Talk:Criticism of the Quran

Request approval for following addition on improper sexual conduct with minors in Islamic sources

My addition has been reverted multiple times without a serious justification. As you can see, it is fully sourced:

"====Sex with pre-pubescent girls and age of Muhammad's wife Aisha==== Critics have noted that the 4th verse of the 65th chapter of the Qur'an (Surah at-Talaq) seems to imply the permissibility of consummating marriages with girls who have not reached puberty. This criticism is significantly reinforced by classical Muslim commentaries on the verse, such as Tafsir al-Jalalayn and the tafsir of Maududi"

Ezra

Should mention the bit about Muhammad accusing the Jews of worshipping Ezra as the son of God(!)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That's Right, Jews Worshipping Ezra as the son of God, as you can see in the verse 9:30. By the way, my name is Ezra also. StrategyFan (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Correction

There is not more than one verse "stating that Christians and Jews will be rewarded as a result of their belief in God" in the Quran - this is incorrect.

I had to therefore replace "even though there are some verses" with "although there is a verse".

(Obviously if you think this is wrong, add the relevant verse)

Cheers,

Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think the article is showing the full reality, but I hope I can help add more details to make more understanding and correction of thoughts about the Quran. I am Muslim and originally arabic so I can understand that there may be misunderstandings. We can not correctly criticise the Quran only if we understand its style and each Sura (chapter), some people take chunks of its sentence and forget the context, that makes the criticism to correct. Therefore, to get to correction we need more knowledge and understanding of this book. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Death penalty for adultery and homosexuality

The traditional Shari'a rulings on death penalty for adultery and homosexuality is not taken from the Qur'an (and arguably go against it (4:16; 24;2 etc)). I think they should be talked about in the Criticism of Islam page but in the Criticism of Qur'an. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

it is true that if we're going to keep a Criticism of the Qur'an article separate from the main Criticism of Islam, it should make very sure to actually discuss the Quran, as opposed to Islam in general. The Hudud article mentions the Quran exclusively for stating that such punishments are not prescribed by it, so this entire section is perfectly misplaced here. --dab (𒁳) 14:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracies left out

Why aren't more inaccuracies being listed? Examples: Pharaoh trying to crucify Moses (crucifixion was a Roman punishment and not done in those days) - Sura 7:124, there was no man named John before - Sura 19:7 , misplacement in time of the Tower of Babel - Sura 40:37, a Samaritan existing during the time of Moses - Sura 20:83-97, etc. These things are important and need to be in this article. --63.226.104.225 (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of these are valid and should be placed in the article. Other criticisms such as Sura 19:7 are interpreted differently. Why is it that there is an entire section of perceived anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, and yet we have nothing similar for the criticism of the Qur-an article? --CABEGOD (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

@ user 63.226.104.255, you need to prove your details, so if the Quran was not correct what makes other history book more true, so we need science here. Moreover, the verse you refer was not that Pharos wanted to crucify Moses, but he crucified others. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Need better sources for "justifies violence" in War section

Regarding the War section: there is a sentence that reads something like: "the Qur'an has been used to justify violent acts", which is okay, but it needs better sources. That sentence was followed by a list of about 30 passages from the Q, but there were no secondary sources. I've removed the list of verses. I'm sure this is a well-documented topic, so someone should be able to come up with some secondary sources that make that assertion ("... justifies violent acts ...") and those sources should identify the passages, and then the sources can be named in this article. --Noleander (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The versus come from a written note (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mohammed_Reza_Taheri-azar-_Letter_to_The_daily_Tar_Heel, "Meditation II", "G. Instructions and guidelines for fighting and killing in the cause of Allah") requested for publishing by a US citizen who attempted an act of violence in 2006 citing the Quran as justification for his activities (Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar SUV attack). This note was originally added as a (scanned) image by another user, but I believe was unable to remain on Wikipedia due to copyright infringement of Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar. The versus however appear to have been left in their extracted form for sometime as a primary source. The source description appears to have been removed by someone in 2009 leaving a stray comma.

(2:193, 8:39, 8:73, 85:10, 9:14-15, 8:17, 9:13, 2:251, 2:154, 9:19, 9:11, 9:120, 2:44, 8:72, 9:38, 33:36, 4:89, 9:12, 2:178, 5:45, 42:39, 5:33, 8:12, 47:4, 9:5, 2:190-194, 2:216-218, 3:167-175, 4:66, 4:74-78, 4:95-96, 4:104, 5:54, 6:162, 8:12-16, 8:38-40, 8:57-62, 8:65-66, 8:72-75, 9:12-14, 9:19-21, 9:29, 9:36, 9:39, 9:44-46, 9:52, 9:81, 9:36-38, 9:93-94, 9:100, 9:123, 16:110, 22:39-40, 22:58, 25:68, 26:227, 33:25, 33:60-62, 47:20-21, 47:35, 48:16-22, 48:29, 49:9-10, 49:15, 57:10-11, 59:13-14, 61:4, 61:11-12, 73:20).

Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the background info. That particular source "letter to the daily Tar Heel" doesn't seem particularly reliable or significant, so I don' think that source alone is sufficient for restoring the long list of verses into the article. If any editor wants to restore that list of verses, or similar material, I'm sure there are dozens of very reliable sources (there have been many, many books published in Islamic terrorisim in the past 10 years) and I think the encyclopedia needs to use those books (or something equally reliable) as sources. Also, if a list of verses is inserted in the article, it would be better for readers if the body of the article contained brief paraphrases of the verses, and the verse number were down in the footnotes. --Noleander (talk)

• The Quran does not allow war but justice, the article needs to give verses that have act of war or allowance of war. The criticism will be critical only when it justifies real facts that Quran verses are encouraging war. I think the section related to war was not critical and not true. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Self-published sources

Amatulic, how can the inclusion of this material be consistent with WP:SPS? I'm pretty sure it can't. The individual is not an "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." 69.115.152.200 (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed you are an administrator, so I'm sure you know these policies like the back of your hand. I anticipate a cogent response. 69.115.152.200 (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Ali Sina is recognized as a notable critic of Islam. Richard Dawkins references him, as do others. I find Ali Sina quoted and several non-self-published books available on Google Books. Because he has gained such recognition and references, and quotations by him appear in third party publications about criticism of Islam, he qualifies as a critic for the purpose of this article, which is to describe criticism of the Qur'an.

Furthermore, self-published sources are appropriate to reference when describing the views of the author of the source. The source is being referenced for no other purpose than to provide a verifiable source for something Ali Sina wrote. Therefore, the source is being used entirely consistently with WP:V and WP:SPS.

If you still feel the source is being misused in this article, I invite you to post your reasoning on WP:RSN. ~Amatulić (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do you believe this individual is notable? Has he been the subject of several articles in reliable third-party publications? I don't think a trivial mention qualifies him. For one thing, he doesn't have a Wikipedia article. Can you show me the reliable books he has been in? I was only able to find one other on Google books. Richard Dawkins did not use him as a reference, and only listed the name of FFI and the URL in his book. Also the other "Criticism of (religion)" articles are maintaining a high standard for their sources. Why can't the same be done with this article? Given his marginal notability (if that is a relevant factor) and his lack of recognition as a established expert on this topic, I do not think he should be used here. 69.115.152.200 (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Ali Sina founded a notable organization that is critical of Islam. Faith Freedom International has its own Wikipedia article because it meets the notability threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. For the purpose of being encyclopedic, it is important for this article to provide at least one quotation from that organization's founder. No policy or guideline has been violated by doing so. And the article is keeping with high standards for sources by quoting the source directly, which is one of the few valid reasons to use primary or self-published sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe it's important to quote the organization at all in this article. If I were to quote Jew Watch in Criticism of Judaism or Criticism of the Bible, do you think it would improve or undermine the credibility of those articles? 69.115.152.200 (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

In that case the article would be improved by becoming more encyclopedic, which is appropriate. It is especially desirable to link related articles together, and such an addition would accomplish that purpose.

It seems we have a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT going on here. No policy or guideline is being violated by inclusion of this text. It has been restored multiple times by different editors. This article is about criticism, so it is appropriate to describe criticism. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Amatulic, you can't be serious. I had expected you to respond by saying my analogy was imperfect but instead you state it would be okay to insert Jew watch into those articles. This is not a case of "I don't like it..." One can't throw out Wikipedia's reliable sourcing standards just because this is a criticism article. Articles should still reference only scholarly material.

You seem to be seeking an exception under this section of SPS guidelines, but the material does not satisfy the second condition nor the third condition in that it involves claims of topic material not directly related to the subject. Would you care to try inserting Jew watch opinions into those articles? I would love to see how other editors respond. 69.115.152.200 (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about labeling here. It should be okay to say that "A critic said "Y," if Y was obviously germane. It would be "nice" it critic A were notable, but sometimes they are not. But I guess I agree that A should then be quoted in some reliable-type media, journal or whatever. I guess I am now agreeing that it can't be self-published if the statement itself is not terrifically insightful on the surface. "Student7 says that 152.200 is a fink", self-published, would not be allowed. "Student7 says that 152.200 has failed to provide more than six instances of Wikipedia Policy violations" might be allowed because it can be quantitatively verified. Note that if it can be refuted, in this case, it probably shouldn't be used!

Note that the ACLU and NAACP can be termed "Red-neck Watch", but they are quoted anyway. Labeling, per se, should not only work in one direction (MY way!). 22:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

To the anonymous editor: Yes, your analogy is imperfect. We are trying to build an encyclopedia here, so anything that enhances the encyclopedic nature of an article is fair game to include. If Jew Watch publishes actual criticism of Judaism, it would be appropriate to mention, but they don't do that. Instead, they engage in historical revisionism, conspiracy theories, and hate speech, so your analogy is flawed.

No, there is no exception to WP:SPS guidelines here, because WP:SPS isn't relevant, as has been explained to you already. When quoting the leader of a notable organization that actually engages in criticism and not just hate speech, it is necessary to reference the person's own words. Al Sina's is a notable critic of Islam, and this article is about criticism. Note also that Al Sina also has his own section in criticism of Muhammad. If you have a problem with using works published by that organization as a source of criticism, then WP:RSN is the place to discuss it, not here. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

He should have no section in criticism of Muhammad, and the only reason I have not removed it is because the article is protected from editing by anonymous users. At the same time, the article uses sources from another wiki so to use that article as a measuring rod of his qualifications to be cited in Wikipedia is problematic because the article has multiple instances of unreliable sources.

My analogy is more proper than you realize. If you believe that FFI does not engage in conspiracy theories , hate speech, etc. then you are insufficiently familiar with the material on the website. If anyone decides to reinsert the source into this article, I will take the matter to WP:RSN as per your instructions. Thank you. 69.115.152.200 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can always create an account. The only reason I haven't semi-protected this article like so many other Islam-related articles are already protected, is because we have one anonymous editor (you) who has attempted to be constructive and engage in intelligent discourse. Controversial Islam-related articles generally receive only disruption from anonymous IPs.

Talk:Criticism of Muhammad and other talk pages are not protected from anonymous users. You can always discuss problems there, even if you can't edit the article.

Nobody claimed that FFI doesn't engage in those things also; it's clear they don't like Islam. However, they also publish valid criticism, from the point of view of a former Muslim. I don't see that coming from Jew Watch.

The material will likely be restored by someone, so WP:RSN might be a good place to go when you find it convenient. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This needs to be changed from "Self-Publishing" sources to "reliable sources" WP:RS. Yes, if the guy is a nut, we shouldn't be using him. Point out a few "nutty" webpages and we will review his contribution. I don't feel that comfortable using WP:NN authors anyway, but about half the refs (a guess) in the encyclopedia are from nn writers.

I hope we aren't down to using Dawkins as a source for anything outside of science. He is simply an anti-religious screwball himself. Being referenced by him is surely not a very good testimonial IMO. Quite the reverse. Student7 (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins is notable not only as a scientist and author, but also as an outspoken critic of religion who receives significant press coverage. With his educational background and coverage, his words carry more weight than other nutcases like, say, Rush Limbaugh. Your or my opinion of him is irrelevant. Referencing by Dawkins constitutes reliable third party sourcing.

I'll point out that this article is called "Criticism of the Qur'an". It isn't called "Criticism of the Qur'an by people qualified to make judgments". If the criticism has reliable 3rd party coverage, that is sufficient for inclusion. It remains to be seen whether Ali Sina's criticism has such coverage. Next month I hope to get some time to look for it, if others don't do so first. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins, the Michael Moore of religious criticism? He may have written a book that sold well, but that hardly constitutes, in his case, criticism that can be regarded seriously for an article of encyclopedic caliber. We would hope for scholarly criticism, not ranting, which Dawkins was even doing in his otherwise fine, because it was science, Ancestor's Tale. Student7 (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible sequencing problems

This may be an ancient criticism and long since answered, but I remembered seeing a criticism that when Mohamed died, his followers wanted to record what he had dictated. Scribes had taken his dictates down on "whatever" was handy, including eggshells! No dates on materieal which they had not deemed important. As it happens, his pithiest comments were made early in his preaching career, his tortured, much longer ones, near the end when he had lots of information to consider. The organizers (it was said) decided to place the longer stuff first, shortest last! If true, one of the stranger and most perverse organizations ever. So the reader assumes that he saw "clearly" near the end and had shorter statements which may have superseded and overrode the former, when the opposite was true. (And no, the commentator wasn't reading it backwards. Come one!  :). Student7 (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Film heavily based on Reliable sources not a valid source?

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

Based on Amatulic's advice, I am dropping the pursuit of adding a link to Islam: What the West Needs to Know here. -- Frotz(talk) 23:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

@Frotz: It seems that Abdullah Al-Araby support the Eurabia conspiracy theory, so he is not reliable. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

So, you're telling me because of the subject matter he presents, he is not reliable? Perhaps you could explain exactly why he's not reliable instead of resorting to "I don't like his message, so he's unreliable.". -- Frotz(talk) 00:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Quran criticism of other holy books

The Quran mentions the two holy books (Islamic holy books) the Tawra and Injil as authored by Allah (God's name in Islam). However, the Quran mentions that they were altered and that the original text had mentioned the last prophet of Allah which the Quran says he is Mohammad. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Abdusalambaryun: Please provide secondary sources that state that. To expand, we are only allowed to use direct quotes to show the actual content. Any analysis needs a secondary source. See Criticism_of_the_Quran#Violence_against_women for an example of this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thanks, ok, as you know I am new here and need some help, so thanks again and I will write here first to see if I got it right :-) Abdusalambaryun (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• The Quran mentions in Sura (2) Albaqara, Aya 75-79, Sura (4) Alnisa, Aya 46, and Sura (5) Almaeda, Aya 13 and Aya 41, that there were people that changed altered the religious text of previous holy books as the bible and Tawra. These are the verses references for the Quran criticism to previous religious texts. I will check others and add here. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 04:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Criticism reason if any

Mostly there are reasons for criticisms of any thing or any person. I discuss here that Wikipedia should consider mentioning reasons of such acts or behaviour from authors by referencing. This way it is more justified for readers and it will make editors more not taking sides. In this article, the reason is clear, because the Quran criticises some religions and som believes. The Quran is the primary subject but the article should clarify the reasons with referencing the Quran verses that criticises issues of others with its reason why. However, if we just say this reference "X" criticises the Quran of mentioning "A" because of "B", there maybe another reason "C" that "X" does not mention but another reference "Y" does. Moreover, in complicated issues referencing all X,Y and any more can help see the real picture of criticism acts/behaviours. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

If we mention criticism A, we can't comment on that criticism ourselves but would need another source (which will have to meet our criteria for sources) that discusses criticism A. See WP:SYN. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

yes that is my point. The Quran criticised many thoughts and religions so then the Quran became criticised. Therefore, this section needs to address the verses that is criticises others. The source I need to be clear is actually the subject which is the Quran. The reason why the Quran is criticised is mostly because it started to show others as wrong so it criticised, so then the article editors are showing sourced of one side and not the other real related side. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

So first you need a reliable source which says that that's why a person criticized the Quran. For example, if you have a reliable source which says that Sam Harris criticizes Quran because the Quran criticized neuroscience at verses X, Y or Z, then you can include that information with due weight where Harris's views are mentioned. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Firstly, that is only a muslim point of view that the Qu'ran has been criticized by others in response to criticism of the Qu'ran. It's obviously a generalisation intended to discount any criticism. Secondly, I don't think you understood Dougweller's point. Please read WP:SYNTH. This says, in effect, that if you want to say that Religion X criticises the Qu'ran because the Qu'ran criticses Religion X, then you must find one source that says all of that. What you are not allowed to do is use one source that says Religion X criticises the Qu'ran and a second source that says the Qu'ran criticises Religion X and put them together to say Relion X criticises the Qu'ran because the Qu'ran criticizes Religion X. I hope I explained that clearly enough. DeCausa (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• The Quran mentions in Sura (2) Albaqara, Aya 75-79, Sura (4) Aya 46, and Sura (5) Almaeda, Aya 13 and Aya 41, that there were people that changed altered the religious text of previous holy books as the bible and Tawra. Moreover, The Quran mentions in Sura (48) Alfateh, Aya 29, that the believers Muslims were described in the religious text of Injil (Gospel), and In the text of the Tawra. So there are reasons why the Quran was criticised because it discusses the previous holy books, and those current books had no text referring to Quran's arguments, so many authors wrote their views and criticisms.

Abdusalambaryun (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

That's called "original research" in Wikipedia - read WP:OR and is not permitted in the article. DeCausa (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Archives Talks and Editors Consensus

I see many archives but are there concensus documented, not sure. However, it will be nice if I review the archive and bring in this section the summary, so that I check if something is not missing. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that will be a useful exercise as the talk page is not the only way, or even the main way, that consensus is created. If you read WP:CONSENSUS you will see that consensus also arises out of edits being made. So if an edit is made and is not reverted it is deemed, after being kept in the article for some time, to have consensus support. Also, consensuis can change. So, as an example, you could have a situation where something is expressly agreed on the talk page in 2008 and implemented, but is then changed in 2011 through an edit but without discussion on the talk page. If it is then not reverted or subsequently changed, it becomes the new consensus in place of the 2008 agreement. Of course, there's nothing wrong with now challenging that consensus either through an edit (but WP:BRD would apply) or by opening a talk page discussion thread. DeCausa (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Editor criticism not references

In section; Violence against women, where is the criticism that mentions violence. The title says violence, so we need references to authors saying there are violences. The editors' voice is very clear but we need true references to be more reasonable. Please change title or show references to the same title. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The article provides evidence that the Qu'ran advocates violence against women, see this: "Verse 4:34 of the Quran... as translated by Ali Quli Qara'i reads 'But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them.'... 'Marmaduke Pickthall's, Muhammad Muhsin Khan's, or Arthur John Arberry's. Arberry's translation reads "admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them.'[74]" However, there are no sources actually criticizing the Qu'ran's encoragement of violence against women. But I suggest we don't delete for the moment: it's highly unlikely that criticism of sura 4:34 doesn't exist, and it should be looked for in the first instance. DeCausa (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Oath by God

"Bell and Watt thought that cases where the speaker is swearing an oath by God, such as surahs 75:1-2 and 90:1..." - The verses mentioned read: 'I do call to witness the Resurection Day and I do call to winess the self reproaching spitit' and 'I do call to witness this city'. Where is the speaker swearing an oath by God?

The source is self-published and unreliable. So I removed that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk • contribs) 14:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Zabt of Tahzeeb, this is not self-published. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was oblivios of this but We should use common sense to remove this as in accordance with Pillars of wikipedia. Where is it the claim of these islamophobes mentioned. Criticism means analasys of (in critics' view )faults in disapproving way. As the thing which is fault in their view doesn't exist hence it is not criticism but false criticism. It is fact we wikipediens shan't say what Bell and Watt said, we shall view fact. If you wish, you can make another article named false criticism of Quran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk • contribs) 14:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Zabt of Tahzeeb, as Richard Bell (Arabist) and William Montgomery Watt directly contradict your claims, it seems you're more oblivious than you thought. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

ok. Add NPOV tag also in accordance with guidlines on disagreement.'The sky is blue', there is no need to cite it, what these people mean. If you know then tell me so that we may reach consensus or; cite reliable refrences to support your claim on article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk • contribs) 15:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

No, we don't add NPOV tags to articles because an editor's (incorrect) opinions. You need to find reliable sources that support your claims first. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

It is talk page which does not require citation. About citation I said to you was for the improvement of ariticle which require citations so that everyone can understand their view. I think you are fighting with me rather than improving article. I've cleared my point. If you do not agree then you should. This is for discussion on the subject of article not me. You should study wikipedia guidelines. For explaination you can see dictionary to get meaning of word criticism (free dictionary.com) and Quran(quran.com) to check meaning of given verses. Do not waste time to long an irrelevant article. I've made my point clear, if you can falsify than talk about improvement of article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk • contribs) 15:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

All you have done here is provide two false claims (work was self-published, authors were Islamophobes) to try to justify your removal of the material. That's it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

My point 1. CRITICSM mean ANALYZE FAULTS in disapproving way. If false does not exist actually than it is not relevent to criticism but islamophobia. Virtually all scholars issue on Jesus article was resolved by merriam-dicrtionary. 2 see Quran.com to see meaning of verse 3. If you can't falsify above 2 points then discussion is ended and prooved that article is irrelevant. Don't waste time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk • contribs) 16:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

AstroLynx, do you know what Zabt is talking about? As far as I can see, they are using their own opinions to rebut Bell and Watt. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, Zabt appears to be a new editor (his account was created only a few days ago) and obviously has little experience in editing (often forgets to sign his postings and disregards the common practice of adding new postings and sections at the bottom of the talk page). He clearly doesn't like the Bell & Watt quote but appears to be unable to provide coherently argued reasons for removing it. AstroLynx (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Islamoiphobia should be prevented

we wikipedians shouldn't promote Islamophobia. We should mention the thing that is presumed bad by critic. It is policy generalization are bad. For example What is that jewish encyclopaedia says so and so. Which morale? The opposition remains silent. Such stereotypes shouldn't be promoted as they are islamophobic and spread faults of Quran which does not exist. eg. some says something is in Quran but it is not in Quran. If it cannot be explained then it should be removed. Wikipedia policy is Generalizations are bad. I try to modify, if someone has diasagreement talk on talk page otherwise silence means consensus. For example confusion over speaker. The opposition remains silent on talk page but when removed, they reverted 2 times nor show consnsus. What?. Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Zabt of Tahzeeb: No, your removal was reverted because you are tossing around false accusations of Islamophobia. Also, the points you're trying to make are barely understandable. Again, the source is by two respected scholars. Find another academic source that rebuts their statements (not your opinion). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

now the point is clear you are still doing so because I said these scholars islamophobe. It is irrelavant to subject. I've given 2 points. You can falsify them. Wikipedia says that If you cannot than you're saying to prove sky is blue by give reliable sources. While I say you yourself can see it. I've provided you 2 points, you can make clare by looking at their sources. I am not reverting because 3rd time means edit warring. You 1st time remained silent I assumed consensus. But now I shall thankful to you if you accept sky is blue as editors of Jesus article accepted. And don't make statement about to make discussion look rubbish me rather focus on the improvement of article - it is fact. If you cannot answer these two points then kindly remove the section. And my silence willn't means agreement. I've don't time to waste on your false comments about me but for improvement of article. All is done in accordance with wikipedia guidelines- you can see them. 1. Wikipedia says sky is blue, no resource is needed. 2. Virtually all scholars issue of jesus' article was resolved by dictionary. If you dan't answer my previous two points then your consensus is assumed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk • contribs) 18:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Your first point is irrelevant and your second point is unintelligible. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

you are mentally retarded. If someone ays Will you accept this. No you'll not. Rather than throwing answers. MENTION the reasons to falsify this. I've explained everything in previous answers. If you cannot your consensus is assumed. Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

All right, since you can't seem to make your points coherently, I will wait for someone else to try and do so. You may not take this as agreeing with any of your edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

My points 1: Difinition of Criticism is analysis of faults in disapproving way. 2: Definition of Islamophobia is prejudice against Islam source: dictionary - you can consult any. 3: verses swear oath by God. False source Quran.com. 3: since the section indicates faults that doesn't exist. It is Islamophobic not criticism of Quran suorce: common sense

My point is in accordance with wikipedia guidelines: reasons 1- primary sources can be used for descriptive purposes. 2-pillars of wikipedia state editors use common sense 3-virtually all scholars issue in jesus article was solved by dictionary 4-my claims are supported by reliable sources conclusion

The section under discussion is not relevant to criticism of Quran whether it is watt or other.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk • contribs) 19:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC) 

This is an article on criticisms of the Qu'ran. By its very nature, the article has to describe the various criticisms that have been made - that does not mean the article is implying that those criticisms are correct. It appears that the text you object to has a reliable source for the fact that the criticisms have been made. If you have reliable sources that say those criticisms were motivated by Islamophobia, then please bring those sources in (and clearly identify who is claiming the arguments were based on Islamophobia). But whatever you do, please don't simply delete sourced information simply because you disagree with it, and please do provide reliable sources for additional information that you do bring in. EastTN (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines and user EastN

Everything is to be done in accordance with wikipedia guidelines. Any editor by making his own guideline cannot implement on wikipedia to get pleasing material like EastN. Criticism means analyzing faults in disapproving way. It dooesn't means alleged criticism. Dictionary, according to wikipedia guidlines, is more reliable source than EastN and should be used to achieve consensus on matter as in jesus' article. Hereby it is clear that the section confusion over speaking of verses is irrelevant to criticism. If someone cannot provide claim in accordance with wikipedia guidlines. This will be presumed consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk • contribs) 20:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Zabt, please assume good faith on the part of other editors, slow down, and try to explain yourself a bit more understandably. One of the most difficult things to understand about Wikipedia is that it is based on verifiability, and not "the truth". As a practical matter, editors with very different backgrounds and beliefs are not going to come to a consensus on the "truth" of very controversial topics such as this one. However, we can come to consensus about what various reliable sources say about a topic. So, for example, the article on Criticism of the Bible includes criticisms that many Jews and Christians strongly believe to be incorrect and unjustified. They are included, however, because reliable sources make those arguments or report that others make those arguments. For Jews and Christians who disagree, these are of course alleged criticisms (and yes, the word "alleged" is used several times in the article).

You seem to be saying that since - as you understand them - particular arguments are incorrect, they do not represent real "faults" in the Qu'ran, and so they cannot constitute "criticism." I would make a few comments. First, it's important even for Muslims who wish to defend the Qu'ran to understand the arguments that have been leveled against it. Helping the reader understand what those arguments are is the purpose of articles such as this one (and the ones on Criticism of the Bible and Criticism of the Book of Mormon). Second, what you and I think about the Qu'ran doesn't matter when we're editing Wikipedia - what matters is what can be verified through reliable sources. Third, personal opinions will vary on which arguments against the Qu'ran are valid, and which are not. Many devout Muslims will believe that none of them are valid and the Qu'ran is without fault. Using your line of reasoning, then, they would conclude that the article should include nothing. Many non-Muslims will believe that most, or perhaps even all of the arguments against the Qu'ran are valid. Again, using your line of reasoning, that would imply that all of the criticisms should all be included. Thus, your approach would lead to endless arguments over what should be in or out. That's why verifiability is so important. It's the only hope we have of coming to agreement about what should or should not be included. The simplest way I know to put it is this: when editing "criticism" articles we report on the arguments that have been made, but we do not make up our own arguments.

On another note, if you are responding to something said in a particular section on a talk page, it makes it easier for everyone to follow the conversation if you reply in the same section. EastTN (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

If I was concerned about Islam, I would censor whole content. I changed my saying place to make headings of new suggestions for improvement of article. CRITICISM means ANALASYS OF (things that are) FAULTS (in critics' view) IN DISAPPROVING WAY. I'm neutral it is clear I'm and concerned with improvement of article. But when the thing critic view doesn't exist. It is objectionable, IRRELAVENT to criticism and proves that source is biased. Relevant content is elected by editors. Quoted Quranic verses can be looked and understood by without special knowledge. Does Clattering means God? This particular section is Not RELEVENT to criticism as explained in dictionary definition of criticism; needed to be in anti-islam or phobia.

As for Torah ,Gospel and Quran (that I didn't discuss here) Things that are actually sanction and are faults in critics view. I don't defend childstoning [Number] or wifebeating [Nisa] as they are sanctioned by scripture and can be understood by any common person who study them. but are considered fault by critics. IMPROVE ARTICLE.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk • contribs) 00:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Zabt, I don't understand what you're trying to say about "sanctioned." When you say you "don't defend" stoning of children or wife-beating, are you saying that you think they are legitimate criticisms because you understand the Qu'ran to allow them? Thus you think it's fair for critics to talk about them? The problem is that not even Muslims agree on how to interpret everything in the Qu'ran - if they did, we wouldn't have the split between Shia and Sunni. Just because you, personally, don't think the Qu'ran says something, that doesn't mean it's not fair for critics to talk about it. Now, if you have reliable sources that say Muslim scholars disagree with a particular criticism because it misinterprets the Qu'ran, please add that to the text and name the scholars and the reasons they give.

You said, "I'm neutral it is clear I'm and concerned with improvement of article." Zabt, the problem is that we all think we're neutral - but yet we still disagree. That's why the verifiability, not "truth" policy is so critical. We're also all trying to improve the article. That's why the assume good faith policy is also critical. EastTN (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

criticism of Islam and Islamophobia are not Synonymous

Criticism means ANALYSIS of (things that are considered) FAULTS (by critic) IN DISAPPROVING WAY. I quoted relevant definition otherwise say faults and merits collectively- that is not relevant to article.

Anti-Islam and Islamophobia means PREJUDICE (dislike due to percieved things) against Islam.

It is not my original research. You can view any dictionary when watt percieved fault that doesn't exist and criticised. It is anti-Islam not critticism.

Original research? Can be called alleged criticism.

Criticism is the point that actually exist and viwed fault by critics. But anti (Islam or christianity) is that point which falsely attributed and then criticized defame religion.

Childstoning and wifebeating are actually criticism not such things. Because they are sanctioned by scripture and when we civilized we realized they are true.

I was solely concerned to improve article, as SELECTION OF CONTENT is under the hands of senior editors and they should recognize the confusing terms through dictionary and NOT TOO GENERALIZE - and that is wikipedia policy.

I assume good faith to all editors and think they will pay heed on my recommendations, not just recommedations but facts according to wikipedia policy.

For that reason I rose the discussion of islamophobic section.

However, if you think they are synonymous then merge the articles of Anti-religion and criticism of Religion. Other wise my point is clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk • contribs) 00:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"when watt percieved fault that doesn't exist and criticised." And again, what you think about Watt's views doesn't matter. Only what other reliable sources (i.e., not you) say matters. And please stop adding new sections to the middle of this talk page. It is getting disruptive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Let presume it is reliable resource. It is not RELEVANT to article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk • contribs) 01:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Why isn't this criticism relevant? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Islamophobe like him is not a worthy of matter.

My matter, My core discussion is it is not relevant to this article but to islamophobia. Is it relevant? Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Since you have provided no sources indicating the authors were islamophobes, your opinion is irrelevant. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Decide you self (off course not addressing to those who lack the ability). Is it criticism or islamophobia? Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This is my last post on the matter. You don't get to decide. I don't get to decide. Wikipedia follows what reliable published sources say. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Neiln, I've provided dictionary, you deny this. I think you've taken personally but I was not intended to. I was intended to improve article. As if you want to make such articles really better you'll concede. Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately your inability or unwillingness to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines limits your ability to improve the article. A dictionary offers no use as a source for the authors' purported islamophobia. See WP:SYNTHESIS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

All right it has proved that everything was in accordance with wikipedia guidelines. And another point Islamophobia,. You have become clear that you cannot criticise Quran by reliable sources because you don't have them. To equate it with altered Gospels and Torah, carry on making self claimed faults and not using such claim in Jesus' article. It is fact you cannot deny.

Zabt, what do you mean by "you cannot criticise Quran by reliable sources because you don't have them"? Are you talking about one specific criticism, or the article as a whole? If it's the latter, a number of different editors have worked very hard to improve the sourcing for this article. You may not agree with what the sources have to say about the Qu'ran, but that doesn't matter. What's critical here is that the editors you're talking to are not "making self claimed faults" - we're reporting on what has been said by sources that, in our judgment, meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliability. I would also note that you seem to be expressing a rather strong Point of View of your own ("altered Gospels"). It's fine to have a point of view - we all do - but other editors are not doing anything wrong when they include sources with points of view that disagree with yours. EastTN (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

EastN, I said this for the very reason that if a person like me can find unreliable resource, which cannot be removed. I generalized that other sources may also be same as the article on quality scale is not as much reliable as I compared to. But the section I discussed requires expert attention. As for Gospel and Torah, if you study them. They are different currentlly to Quran. Mostly history of Israelites with divine commandment embedded in it. While Quran give some commandment to whole mankind, some to Muslims, Some to Prophet, or some to specific person and attract readers with simplified and a bit different history. I don't have any copy of Quran but used quran.com to address particular section, when that section was talked by some user on talk page . same view cannot be applied to criticize them. I didn't want to talk about them. I don't have any view about Torah or Gospel, I believe that they were revealed by God but may have some corruption as some protestant (founded 16th century view apocrypha) scrutinize bible like Muslim do with Hadith (that is considered word of Muhammad collected after him with alternating view of scholars or apocrypha like At-tabari of 930 and Muhammad died in 622). I'm not saying any religion over other but concerned to improve article that different religion are different. Article of criticism of Quran should remove apocryphal work and make more readable and understandable. I didn't view other's seemingly accurate views to be banished but those who are proved to be absurd. I did to improve article next I realized that if its quality is taken as start-up then it is accurate to some degree. But ISA, it will soon become seemingly accurate with the contribution of other users. Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Zabt, please stop creating new sections when you reply to something said in an existing section. It makes it very difficult to follow the conversation. It's as if we were talking face to face and, whenever I asked you a question, you walked into another room before answering. Why do that?

You seem to be saying that since you can easily find "unreliable" sources, you're simply "generalizing" and assuming that the sources in the article that you disagree with are also "unreliable." It is not logical for you to make that assumption. Yes, you can find unreliable sources. So can I. But I can also find reliable sources - and so can other editors.

You believe that the Torah and the Gospels are fundamentally different from the Qu'ran. That may well be true. But for purposes of editing Wikipedia articles, the same rules and guidelines apply regardless of which one the article is about.

I'm really not sure what you meant by this. "I didn't view other's seemingly accurate views to be banished but those who are proved to be absurd." Are you trying to say that you only object to text that you have proven to be incorrect? It does not appear to me that you've proven anything to be "absurd." It really doesn't matter whether you or I believe that a particular criticism is correct, incorrect or "absurd" - what matters is whether it's supported by a reliable source.

I also don't understand this statement: "I realized that if its quality is taken as start-up then it is accurate to some degree." Do you think the article is rated as "start class"? That's not correct. If you look at the top of this talk page you'll see that it has been rated as either B-class or C-class. But even if that were correct, it is not logical to assume that a start class rating for the article implies that any particular source is unreliable.

As an aside, I suspect that most Protestant Biblical scholars would be startled by your equating the Biblical apocrypha with the Hadith. You also seem to be assuming that there's a single Muslim view of the Hadith. The world is more complex than that. EastTN (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

verse 4:34 should be given context, Zabt like the verse of bible. It immediately follows that it can cause breach of spouses and prescribes intervention of other people for settlement. Before this it prescribes spiritual equality of men and women and differences of people due to strength. Any Gender equality claimant do not support sending pregnant women to fight in battle. Child stoning is not supported by number but is supported by deutronomy. Controversial issue of number is depriving women of inheritance in the presence of male. EastN I think zabt was comparing bible with hadith. Zabt you are more oblivious influenced by one not equal to. Furthermore your article of verse cannot be named violence as criticism of childstoning in bible is not named violence and like that the verse you are saying need context. Similarly oaths by God verses should be written to explain.

grammatical complexity should not be confused with blasphemy

when we' civilized we realized they are true.

EastN and that IP address, I'm not blaspheming any religion. I did not look your comment because I had created new section before. But don't accus me of blasphemy. I did not Wrote punctuation mark, it doesn't mean blasphemy always assume good faith. It is grammatical rule to write the statement in above way. Actually it means: And (critics say) when we' civilized we realized they are true. And it is well-known principle In exclamatory passages the absent thing can be written in such way. As for apostrophe, as girls' school and girls school are same. They are also same. Kindly assume good faith and improve article o that IP address. O that you can correct me. I can also correct you improve your lingual knowledge and then improve the article. Similary stone him does not mean don't stone him.

Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

EastN: You answered in previous section well after i created new section and you know this for that I couldn't answer you. Kindly assume good faith. And improve article. Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

and the same grammatical complexity is used in 19:64, which couldn't be understood by watt etc. Like majestic plural in Quran. Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

We're not using your analysis or opinion of Watt's work to change/remove any material. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

veryyyyyy cunning. You're not using my view but has become sure that [[Quran is superior to other bible etc. If not, then why you cannot criticize this comprehensive sophisticated marvel in the same way as you do with altered bible. Why don't you give context of verse like that article on bible]] and do not answer to the IP address of reliable sources section. they say when they recite Quran, start making noise so that you may overcome. Quran says bring Torah, if you are truthful. You say no no. Bring something else.

I'm more oblivious hadith in different editions was not different. Unlike bible that was different see biblical apocrypha and have more civilised history. Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

And so much that they forget what is real Gospel and Torah and what is apocrypha and tried to know it in 16th century. Muslim classify and scrutinize hadith but are aware what is hadith and what ia view of scholars. Are we wikipedians fearing that if we want to make articles relating to criticism of scripture A-grade? Bring proof, if you are truthful?

Inclusion of Sana'a manuscript

I think the variations found in the Sana'a manuscript should be included in the criticism of the Quran entry. It is a copy of an early copy which was not burned prior to the compilation of the "official" Uthman Quran. --HafizHanif (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no proof which says that the copy obtained is a copy of quran. and none can say that a copy discovered in 19th century is the copy of quran. hence the claim is false. -- Smatrah (talk) 09:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Smatrah, please read the citations for clarification on why the scholars conclude the age and two versions of Quranic writing in the Sana. -- HafizHanif (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

hafiz hanif just give one valid reason which says that a manuscript discovered in 19th century is actually a quran but not another writing. Smatrah (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

One valid reason is that qualified experts whose professional careers is the study of the Quran, its style of writing, its history and the history of Islam, say it is. Sure, some people deny such findings because it breaks with their idea that the Uthman version is the very same 'revealed' rendition that Muhammad repeated to his listeners. Why don't you read the citations for yourself? How about verifying who the experts are and whether they are qualified? The Sana'a manuscript page (which is linked in the section you are questioning) is replete with citations showing that it is actually a pre-Uthman version of the Quran. Look up the references. -- HafizHanif (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

you have failed to provide one valid reason. it is clear that experts say but which? but what is the reason behind it due to which experts say. actually your story seems to be apocryphal. Smatrah (talk) 03:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The many reasons are listed in the reference and quite obvious. I could copy and paste the entire entry, but the link I provided is sufficient and should be used by you. If you 'fail' to comprehend or understand what the Islamic scholars have extrapolated, I'm sorry. But your inability to comprehend is not reason to challenge what is clear and obvious. I'm not going to respond again, having repeated myself three times. Go in peace. -- HafizHanif (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

it is a simple truth that a copy obtained in 19th century is simply cannot be assigned as quran unless there is a proof. mere carbon dating tells age but cannot tell that it is quran. you dont have ability to edit wikipedia. you are simply refusing to accept my saying and cannot provide a single fact which says manuscript is quran. you are simply beating around the bush. however i assume good faith and proceed. Smatrah (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Why do you claim that it was discovered in the 19th century? If you actually read Sana'a manuscript you surely would have noticed in the lead that it was discovered in the 1970s, that is far into the 20th century. AstroLynx (talk) 08:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio

@HafizHanif: Thanks for your contributions, but please do copy directly from sources as you've done from The Atlantic here. It is copyright infringement.--Anders Feder (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

thanks for mentioning that @Anders Feder: I mostly use quotes because they are directly cited, but don't want to fill up the entry with all quotes. Could you give me an example of how to add content without falling into copyright infringement, please? Or point out what you think I should edit in what I've recently added? Thanks!! --HafizHanif (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: I think you meant to say "do NOT" copy directly... right? --HafizHanif (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes :)--Anders Feder (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, quotes quickly become too much. You need to essentially read and understand the part of the source you want to reproduce, then put it away completely, and then–maybe a minute or two later even–formulate the same meaning in your own words. Only direct copying and close paraphrasing constitute a problem.--Anders Feder (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: I see, thanks for clarifying and including the information link. It is tempting to write in / reveal a bias when formulating one's own words, but I'll try ;) --HafizHanif (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Scientific inaccuracies?

Why isn't there any mention of the bad science in the book?72.93.214.15 (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Likely because the Quran isn't a book of science, doesn't claim to be a book of science, and neither do Muslims consider it to be a book of science. We don't give undue weight to "bad science" in the Bible, Bhagavad Gita, Torah, or other religious texts either. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually it is a widespread claim amongst Muslims that the Quran is a book of science - the claimed scientific accuracies are given as evidence of its divine perfection. See, for example, Islam and science#Scientific topics in the Qur'an and Hadith. On that basis this would be a legitimate topic for this article. DeCausa (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, there is also a similar widespread claim among fundamentalist Christians about the Bible, but I remain unconvinced that such nonsense deserves space in an article devoted to criticicism of the Bible. Is this article topic about criticism of the Quran, or criticism of fundamentalist interpretations of the Quran? ~Amatulić (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say "widespread claim amongst fundamentalist Muslims". I think you are not aware that it's a mainstream Muslim belief, unlike Christianity for which it is fringe. DeCausa (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Do we have reliable sources for said 'inaccuracies' ? I recently read the book "Islam's Quantum Question" written by an astrophysicist, and he didn't seem to think there were many (or any) such 'inaccuracies.' In fact, he considered the Quran to be very encouraging towards the sciences.cӨde1+6^TP 01:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Parallels of Quran and pre-existing sources; proper citations

CounterTime (talk), I'll included better citations / references for what was recently deleted and poorly cited (simply a university website to Hadith) and a wikiIslam website. --

@HafizHanif: Your revert is in itself WP:POV, since you canceled my removal of an WP:POV source (and just a website by the way, so it isn't WP:RS by these standards), as well as a paragraph solely made of references to WP:PRIMARY material, that is both vague and constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS.

--CounterTime (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The vast majority of articles regarding Islam that I've come across are POV with primary support. Perhaps they too should be deleted or requested to be properly cited, and if not, then deleted. This is why after searching for decent citations and finding none, I added the request tag. Your thoughts? -- HafizHanif (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@CounterTime: are you also going to delete the wikiislam article that was mentioned? -- HafizHanif (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I again undid your deletion, which now seems more contentious and near edit-waring than helpful or constructive, and I also ask for you to provide time for other editors to find citations to fill the "citation needed" tags added yesterday. -- HafizHanif (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@HafizHanif: Stop with your edit war, the wikiislam article is not an example of WP:RS, it is moreover WP:POV. That "[t]he vast majority of articles regarding Islam that I've come across are POV with primary support" does not mean that you are allowed to add WP:POV material, and WP:SYNTHESIS. If you revert again my deletion I'll signal you to the mods.

20:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

I think we are having a comprehension challenge, my friend. I didn't mention the wikisilam as being substantial citation, but it can still be an external link, correct? As to the other issues, the "citation needed" tag ( repeating myself now ) grants an editor time to find the proper cited material prior to deletion. No one is warring over here, but your contentious mannerisms are noted. Please do include a moderator, perhaps a moderator would clarify what is not being seen on your side. -- HafizHanif (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@HafizHanif: NO, wikiislam is a WP:POV source that doesn't even have to be an external link.

I'm also repeating myself here, why are you re-introducing WP:SYNTHESIS material that doesn't even make sense ("slave of Sahih al-Bukhari"??!)?

01:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

in answering why quoting "slave of Sahih al-Bukhari" - to give someone the opportunity to cite that claim. It does make sense, perhaps you simply don't agree with the claim. An external link doesn't have to be a source or citation if it talks about the subject matter further, which it does. If you have issue with it ( the wikiislam article ) go ahead and try deleting it ( the wikiislam article ). Your opinion of that article at wikiislam being pov should be addressed there. -- HafizHanif (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@HafizHanif: It doesn't make sense, no possible citation would ever have that, this is just getting too ridiculous, "Sahih al-Bukhari" is a BOOK, how can "slave of a book" ever make sense to you?

It shouldn't be mentioned here because it is simply WP:POV, please read that.

18:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

I answered this issue at the arbitration page. As to the wikiislam link not qualifying as an external link, I'll let an administrator / moderator answer that. -- HafizHanif (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Further is answered the contentious non-argument from CounterTime in clarifying 'who' the slave was, and added two citations, both with a quote, and their location. I actually somewhat appreciate the challenge sans the aggravation, for it furthers my learning... but you, my friend, are missing out on your learning by refusing to perform the search yourself. But what is quite revealing in CounterTime's effort to remove the unsourced paragraph... is the paragraph's validity and honesty... and this speaks volumes to CounterTime's efforts in attempting to delete the information. Cheers. --

How is Wikiislam a qualifying source? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I moved it down as an "external link" for it surely doesn't qualify on its own (although having very few secondary sources). I am not sure if external links are typically qualified sources, or have to be... do they? -- HafizHanif (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It is from a website that has a clear bias against Islam, that is like contributing to a wikipedia page of Russia from a biased external website started by people who hate Russia. Thousands of books written by scholars experiences in Islam and you chose that website?? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Please Mr. Ivanov, do not begin our dialogue with accusations. I did not contribute that link per article history (take a look). I have noticed some pages quote large parts of published books regarding the subject-matter. I am simply stating my experience, not my opinion whether or not the link's contents are biased. I found the link (per history) being used as a citation, and this wasn't sufficient per wiki guidelines. Please help out by citing from the thousands of books written by scholars. -- HafizHanif (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I think my accusation stand still, since the Wikiislam pages still exist on this page. Such unreliable source taints the page. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You are free to stand still, or still stand, makes no difference to what I've explained and what the history shows. Cheers. -- HafizHanif (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

And to Alexis Ivanov's point: I observe that this is an article about criticism that has been levied against the Quran. Isn't it reasonable, then, to include works that are critical of Islam? Similarly, wouldn't an article about "criticism of Russia" be expected cite works that are critical of Russia? I'm not stating anything about the website in question, but it does seem that the article subject would determine the context of the cited sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

My point was they have a clear bias and seem unreliable to me, I don't think a Wikipedia will ever bring a blog that is critical of Russia. There are thousands of blogs critical of Marxism yet the article doesn't stoop to low of picking up random blogs they found. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Having a bias doesn't make a source unreliable for reporting criticism. Notability comes into play here. For example, Geert Wilders bias against Muhammad has received much coverage, his critical statements have been widely reported on in reliable sources. He wouldn't ever be considered a reliable source on the topic of Muhammad, but the broad coverage his statements have received qualify them for mentioning in Wikipedia in the criticism of Muhammad article. Same can be said for blog sites. If this is some obscure blog that's just one person's soapbox and hasn't garnered any media attention, then I'd say it's a weak source. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The difference is Wilders is of high position, even if he says incorrect things with his biased nature or unreliable background it would be mentioned and his name will mentioned as the main source in the paragraph that is difference when you have Wikiislam as a source without mentioning that they are the proponents of some of these allegation in the paragraph. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I mentioned last week (look above) some unsourced material actually being valid once a reference search was done. CounterTime simply ignored this reality when I brought it up, choosing to make the external link an issue. Whoever wrote some of the contested unsourced portions knew what they were writing about, they only failed to cite their contribution. And seconding what Amatulic pointed out regarding this article being a critique, perhaps what is being evidenced is discomfort of what scholarship has published. I wish I had more time to bring out the many works from both eastern and western scholars (religious, secular and Muslim alike) regarding the Quran's many shortcomings. -- HafizHanif (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think they failed to cite, they failed to read from a reliable person or book and hence have biased perspective of the Quran, whether it's criticism or not. The part in preexisting sources is clearly copied from Wikiislam and another from here. Countertime was right in removing such inherent bias Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this article is very interesting, VERY VERY interesting. I was surprised to understand that Jabr the slave became Muslim, who according to Wikiislam was one of the Christian slaves to feed Muhammad "tales" or should I say "Asāṭīr" which means Legends. You are doing good work Hafiz, keep finding those sources, and I apologize of any transgression that I may have acted towards you Alexis Ivanov (talk) 07:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind words Mr. Ivanov, peace be with you. Regarding the details of the article, it isn't Wikiislam that is correct on its own. The scholarship is what mentions the information about Jabr, and it was a Muslim historian (quoted in the sources) who relays the story of Jabr. The citations (and the links to them) are quite notable. The mention of pre-Islamic sources is from the work of scholars, not Wikiislam. -- HafizHanif (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes but they have been copied word for word from Wikiislam and other sites. The story of Jabr and other Christian or Jewish slaves owned by Meccan people is present in early Islamic sources, I already know that, the accusation of Muhammad from copying them is also mentioned in the Quran nothing new. I just don't thin copying and pasting from anti-Islamic sites is the way to do it, and if it is he way to do it, you might want to mention them in the paragraph as the ones who have said it. It gives a clearer image. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

My friend, have you taken a look at the actual citation for those phrases? The wikiislam page copied the sourced citation, not the other way around. --

There is no citation from Wikipedia in Wikiislam, they have done their own research, so how can they copy from Wikipedia ? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The citation in this article, not wikiislam. Here is the link. -- HafizHanif (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes but the citation of "Ibn Ishaq also recounts the story of how three Christians, Abu Haritha Ibn `Alqama, Al-`Aqib `Abdul-Masih and Al-Ayham al-Sa`id, spoke to Muhammad regarding such Christian subjects as the Trinity" is clearly copied from Wikiislam word for word. Wikiislam incidentally reached a conclusion "that Muhammad incorporated Judeo-Christian tales he had heard from other people." There is inherent bias and inherent unreliability right there. They will go any length to slander and accuse Muhammad of these things. Also if you are incorporating the source from Google books it is advisable to mention the writer before the paragraph since it was the opinion of Claude Gilliot who also reached another conclusion. Also where is Abdul Masih or Ayham al Said or ibn Alqama in the source????? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I have yet to look for them. How about you look for them and add them instead of having me do all the work? So far, that wikiislam article is correct, so, why do you desire to not have what is factual and correct brought into the light for others to see? -- HafizHanif (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Where did Wikiislam show facts, their words is not even sourced properly. It should be the other way around you found source and you implement your contribution in Wikipeida not copying from Wikiislam and waiting for them to give you the source!. In order to bring something to light you have to back it up, until then it just seems copying and pasting from Wikiislam, you didn't even prove they were correct, and they failed to mention how Jabr became Muslim afterwards, and his identity as christian and jewish is not presented as a clear black and white Alexis Ivanov (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Also where is the mention of Bukhari of verses 101 to 104 of Surah 16 in the book, you clearly copied it from Wikiislam, in the book it only mentioned verse 103 in page 89, so how can you accuse people of not bringing things to light if you are willing to put in the dark??? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

You once again accuse me of copying something from wikiislam, and this is not the case. Just because I am asking for someone to provide citations doesn't mean I actually contributed those portions that you find similar in wikiislam. Too bad you fail to look at the history of what I've contributed to this article so you can realize I did not edit in these uncited portions. But to put this to rest, I will add the citations shortly. -- HafizHanif (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

You called me a liar some days ago... after looking closer at the wikiislam page(s), they actually do have citations. Those pages copy large portions of the sources, very opposite the editing done on Wikipedia, which is done in the editor's words conveying the citation's summary (and of course, citing various sources). I don't appreciate being called a liar and having to go back and forth with you, but I do thank you for having me continue this work, for it increases my learning and understanding of the many issues the Quran has, and thus the many issues in the Muslim world. Peace be with you. -- HafizHanif (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

There is not a single citation from the page. There is not even a bibliography. The only thing you did was add an early 20th century book and Ibn Warraq, which still puts the sources into question. It is good that you are learning about the Quran through these sources, and showing it's mistakes we need more warriors like you in Wikipedia to stand up against what is wrong. Good for you. Also you don't have to keep saying "Peace be with you" it reeks of faux-Islam Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I am quoting the Lord Yeshua Christ when I write "peace be with you", but since you have suspicion with that as well, may my peace return to me. -- HafizHanif (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Since we are in a "Criticism of the Quran" page, such words give of Islamic aura, not Yeshua as you call him. There was no suspicion. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

We are to act differently depending on which wikipedia pages we edit? And a Muslim (one who stand in peace and submits to God) cannot believe in the risen Christ? Says what dead man? -- HafizHanif (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The only person who has been risen here is the Grey Wizard, and it is he who returns as the White. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

CounterTime is counterproductive

Very discouraging having to debate a contentious individual whose only assistance is reverting / deleting properly cited efforts, while then demanding consensus re/ a critique of the Quran. The article is a exploration of a critical view, by scholars, regarding the Quran and its understanding derived therefrom. The work of scholarship should stand on its own, not how any individual cares regarding what they don't agree with or dislike in how something is written. How about contributing refutations of critical scholarly remarks from other scholars? How about reading the citations and realizing the summary written in the article reflects the citations? -- HafizHanif (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@HafizHanif: How was the paragraph I first edited cited? It didn't include any type of citations;

19:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

I asked you to be patient in allowing me and others to find proper citations.... and I added "citation needed" to firs notify a possible deletion to other editors. Patience, my friend. Also, helping instead of looking for reasons to delete the work / contributions of others. Remember, this article is a critique of the Quran, so an effort in defending criticism is moot (not to be done). -- HafizHanif (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@HafizHanif: As I said time and time and time again; the paragraph is extremely broad, with things like "in al-Waqidi's Maghazi", are we expected to mention there the Maghazi of al-Waqidi violating thus WP:PRIMARY?

19:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

My response is found in the above section. -- HafizHanif (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Article protected

The disruptive daily reverting must stop. This article is fully protected for 1 week. Resolve your dispute on this talk page. If you can agree on a change before the protection expires, an administrator will make the change if it is tagged by a {{editrequest}} tag. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Alexis Ivanov edit warrior (waring)

Alexis Ivanov, per three revert rule WP:3RRNO, I hereby notify you that you are disrupting the process of building this article. Your efforts in persuasion on the talk page is insufficient regarding your continued vandalism and non-productive deletions. I will also request page protection WP:RFPP since you only desire to defend a page that is an article on criticism of the subject, instead of adding to its critique. If you desire to promote the subject matter, there is a page for that... I suggest you cite properly your promotions. -- HafizHanif (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

You are just joking around. The citation is the same citation as you used, so don't act like you don't know what you are saying. There was no vandalism, and on top of that you lied on what the author said in his own book. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Your contributions and manners reveal your character, the petty and baseless allegations simply show how dishonorable you are. This is my final response to your user handle. - HafizHanif (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like you are describing yourself. There can't a final response since you do realize your mistakes are clear. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected, again

Now protected for two weeks because both HafizHanif and Alexis Ivanov could not resist resuming edit warring after the previous protection lifted. After the protection lifts this time, do not make a contentious edit to this article until you can agree on content. Resuming the war will not result in re-protection, it will result in long-term blocks on both your accounts. This article must not be disrupted by your disagreement. Work it out on the talk page. Again, if you can agree on a change, use the {{editprotected}} tag to request an administrator make the change. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there anything to be said regarding the effort of one editor to further develop an article while another editor obstructs their efforts, veiled as consensus building? Is there anything to be said regarding the time it takes in finding and filling in reference parameters to provide accurate citations where they were needed, and this effort is seemingly dismissed by those missing the issue? Is there anything to be said about how one editor is maligned and mistreated by another and has to defend themselves against rude behavior and obvious breach of wiki guidelines? If these trespasses are evident yet are being ignored, and I am being equated to (and categorized as) a troublemaker, then my effort here is in vain. It seems one has to learn the bureaucracy and jargon of properly addressing the fitting in order for others to respond accordingly, yet the damage has been done by those with agendas to cause trouble (individuals obstructing my good faith efforts). I know it is time consuming to read through article history, and editor history, and read their manners when communicating with others, but surely I don't treat others as Mr. Ivanov does and go around blanking sections and testing articles to find if anyone is paying attention. And if this striking difference cannot be acknowledged, along with my efforts in developing Wikipedia as the vision it was intended to become, then what is the point in furthering the effort? This place then is a playground for bullies and real issues of conduct are ignored and content fails to reflect scholarship. -- HafizHanif (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia offers several means of resolving a dispute. You can make a request at Wikipedia:Third opinion to start with. If that won't be sufficient (third opinion is a lightweight process), see the links in the sidebar for more options, like request comment, or arbitration. If you believe that this is beyond a dispute about content and that the other party is simply acting in bad faith and not here to build an encyclopedia, you can bring the case to WP:ANI.

Neither of you have taken advantage of these options. What you cannot do is disrupt the article with constant back-and-forth revisions. I suggest you start with one point and work toward an agreement.

As an administrator, to prevent disruption to articles I have to choose between protection or blocking the editors. Both of you seemed to be interested in improving the article, but with different ideas of what constitutes improvement, so I elected to protect the article instead of block. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the direction, the knowledge of conflict resolution is what I lack. Regarding my aim for full article protection from now on; If one were to read certain portions of this article, it reads like an apologetic instead of a critique, and a critique is what the article is. THIS is the cognitive resistance that is being efforted by constant detractors, and is my reasoning for asking full protection from now. What the uninformed call controversial or incorrect is what scholarship is bringing to light and has made clear. I'll continue the effort and will request admin approval and those suggestions in reflecting what source and citation is speaking, thanks. -- HafizHanif (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Category rating change

user:Johnsoniensis, is the rating change to beckon other editors to help improve the article? Since the article is a critique, I've been working on finding citations to go with already existing content, or editing in what I do find in building a scholarly critique of the topic... but it hasn't been without the contrasting efforts of others in defending or neutralizing the criticism. What do you suggest? -- HafizHanif (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The rating of C may be too low; WP Islam has rating of B which may well be justified. It would need careful consideration before all the ratings were raised to B. What you are doing is useful; however some other editors who disagree may object sometimes.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I'll have to look into the ratings and how they come about. I figured the rating to be low because of the lack of references and the poor manner the page has been contested. -- HafizHanif (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

current maintenance run-through

Srich32977 (talk), may I ask why Joseph Schacht's (an Islamic scholar) and John Wansbrough's (professor of Oriental studies) wikilink was removed by yourself? -- HafizHanif (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Srich32977 (talk), you didn't remove Maurice Bucaille's link, a man who was a medical doctor dealing with intestines, who speaks his opinion, and yet remove that of an Islamic scholar and a history professor who are mentioned by other experts in the field? Seems perhaps as a simple oversight on your part, or perhaps revealing a bias on your part? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by HafizHanif (talk • contribs)

@HafizHanif: please see MOS:LWQ. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

That is fine, you cite the manual of style, but that doesn't answer my question of why you chose to keep the link to a non-scholar of the subject matter while deleting those of actual experts in the field of study? I'm reverting what looks obviously as biased, because the non-scholar has a favorable opinion while the two scholars have their critique. -- HafizHanif (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

questions for Anachronist (reposted from his talk page)

Hello Anachronist. Am thinking of trying to improve and add information to this article and you seem to be involved and knowledgeable so I hope you don't mind me asking you some questions about the article.

• what constitutes criticism? What's appropriate to put in the article? In the lede it mentions "Questions relating to the authenticity and morality of the Quran ... scientific errors adding allegations of contradictions in the Quran while questioning interpretations of its moral and ethical message."
  • but how about questions, puzzles, difficulties? things that don't imply rejection, attack, etc. "Literary criticism" is "the art or practice of judging and commenting on the qualities and character" of the literature being criticized. More like analysis. For example, in the work What the Koran Really Says, the editor lists words, phrases, sentences, passages in the Quran "whose meaning is not certain", clear, or thought to be interpolations, etc. Should/can that be included in the article as well? So far as I know wikipedia has no guidelines on this.
• Article is tagged "This article's lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents...." but I could find no discussion, no expansion on what was missing in the talk page. Did I miss it? Or should I just go through the body of the article, find what's missing and add it to the lede?
• what's up with the long quote at the beginning of Criticism_of_the_Quran#Historical_authenticity? About how some "...have alleged tampering with the original texts. But the argument is so patently tendentious and the evidence adduced for the fact so exiguous that few have failed to be convinced that what is in our copy of the Quran is in fact what Muhammad taught, and is expressed in his own words". No intro. no context. Sounds like a drive-by defense of the Quran that no one bothered to delete. Am I missing something?

Cheers, BoogaLouie (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

These observations and questions really belong on the talk page. Regarding your first question, in my view, criticism falls into two categories: Thoughtful or scholarly analysis that has been reported or cited in reliable sources, and non-expert commentary by notable or influential people that has been reported in reliable sources. We can include both kinds, with an emphasis on the former. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll put it on the talk page --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, we already have some literary criticism in this article under Quality, and I see know harm in adding something more scholarly on the topic. Eperoton (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

On Domestic Violence

On the domestic violence section, I think it would be beneficial to note that the world iḍribūhunna, which is usually translated as 'beat them', also means 'to go out' or 'go away' in Arabic, and derivations of its root word daraba (ضرب) are understood elsewhere in the Quran to reflect this meaning e.g. in Quran 4:101. Essentially, many Muslims do not interpret this verse as a call for domestic violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.217.167.157 (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Splitting of article

Was just looking at the two articles on another holy book: Biblical criticism and Criticism of the Bible
both of which have a disambiguity tag at the top of the article. (below is the one for Bibilical criticism)

This article is about the academic treatment of the Bible as a historical document. For criticisms made against the Bible as a source of reliable information or ethical guidance, see Criticism of the Bible.

The situation for the Quran is very similar; as the lede of this article says:

The Quran is viewed to be the scriptural foundation of Islam and is believed by Muslims to have been sent down by Allah (God) and revealed to Muhammad by the angel Jabreel (Gabriel). The Quran has been criticized both in the sense of being studied as a text for historical, literary, sociological and theological analysis by secular, (mostly) Western scholars who set aside doctrines of its divinity, perfection, unchangeability, etc. accepted by Muslim scholars; but also in the sense of being found fault with by those — including Christian missionaries and other skeptics hoping to convert Muslims — who argue it is not divine, not perfect and/or not particularly morally elevated.

In historical criticism, scholars (such as John Wansbrough, Joseph Schacht, Patricia Crone, Michael Cook) seek to investigate and verify the origin, text, composition, history of the Quran, examining questions, puzzles, difficult text, etc. as they would non-sacred ancient texts. Opponents of Islam (such as Ibn Warraq) have worked to find internal inconsistency and scientific errors in the holy book, and faults with its clarity, authenticity, and ethical message. The most common criticisms concern various pre-existing sources that Quran relies upon, internal consistency, clarity and moral teachings.

I propose to create a Quranic criticism article with a disambiguity tag reading something like

This article is about the academic treatment of the Quran as a historical document. For criticisms made against the Quran as a source of reliable information or ethical guidance, see Criticism of the Quran.

not sure how long it will take. Have been working on it for a while. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam

A lot of matter can be copied from the Criticism of Islam article but we will have to quote from the Quran, so I request someone more experienced to do it.—Souniel Yadav (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Please can you help HinduKshatrana?—Souniel Yadav (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 can you give us directions?—Souniel Yadav (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Not really. Religions are not my speciality. What do you want to copy? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I think almost everything can be copied but these sections seem to have more specific information: Reliability of Islamic scriptures (especially Reliability of the Quran), Morality, Women in Islam and Criticism of Muslim immigrants and immigration.—Souniel Yadav (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Is it not already here. We are on a page titled "Criticism of Quran"!

In any case, only the Quran-specific content can be copied. You need to know that content well so that you can defend it if objections are raised. You should not simply copy stuff from one place to another unless you have a firm understanding of it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, When ever I quote the Quran using the {{cite Quran}} template, the admins remove it saying I need a reliable source for it, so I want you to at least give me an example of how to do it.—Souniel Yadav (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I also observed that you removed what I had added here with the reason, "Please remove WP:PRIMARY sources, and provide quotations from WP:SECONDARY sources that establish your content", so please tell me how to do it correctly.—Souniel Yadav (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

A WP:SECONDARY source in this case would be a WP:HISTRS, i.e., a scholarly source or, better, an honest-to-goodness historian source, published after 1950. You should stay away from WP:PRIMARY sources until you get a lot more experience. The Quran is of course a primary source. So is any Veda, Purana or Manusmrithi. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Food in Quran

The question is, Quran advocates vegetarianism or not.The evidence in scriptures of other religions such as Bible, Vedas, Bhagvad Gita and Granthavali suggest vegetarianism.(Satya Jaimala (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satya Jaimala (talk • contribs) 18:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Requesting help in article expansion

Hi,

Requesting you to have a look at

• Superstitions in Muslim societies and also Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies

Requesting article expansion help, if above topics interest you.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Requesting RS

Came across following article, but don't know whether Wikipedia book of literal commandments allows following. Is there any equivalent Wikipedian approvable reliable source for following?

• https://mostintolerantreligion.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/124000-prophets-lie-of-islam/comment-page-3/

Bookku (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

No. O3000 (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

That clearly is a biased source. I mean, look at the name! watermelon66 (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Contradiction regarding the creation of the heaven and earth

Surah 41:9-12 claims that God has created the earth first and then the heaven, Surah 79:27-30 describes this process in the opposite way.

62.226.86.97 (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Surah Fussilat (the first surah you mentioned), says the heavens were made first. He made the Earth, then turned to the heavens while it was still smoke (a miracle of the Quran, funnily enough). This indicates that the heavens were already there when He was making the Earth. And if not, it means that the order is not specified

In Surah Nazi'at (surah 79, the second surah you mentioned), it describes the heavens, then it says "As for the Earth...". This does not imply any order whatsoever.

Please, please, I beg you, study something properly, and then post it. Make this a resourceful discussion. Don't post something for the sake of lashing out at Islam. watermelon66 (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Quran contradicts islamic dogma

Muslims deny that Jesus died on the cross but the Quran claims in Surah 19:33 that Jesus will die and raised alive again.

Jesus is speaking in that verse and states: "And peace is upon me the day I was born, the day I shall die, and the day I shall be raised alive again."

https://quran.com/19:33?font=v1&translations=167%2C95%2C22

Sounds like the quranic confirmation of christian easter including Jesus death on the cross and his resurrection on the third following day.

80.131.50.84 (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It is talking about on the Day of Judgement, the horn will be blown, and all will die. All the angels, all the humans, and all the jinn. Jesus (or Esa PBUH) will be amongst the dead. Then, the horn will be blown again and all that died will be resurrected again.

Honestly, you decide to critique something before you study it properly. Take a step back, look at some reliable, unbiased resources (not David Wood, for god's sake) and, if you actually find something you don't half-doubt yourself, give an educated Muslim a shout and get refuted. And, if you like, repeat. watermelon66 (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Criticism of the cancellation oaths section

In four months, you made a mistake because you did not pay attention to the exceptions. For a woman who has led to divorce due to lack of sexual intercourse or due to inability to enter, etc., the marriage relationship is not considered (1). In addition, the period of four months is considered for three periods of menstruation and non-pregnancy, and the same period has exceptions and conditions (for example: postmenopausal women or women with different menstrual periods). On the other hand, this period is a few months for thinking and reconsidering and going through hard and bitter days or, for example, climate change and attitude change. Because such an oath to God may be made out of anger and lack of research, and there are no conditions for the next marriage. Also, this deadline indicates the enormity and weight of swearing and breaking the oath so that it will not be dealt with easily. It is also not correct to object to the number four. Any number that counts can be challenged. For example, the length of the menstrual cycle may be different in different women in different climates or in different neurological and physical conditions. The suffering of dissatisfaction with sexual desire also depends on the temperament and physical nature of men and women, cold temperament and hot temper. The conclusion is that maintaining the foundation of the family, giving importance to proper swearing is one of the main messages of verses 226-227 mentioned today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.110.252.89 (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Qur'anic views on evolution

"Do the disbelievers not realize that the heavens and earth were ˹once˺ one mass then We split them apart?1 And We created from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" - 21/30 (Al-Anbya)

As one can clearly see, Qur'an presents a world view in which all living beings are created from water. Anaximander's theory of evolution also suggests that life started in water. It is reasonable to assume that this information was known by some Arabs. Therefore it is probable that Qur'an is referring to the most widely accepted theory of evolution and we MUST include this possible view on evolution in this article.

It is well known that Islamic philosophers, most notably Al-Jahiz accepted the theory of evolution, while also being a Muslim. Most Islamic scholars of the time, who aren't involved with Greek philosophy, rather Islamic theology and Kalam, don't present precise views on this subject, and rather narrate us the, possibly and probably unreliable Hadith sources that accept Old Testament style narratives on creation. We can also see some scholars, like Al-Ghazali in his work the Incoherence of the Philosophers, suggest that denying the scientific theories of philosophers on scientific issues must not be denied without thorough research on the subject. To summarize, it should be proven that early Islamic scholars really rejected the theory of evolution.

We cannot find any rejection of evolution in Qur'an, except the creation of Adam. However, with some inspection we can also see that narative suggests that the events happened in heaven, before the creation of the universe. Therefore it is clear that this narrative doesn't conflict with evolution on earth. In fact, the creation is probably referring to the creation of a soul-like entity, witnessed by the angels and Shaitan.

Thereby I claim, that the anti-evolutionist views of the Muslims today aren't rooted in Qur'an, and the criticism of these ideas don't belong in this article.

I propose, that this part is either removed, or extended with the other Qur'anic perspectives on the subject. Tunahankaratay (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tunahankaratay; While I (and many others with much more qualification on the matter) would agree with you that Muslims' rejection of evolution has more to do with identity politics than anything else, 1) not sure if academics would agree on any connection with Anaximander 2) (and more importantly) we use WP:RELIABLESOURCES on Wikipedia, which do not include personal argument, educated and nuanced as it may be. Uness232 (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, if we don't establish some connection with Anaximander, we would need to stipulate that Muhammad somehow figured out this scientific fact himself, which I don't believe.

Second, the current version of the article is severely misrepresenting Qur'anic verses. It ignores some important verses on the subject and overlooks the political background of the issue. Also, the anti-evolutionist movement among Muslims rely much more on Genesis and Hadith describing events similar to those in Genesis (it is called exegetical isra'iliyyat commentaries). If you insist, I will probably go and find some proper historical sources proving that this interpretation is rooted in Isra'iliyyat. This is still futile though, because it won't be logical to extend and clutter this article.

Third, the sources here are already pretty terrible. Quoting from 153: "I am unqualified to undertake the task of checking whether there are plausible interpretations of the Qur’anic verses and Prophetic traditions that are consistent with the evolutionary account." Incredible that this qualifies as a reliable source.

Also, "not logically compatible" is wrong wording. Miracles are logically possible, they don't result in any contradiction. They are scientifically incompatible with evolution.

To summerize, I demand that this badly written section, which also probably doesn't belong here, is removed. Conforming articles can still misrepresent topics. An attempt to rectify this misrepresentation will drift the section even further away from the topic. We should just move this under "Criticism of Islam". I sincerely request that this is removed without me needing to go deep into the sources. My research won't make it into an actual article anyway. Tunahankaratay (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, the most important thing is reliable sourcing. If you think that the sources in the article are unreliable, feel free to challenge them. If you want to add material, bring scholarly sources. Uness232 (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Refs

• de Molière, Maximilian. "Chapter 6 “Muhammad’s Jewish Heresies”: Reading the Quran through Kabbalistic Books". Confronting Kabbalah. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004689527_007 Web.

Bookku (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality

this page is criticisms of the quran, rather than “controversies” or “debates”. neutrality in this context is emphasized in its tone, but it essentially this page should describe “negative opinions of the quran”, as they are-sans emotions as possible. it’s important that we represent this in a way that is consistent of other similar pages, as seen in Criticism of the Bible. currently after each point is described, it is immediately followed by attempts to refute or challenge these criticisms. that would make sense if this this was formatted as a sub thread, to the Quran in a general sense, rather than its page on its own.

my edits thus far are from perfect, and i plan to refine them later if no one expands to it first. regardless i think either my changes need to be expanded or substituted with someone else’s writing style, rather than retract any previous edits that are not being objective about the issue.

furthermore, when the topic is introduced, and background/explanations, specifically when describing the people making the their objections, shoulr not have their motivations come off as invalidating. articles specifically about criticmss of topics, is intended to explain ONE point of view, in order to truly remain neutral to said topic

im still a newb. i appreciate patience Primadonnatella (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@dmacks @uness22 Primadonnatella (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, Primadonnatella, I think your English writing skills are not sufficient to attempt any revisions to an article about a sensitive topic. Your edits did not do anything to improve the article; they come off as arbitrarily changing the wording of some statements in ways that are not more neutral and definitely not clearer (even aside from the spelling issues).

As for your discussion here, I think the most constructive thing you could do would be to suggest specific reliable sources that could be cited to expand the content and perspective of the article on certain points. With those at hand, editors with more writing proficiency could use them to improve the article, if appropriate. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)