about", then WP:NOR enjoins us to "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" based on that. Hornplease 15:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow is largely right when he says that most academic peer-reviewed journals/newspapers/books don't forward subjective opinions- i think the point being missed here is that this doesn't stop them from mentioning where this has occured. any site forwarding a critical opinion is itself a primary source for that very criticism. Hornplease's example regarding Pipes is spot on, and the same applies to Spencer and anyone who may have reviewed his work. ITAQALLAH 13:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As opposed to quote-mining Lockman for when he references Pipes? Please don't quote-mine Lockman - you'll need to pick and choose from somebody who discusses Lockman. And so on... clearly an absurdity. You have the choice of Afd'ing this article if you think that no sources meet RS. Failing that, attempts to cleanse it of reliable critics will be opposed. - Merzbow 19:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Several sources meet RS. AfDing is not an option, and if it came to an AfD, I would vote against. I don't see your point.

Finally, I am not attempting to cleanse this article of sources. I am attempting to ensure that the our policies on OR are respected. As I say above, "If the writer in question is producing work that is the direct subject of the article, namely "documents or people very close to the situation being written about", then WP:NOR enjoins us to "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" based on that." Let me make this clear again: We don't need to quote-mine Lockman (as an example.) We need to quote him. He is a reliable secondary source. Spencer is a primary source. We quote secondary sources. Your argument ad infinitum is not applicable, since our policy specifically tells us to stop at a the second stage; namely, to discover what scholar of the criticism of the Koran tell us, and to reproduce that here.

I will for a moment respond to your claim that I am 'cleansing' things in a similar spirit, and then we will forget it: you seem to think that this article is a repository for critical things about the Koran. It is not. It is an attempt at codifying what has been said in scholarly sources about the criticism of the Koran. If you think so, you miss the purpose of this encyclopaedia - it is not a soapbox for views either critical of or apologetitic for any religion or cause. As I say before, the critical study of a religions' sacred text is a very notable subject, and we need an article on it. However, any such article that is merely a bulletin board for notable critics of that religion and its political aspects merely demeans the project. Hornplease 21:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I had no specific editors in mind when I said that "attempts to cleanse" the article would be opposed. Did you have specific editors in mind when you referred here to "revert-happy POV-warriors"? Anyways, the article does not make any "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" about the work of reliable, secondary sources like Spencer. It simply reproduces them, authors who have already been noted for their criticism by tertiary sources. And it is indeed the Qur'an being written about, we are just reproducing what Pipes et al write about the Qur'an in the category of criticism. - Merzbow 21:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

To answer your first question, yes I did, and you were naturally not among them. It shouldnt surprse you: do see the title of this section.

Again, "reproducing" claims of this sort is a no-no. Please. And I note that you conflate two things in your reply. If Spencer were a secondary source, then we would not need to avoid making analytic claims based on his work. But he is not a secondary source, as you cannot deny that he meets the main definition of a primary source, namely "documents or people very close to the situation being written about". He is the subject of this article, since criticism of the Koran is what he does. Thus, as a primary source, we cannot use him to make analytic etc. claims. But, you say "anyway, the article does not" make such claims! Excellent, because then the whole primary-secondary debate becomes moot, does it not? Really? The first thing I see is that Spencer is used as a source for "Some critics believe that it is not only extremist Islam that preaches violence but Islam itself, a violence implicit in the Qur'anic text." That's not an interpretive statement?

Your approach is simply mistaken. Here, especially, you seem to think that finding a couple of statements that support a line in a reliable source seem to indicate that "that line is sourced and relevant and not OR". This is simply not the case. This page is about the criticism of the Koran. That is its title. It is about what Spencer and company, as well as other critics, including those who discuss its literary quality, its claims to be divine revelation etc., have to say. In order for us to summarise those primary sources in a neutral and accurate manner, and in keeping with our policies, we use secondary sources. Unless you change the name and subject of this article, or change WP:NOR, you do not have a leg to stand on. You cannot claim "this article is about the Koran" when, clearly, the title says otherwise. Hornplease 14:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, thank you for taking the time to deal with these specious posts with common-sense analysis. Arrow740 23:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to join in, if you have any actual points to make. You had better start using talkpages soon. Hornplease 14:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quran vs Science

Since science is still trying to understand how the world works, it still has a long way to go before we can be sure of everything. So to compare something that is yet to be fully established, to something that is already established, is pure nonsense. Quran > Science :D 216.99.52.170 20:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this article already has a sentence which some what addresses the above issue: "These medieval scholars argued for the possibility of multiple scientific explanation of the natural phenomena, and refused to subordinate the Qur'an to an ever-changing science". But an expansion would be nice. 216.99.52.170 21:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have read a statement in Quran stating that every organism was created in pairs. This is an apparent contradiction of truth. I think this should be added in the Science section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameeriisc (talk • contribs) 11:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware that there is a field of study called "biology", and that the statement found in the Qur'an is (as presented) incorrect in relation to its findings? Now, in any case, nothing can be added without first being sourced. However, your apparent trolling (and idiotic comment) is extremely troubling when responding to a user with a legitimate proposal.--C.Logan (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor fix please

The article contains a link with an accessdate tag misspelled as 'acessdate', so the link date is displayed incorrectly. Would an admin user please fix this. Thanks Rjwilmsi 20:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quran word of Muhammad or the third Caliph

I think it should be mention t=in criticism that during the time of the third Caliph Uthmān ibn ‘Affān there was more than one version of the Quran and he chose to destroy the all other version except one.He couldn't know if that version is the word of Muhammad. But any way it should be mention that there was more than one version in his time.87.69.77.82 10:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC) http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Islam-Bible/2thequran/TheQuran.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.77.82 (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC) I am aware to the problem with this web site. But why can NOT we say the according the Hadith ...132.72.71.114 20:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand your confusion in the matter, but according to WP:MOSISLAM#Qur'an and Hadith:

"The Qur'an and the Hadith are considered to be primary sources, as defined in WP:NOR. Therefore they should not be quoted to make an argument or imply a particular interpretation unless one can also cite a reliable secondary source that supports that usage."

We need to use a reliable secondary source which already makes the argument, or the implied interpretation, even if it seems blatant to us. Such is Wikipedia policy.--C.Logan 20:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.I understand the policy but people write here thing without source at all but just add "needs additional citations for verification".I mean you can read the Haidth and there no other option to understand it.So we can write it and mention that we should add more citations.Second we say it is according to the Hadith.It don't say that what has happended but only what has happened according to the Haidth.132.72.71.114 20:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is only fair to say accordin that Hadith and yes I will try to find more source. It shouldn't be a reason to erase it but to add more source. Anyway I don't see what the problem to say that according to that Hadith the Quran was written during the time of the third Caliph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.71.114 (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, while your interpretation may very well be correct to you, I've seen arguments to the contrary. The point is that it's simply to easy to make judgments about the nature of primary source statements. I agree with your presentation of the text (i.e. I agree that it does say that) but that is again personal interpretation, of which there are likely several others concerning this very Hadith. Therefore, WP policy compels us to use primary source material almost exclusively in the presence of a secondary source which makes the claim. That's just how the policy is, and there are certainly many justifications for it that I may not have covered. To note, the general "No original research" policy is slightly more lenient on this than the more specifically relevant "Manual of Style : Islam-related articles" is.--C.Logan 21:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"I've seen arguments to the contrary. " Just wondering what is the argument?132.72.71.114 21:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, your text states that "According to Muslim Hadith the Quran was written during the time of the third Caliph Uthman Ibn Affan." However, according to Suyuti, in "al-Itqān Fi 'Ulūm al-Qur'ān, volume i, pg. 76", apparently, there existed 4 written copies of the Qur'an at the time of Muhammad's death, years before Uthman. Additionally, Bukhari 6:60:201 states that Abu Bakr ordered the compilation of the written fragments of the Qur'an, contradicting your addition and the above source as well, it seems. Considering these contradiction, it's no surprise that there are several different interpretations about what the Hadith actually state, and how reliable they are considered. Needless to say, some of these are simply apologetics, but again, we need to consider taking a NPOV and avoiding a particular interpretation, no matter how obvious it may seem.--C.Logan 21:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing still true even if I hadn'r found the source.132.72.71.114 20:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence in WP:V is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". I might agree with you, but this particular interpretation of primary sources must be verified by reliable secondary sources.--C.Logan 21:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I found second source:"The Origins of the Koran, Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.77.82 (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

By Ibn Warraq? I find Warraq acceptable, but some users do not, and there appears to be an ongoing debate on this subject. I believe the recent resolution on another page was to include Warraq's arguments only when present in third-party, reliable sources (as some users argue that Warraq isn't reliable); for instance, when he is quoted or referenced in another publication.--C.Logan 17:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that he only edited the book. The problem with this is that it's still just primary source squeezing unless Warraq specifically makes the connection and provides commentary. However, if he does, then this may be removed because of his perceived unreliability by some. I can't say for certain without taking a closer look at the source.--C.Logan 17:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

C.Logan, I thank you for your fair attitude but Muslims will always claim that anybody that criticized Islam is unreliable.The question is if he is considered reliable by Historians community.If he teach in university etc.Anyway it is only claim that some historians say that.In such case it is totally true and it is only fair to include it.87.69.77.82 19:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a tough statement. You're blanketing things; people of any believe system will attempt to shoot down the credibility of those they disagree with. Ad hominem justifications for dismissal are certainly employed by Muslims, but Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Sikhs, and those of other religions and belief systems will do the same as well. There is a problem of sources like Warraq being rejected, while less reliable sources are allowed to go about their business in a variety of topics (this is actually a matter which I've been thinking of acting on...). It's important to note that Wikipedia has a standard for establishing reliability; as it is, pro-Warraq editors have been too lazy (or absent) to make a sufficient case for him. The burden of proof lies for those who wish to add information to the article, and therefore Wikipedia has an exclusionist philosophy. The issue with Warraq is further complicated by his anonymity, as it is not possible to verify his credentials (and the use of a pseudonym obviously implies that he doesn't want anyone to know his background). Warraq, for all we know, could be one of the most well-trained scholars in the field, but as long as he hides behind that name, it will be increasingly difficult to prove his reliability on the subject. I hope you understand this reasoning. As Warraq is only the editor of this source, I don't see as great an issue arising from its inclusion.--C.Logan 02:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The book contain information from the historians: Ibn Warraq, Theodor Nöldeke, Leone Caetani, Alphonse Mingana, Arthur Jeffery, David Samuel Margoliouth, Abraham Geiger, William St. Clair Tisdall, Charles Cutler Torrey and Andrew Rippin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.77.82 (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restructuring

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a debate. I suggest we completely rewrite the aritcle to blend the criticisms and responses so that the article reads like an article instead of a debate. Yahel Guhan 04:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The structure right now is fine.We have that structure in many articles.It is make sense and in your suggestion it will more look like a debate.87.69.77.82 07:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ant that is the problem. Articles need structure, yes, but wikipedia is not a debate, and this article should not read like one. Yahel Guhan 07:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You bring good point but I do NOT think this article is read like debate.On the contrary.I think it just show both sides.You offer in my opinion will make it to look even more like debate by mixing it.Now you read the criticism and the response as separate thing and not as argue.87.69.77.82 09:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] qoutes from the Hadith

Just like when people quote the Quran or the bibke they just mention the verse and don't cite more than that the same go for the Hadith.How should one cite qo\uote anyway.It is just what the Hadith say.When you quote there is nothing to cite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.77.82 (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Anyway, I cited it.It is from university of south California.87.69.77.82 09:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Oren.tal, you cited the Muslim Student's Association hosted on the USC website - which stores primary sources (Qur'an, ahadith) on its domain. that's what you cited, and that's a primary source. ITAQALLAH 15:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This more than stores primary sources because they also have explanation about misconceptions.This site is on the list of the site to answer criticism of Islam.Second that Hadith is also mention in the book that was ONLY edited by Ibn Warraq and were written by reliable historians like Theodor Nöldeke, Leone Caetani, Alphonse Mingana, Arthur Jeffery, David Samuel Margoliouth, Abraham Geiger, William St. Clair Tisdall, Charles Cutler Torrey, Andrew and of course Ibn Warraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.77.82 (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way it is NOT Muslim Student's Association not at least to what they say but I maybe wrong.87.69.77.82 15:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"This more than tores primary sources because they also have explanation about misconceptions" - you're not citing that part of the website, you're citing the pages listing primary sources. the issue of Ibn Warraq is a red herring, you aren't citing him for your OR insertion, you're citing a primary source. ITAQALLAH 15:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

see USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts. please learn about the sources you are using before using them to push a viewpoint. ITAQALLAH 16:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

what are you claiming that we are not allowed to quote the Quran or Hadith.You quote many time such thing.I don't use in the Hadith as proof for anything but just mention it for itself.There is nothing wrong in mention Hadith.79.180.0.177 17:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I must make it clear the article don't use in the Hadith to claim anything except from claiming that this what the Hadith say.You don't need second source for the obvious.Just like people mention the Quran,Hadith and the bible without any second source.It don't claim that according to the Hadith that what happened but only that that what the Hadith claim that happen.That what the Hadith indeed claim that happen.No OR and no primary source but only say thing for themselves.87.69.77.82 18:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

you are using primary sources which you interpret as reflecting an assertion made by Ibn Warraq. see WP:OR. ITAQALLAH 19:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No I am not use any interpretation.It say he ordered to burn.There is nothing to interpret.As for Ibn Warraq he only edited the book.I think I told that more than once.I don't use in any primary sources.But it is not that were are not allowed to cite primary source.Not to use but to cite.The article don't use in the Hadith as proof of anything except from that what the Hadith tell or in other word it say the Hadith say what the Hadith say.We do it all the time with the Quran,Hadith and the bible.The are cited by wikipedia but not as source of course.87.69.77.82 22:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Hadith in question is not in itself criticising the Quran. 87.69.77.82is using the Hadith as a source to criticise the Quran. This cannot be allowed as per WP:OR. If the Hadith is question has been used by an RS to criticse the Quran, then please cite that source. On its own the Hadith cannot be included. Sufaid 13:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Spencer

This article is thoroughly over-reliant on the criticism of Robert Spencer. I see this has been discussed before, and the article has been tagged for overuse of primary sourced. Spencer is himself notable as a critic of Islam, but this isn't true for every little criticism he has ever uttered. He is not an authority on the subject, so his particular line of criticism is vastly over-represented here. I will be going through the article and removing him except in any cases where secondary sources demonstrate that one of his criticism is reliable in and of itself. I predict this will provide a much shorter but more reliable article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to mention, probably in a section near the top, all the notable critics of the Qur'an (including Spencer). This is because he is notable, as the above editor correctly noted.Bless sins (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine. But we don't need a point-by-point analysis of their claims, especially if they're not actually experts, like Spencer.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to delete criticism from the hand of Robert Spencer. You admit he is a notable critic of Islam and this article is about "criticism of the koran". There is no evidence other than your own OR to suggest that what is referenced here is not in fact reliable. Please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT and cease whitewashing wikipedia just because you disagree with what is written. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 23:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Prestor John, we agree he is notable, and we agree he should be mentioned as a critic. However, we argue that he is not a reliable source, and he should definitely not be given 1/3 of the space in this article. Still if there are secondary sources that quote him, we let him stay.Bless sins (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur. ITAQALLAH 01:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Skeptics Annotated

Is the following link a reliable source: [16] ? I don't think so, but perhaps someone can provide a rationale.Bless sins (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No I dont think its a RS for references (in the way its being used right now). Thats pretty much OR like using any Quranic verse directly, however its ok as an EL. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Go ahead and remove it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move suggestion

There is an article in EoQ named "Apologetics"; since we are mentioning criticisms and answers in this article, and we have that article, maybe we can move the article to "Criticism and Apologetics of the Qur'an" and use the content of that article to raise the quality of this article. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to oppose that title, because it makes no sense to me. It is confusing. Yahel Guhan 09:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, too long and complicated. Also, what we have is inline with other 'Criticism of' articles. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought that a more neutral title might be something like 'Views on the Qur'an', so that it would account for both criticism and responses. It could also account for other alternative views which might be prevalent in scholarly thought but not necessarily 'critical.' ITAQALLAH 16:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the focus of this article is criticism, like other criticism articles. If there are 'alternate views', they could fit in Quran or {{QuranRelated}}. Renaming this article to "Views" will give the false impression that there is no criticism on the Quran when thats the focus of this article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

By the same argument, "Criticism of the Qur'an" gives the impression that there are no responses.Bless sins (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't, it only implies that there has been criticism. We can of course give responses to the criticism, this is done on all other "criticism of" articles. The current title is fine, perhaps the only legitimate thing about this article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think the article is not legitimate? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Until very recently it was largely an advertisement for Robert Spencer, and the bulk of the article was attributed to primary or unreliable sources, mostly Spencer. A real article can be written on this topic, but this one has a long way to go.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, better sources need to be added and the article could be improved. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ali to Shakir

I don't understand the rationale for changing from one translator to another. Parentheses are always accepted in translations of any language. Matt57 says the other two translators (Pickthall and Shakir) don't use the adverb 'lightly'. That's irrelevant, they don't even use the same verb. Y. Ali's is an accurate rendition and the parentheses reflects the early commentaries which discussed the verse. To change a translation just because you think it's more accurate really isn't appropriate. ITAQALLAH 23:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Do also note that I'm not suggesting changing Shakir to Ali elsewhere. I'm just questioning why one translation favoring more explanatory parentheses is being replaced by another, despite both being equally as valid. ITAQALLAH 00:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please answer this question: is stuff that is in parenthesis part of the Quran? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Does it have to be for us to use it? Since when can we not use verse translations with parentheses? Parentheses aid explanation, and is a standard facet of translation when a raw rendering will not encapsulate the full meaning. ITAQALLAH 01:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again with 1500 indents and replies. Ok, why should we use a different translation in the main article, when both of the sub articles are using the correct unadulterated non-censored translations? The word lightly is being used to soften the meaning of the verse. Its not part of the Quran. Apologists like to push this translation because its "softer" and it doesnt let the reader know the true meaning of the Quran. We will use the translation which is being used in the other articles. 2 were using the version I switched over. Now we have 3, makes sense?--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt57, please don't accuse one of the translators of censorship. These translators probably have a much better understanding of Quranic Arabic then you and I. And the parentheses are placed to make sense out of a text literally translated.Bless sins (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You're not doing anything worse than I am. Are you accusing the other two translators of not being accurate or explanatory enough? This is two against one. How is Yousaf better than the other two people in this case? How is he right and they're both wrong? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt57, let's put personal opinions aside. It's not for you or me to say which translation is more accurate or "non-censored." What I see is three valid renditions - you have switched from one to another because you personally find it more "accurate." I don't accept this rationale.

Also, don't make it a 2v1 thing. Pickthall uses a completely different word, so leave him out of this. ITAQALLAH 19:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Answering Islam

Are these websites reliable sources (they appear to be the same)?

• http://answering-islam.org.uk
• http://www.answering-islam.org

Bless sins (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The website has a copy of Campbell's book, thats how its being referenced. Its Campbell's book that is the source. What are you referring to? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Using the website as a source for Campbell or anyone else. Note, that sometime ago wikipedians at WP:RSN came to consensus that websites like frontpagemag.com could not be used as reliable sources for accurately reporting opinions of people. Similarly I don't think answering-Islam is accurate for reporting Campbell. Have you read Campbell yourself?Bless sins (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not. Fine, I will confirm this myself. Give me some time. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have Campbell's book, and can confirm that the website reports his statements accurately. Arrow740 (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that saves me some work! --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No probs. This is actually the case with Haykal, where I had to go to the library to verify him by myself.Bless sins (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

They are the same. Both names resolve to the same IP address. rudra (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

.de is also the same probably, they're all the same. They have 3 different addresses, backups probably. I bet they get a lot of hacking attempts. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, why is Campbell a reliable source?Bless sins (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm finding that out. Note that Maurice Bucaille is similarly not authorized to comment on science in Islam. If we are unable to find proof that these two people have any peer reviewed stuff, or dont have any qualifications to comment on the science in Quran then they will both have to go. Similar to Maurice who is just a doctor, Campbell is "an American physician who was an expatriate doctor for the family of the King of Tunisia for 20 years." (which I found on a non-reliable website but for now we can assume its true). Note that Buccaile and Campbell are both responding to each other any way so it will make sense if we get rid of them. And it looks like Buccaile is being used on a number of pages, all of which will have to be cleaned up if we decide he's not a reliable source. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, we will have to decide about whether to use Karen Armstrong or not. If people have not agreed on using Robert Spencer, we should definitely not use Maurice or Karen Armstrong. Again, there are a number of places where she is being used. I think we need to continue this "cleanup" drive and clean all Islam related from non-reliable sources. This should be our mission. In case we decide to keep all these people, we have to apply the principles firmly and uniformly. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Bless sins, any evidence that she is an islamic/religous scholar? There is none in her wikipedia bio.Yahel Guhan 05:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with these suggestions except that Karen Armstrong has published several works in peer-reviewed reputable journals and scholarly encyclopedias. Those works of her, I think, could be used, others should be removed. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That looks reasonable to me, if she has published any stuff in scholarly journals, they can be kept (though it doesnt look like she has anything related to Islam in her journals). I'm trying to determine some kind of universal and fair system here to evaluate these people. We should all pledge to clean up Islam related articles from sources who we cant say should be used. We should apply these standards uniformly, so for example if Robert Spencer is not being accepted as a reliable source than perhaps Maurice Buccaile should not be accepted as well. I'm not sure what these standards of inclusion are with relation to Islam related articles. I think I want to start a page on Wikipedia project Islam where we list sources and people and the reasons to include or exclude certain people. This will help apply standards uniformly as well as prevent disputes from turning on again when a matter has been decided. The reasons to exclude or include would be determined by consensus from everyone. Our articles are not in good shape due to sub standard sources being used. This is a serious problem. This has also lead to bloating of the articles and further edit wars and discussions, which are often on the sources. Cleaning up these articles will help us all out in a lot of ways. I feel this should be our task right now, i.e. to determine who is reliable and who is not. Anyway, I will think more about this in the coming days but I feel something has to be done about the sources being used. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be best to open a thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles), so we can add it to the general MOS guideline, and get the involvement of the other editors who edit islam articles. Yahel Guhan 06:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources aren't MOS issues. I recall several editors strongly opposing any discussion of sources, so we had to relocate it to WP:ISLAM. ITAQALLAH 19:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of work to do: e.g. Trinity in Islam. We're in trouble. Its all OR and none of the sources are RS. There are so many other articles in whole or part which have this problem. This is not going to be easy. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets get to the real issue here. Roughly 80% of all wikipedia articles need a lot of work, reguardless of topic. It isn't just a problem with Islam articles, the problem is with all articles. Just hit the "random article" button a few times. You'll see what I mean. Yahel Guhan 06:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, you are right. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Severe punishments

I see this section to be critical of some Islamic acts, and not the Qur'an itself. From the title of the article, it should concentrate on Qur'an only. (Imad marie (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

It is about Hudduds that are prescribed in the Qur'an. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not all Hudduds are prescribed in the Qur'an, I believe many of them are Islamic acts. For example is amputation of the limbs cited in the Qur'an? I'm not sure. (Imad marie (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

Amputation of the limbs is in the Qur'an. Stoning for adultery is not. Some others are. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What about "death penalty being applied for homosexuality or sodomy"? and "crimes being against God and a threat to the moral fabric of the Muslim community" (Imad marie (talk) 08:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

I don't know about "death penalty being applied for homosexuality or sodomy".

If you would like to write about Muslim views on these topics, I suggest you refer to the works of modern Muslim thinkers who try to address this issue together with other ones. One example is Fazlur Rahman's Islam and Modernity: Transformation of an Intellectual Tradition. Here is a description of it(source: Wielandt, Rotraud. "Exegesis of the Qurʾān: Early Modern and Contemporary ." Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān):

Fazlur Rahman, also of Pakistani origin and until 1988 professor of Islamic thought at the University of Chicago, proposed in his Islam and Modernity: Transformation of an Intellectual Tradition (1982) a solution for the hermeneutical problem of disentangling the eternal message of the Qurʾān from its ¶ adaptation to the historical circumstances of Muḥammad's mission and discovering its meaning for believers of today. According to him, the qurʾānic revelation primarily “consists of moral, religious, and social pronouncements that respond to specific problems in concrete historical situations,” particularly the problems of Meccan commercial society at the Prophet's time (see mecca); hence the process of interpretation nowadays requires “a double movement, from the present situation to qurʾānic times, then back to the present” (ibid., 5). This approach consists of three steps: First, “one has to understand the import or meaning of a given statement by studying the historical situation or problem to which it was the answer”; secondly, one has “to generalize those specific answers and enunciate them as statements of general moral-social objectives that can be ‘distilled’ from specific texts in the light of the socio-historical background and the… ratio legis”; and thirdly, “the general has to be embodied in the present concrete socio-historical context” (ibid., 6-7). A methodological conception coming close to this approach, although confined to the interpretation of qurʾānic legal norms, had already been evolved since the 1950's by ʿAllāl al-Fāsī, the famous Mālikite scholar and leader of the Moroccan independence movement (cf. al-Naqd al-dhātī, 125, 221; Maqāṣid al-sharīʿa, 190-3, 240-1).

--Be happy!! (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I still believe that if those penalties are not prescribed in the Qur'an then they should be removed from this article. I'm not sure if the penalties are not prescribed, I'm investigating (Imad marie (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)