This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I am going to revert many of Aminz's recent changes, and here's why.
The criticism of science section is not biased. Quotes from the Encyclopedia of the Quran are not warranted anywhere in this article. This article is about CRITICISM OF THE QURAN, NOT THE QURAN.
The (criticism of) the morality in the Quran section has nothing to do with the terribly written Islamic ethics.
There is no place for this piece on Crone. This article is about criticism of the Quran. As the admin decided, a short summary of the main articles is all that is required, and all that was present. This article is about criticism.
"The Qur'an touches the issue of apostasy in verses such as [Quran16:106], [Quran4:137], [Quran3:82], [Quran9:66] but threatens the apostate with punishment in the next world only. W. Heffening states that the verse [Quran2:39], "is to be interpreted in the same way, although it is adduced by al-Shāfiʿī as the main evidence for the death penalty". This verse reads: "... He among you who falls away from his belief and dies an unbeliever—these, their works are fruitless in this world and the next, and they are the companions of the fire for ever". The hadith literature however explicitly prescribe death punishment for apostasy " This is clearly bloated and tangential. It serves no purpose to the article. "The Qur'an does not explicitly prescribe an earthly punishment for apostasy, while the hadith do." sums it up clearly.
I'm cutting out this sentence again: "However, there were also many pious Muslims who refused to have slaves and persuaded others to do so" because it's stupid. Who cares if three or more (many) Muslims refused to have slaves? Besides wouldn't it have been better to imitate Muhammad?
So I'm going to do a full revert then put the new Nasr quote and the "Torah" rationalization back in. Arrow740 21:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
you have grossly misunderstood WP:NPOV. this article is about criticism, so responses to it are also included. removing references to the scholarly Encyclopedia of the Qur'an based upon this flimsy justification is utterly ridiculous. admins do not dictate what stays and goes in articles, they are simply editors with a few maintenance buttons. as we concluded earlier, we would only re-insert Crone's paragraph once a critique of 9:5 was included, which it now has. "Quotes from the Encyclopedia of the Quran are not warranted anywhere in this article" - it's a reliable, relevant academic resource, and covers all topics related to the Qur'an, including the more controversial. given your misreading of fundamental policy, you shouldn't be behaving as if you own the article. ITAQALLAH 22:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
There should be also some balance between criticism and responses. For example, the criticism of Warfare section, is so lengthy but the responses are so short. Also, please do not remove neutrality tag from Qur'an and Science section. It needs to be balanced using the article on Encyclopedia of the Qur'an. Thanks, --Aminz 22:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
indeed, this article is not to be a POV-vehicle for "critics." i have difficulty accepting that the people who defend unknown e-personalities like "Kamran Mirza" can even imagine arguing against scholars and scholarly resources like Patricia Crone and the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an. ITAQALLAH 22:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The article is about criticism. The science section is well-balanced, critiques are followed by responses. The admin was in fact responding to an RfC we agreed to follow. The EoQ is scholarly but does it discuss criticisms of the Quran? If you want to lengthen the responses in the warfare section go ahead. Arrow740 22:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
We wanted to include Crone at the beginning of this section, but now it is going to the responses(the RfC was on that). Please work on the criticism section and let others work on the responses section. --Aminz 22:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, you should not remove the view of Encyclopedia of Islam on apostasy and Qur'an because you think "it is silly". The author is a renowned scholar of Islam and knows more than any of us. --Aminz 22:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my original post was a little hard to read. My problem with the apostasy thing was that it was long and unnecessary, and pushed a POV. All the section should say is "there aren't really any criticisms of the Quran on this." I said the Nasr quote about "many" pious Muslims was stupid. Nothing to do with Quran also, now that I think about it. Arrow740 22:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Please let me know which POV did it push? It is giving an scholarly summary on this topic. Also, I suggested before that this section to be merged with the section on the Criticism of the Islam article for the same reasons. If the Qur'an doesn't say anything on this and if you think "there aren't really any criticisms of the Quran on this", then this issue is better be only discussed on Criticism of Islam article. Either way is okay with me. --Aminz 00:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
It is the word "only." The verse does not rule out earthly punishment, and the wording you have suggests that is does. Arrow740 05:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Encyclopedia of Islam says(quoting word by word): "In the Ḳurʾān, the apostate is threatened with punishment in the next world only" --Aminz 05:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Then it's either confusing or POV presented as fact. Arrow740 05:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
No, there are modern jurists who don't prescribe death penalty based on Qur'an. The Qur'an just doesn't say that. --Aminz 06:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you. The Quran doesn't say anything about earthly punishment. We need to make that clear, not say "next world only." Arrow740 06:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
And it talks about it and does promises other-wordly punishments. Some believe that the Qur'anic statements are incompatible with the death penalty. For example [1] says: "Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief," suggest the possibility of going back and forth a couple of times which is impossible if the person is supposed to be killed in the first place. It might be better to include that view as well. Need to do some research to find the scholars. --Aminz 06:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Then again, the quran does contradict itself many times, so I wouldn't say it is "impossible" that the person is supposed to be killed.--Sefringle 18:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
That the Qur'an prescribes punishment for apostasy only in the afterlife cannot be stated as fact. The Shafi'i school of Islamic jurisprudence finds the main justification for death penalty for apostates in Sura 2:214: "whosoever of you turns from his religion, and dies disbelieving -- their works have failed in this world and the next; those are the inhabitants of the Fire; therein they shall dwell forever." BeitOr 20:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
EoI in the first sentence doesn't qualify the statement: "In the Ḳurʾān, the apostate is threatened with punishment in the next world only... Sūra II, 214, is to be interpreted in the same way, although it is adduced by al-Shāfiʿī as the main evidence for the death penalty." The Shafi'i school of jurisprudence of course prescribe the death penalty but I am not sure if it is proper to say that The Shafi'i school finds this verse as an evidence or Shafi'i himself finds. --Aminz 21:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Can we at least agree that anon's edit-warring isn't the way to determine the content of this article? That's all for now.Proabivouac 05:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Apostasy
Different sources:
The Encyclopedia of Religion (p.432 vol 1) states:
"Qur'anic texts referring to apostasy threten the apostate with punishment in the other world. The "wrath of God" will fall upon him, "except he has been forced, while his heart has been found in disbelief."... Their reward will be the curse of God, angels and men... These early Islamic texts are less severe than the cannonical and Imperial laws and the later Islamic ones.
Later Islamic jurisprudence elaborated on the meaning of apostasy.... While in the Qur'an apostasy was punished in the hereafter, later the sanction was transferred to this world. Malik ibn Anas, founder of the Maliki school, transmitted the following as a sentence of the prophet: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him....
Encyclopedia of the Qur'an writes:
The characterization and fate of those who commit apostasy vary in the Qur'an. What is striking, especially in the light of later juristic developments, is that although apostates are usually assigned a place in hell, there is no mention of any specific corporeal punishment to which they are to be subjected in this world.
It is highly probable that the events making up the so-called wars of apostasy, together with their fundamental impact upon the collective Muslim psyche, generated a new element in the attitude toward apostasy. Being largely a reflection of the post-Prophetic experience, hadith - the reports that are believed to document the words and deeds of the Prophet- stipulate, at variance with the Qur'an-that the apostate should be punished by death. To be sure, this stipulation reflects a later reality and does not stand in accord with the deeds of the Prophet. In fact, if we go by what seems to be reliable information about Muhammad, the Quran emerged as a more accurate representation of his attitude toward apostasy...
Encyclopedia of Islam writes:
In the Kuran, the apostate is threatened with punishment in the next world only; the “ wrath of God ” will fall upon him according to a sūra of the latest Meccan period (XVI, 108-9) and severe punishment “ except he did it under compulsion and his heart is steadfast in belief ” . Similarly, it is written in the Medinan sūra III, 80 ff., “ ... This is the punishment for them, that the curse of Allāh, the Angels and of men is upon them for all time (82); the punishment shall not be lightened for them and they shall not be granted alleviation, (83) except for those who later repent and make good their fault, for Allah is forgiving and merciful. (84) Those who disbelieve after believing and increase in unbelief, shall not have their repentance accepted; they are the erring ones. (85) Those who are unbelievers and die as unbelievers, from none of them shall be accepted the earth-full of gold, even if he should wish to ransom himself with it; this is a painful punishment for them and there will be no helpers for them ” (cf. also IV, 136; V, 59; IX, 67). Sūra II, 214, is to be interpreted in the same way, although it is adduced by al-Shāfi'i as the main evidence for the death penalty, “ ... He among you who falls away from his belief and dies an unbeliever—these, their works are fruitless in this world and the next, and they are the companions of the fire for ever ” .
From these quotes it is clear that the criticism is not relevant to this article because it is a post quranic development. It should be discussed in the Criticism of Islam article. --Aminz 02:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I must agree with Aminz here, but for different reasons. There are no cited criticisms of the Qur'an here. On the other hand, if critics attacked the Qur'an, even if incorrectly, as advocating the death penalty for apostasy, it should be included.Proabivouac 05:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
What criticism? Arrow740 07:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly it - there is no criticism. If there is cited criticism, which refers to the Qur'an rather than to Islamic law, then it is topical even though Aminz may think it misdirected.Proabivouac 08:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
OK so let's delete the Apostasy section altogether and discuss the issue in Criticism of Islam. Arrow740 08:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Sura 9 and the “Verse of the Sword”
In this section, it says Robert Spencer quotes Ibn Kathir, and Ibn Kathirsays... This is sourced to one of Robert Spencer's books. The quote should be sourced to Ibn Kathir.--Sefringle 05:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
You want me to say what page of which of Ibn Kathir's books Spencer reports it to be on? Arrow740 07:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
OK I'll do it the next time I sit down for a long stretch of wp editing. Arrow740 08:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
We're in no rush.--Sefringle 09:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Inclusion of pictures
This article is long enough that it needs some pictures. I suggest maybe for the terrorism section including a picture like this one: Image:Seconds after first plane.JPG--Sefringle 05:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. Maybe a picture of a slave market, or someone with a bloody sword. Arrow740 07:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
more images would be fine. images designed to have an propagandist or sensationalist effect, like some of the ones above, would be rather inapproproate and skew the neutrality of an already problematic article. ITAQALLAH 09:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I somewhat agree with Itaqallah. Pictures included should best be in themselves criticism (e.g. a carricature) and not a mere illustration of what the issue is. Str1977(smile back) 10:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Nasr on Slavery
Arrow, Lewis says that Muslim conservatives were opposing it. Nasr's comment doesn't contradict it. There are millions of Muslims. Of course, the range of opinions must be far from uniform. To say that all Muslims were pro-slavery is wrong. --Aminz 19:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
BTW, is there anybody else here who agrees with Arrow? --Aminz 19:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say that. The statement is vague and conveys no information beyond that 3 Muslims didn't believe in slavery. Many = 3 or more. Also I'm not sure what those 3 Muslims have to do with criticism of the Quran. Arrow740 19:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
That's your view that 3=many. If only 3 out of billions of Muslims vote for something, we don't say many Muslims voted for that, do we? It does convey the information that the Muslim views on slavery was not uniform. If conservatives were opposing it, probably some were indifferent and some were supporting it. --Aminz 19:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
My objection that this is not topical is certainly valid. Also if Nasr mentions some notable Muslims who opposed it, that would be more interesting. Lewis notes that forbidding something that is allowed is almost as big a sin as permitting something that is forbidden, so I don't think it likely that prominent Muslims opposed it until they were forced to do so by Christians. Arrow740 19:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's one view. If you today ask Muslim scholars, they give you a different reasoning and explain it using both quran and hadith(Truthspreader can give you the details). It is unlikely that no Muslim scholar of the time had such view. So, it is topical. Maybe we should briefly touch those other arguments as well. --Aminz 19:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
That would be much better. Arrow740 19:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
If it is a response to criticism, of course. Arrow740 20:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey But Lewis is not criticizing either. --Aminz 20:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
<reset>That's why I've been saying this section should get an overhaul. Positive and negative on both sides that aren't directly related to criticism should be removed. Arrow740 20:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Though some of Lewis's stuff might count as criticism, depending on the sentence. Arrow740 21:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
i just wanted to make a general comment. i think we're being a bit too linear in saying that a response must be actively be responding to a critique for it to be viable. this way of doing things seems to transform articles into polarised vs. battles, where there are only two camps (i.e. critic or apologist). i think a more reasonable approach is to provide those notable views and interpretations of verses which are critical, and then provide alternative notable views which don't conform to the critical assessment. such as analysis of 9:5, or other controversial verses where numerous academic opinions are not simply reactionary apologetics. ITAQALLAH 21:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
No, that is against wikipedia policies. Material must be used in the context it was written. The article is about criticism of the Quran. Arrow740 04:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
i don't see any problem with presenting critical alongside alternative non-critical views on a subject. the linear approach stifles the possibility for academic discussion. ITAQALLAH 13:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Fortunately this isn't the only article on wikipedia. Also please see WP:OR. Arrow740 19:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
there's no need to fork relevant discussions/opinions onto seperate articles. there's no OR involved, the alternative opinions wouldn't be presented as "responses." ITAQALLAH 19:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
That is somewhat acceptable, however if we are responding to things that aren't criticized, then we are making the article more confusing to readers.--Sefringle 04:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Criticism of science
Hi Arrow,
The reason for adding [2] was to give the context for the relation of the Qur'an and science in Islam. These criticisms are irrelevant from the view point of classical Muslim scholars, but are relevant from the view point of modern Muslims. I'll try to reword it in connection with this. --Aminz 23:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I entirely agree, and I'd like to say that it is obvious that Muhammad was trying to make statements about the natural world in the Quran. Arrow740 00:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle, the pre-modern scholars believed that the Qur'an doesn't talk about science at all. They held that the Qur'an "does not interfere in the business of science nor does it infringe on the realm of science." To them, scientific criticism of the Qur'an is simply meaningless. To many modern Muslims, however it is. --Aminz 00:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, it is a POV that the Qur'an talks about science. In fact the POV of many modern Muslims This does not have any historical ground in Muslim understanding of the Qur'an. --Aminz 00:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
If you phraise it exactly as you did just now on this talk page, I am willing to except it. However, the origional version is POV pushing in my opinion.--Sefringle 00:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Here is my suggested text: Criticism of the science in the Qur'an is based on the assumption that the Qur'an talks about scientific issues. The relation between the Qur'an and science is not easily idenitifiable and there is substantial discord between classical and modern Islamic views on this subject. [1] While many modern Muslims hold that the Qur'an does make scientific statements, the dominant majority of classical Qur'an commentators assigned to the Qur'an a separate and autonomous realm of its own and held that the Qur'an "does not interfere in the business of science nor does it infringe on the realm of science."[1] According to Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, these pre-modern commentators of the Qur'an stated that the Qur'an can not infringe on the realm of science arguing that the Qur'anic verses which might appear to have connection to science or the natural phenomena have considerably different interpretations. Pointing out to the ever-chaning nature of the science, they also argued for the possibility of multiple scientific explanations of the natural phenomena. This view on the relation of the Qur'an and science is not held by many contemporary Muslims. [1] Please let me know which sentences are POV. (P.S.. I need to run now, but will come back later). --Aminz 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Saying it "does not interfere in the business of science nor does it infringe on the realm of science" does not mean it doesn't say anything about science. It is obvious that it does. Enough of these obfuscations, the (wrong) ideas of Galen and Hippocrates regarding embryology are copied in toto in the Quran as has been verified by scholars. Arrow740 00:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The above problem has two problems as I see it. One is POV, two is its size. I think this version below is acceptable.
Criticism of the science in the Qur'an is based on the assumption that the Qur'an talks about scientific issues. [1] Many modern Muslims hold that the Qur'an does make scientific statements, however the dominant majority of classical Qur'an commentators assigned to the Qur'an a separate and autonomous realm of its own and held that the Qur'an "does not interfere in the business of science nor does it infringe on the realm of science."[1] --Sefringle 00:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence is unacceptable and I don't believe it is cited either. Arrow740 01:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle, your version is good in the sense that it is short and informative. Can we also include (at the end of the section as responses) the traditional arguments such as "the Qur'anic verses which might appear to have connection to science or the natural phenomena ", "ever-chaning nature of the science" and "the possibility of multiple scientific explanations of the natural phenomena" to explain why traditional commentators took that position. --Aminz 02:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
To Arrow: if we don't assume that the Qur'an talks about science, then there is no criticism. --Aminz 02:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
You are attempting to respond to criticism by taking the position that it is impossible to understand the words of the Quran. This is also the position Ibn Kathir took in regards to the semen from the spine verse. It is not reasonable. If we continue in this vein we will say that it is impossible to know that Muhammad killed any Jews. This is a desecration of your mind. Arrow740 02:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, many Muslims throughout centuries didn't use the Qur'an for their scientific theories. They didn't try studying cosmology based on the Qur'an when they were leading in science. Today, we are living in a scientific world. We may percieve things in a way that our ancestors didn't. To me, it actually makes more sense that the Qur'an doesn't talk about mountains acting as pigs in a scientific sense. It is figurative and its purpose is to show the favors of God to humans. It is not in the context of scientific discoveries. --Aminz 03:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
If it's figurative then what is the real meaning? Arrow740 03:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
It refers to probably nothing more than what a bedioun can comprehend. It probably refers to the rigid-ness of mountains but I don't know exactly how. It might be a peotic description. In fact, bedioun Arabs (unlike Greeks) were not good in abstraction. Today, we are looking at the Qur'anic verses through scientific glasses. At least, that's not what Muslims traditionally were doing. --Aminz 03:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
<reset> So you concede that it's not true but claim that it's alright that it is not true for some other reason. Arrow740 03:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I say that there are Muslims who think science and Qur'an don't intersect per 3 above-mentioned results. I say that criticism of science in the Qur'an requires the assumption (even if obvious) that the Qur'an does talk about science. --Aminz 03:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
None of your quotes about Muslim opinion contain the idea that science and the Quran don't intersect. Arrow740 04:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Arrow740, for example Encyclopedia of the Qur'an says that "In al-Biruni's view, therefore, the Qur'an does not interfere in the business of science nor does it infringe on the realm of science." and "The Qur'an, adds al-Biruni, does not speak on matters which are subjects of hopeless differences, such as history"
Of course, the views were still non-uniform. "A few minority of medieval scholars, notably, Ghazali and al-Suyuti maintained that the Qur'an is a comperhensive source of knowledge, including scientific knowledge." ; many others were holding intermediate positions. --Aminz 08:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Arguments by classical commentators
I think it is informative to mention that the arguments of classical commentators of the Qur'an: "In insisting on the possibility of multiple scientific explanation of the natural phenomena, classical Qur'an commentators were able to guard the autonomy of qur'anic, religous knowledge not through the co-option of science but by assigning it to a separate and autonomous realm of its own." The author himself(sorry, not the classical commentators) notes that "there are considerable differences in the interpretations of the verses that may have a connection to science or the natural phenomena. For this reason, it is not useful to try to ascern a particular quranic position on science."--Aminz 08:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added it to the end of the section, so that the article would be focused on criticisms. --Aminz 08:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it is okay to have those stuff at the end of the section, but it is more informative to provide the arguments of those Muslims who believe the Qur'an doesn't talk about science. --Aminz 22:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Campbel
Arrow, please check Campbel's source. He claims it is a personal conversation. That's his claim. --Aminz 03:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any reason to suspect he is misquoting Professor of Geology David A. Young? Arrow740 03:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no reason to believe that Geology David A. Young has understood the question well, or that Geology David A. Young expresses the only scientific theory on this. --Aminz 03:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no question and a professor of geology at a respectable institution can be a reliable source of scientific consensus for such a basic fact. Here is the full quote: "While it is true that many mountain ranges are composed of folded rocks (and the folds may be of large scale) it is not true that the folds render the crust stable." He continues: "The very existence of the folds is evidenceof instability in the crust." As we all know mountains are either of volcanic origin or the result of land masses rubbing against each other. Arrow740 03:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The point is that Cambpel has written his work not as a scientific contribution but as a polemic text. He also doesn't quote a peer-reviewed source just his personal conversation with someone. It is not verifiable. It is though verifiable that Campbel says that. --Aminz 03:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
What are you proposing? Arrow740 04:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Just adding "Campbel states". --Aminz 08:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
"Campbell quotes a professor of geology" would be more accurate. Arrow740 20:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
we don't know if the quote is true. "Campbell quotes his personal conversation with a professor of geology" would be fine. --Aminz 22:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Anti Islamic Propaganda
Is this page some sort of an anti Islamic propaganda? Last time I check (1 min ago), the Quran had no faults. If you are against that, I am afraid that all of your work is in vain :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.99.58.101 (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
Right. Perfect. Then you obviously haven't read the article.--Sefringle 03:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't need to read anti Islamic propaganda, especially, when it is written by the likes of you :(216.99.58.101 04:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to kindly remind you that while you may see no faults in the Qu'ran, other people would passionately disagree with your statment. Proving the above statement and citing sources that help prove it is a great way to help this article. Consensus (or Wikiality) has determined that the arguments on this page are generally valid. I would encourage you to research the subject and add nice edits in order to help this article (or any of the articles in the Islam tree) grow and prosper, and eventually be neutral. Feel free to ask any questions on my talk page if you are having difficulties. Hojimachong 04:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
P.S., please adhere to WP:CIV when adressing Sefringle.
"would passionately disagree"? No shit.. come up with something that makes sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.99.48.160 (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
Hear that everyone? Quran's perfect. That calls it a day!Pablosecca 10:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Recent edits
First, please quote in full the "Criticism is based upon the assumption that the Quran talks about science" line. I believe that it is OR and that the entire paragraph:
"Criticism of the science in the Qur'an is based on the assumption that the Qur'an talks about scientific issues. [1] Many modern Muslims hold that the Qur'an does make scientific statements, however many classical Muslim commentators and scientists, notably al-Biruni, assigned to the Qur'an a separate and autonomous realm of its own and held that the Qur'an "does not interfere in the business of science nor does it infringe on the realm of science."[1]" is not topical.
All the references to tools must be removed.
The Ahmed Dallal paragraph is also not topical. It is acceptable in the other article.
Regarding the eye for an eye verse, we are quoting Spencer's translation. I think he's using one of the big three. But in any case, I had written exactly what was in his book, and that's the way it has to be.
"R. Peters in Encyclopedia of Islam however writes that the punishment of stoning has recently only been enforced in Saudi Arabia and Iran. [2]" is she writing that in response to criticism, or is someone else making the connection? If so it's OR.
Same with " For the establishment of adulery, four witnesses "must have seen the act in its most intimate details, i.e. the penetration (like “a stick disappearing in a kohl container,” as the fiqh books specify). If their testimonies do not satisfy the requirements, they can be sentenced to eighty lashes for unfounded accusation of fornication." [2]"
I'll ask other users to join. --Aminz 22:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm waiting for responses for a few more hours then I will edit. Arrow740 22:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, it is obvious that "Criticism is based upon the assumption that the Quran talks about science". It is just giving context. And this assumption is not agreed by all Muslims, so as Sefringle agreed, the first paragraph is justified. The last paragraph provides the reasons for this.
Regarding the severe punishments, R. Peters's statements explain the previous sentence. And the last quote from EoI explains Ayatollah Shirazi's statement. --Aminz 22:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I will only address the "Criticism is based upon the assumption that the Quran talks about science" for now. This is not technically true. The Quran makes certain statements about the natural world, and in doing so opens itself up to criticism from a scientific perspective. What the sentence obscures is that the Quran smacks you in the face with descriptions of the natural world that expressed the scientific ideas of the day. All that is needed is to use your mind to try to understand, not willfully misunderstand. There is no getting around the fact that the Quran makes certain claims about the natural world that can then be evaluated by science. Muhammad would have been better advised to keep his mouth shut about mountains and embryos. Arrow740 22:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, you think "The Quran makes certain statements about the natural world". A poet also makes statements but it is not to be understood in a scientific way. In fact, such criticisms would be taking verses out of the context. I have a couple of Muslims friends today who completely disagree with scientific interpretation of the Qur'an. Al-Biruni is a notable example from Medieval times. I respect your view, but it is not a universal view. --Aminz 22:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, poets often talk metaphorically. Muslims have looked at the parts of the Quran that make false statements about the natural world and denied that it is possible to know their true meaning. This is an abuse of your God-given mind. Are you even looking at the verses we're talking about? Arrow740 22:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
If someone takes all statements about the natural world in that way, there would be no abuse of mind. Please note that al-Biruni did so when way before the advent of modern science. And today, there are Muslims who think so. Unless the verse clearly says that it is talking about science, it would be only a point of view to read the verse in scientific light. As Dallal said, all the verses which may be related to science have other interpretations as well. --Aminz 22:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, there's a crucial point here. Forget science for the moment. Look at the Quran. Read the statements about mountains and embryos. Now think, what does this mean. Then think, what has mankind discovered regarding this? If your meaning for those verses is not consistent with something that has been proven using reason and logic, either your interpretation of the verses is wrong, or the verses are wrong. So now you have to find a new interpretation. If there is no alternative interpretation, you must conclude that the verses are wrong. So I ask you, do you have an alternative interpretation? Does al-Biruni? Does Dallal? Arrow740 22:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The statements about cosmology and history are more obvious than those about mountains and embryos, but yet al-Biruni, says the Qur'an doesn't talk about history. But it is a good question to see how it was interpreted. Dallal says each verse which may have a connection to science has many other interpretations as well. I should do more research to find those interpretations. --Aminz 23:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Ahmad Dallal says that there are "considerable differences in the interpretations of the verses that may have a connection to science or the natural phenomena", so there should exist other interpretations for those verses as well. --Aminz 06:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we can both recognize a cop-out. Finding an interpretation for these verses is no doubt something that respectable Muslim scholars avoid. Why, do you think? Arrow740 06:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, Dallal says it is not useful to try to ascern a particular quranic position on verses. It is useful to report how a verse has been historically interpreted without making any conclusion of what the Qur'an really says. Dallal has his own approach. Though maybe conservative. --Aminz 06:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
What role is the Quran supposed to play? Is it merely an identity, or is it supposed to be the truth from God, worthy of complete understanding? Arrow740 07:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, For me, the Qur'an is not a source for acquiring science. If the qur'an touches science, it touches to prove existence of God, not revealing any scientific truth. This is what I think. Many other Muslims and you may disagree and it is quite possible that you are right. But I would go for the most conservative position. --Aminz 07:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the User:Arrow740... The Qur'an should not be mixed with science. Comparing them is as good as meaningless... Science is tool developed by humans to understand what is happening around them, so it's in constant refinement, change and progress.. what science says today might be different some time from now..
Example: Science used to say there are 9 planets..
So, as you could have guessed, some deluded people began critizing the verse 12:4..
The supposed error:
Joseph saw in a dream eleven planets. Does this mean that according to the Quran there are eleven planets in our solar system?
But recently, science made some "refinement" and declared that there are indeed 11 planets. (8 major + 3 dawf)....
So as you can see, science will eventually agree with what the Qur'an has to say... until, then..believe what you want.
41:53: "Soon will We show them our Signs in the (furthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?"
Doesn't matter if the above fact has been published yet or not, reality does not change, science is inferior to the Quran. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.99.61.168 (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
SAW
I am out of revert. Can someone please remove the saw's.
The Sacred month for the sacred month and all sacred things are (under the law of) retaliation; whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you and be careful (of your duty) to Allah and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).([Quran2:194])
”
this is not Spencers translation, its Shakirs, Spencer never translated the Quran I have replaced it with Yusuf Ali's, the reference contains Shakirs translation as well.
“
The prohibited month for the prohibited month,- and so for all things prohibited,- there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, Transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves. ([Quran2:194])
”
please base your edits on facts, rather than trying to push pov ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗTalk 05:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I put in the exact quotation. See page 121 of Onward Muslim Soldiers if you have further issues. Arrow740 06:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Well I dont have any issues, just because people try to criticize the quran in a manner they choose to is not going to agitate me to make it an issue, I am just sad about the fact people choose to be blind when they can clearly see the correct thing.
I quote
“
Even if We opened out to them a gate from heaven, and they were to continue (all day) ascending therein,([Quran15:14]) They would only say: "Our eyes have been intoxicated: Nay, we have been bewitched by sorcery." ([Quran15:15])
”
Quran is revealed by God and god will protect it.
“
We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption). ([Quran15:9])
”
But it isn't the Pickthall's translation that was in the article, it was Shakir's translation, I think whoever put the translations there got it all wrong, I think people with better knowledge only should edit this article, people are not even sure which translation is which. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗTalk 14:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
War and violence
This bit does not belong to the response section: "Regarding the issue of context, Robert Spencer writes that the Qur'an itself provides little context for understanding verses [3], and notes that the surahs in the Qur'an are not ordered chronologically, but by length. In response to Ernst, Spencer states that "I present the work not on the basis of my credentials, but on the basis of the evidence I bring forth; evaluate it for yourself... Carl Ernst did not and cannot bring forth even a single example of a supposed inaccuracy in my work."
The first sentence is already covered in another section and the rest should be moved to the criticism section, not the response. Why is that 1/3 of the response section should be dedicated to the critics? --Aminz 10:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe this reworded introduction is better in that it presents the criticism first (since that's what the article is about) and then the response.
Arrow740, please see WP:AGF and do not accuse me of meatpuppetry. Peace! → AA(talk • contribs) — 11:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Section title
The article should not take any side, neither in titles, nor in the text. The heading should say what we are going to talk about and should not take any position. Therefore "Incompatibility with Christian and Jewish scriptures" is POV. I should be renamed to something like "The issue of compatibility with Christian and Jewish scriptures"--Aminz 22:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
What is the POV? What is the opposing POV? KittyHawker 22:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Section titles are supposed to reflect the arguments of the critics. BeitOr 22:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
"The issue of compatibility with Christian and Jewish scriptures" is both NPOV and reflects the reflect the arguments of the critics and apologetics. The article should not take side. The article should write about criticisms rather than criticize. --Aminz 22:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
If one says "Jesus was crucified" and the other says "He wasn't" then NO ONE in their right mind would say they are compatible! KittyHawker 22:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Not *all* Muslims say that Jesus was not crucified. --Aminz 09:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Article is way too long
Compare with Criticism of the Bible. That article just discusses the criticisms, not the issues. I'm going to go through and remove stuff from here. KittyHawker 22:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
What issues for example? --Aminz 22:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Like the ones I took out! There are lots of "controversial" topics in the Bible. In this article, the controversial articles are discussed even when there is no criticism discussed! If you really think that's fair then go to Criticism of the Bible and give it the same treatment. I don't think you will. KittyHawker 22:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree the article is too long but there is too much work by too many people to remove without proper discussion. Perhaps you can think of a better place for this material but just comparing with the comparable Bible page is insufficient. --BozMotalk 22:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this article may be too long and we can move the stuff to other articles but the comparison with Criticism of the Bible is not sufficient. --Aminz 23:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to remove non-critical stuff from here and add {{main|...}} --Aminz 23:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Some edits
I largely agree with the sentiments of User:KittyHawker and have thoroughly documented my changes here. I removed material from both POV's.
"A minority of scholars" is weasel-wording, especially when we have "it is not widely accepted" later. Just state the names.
This is the Compilation section:
Many Muslims believe that Abu Bakr, the first Caliph (reigned 632-634), ordered the first compilation of the different fragments of the Qur’an from odd parchments, pieces of bone and the memories of Muhammad’s followers. Uthman (Caliph 644-656) ordered a new compilation of the Qur’an due to disputes arising about texts recited. [citation needed] The relationship of this compilation to that of Abu Bakr’s is not clear. If Abu Bakr’s compilation were in existence, it is not clear how disputes arose which required Uthman to recompile the Qur’an.[citation needed]
Some traditions consider the first compilation to be the basis of the second (which requires the first to be incomplete), others that the first never existed, and others still that the two compilations were made independently but were found to be identical.[citation needed]The Qur’anic compilation of Uthman’s reign was completed between 650 & 656, about 20 years after Muhammad’s death, and about 40 years after the first revelations. Muslims consider the text of this compilation, known as the rasm, to be the same text as that of the Qur’an today.
Uthman ordered all alternative copies to be destroyed. The oldest generally accepted physical text of the Qur’an is found on inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock, built in 691.[citation needed] "Some Qur'anic fragments have been dated as far back the eighth, and possibly even the seventh century."[4] The oldest fragments yet found are from Sana’a in Yemen. The oldest existing copy of the full text is from the ninth century,[5] around one and a half centuries after Muhammad’s death.
Some Muslims say that the Samarkand manuscript is the oldest text of the Qur’an (and is one of the original five copies of Uthman) however, many scholars, such as John Gilchrist, doubt that any of the Uthmanic originals remain. [6] Having studied the early supposed Qur'an manuscripts very thoroughly John Gilchrist states: "The oldest manuscripts of the Qur'an still in existence date from not earlier than about one hundred years after Muhammdad's death".[7]
Supporters of the Qur'an say that its initial circulation was as a spoken text which several hundred companions had perfectly memorized. Islamic sources suggest that Muhammad would recite the Qur'an in its entirety (that is, including both the earliest and the most recent elements) once every Ramadan (but twice in the year he died). They point out that the Qur'an was not only transmitted orally but was also written down by the four scribes selected by Muhammad.
As you can see there is no criticism here.
Divine origin section:
A 11th century Persian Qur'an folio page in kufic script
According to Muslim tradition Muhammad received the Qur'an as a revelation from God through angel Gabriel. Some modern Western historians have concluded that Muhammad was sincere in his statement of receiving revelation, "for this alone makes credible the development of a great religion." [8] Modern historians generally decline to address the further question of whether the messages Muhammad reported being revealed to him were from "his unconscious, the collective unconscious functioning in him, or from some divine source", but they acknowledge that the material came from "beyond his conscious mind" [8].
No criticism.
Muslims have traditionally said that the form and content of the Qur'an shows its divine source. Regarding the form of the Qur'an, Issa Boullata, professor of Arabic literature and Islamic studies at McGill University states: "Whereas the scholars of Arabic are largely agreed that the Qur'an represents the standards by which other literary productions in Arabic are measured, believing Muslims maintain that the Qur'an is inimitable with respect to both content and style." [9] Thus, Muslims state that, in the Arabic original, the Qur'an is miraculously perfect.
Same.
Science section: I'm renaming it to "statements about the natural world" and removing this paragraph:
Ahmad Dallal, Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, writes that many modern Muslims believe that the Qur'an does make scientific statements, however many classical Muslim commentators and scientists, notably al-Biruni, assigned to the Qur'an a separate and autonomous realm of its own and held that the Qur'an "does not interfere in the business of science nor does it infringe on the realm of science."[1] These medieval scholars argued for the possibility of multiple scientific explanation of the natural phenomena, and refused to subordinate the Qur'an to an ever-changing science. [1]
Because it is not topical. It can be placed in Islam and science if anyone wants.
I'm undecided as to what to do about the Satanic verses section. Any thoughts?
Morality section:
Muslims say that God sent prophets to all groups of mankind across the globe, Jesus and Moses being two who were sent to the House of Israel, but that the Jews and Christians misinterpreted or textually distorted (according to some only misinterpreted) the teachings of the prophets. [10] Islam states that it is to be a final revelation and a correction of Judaism and Christianity.[citation needed] Islam, as a clear uncorrupted representation of God’s will, is therefore expected to be morally superior to Judaism and Christianity. [citation needed]
No criticism. Watt's statement is a response to criticism.
Domestic behavior section:
Verse [Quran4:34] of the Qur'an reads (some original Arabic words are indicated in square brackets):
“
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what God would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct [nashooz], admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly)[idribuhunna]; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For God is Most High, great (above you all).
”
The above verse thus instructs beating in certain situations. According to Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Ibn Kathir, the consensus of Islamic scholars is that the above verse describes a light beating.[11][12]Abdullah Yusuf Ali in his Qur'anic commentary states that: "In case of family jars four steps are mentioned, to be taken in that order. (1) Perhaps verbal advice or admonition may be sufficient; (2) if not, sex relations may be suspended; (3) if this is not sufficient, some slight physical correction may be administered; but Imam Shafi'i considers this inadvisable, though permissible, and all authorities are unanimous in deprecating any sort of cruelty, even of the nagging kind, as mentioned in the next clause; (4) if all this fails, a family council is recommended in [Quran4:35] below."[13] And Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi comments that "Whenever the Prophet (peace be on him) permitted a man to administer corporal punishment to his wife, he did so with reluctance, and continued to express his distaste for it. And even in cases where it is necessary, the Prophet (peace be on him) directed men not to hit across the face, nor to beat severely nor to use anything that might leave marks on the body."[14]
It is also argued that this verse has exactly the reverse functionality, since domestic violence is usually the result of "temporary" anger and that in 4:34, men are asked to first admonish their wives, then refuse to share their beds. They argue that the intermediate steps provide the necessary time for both parties to cool off and reason. (Light) beating is only prescribed as a last resort.
Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a Muslim scholar, holds that the above verse can be explained in two ways.[15] The Arabic word used in 4:34, 'idribuhunna', is derived from 'daraba' which literally means 'beat', 'go abroad', or 'give' in the sense of giving or providing an example. Thus according to them, the word 'idribuhunna' could very well mean to 'leave' them, "like telling someone to 'beat it' or 'drop it' in English".[15]
A second issue relating to the validity of these criticisms is the Arabic word "nashooz", translated as "disloyalty and ill-conduct" by Yusuf Ali, "rebellion" by Pickthall and "desertion" by Shakir. As can be expected, there are different interpretations of this word's use in verse [Quran4:34] within the Muslim community itself. For example, some Muslims believe that: "The expression Nashooz نُشُوز occurring in the above Ayaah آيه means disobedience of the husband. The word is derived from 'Nashaz', which signifies rising. In other words, if the wife rises above the limit that God has laid down for obedience to the husband, she will be treated as disobedient."[16] However, others believe that the word's true definition is "an unrighteous, wicked and rebellious act", thereby concluding that the verse does not necessarily prescribe the beating of disobedient wives.[17] The word Nushooz also appears later in the same chapter in verse 128 as
If a wife fears ( nushooz ) cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best; even though men's souls are swayed by greed. But if ye do good and practise self-restraint, Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do.
It is argued that nushooz cannot mean disobedience as both husband and wife cannot have authority over each other to demand obedience.
Islamic scholars state that there are verses of the Qur'an and several quotes attributed to Muhammad (Hadith wise), that bid believers to act kindly towards women and to not beat them.[18] Critics reply that "the command to beat disobedient wives" that they believe to exist within the Qur'an "is founded upon a woman’s subservient / secondary status in Islam."[19]
No criticism.
The Endress quote in the violence section is OR because it is using a quote as a response to criticism when the quote does not appear to have been written with that intent:
Gerhard Endress, professor of Islamic Studies at Ruhr University, states that at the time of advent of Islam, several social reforms happened in which a new system of marriage and family, including legal restrictions such as restriction of the practice of polygamy, was built up. Endress says that "it was only by this provision (backed up by severe punishment for adultery), that the family, the core of any sedentary society could be placed on a firm footing." [20]
The stoning to death section is not a criticism of the Quran so I will place it here:
Some have spoken against sentences of stoning to death which have been handed down by Islamic courts in some modern countries, most notably in Nigeria.[21][22] R. Peters in Encyclopedia of Islam however writes that the punishment of stoning has recently only been enforced in Saudi Arabia and Iran. [2] The punishment of adulterers via this method is not mentioned in the Qur'an but "derives its authority from hadith literature references which are imputed by many," according to Kemal A. Faruki.[23]
According to Daniel Madigan, although verse [Quran24:2] mandates one hundred lashes as punishment for adultery, the majority of the Islamic schools of thought do prescribe stoning. He says that Islamic theologians found support for the stoning punishment in a verse that was not in the official text of the Qur'an but one that "still carries the weight of Qur'anic authority."[24] There are certain standards for proof that must be met in Islamic law for this punishment to apply. In the Shafii, Hanbali, Hanafi and the Shia law schools the stoning is imposed for the married adulterer and his partner only if the crime is proven either by four male adult eye witnessing the actual sexual intercourse at the same time or by self confession. In Maliki law school, however, the evidence of pregnancy also constitutes a sufficient proof.[25] Scholars such as Fazel Lankarani and Ayatollah Sanei hold that stoning penalty is imposed only if adulterer have had sexual access to his or her mate.[26][27]Ayatollah Shirazi states that the proof for adultery is very hard to be established since nobody does adultery in public unless the person is irreverent.[28] For the establishment of adulery, four witnesses "must have seen the act in its most intimate details, i.e. the penetration (like “a stick disappearing in a kohl container,” as the fiqh books specify). If their testimonies do not satisfy the requirements, they can be sentenced to eighty lashes for unfounded accusation of fornication." [2]
and possibly move it to the other page later.
The amputation punishment section needs serious editing but might be salvageable.
This Esposito quote:
He observes that Islamic law provides strict regulations regarding evidence in cases involving these crimes, and that false accusations are seriously punished.[29]
Is not about criticism or response.
The slavery sectioni needs a whole lot of work. "The Qur’an, like the Old and the New Testaments, assumes the existence of slavery, Bernard Lewis states; it regulates the practice of the institution and thus implicitly accepts it, while at the same time limiting the circumstances under which a free person can be enslaved." Not about criticism. Same with:
Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi comments that these verses do in fact explicitly allow sex with slave girls outside of marriage,[30] although Yusuf al-Qaradawi states that these slave girls would automatically become free if they got pregnant, and that the child would also become free:[31]
Same with:
According to Lewis, the abolition movement got started in the Muslim world primarily because of European pressure, and for a long time continued only because of that pressure.[32] He says that these reforms were strongly resisted by religious conservatives who saw themselves as upholding an institution that was "authorized and regulated by the holy law."[33]
I'll believe that the Esposito quote about slavery is a "response" but this one by Yusuf Ali:
Yusuf Ali concurs. He comments that verse [Quran16:71] enjoins believers to do all they can to give or buy the freedom of slaves.[34] ... Yusuf Ali also points to this specific verse as outlawing the practice of forcing one's slave girls into prostitution.[35]
is not. Neither from Qutb:
Muhammad Qutb claims that slaves were not considered inferior to their masters in theological terms, referencing hadith such as Bukhari Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:2:29 in support of his position.[36]
Jewish and Christian part:
The Qur'an repeatedly cites the Injil and Tawrat as examples of divine guidance, and urges both Jews and Christians to judge by, and stand fast to their respective scriptures. It also states that if God had so willed, He would have made of humanity a single people — but that His plan is to test various peoples by means of what He has given them: [citation needed]
“
Let the people of the Gospel judge by what God hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel. ([Quran5:48])
To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what God hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God. it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute. ([Quran5:49])
”
Not about criticism.
The McElwain appears to be topical because it is an explanation of what the critics supposedly say, I'll put in the appropriate place.
Not about criticism. Arrow740 05:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Comments
This is highly extensive and overwhelming. Lets discuss it one section at a time before we make any changes.--Sefringle 05:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I think these were all necessary. I think I laid out the edits and reasons for them clearly, so anyone can comment on any particular section as desired and we can discuss it. Arrow740 05:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to look into the part about verse 4:34, and re-insurting it since I know it is extensively criticized. One such example is here: [3]--Sefringle 05:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
You can add criticism from that source. The whole issue is that the article is about criticism, not controversial issues. Arrow740 05:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
About the Science title, science is a discipline. It involves methods, hypothesis and conclusions, etc. It is misleading, as Aminz has pointed out, to say that the Quran contains science or even scientific statements. Arrow740 05:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
true, however many muslims think it does, so it is appropiate to call this section "criticism of the science of the quran.--Sefringle 06:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Second, since the section "Incompatibility with Christian and Jewish scriptures " does not contain quranic verses, I have tagged it with {{sectionrewrite}}.--Sefringle 06:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Hah! Yes I do, thanks. I changed it. About the science title, don't you think the "natural world" version is more neutral? Arrow740 06:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
It isn't as accurate.--Sefringle 06:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
But it's implying that there is science in the Quran which is true but some would dispute it. It is indisputable that it contains statements about the natural world. I guess it doesn't really matter. Arrow740 06:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Natural world too is vague. Science is specific. Everyone knows what would fall under the category of science. but natural world opens up too many possibilities for discussion in my opinion. What does natural world include (or not include)? It is just to vague. --Sefringle 06:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Aminz's point-to-point comments
"A minority of scholars" was added per "F.E. Peters who states. "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". "it is not widely accepted" doesn't say it clearly.
Alright, but that should be stated after the criticism. Arrow740 07:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The compilation section is unsourced and it does contain what one might consider criticisms. But as it stands it is written highly unscholarly. One might argue given the other section, it doesn't add anything new to the article. Because Crone et all have taken these info into account when proposing their theories.
Re: "According to Muslim tradition Muhammad received the Qur'an as a revelation from God through angel Gabriel. Some modern Western historians have concluded that Muhammad was sincere in his statement of receiving revelation, "for this alone makes credible the development of a great religion." [9] Modern historians generally decline to address the further question of whether the messages Muhammad reported being revealed to him were from "his unconscious, the collective unconscious functioning in him, or from some divine source", but they acknowledge that the material came from "beyond his conscious mind"
I think "According to Muslim tradition Muhammad received the Qur'an as a revelation from God through angel Gabriel." should be added to give context to criticisms.
Further, Rudi Paret says: "The accusation of dishonesty which has been laid down against the Prophet time and again over the centuries up to the most recent times with varying degrees of vehemence is relatively easy to refute. Muhammad was not a deceptor." is replying to criticisms of dishonesty. Annemarie Schimmel also states that the most recent studies of Muhammad indicate that Muhammad devoutly believed that he was God's instrument. Watt says that modern historians must accept sincerety of Muhammad. These certainly have a place in this section since they are standing against the criticisms of dishonesty. --Aminz 07:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
They would be appropriate if the criticisms themselves were presented. I have Ibn Warraq's compilation. I'll see what I can find. Arrow740 08:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the science section: "Ahmad Dallal, Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, writes that many modern Muslims believe that the Qur'an does make scientific statements, however many classical Muslim commentators and scientists, notably al-Biruni, assigned to the Qur'an a separate and autonomous realm of its own and held that the Qur'an "does not interfere in the business of science nor does it infringe on the realm of science."[1] These medieval scholars argued for the possibility of multiple scientific explanation of the natural phenomena, and refused to subordinate the Qur'an to an ever-changing science."
Arrow, the point is not playing with words. The author means the same thing and you meant the same thing. Please don't remove this. --Aminz 09:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Discussing points one by one
Like Sefringle said, I suggest we discuss the points one by one. I can see too many changes and we can't discuss them all together. --Aminz 09:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, either please make changes one by one or restore the POV tag please. --Aminz 21:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Response to criticisms
Sefringle, the link to the main articles is not the place for the responses(no one reads them). The article should not take a position towards critics. The responses, or link to the relevant sections must be provided after criticisms. Otherwise, I will move the responses back to this article. The choice is yours. --Aminz 04:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem is it is bad prose. I think Arrow740 should discuss this issue instead of me, since he is the one who made the changes.--Sefringle 04:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
What was the problem with seealso way of doing that? --Aminz 04:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
it is sloppy. It just looks bad. I think it would be better if you just give a one to two sentence summary of the "rebuddle" or "scholarly" opinion.--Sefringle 04:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually {{main|Hudud}} is not precise. I suggest we add {{seealso|{{seealso|Hudud#Requirements_for_the_Hudud_to_be_applied}}}} and {{seealso|Hudud#The_explanations_given_for_the_severity_of_punishments}} to the top since these are relevant actually. --Aminz 06:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
What additional information will this edit provide that the origional link doesn't?--Sefringle 06:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
This is providing explicit link to the removed "response" material. The Hudud article is about Hudud itself, not about severity of it. --Aminz 06:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I think people can easily see the rebuddles by reading the article. At its current size, the "rebuddles" you had are 2/3 the size of the entire article. With the main article, they only see the introduction as well. But as I said above, if you think a response is necessary, add a short one.--Sefringle 06:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The responses and criticisms should be proportional to each other. --Aminz 06:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
And how is it not?--Sefringle 06:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
In some cases all there was was scholarly POV presented as a rebuttle. And Aminz, why are you fixated on length of rebuttles? Arrow740 06:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
POV notice
What exactly is disputed?--Sefringle 06:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please enlighten us. Arrow740 06:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The image of Jews in the Qur'an is far from uniform. How is it that you remove sections from Islamic Ethics article because you think it is POV but add a POV section here? --Aminz 06:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
They are totally different topics. Islamic ethics can go in many directions, some POV, some not, but there are plenty of other POV pro-islam articles like Qur'an and miracles for example. To get to the point, what exactly do you wish to see with this section, keeping within relevance?--Sefringle 06:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, what is disputed? What POV is being given excess weight? Keep in mind the title of the article. Arrow740 06:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle, You have added a tag to Qur'an and miracles, so why are you removing POV tag from here? --Aminz 06:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The tag I added was because of WP:OR, not POV.--Sefringle 06:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
On the archaeological record of sacred scripture
This section was since mid last year. It was about the DSS and the LXX. Somebody didn't like the http//www.septuagint.net link because it may link to other sites. Instead WP:RS has been given so the section meets WP:NOR guidelines. The critic cites its sources.
I would disagree with omitting the critic that starts with the orientation of a factual objective verifiable and consistent biblical archaeological record that refutes Tahrif.
I would especially disagree when the only critic left then in its place is a subjective opinionated one about morals.
Seems to me someone is trying to set up a few trees so we miss the forest.
(Runwiththewind 08:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC))
It is a very interesting section. Jesus validated the Septuagint, disproving Tahrif at least for the Old Testament; I guess Muslims would claim that everything that points to him validating it in the New Testament is itself tahrif thought. The Dead Sea scrolls might also end the debate. Arrow740 18:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting the reasons for the removal of that section. It was removed because the sources you were using did not actually say anything about the Qur'an, which is a fatal flaw in an article ABOUT the Qur'an. - Merzbow 18:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It could go in the tahrif article. Arrow740 19:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It is also there and has been in the Qur'an article for some time. To say this critic is not valid is incorrect. It exists as factual instances of the historical record. The problem you have is the sources. We will compile a body of sources if needed. Tahrif was refuted with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Since then Islamic apologetics has held the scrolls have never been translated. Now Islamic apologetics is dealing with the fact that these Scrolls validate the Septuagint or LXX which contradicts Tahrif. This is not a theological debate. It is a set of facts pertaining to the existing scriptures that confirm consistancy not corruption. If it was corrupted the DSS would be a prime example of evidence for Tahrif. See how vital this critic is? You should be helping to validate it if you hold to rational logical verifable consistant methods of authenticating the facts. I will compile and drop the body of work back in soon. Any help is appreciated. (Runwiththewind 20:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC))
You're not listening... you need to find a critic who directly states how he thinks the Dead Sea Scrolls relate to our understanding of the Qur'an. If the sources you've used do this, please state exactly how and where, because so far you haven't made that case. - Merzbow 21:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually I don't need to find that alone (that is if it has not been mentioned alread). You do also. If you are here just to critic sources, then find them as wikipolicy states.
*"According to the Qur'an, God or Muhammad under God's orders, appealed to the Torah and the Gospel more than 20 times… Muhammad asks the Jews to bring the Torah to settle a dispute. People 'read' the Torah and the Gospel which are 'with them'." - The Qur'an and the Bible, by Dr. William Campbell. So the Torah part of the Dead Sea Scrolls is scripture according to Qur'an. There is your link.
*Corruption of the Torah at www.islamworld.net/torah.html
*The Koran is still a redaction. That verse should go back in since the sources are no longer disputed.
The claim that the sources do not back up the statements is absolute conjecture. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English provides the italicized differences with the Masoretic text, the DSS copies itself, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagent (LXX). They are all Old Testament. (Runwiththewind 15:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC))
i would have to agree with Merzbow that you're refusing to listen. the theory of Wansbrough is already covered later in the discourse concerning Crone/Cook's adaptation of it. the rest of the material you inserted is irrelevant to the Qur'an and its criticism. i believe that you have not fully understood WP:NOR, the sources used must explicitly elucidate what is inserted. if these books concerning the dead sea scrolls say nothing about the Qur'an, they are not to be used. as i have said before, if something remains unverified, we are under no obligation to include it. ITAQALLAH 16:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Show me exactly where the article says the Qur'an is a redaction outside of passages I inserted. (Runwiththewind 16:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC))
Ok I see that no Muslim is really prepared to see this kind of critic anywhere near the Qur'an entries on Wikipedia. To be honest it doesn't really matter. If Muslims don't want to know about this, or don't want others to know about, it is no great deal because it means they will have less preparation done for when it is presented to them elsewhere... and it is.. They just stand there absolutely incapable of generating any answer for it... and given the kind of censorship on here, it is no wonder why. (Runwiththewind 19:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC))
I think everyone who has the inclination to think about it realizes that the doctrine of tahrif is completely ridiculous. That said, their point is that although you have proven this be the case, it is you who are making that case. That makes it OR. However the Campbell quotes are an example of citing a reliable source for criticism. Arrow740 19:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
You're railing against straw men. First, I'm not a Muslim. Second, there are already cites in the article that discuss criticisms of this very type by scholars like Crone and Puin. Your section was pure and simple original research. You cannot take something about a subject A that you think relates to subject B and include it in an article on subject B unless the authors you're citing make that specific case. - Merzbow 22:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Relevance
This is quoted to support Spencer's statement: "According to Amnesty International, the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences has reported that 90% of all Pakistani wives have been beaten by their husbands for disobedience.[38]"
It is stated as if it supports Spencer's quote. We need a report saying this many women were beaten because of that verse etc etc. This section is about the criticism of that verse. --Aminz 09:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
90%??? Call this OR, but that is very difficult to believe.Proabivouac 09:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's strange to me too. If true, it should have other reasons rather than the religion as I don't think this to be a universal phenomenon. --Aminz 09:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
War and violence
Merzbow, the "response" subsection is already small compared to the criticism subsection. Why then should we put Spencer's reponses to his critics here in that section? Also, the same material is already covered in more detials in the link I provided. --Aminz 09:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not fair to reproduce Ernst's accusation in its entirety, but then go tell readers to go to another article to see Spencer's (which isn't allowed in Wikipedia anyway - we can't source to other articles). Either we delete the accusation and the response, or we give equal time. - Merzbow 09:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it fair that the length of the criticism section be 10 times than the length of the reponse section? --Aminz 09:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
That's not relevant. This is a personal accusation directed against Spencer. He will be given equal space to respond. The rest of the article is about criticism directed against a book, and should also include equal amounts of response to every criticism. - Merzbow 09:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
There was this man, but I forgot his name. We should use his argument in the article to answer this "War and Violence" crap. If you have critism, you must have the answers to the critism or else its POV.
The argument was: "Show me in the Qur'an, in its Arabic, where the words "Harb Moqtada", which means "Holy War", is used". Armyrifle 12:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Jane
Jane's quote is a response to "Some critics believe that it is not only extremist Islam that preaches violence but Islam itself, a violence implicit in the Qur'anic text." and further explains the rise of extreme Muslims. --Aminz 21:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Framing her statement as a response to that is OR, please understand this and don't do it again. Arrow740 21:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
It is a response. She is strongly making a point against what Spencer thinks. Let's see what Merzbow thinks. --Aminz 21:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
She may never have heard of Spencer. Does she say "critics say this, however...?" If not, you are the one making the argument, you are the one responding, and this is original research. Arrow740 21:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
No she doesn't say I am responding to Spencer and here you are but She says that the main problem is with the ideas of groups like Al-Qaida and not with Islam itself. Spencer says a quite oposite thing. --Aminz 21:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully you have been brought to the understanding that her statement is not a response to criticism. Arrow740 21:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem is her response seems to actually support the charge that the extremists are conducting violence based on their reading of the Qur'an, instead of refuting it...? - Merzbow 00:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Critics believe that ""Some critics believe that it is not only extremist Islam that preaches violence but Islam itself" She is refuting this. Maybe we can mention that she doesn't agree with this and then provide her explanation.(?)--Aminz 00:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
OK I see how it is a response to the first paragraph of the "Criticisms" section... the first sentence of the "Reponses" section I don't think accurately summarizes it however. I'll change it. - Merzbow 01:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Aminz has provided no evidence whatsoever that she wrote this piece in response to critics of Islam. Arrow740 01:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Assuming it was, I add a reworded version back in - for the moment. Aminz, can you quote verbatim some of the sentences from Jane's article to make it clear that she is addressing the accusation that the Qur'an necessarily supports aggressive violence? - Merzbow 02:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is the quote: "Jihad means 'struggle' and not 'holy war', as some mistakenly believe. Indeed, its majority interpretation tells of the struggle of every human to do what is right and just. Even its minority interpretation that permits warfare against others has mostly emphasized defensive warfare to protect Muslims and their religion, not agressive action. However, like fundamentalist groups in every religion, al-Qaida and its allies find it impossible to accept the wide diversity of religious customs in Islam, believing that their interpretation in the only authentic one. For this reason, they are willing to kill other Muslims as well as outsiders..."
She continues with other problems that these extreme groups have that makes them doing what they do. Of course she is not explicitly saying I disagree with Mr. Spencer, but she does so by giving her own account which is different than that of Spencer. --Aminz 02:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, the phrase "as some mistakenly believe" makes it clear she is indeed responding to criticism of this kind. - Merzbow 05:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
This is amusing, I have to say. If anything she is responding al Qaeda, not Spencer et al. Arrow740 08:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
She doesn't have to "name" Spencer. --Aminz 09:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
But you have to make it clear that she is discussing criticism of Islam, and thus far you have failed. Arrow740 08:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
<reset>So no one has an argument to include this? Arrow740 19:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It is only you who disagree with it. --Aminz 20:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Please don't be dense. It's not about criticism so I'm going to take it out. Arrow740 20:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Please provide the full passage. Arrow740 00:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, it started quoting from the beginning of the paragraph. --Aminz 03:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Please quote the preceeding and proceeding paragraphs. The burden is on you to show that she is dicussing Criticism of the Qur'an. Arrow740 04:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Her phrase "Jihad means 'struggle' and not 'holy war', as some mistakenly believe" makes it clear she is responding to those who she thinks "mistakingly believe" that. It's an easy inference to see this as including critics of the Qur'an. And the situation doesn't have to be crystal clear to justify inclusion of Muslim material; maintaining NPOV is paramount, and for a given subject we include both the criticism and whatever we can find that's closest to a response, or we include neither. - Merzbow 04:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
No, the only people she claims are wrong about jihad are terrorists, not critics. Maintaining NPOV is paramount. However, reporting on the subject matter cannot be considered a violation of NPOV. If a response can be found from a notable source we include is as at is also relevant, but if we do not, as long as we as editors do not endorse the criticism, we are not violating NPOV by reporting on it. Arrow740 04:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The Muslim or opposing view on a subject such as the interpretation of a particular verse does not have to be an explicit response to a criticism to be suitable for maintaining NPOV. Nobody is talking about adding material that sourced badly; Jane is a professor, and to give another example, Yusuf Ali is a top-notch source for commentary. And yes, reporting on subject matter can certainly be a violation of NPOV if certain sides are given undue weight; simply reporting the views of critics but not the views of moderate or apologetic Muslims or their allies, assuming notable sources for all sides exist, is wrong. - Merzbow 06:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Clearly, I have no problem with people who are plainly acting as apologists. You cannot deny that presenting as a response something that is not meant as a response to criticism of the Quran is original research. You are putting us on a slippery slope here and the article will never be stable if that's your policy here (you seem to have the final word on things now). Arrow740 07:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
In some cases, one can also take the notable Muslim view as the view the critics are responding to, which makes them directly relevant for inclusion. - Merzbow 07:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Universally rejected
What is the full quote? Arrow740 21:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
"The Crone-Cook theory has been almost universally rejected. The evidence offered by the authors is far too tentative and conjectural (and possibly contradictory) to conclude that Arab-Jewish were as intimate as they would wish them to have been."--Aminz 21:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Why aren't you giving us the author of the book? Arrow740 21:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, I am taking these quotes from here [4] --Aminz 21:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we can cut out all mention of their thesis. Arrow740 22:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree since they are notable critics of the historicity of the Qur'an. --Aminz 22:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
They have disavowed it, or at least completely distanced themselves from it. Arrow740 22:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, it is impossible to have a section on "Historical Authenticity of the Qur'an" and we don't mention Crone's thesis. --Aminz 22:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
What about the other things there? Arrow740 22:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
You are constructing a straw man here. Arrow740 08:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
No. Crone is very notable for challenging the traditional accounts. And there is no justification to remove it. --Aminz 08:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I guess you haven't this section of the talk page or the article you linked to. Arrow740 08:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Please explain what you mean --Aminz 08:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The authors have disavowed their work. Thus, it should no longer be considered scholarly criticism when everyone including the authors have disagreed with it. No one is making the criticism. Arrow740 08:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide a quote from them disavowing their theory? --Aminz 08:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Their original theory was very notable. We should present it, and if they did indeed disavow this work later on, we should mention that also. - Merzbow 09:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
There can't be that much rejection of that theory for support of the claim to devine orgin of the qur'an.--Sefringle 23:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Robert Spencer overusage
I have noticed one thing about this article, and that is that Robert Spencer is overused. There are hundreds of notable critics of Islam; surely some of them have presented the same arguements as Robert Spencer. This article is about Quranic criticism as a whole, not and essay about Robert Spencers arguements. I think we need to include more variety in views on criticism of Islam.--Sefringle 23:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
If you want to include other critics' ideas or credit the ideas to someone else I have no objection. Arrow740 01:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
In the mean time, I have to tag it with {{onesource}}--Sefringle 04:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
"nor does it infringe on the realm of science."
Please do not remove Dallal quote. --Aminz 07:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Please add neither it nor the OR you have twice inserted in the scientific contradictions section. Arrow740 09:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean "nor does it infringe on the realm of science" is not relevant here? --Aminz 10:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Please stop engaging in OR. You are using him to address criticism. He was not doing that. Arrow740 09:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It is not OR. You are criticizing something many Medieval Muslims didn't have any claim upon. That is quite in the context and was discussed before. --Aminz 09:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
That response was unintelligible. Arrow740 20:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
A response, not a criticism
"In a similar vein, critics point to verses they think imply that the moon gives off light instead of reflecting it from the sun, (25:61, 10:5, 71:15-16) and are skeptical of Muslim statements that the verses should be taken to mean reflective light only."
This is a response to the claim of some Muslims that the Qur'an had scientific predictions, not that the qur'an is wrong on that matter("are skeptical of Muslim statements"). Please see the source as well. --Aminz 10:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
"In a similar vein, critics point to verses they think imply that the moon gives off light instead of reflecting it from the sun," you might not know this, but the moon reflects light, so this is a criticism. Arrow740 19:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The Qur'an uses two different words for light of moon and light of sun. Some Muslims has claimed that one of them means reflection of sun's light and this is what that source is refuting. Scientific predictions. Not that the Qur'an is mistaken. --Aminz 09:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
So, it should be placed in response to the claims. I'll remove this from here. --Aminz 00:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
No. Do not remove sourced material.--Sefringle 03:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a response to the claim of some Muslims that the Qur'an had scientific predictions, not that the qur'an is wrong on that matter. Please check the original source. --Aminz 04:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Cleanup
I added the cleanup tag to the responses section because it is a little messy, and some of the links need fixing to be encyclopediac.--Sefringle 00:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This article is extremely POV
Why not add any responses to the critisms? Wikipedia isn't a place for anti-Muslims to just make articles and delete responses. I find it ironic how posting critisms and deleting the responses (responses even made by scholars) as keeping the article "NPOV". You guys have a weird definition of NPOV. Go check up on it. Armyrifle 12:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what you're referring to with those accusations. Arrow740 08:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Being that its titaled "criticism of the Qur'an" I fail to see why it should be wrong to include honest and scholarly criticism. After reading it, if anything it seems that there is a POV problem the other way with the article trying to be too PC instead of accurate. Gtadoc 16:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The few problems left in this article
Currently, I see two problems with this article. Robert Spencer overusage, and the "Incompatibility with Christian and Jewish scriptures" section as well as the "responses" section. I would like to see these problems fixed, so we can get this article a GA nominee.--Sefringle 23:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone made the following eidt to the Qur'an article recently, giving the following summary:Some critics have also commented on the arrangement of the Qur'anic text with regard to its apparent lack of continuity, absence of any chronological or thematic order, and presence of repetition As references, they said,
Samuel Pepys: "One feels it difficult to see how any mortal ever could consider this Koran as a Book written in Heaven, too good for the earth; as a well-written book, or indeed as a book at all; and not a bewildered rhapsody; written, so far as writing goes, as badly as almost any book ever was!" http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=21
"The final process of collection and codification of the Qur'an text was guided by one over-arching principle: God's words must not in any way be distorted or sullied by human intervention. For this reason, no serious attempt, apparently, was made to edit the numerous revelations, organize them into thematic units, or present them in chronological order.... This has given rise in the past to a great deal of criticism by European and American scholars of Islam, who find the Qur'an disorganized, repetitive, and very difficult to read." Approaches to the Asian Classics, Irene Blomm, William Theodore De Bary, Columbia University Press,1990, p. 65
We should try to find a place for this in this article.--Sefringle 06:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
You could start a new section. Arrow740 10:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Section on War, Violence 'sword verse' I (Reformatted V.1)
The "critic" and the "response" parts in this section are not in coherence and for an "objective" reader make finding information potentially quite confusing. I propose that the two should be merged so that the criticism is broken down into points and the relevent response (if one exists) given immediately below each criticism point. This would make the section easier to understand, serve to remove any irrelevant material that has buried itself in the long text, and remove unnecessary repetition as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sufaid (talk • contribs)
Further to this, below I have as an example re-formatted the section by breaking it down into points. Each point begins with a short summary of the criticism that I have added and enclosed in bold [paranthesis]. At the same time at a few locations I have added my comments italicised in [paranthesis] where I feel the text is not relevant. At the end of each critic point I have indicated where the response to that particualr criticism may be placed.
I have not actually altered or deleted any text present in this section so far, only broken it into sections.
After waiting for editors to respond to this, I will begin to do the same with the response section and start a cut/paste job to move portions from there into the "response place holders" I have indicated in the reformatted criticism section. Also any response that is not relevant to the criticism presented will be marked for discussion and deletion.
REFORMATTED VERSION (V.1) WITH [ADDITONS] AND [COMMENTS]Editors response requested - Sufaid 09:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[Criticism - Quran promotes revenge culture and violence:]
Robert Spencer writes that verse 2:194 of the Quran is significant for the understanding of jihad as self defense. He quotes Pickthall's translation: "And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you," and writes that "this is a foundation for the revenge culture that dominates so much of the Islamic world." [56] He goes on to note that according to this same sura (but not others, see below) [could not find the “others” that are supposed to argue contrary to “Fight is defensive, but not optional"] , "Fight is defensive, but not optional,"
[Response:
John Esposito in response to the charge laid against Islam in West as a violent religion states: "There has always been violence within the Muslim history just as violence has occurred within all religious communities. Also, the problem is not only the issue of political and economical reasons and grievances, but also the fact that when we try to deal with the other (whoever the other is) we seek a way to objectify and even to demonize. What we now have is often a double standard. That is people will look at the Qur'an and they will take scripture out of context. That doesn't mean that the Qur'an doesn't say that legitimate violence is okay, i.e to defend yourself against those who attack you. Or they will look at Muslim history and see that there had been Muslims who have used the notion of Jihad to justify their own imperialism and they will equate that with the religion of Islam, something that they often don't do when they are dealing with Christianity or other religions." [74]]
[Criticism - Quran sanctions morally questionable behavior towards enemy combatants:]
whilst quoting verse 2:216. He forwards that Muhammad is instructed to take no prisoners,[57] but also suggests that this prohibition "doesn't seem to be absolute," noting that in another verse (33:50) "Allah gives the Muslims permission to take the wives of those they have slain in battle as concubines."
[Response can come here]
[Criticsm - Quran promotes Violence:]
He writes that according to 4:95, those who fight are more pleasing to Allah than those who do not, and that those who take up arms for the Muslim cause rank highest among the believers 9:19-20.
[The following text is not related to the Quran so should be deleted]
Arab-American psychologist Wafa Sultan has pointed out that the prophet of Islam said: "I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and his Messenger." Sultan has called on Islamic teachers to review their writings and teachings and remove every call to fight people who do not believe as Muslims.[58] Dr. Sultan is now in hiding, fearing for her life and the safety of her family after appearing on the al-Jazeera TV show. [59] Muslims for a Safe America have opened a dialogue on some of the issues raised by Dr. Sultan.[60]
[The following text should be dsicussed further as the source is dubious]
Here is a partial list of Qur'anic verses that, according to a letter by Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar posted on JihadWatch, that deal with war, violence, and terrorism.[61][62]
“ "Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not." (2:216)
"Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!" (3:151)
"How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them. No plea had they, when Our terror came unto them, save that they said: Lo! We were wrong-doers." (7:4-5)
"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.'" (8:12)
”
The continued list includes the following verses: 45:11, 41:27-28, 35:26, 6:49, 5:73, 18:29, 98:6,8:65, 8:39, 3:106, 61:9, 9:30, 9:29, 9:5, 8:36
[Response:
Regarding the criticism that the violence practiced by Islamic extremists is necessarily justified by the Qur'an, Michael Sells states that most Muslims interpret the verses at issue differently, "in the context of early war between Muhammad's followers and their opponents". Sells also writes that extreme readings of sacred scriptures by some groups is not a phenomenon specific to Islam.[70] Conversely: "[Most Muslims] no more expect to apply [the verses at issue] to their contemporary non-Muslim friends and neighbors than most Christians and Jews consider themselves commanded by God, like the Biblical Joshua, to exterminate the infidels." [70] Jane I. Smith, a Professor of Islamic Studies, states that jihad is viewed only by a minority of Muslims as justifying warfare against others, and among those only extremist elements like Al-Qaeda believe that jihad allows for aggressive, as opposed to defensive, warfare.[71]]
[Criticism - Quran sanctions aggressive violence as Jihad (Sura 9 and the “Verse of the Sword”) and commands Muslism to make aggressive war on all non-Muslims:]
Spencer writes that Sura 9:5, called “the Verse of the Sword,” is a cornerstone of the Qur’an’s teaching about jihad:
“ So when the Sacred Months have passed, then fight the Mushrikun [unbelievers] wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform the Salah [Islamic prayers five times daily], and give the Zakah [alms as required by Islamic law], then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (9:5)
”
Spencer quotes Ibn Kathir, a prominent commentator of the Qur’an, with a tafsir (exegesis) of this verse.[63] According to Ibn Kathir, "the first part of this honorable Surah was revealed to the Messenger of Allah when he returned from the battle of Tabuk".[64] This military expedition took place within a year of Muhammad’s death, and was the last of his life. Ibn Kathir gives an explanation of Sura 9:5 as follows: "Do not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam."[65] Spencer quotes Hazrat Moulana Sayyed Abul Hassan Ali Nadwi, a Muslim scholar and biographer of Muhammad, who writes that the Prophet was attempting a pre-emptive strike: “The Messenger of Allah decided to lead a Muslim army into Roman territory before Roman armies crossed the Arab borders and threatened the heart of Islam.” Spencer notes that in Sura 9:81, Allah scolds those who did not cross the desert with the Prophet to fight:
“ Those who were left behind (in the Tabuk expedition) rejoiced in their inaction behind the back of the Messenger of Allah: they hated to strive and fight, with their goods and their persons, in the cause of Allah: they said, ‘Go not forth in the heat.’ Say, ‘The fire of Hell is fiercer in heat.’ If only they could understand! (9:81)
”
Spencer writes that Sura 9 is, according to the Sahih Bukhari, “the last Sura revealed in full.” Spencer writes: "to the distress of those who claim that while Muhammad may have fought these particular infidels, he didn't actually mean to leave his followers a universal command to fight all infidels, Ibn Kathir quotes an earlier authority, Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim, to establish that the Verse of the Sword 'abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term.'"[66] Ibn Kathir quotes another authority: "No idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah (Surah 9) was revealed." Spencer notes that another early commentator, Ibn Juzayy, agrees that one of this verse’s functions is "abrogating every peace treaty in the Quran."
Spencer interprets these writings: "In other words, the Muslim community is indeed commanded to fight against any and all unbelievers, not just against those Muhammad was facing when the Verse of the Sword was revealed."[67] He writes that Ibn Juzayy was referring to the Islamic doctrine of naskh, under which later Quranic revelations may modify and cancel certain directives, replacing them with others.
[Response:
Regarding these verses, it is argued that they have been taken out of context. The verses should be read with the whole surah; also the time and circumstances of the verses should be considered. [72] [73] See Islamic military jurisprudence#Ethics of warfare in the Qur'an regarding the principles of fighting in Islam and the "sword verse". John Esposito in regard to the sword verse states that the critics and some of the Militants today take the verse out of context. [74]]
[Criticism - Quran advocates peace in positions of weakness and violence in positions of strength:]
Spencer writes that “this idea [naskh] is crucial as a guide to the relationship of the Qur’an’s peaceful passages to its violent ones. Suras 16, 29, 52, 73, and 109-the sources of most of the verses of peace and tolerance above-are all Meccan. That means that anything they teach must be considered in light of what was revealed later in Medina. (The sole exception to this is the “no compulsion in religion” verse from the Medinan Sura 2, discussed below.) On the other hand, the last sura revealed, Sura 9, is Medinan. Thus it is in effect the Qur’an’s last word on jihad, and all the rest of the book-including the “tolerance verses”-must be read in its light.”[68] Spencer concludes: “In other words, Muhammad gave peace a chance with the Pacific suras, and then understood that jihad was the more expedient course.”[69]
[Response:
Carl Ernst asserts that the scholarship and interpretations of the critic, Robert Spencer, are fundamentally flawed - that he supports preconceived notions through selection bias and that he does not publish his books through academic presses since the books fail the blind peer-reviews as practiced by academic presses.[75] Regarding the issue of context, Robert Spencer writes that the Qur'an itself provides little context for understanding verses, and notes that the surahs in the Qur'an are not ordered chronologically, but by length.[76] In response to Ernst, Spencer states that "I present the work not on the basis of my credentials, but on the basis of the evidence I bring forth; evaluate it for yourself... Carl Ernst did not and cannot bring forth even a single example of a supposed inaccuracy in my work."[77]]
Sufaid 12:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)- Sufaid 09:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
With no editor having commented or objected I am now going to start the suggested re-formatting of this section. As said before, no text will be removed, only a few additions will be made, some of which may be slightly differant from the additions shown above but conforming to the general guidelines I mentioned earlier. Sufaid 07:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I oppose your changes, the article will be more coherent if it remains in its current format. Arrow740 07:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Which particular change do you oppose and why? All I have done is broken down the section into sub-sections for clarity. Right now there are a number of specific criticisms nestled within the full section. The response section then tries to address some of the criticisms and some it does not address at all. For the reader it would be much clearer if each specifc criticism is identified as such and the response, if any, following the same. This is quite clear from the reformatted version and I fail to see how the proposed format is less coherent than the current one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sufaid (talk • contribs) 12:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
Having received no reasoned response I have gone ahead and reformatted this section. Please take a look....I think it is more coherent now. Sufaid 12:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Arrow740, in your opinion the responses may be weak, but that it irrelevant. You also may have put a lot of thought into your edits (as all good editors do) but that does not preclude other editors from changing (with the object to improve) the text. The fact that mostly Spencer has been the source of the criticism is also irrelevant. Editors may add other sources (perhaps more credible sources) and so on. Also I have not designated any "chunks" as responses, as a whole they were already designated as such. The responses which are there, were obviously put there to address the criticism asserted against the Quran in this section so that all POVs are presented. The reason why I have tried to match the responses to the criticism is to make the whole section more coherent, an objective that over-rides trying to keep Mr. Spencer coherent as this article is not about Mr. Spencer's views. Within this section a number of differant criticisms (all jumbled up in one section) have been levelled, a fact that I have highlighted in the reformatted section. Also, I have tried to match responses to the criticisms as at present it is not clear which response is relevant to which criticism. Now if, in an editor's opinion (such as yourself), any response does not match any criticism or is not worthy of being a response (is merely a "chunk"), then that response should be deleted to improve article quality. At the same an editor may want to write a more relvant response, which would again improve the quality of the article. To faciliate these kind of improvements, the reformated version is much better. Sufaid 07:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Your latest version was badly formatted. You said, "I have tried to match responses to the criticisms as at present." To me it looks like you're trying to alter the placement of things to distract people from the problems of the Quran. KittyHawker 22:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Its a little unfair to conjecture about my real intention. Just to make it clear, I am not trying to distract people. I think that criticism of the Quran is a particularly controversial topic with varying POV's and all those POVs that can be and should be presented (as per WP policies) should find a place in the article. Keep in mind that this article is ABOUT criticism of the Quran not TO criticise the Quran. In any case the reformatted version actually draws attention to the various aspects of the criticism in this section rather than distrating away from them...and that...really is quite obvious...unless u mean the responses are distracting, in which case read the previous sentence. Sufaid 06:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
A agree here with Sufaid - the article is about presenting various criticism of the Quran in a neutral and understandable way. In this regard the reformatted version does a better job. Nazli 07:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Section on War, Violence 'sword verse' II
"Here is a partial list of Qur'anic verses that, according to a letter by Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar posted on JihadWatch, that deal with war, violence, and terrorism."[61][62]
Is this a reliable source?? A letter written by an alleged criminal and terrorist?? Unless convinced otherwise I am going to delete this referance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sufaid (talk • contribs)
no you won't, or if you do it will be restored. This article is about Criticism. Criticism is not always scholarly. This article presents notable criticism of the quran, and that list supports that description. Not to mention we had plenty of discussion on this, and keeping it was the compromise.--Sefringle 21:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
If I deem it justified I will delete the text; and my decision to do so will be based on personal intellectual honesty and not the chances of it being restored. The issue is not with the list but where the list is sourced from. I was unable to find discussion on the source of this particualr list on the Talk page and the archive. Can you point out the discussion so I can see how the compromise was reached on this list and if I may have soemthing to add. Thankyou. Sufaid 07:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I have gone through the arguments and I think there is a significant differance between the sources debated there and Mr. Reza Taheri who is being used as a source here. The argument in the discussions you have pointed out pertains to using websites that are critical of Islam. Some editors held the opinion that the sites are "extremist" in thier stance and as per WP policy can only be used as a primary source in articles about themselves. Other editors (in favor of inclusion) argued that the sites are "notable" critics (as opposed to necessarily being "scholarly") and as thier activity is criticising Islam they can be used in an article about criticism of the Quran. However the arguments do not apply to Mr. Reza Taheri as he is not a notable critic of Islam, or even a critic for that matter. He is a criminal, alleged terrorist (and in my personal opininon not of a "sane" mind). Thus if he writes a letter, that should not be used a direct source, except in an article about himself as per WP policy WP:SELFPUB. It does not matter if the cotents of his letter are "true" or "false" or if they support a contention that any critic is trying to put forward ("This article presents notable criticism of the quran, and that list supports that description..") What matter is if he can be cited as a source to criticise the Quran as per WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB. Sufaid 06:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
And that is the Jihad Watch source which is presenting Muhammad Reza's arguements as criticism. So as you can see, it is criticism; we are presenting the critical arguements, and that includes the letter. We did the same thing about verse 9.5 when we quote Ibn Kathir.--Sefringle 06:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Quoting Ibn Kathir is hardly comparable to quoting Reza Taheri. If you see the criticism section where Taheri is quoted it is clear that his letter itself is used as a criticism of the Quran; and therein lies the problem. Ignoring for now that Jihad Watch itself walks a fine line in being a RS, the criticism in the article does not really express an opinion that is argued by Jihad Watch, rather it simply places a quotation from Taheri (who in no way is a RS) but routes the quote through the Jihad Watch blog. At the very least the criticism should express an opinion that is put forward by Jihad Watch and use the Taheri letter within that context. At present the quote is simply presented to support a POV of the editor as no POV of Jihad Watch is presented which the Taheri letter is lending support to. Hence regardless of the fact that the Taheri letter happens to be present on the Jihad Watch site, it is liable to be deleted as per WP:SELFPUB as it is by itself being used as a source, unless one puts forwards the actual criticism that the Jihad Watch site is arguing and illustrate how the Taheri Letter is relevant to that particular criticism. Sufaid 08:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it is obvious that Jihad watch looks a the quote as Muhammad Reza Tehari Azar telling the world that his act of terrorism is justified by the violence, see the sight here:[5] the website says:
"From the letters: a detailed Qur'anic justification for killing in Allah's name
Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, the Tarheel jihadist, has written six letters to the Daily Tar Heel, student newspaper of the University of North Carolina (thanks to Joseph), where he tried to kill students for Allah by running them over in an SUV.
The letters are revealing on many levels. Pdfs of them are available here, here, here, here, and here.
There is a strong apologetic content to these letters. He is engaging in da'wa, trying to convert those who read them to Islam. They are also revealing of the jihadist mindset. He also describes what he did on the day of the attack in great detail, including which sections of the Qur'an he read at which hours leading up to his attack. He also says that he rises at 3AM in his jail cell to...read the Qur'an.
A few other observations about them:
1. Taheri-azar is not insane. He is articulate and perfectly in control of what he is saying.
2. He was not motivated by poverty or deprivation. Nor was he an ignorant bumpkin manipulated by sophisticated machiavels.
3. He firmly believes that he acted in obedience to Qur'anic dictates -- see the image above. (Yet in response we will no doubt get another flat statement from Islamic apologists, to the effect that the Qur'an absolutely condemns what he did and yet quoting no Qur'an, or if quoting any then only 5:32.)
The implications of this must be faced, and soon, by both non-Muslims and Muslims in America."
does this clear up how Jihad Watch is using the quote?--Sefringle 04:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Comparing Ibn Kathir to Taheri is unfair. I've inserted Taheri's legal status and opinion into the paragraph since I believe it is important to do so if his letter has to be quoted. Nazli 17:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it is clear that he is a terrorist, and if not, it can be found out by clicking on the link to the page. We don't need too many detials on who this person is.--Sefringle 04:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It is absolutely not clear in the article that he is a criminal (or for that matter the fact that he is niether a noted critic of Islam or a noted scholar of Islam) and that is critical information if his view is to be presented as a RS on what verses of the Quran support unjustified violence. Also it is useless to try to make clear on the Talk page how Jihad Watch is using the quote as that does not change anything as far as the article is concerned. The article is still presenting the view of Taheri as a source for lisitng verses of the Quran that allegedly support viloence/terrorism; and that is unacceptable as per WP policies. Hence either his quote should be deleted or atleast (as I have said before) situated in the proper context in terms of: 1 - What is Jihad Watch trying to argue by using his quote and 2 - Why Taheri is important to that particular argument. Sufaid 05:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It is clear enough as it is. We don't need too many excess detials about his biography, as it adds nothing valuable to the article. The point Jihad watch is making is that these verses preach terrorism, and that is clear in the article. Taheri's importance is that he made the list of verses. That is also clear in the article. The fact that he is a terrorist really has little importance to the article, and can be found out by clicking on the link to his name. It does not need to be mentioned in the article.--Sefringle 01:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
“It is clear enough as it is”. It obviously is not clear that Taheri is a terrorist and that his letter does not qualify as a RS as per WP policies.
“We don't need too many excess detials about his biography, as it adds nothing valuable to the article.” A few words do not qualify as “excess details”, in fact that they are the only details, a situation that needs to be redressed for the following reasons:
1. “Taheri's importance is that he made the list of verses. That is also clear in the article”. This is exactly the reason why his status also has to be made clear. He is being presented as a RS for Quranic verses that allegedly preach violence. As he himself fails WP policies of being a RS, his status as a young terrorist and his crime are of critical importance to the article and so is the context in which JihadWatch is using the quote
2. “The point Jihad watch is making is that these verses preach terrorism, and that is clear in the article.” No this is not clear in the article. JihadWatch is making the point that Taheri said he was motivated by the verses of the Quran to carry out his act. Whether those verses actually preach violence (a questionable assertion as the overwheming majority of Muslims are not similalry motivated by the same verses) is not something that can be based on Taheri’s letter as he fails WP policies of being a RS. This means that his letter should be deleted. Or atleast should not be presented as a RS, but rather as a supporting item to JihadWatch’s POV. At present the point that JihadWatch is making by using Taerhi’s letter is not mentioned AT ALL in the article. I have redressed this situation. Sufaid 07:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree on the particular point that this section should be written to emphasize that it is presenting JihadWatch's argument, not Taheri's argument, as the latter is most certainly not a reliable source. - Merzbow 07:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Section on War, Violence 'sword verse' III
The following text is not related to the Quran so should be deleted. Probably belongs in Criticism of Islam and/or Criticism of Muhammad.
Arab-American psychologist Wafa Sultan has pointed out that the prophet of Islam said: "I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and his Messenger." Sultan has called on Islamic teachers to review their writings and teachings and remove every call to fight people who do not believe as Muslims.[58] Dr. Sultan is now in hiding, fearing for her life and the safety of her family after appearing on the al-Jazeera TV show. [59] Muslims for a Safe America have opened a dialogue on some of the issues raised by Dr. Sultan.[60]
I am now removing this text as per the reasons given above. Sufaid 05:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Wansbrough
Can you please present the full quote for the following sentence: "John Wansbrough believes that the Qu’ran is a redaction in part of other sacred scriptures, in particular the Judaeo-Christian scriptures." The source seems to be here [6]. Thanks --Aminz 21:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't add it. Arrow740 23:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant text
The following text belongs in criticism of Muslims/Islam or criticism of Iran. This is not criticism directed at the Quran so should be deleted or made clear that the Quran sanctions the death penalty for sodomy and adultery (which I think it does not)and that is the cause of countries like Iran executing ppl for these "crimes."
Cases of the death penalty being applied for homosexuality or sodomy in Muslim countries have been condemned by human rights groups and others: "Human rights groups have documented numerous cases in which Iran has executed its citizens on charges of sodomy and adultery."[80][81]
You did read the articles referenced by 80 and 81, didn't you? They do make the criticism clear. - Merzbow 17:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I have read them now but had not when I posted earlier as the point that I was stressing then did not necessiate me actually reading the source. The point was that the wiki article should make it "clear that the Quran sanctions the death penalty for sodomy and adultery (which I think it does not)and that is the cause of countries like Iran executing ppl for these "crimes."" The articles referenced may or may not make the criticism clear but the wiki article does not; and that was my point. In any case having gone through the 2 articles, I can say that the fist article does not link Iran's behavior to the Quran at all. The second one makes a referance to the punihsment meted out by God to ppl of Sodom narrated by the Quran, and claims that this punishment is the source for the Taliban executing homosexuals by stoning them to death. So this needs to be added, possibly as follows:
Cases of the death penalty being applied for homosexuality or sodomy in Muslim countries have been condemned by human rights groups and others: "Human rights groups have documented numerous cases in which Iran has executed its citizens on charges of sodomy and adultery." Locke in an article adapted from Dr. Serge Trifkovic’s book, claims that the Quran's narration of the divine punishment of Sodom as a "rain of stones" is the source of the stoning to death punishment for homosexuals by fundamentalist Islamic regimes like the Taliban [80][81]
Carl Ernst asserts that the scholarship and interpretations of the critic, Robert Spencer, are fundamentally flawed - that he supports preconceived notions through selection bias and that he does not publish his books through academic presses since the books fail the blind peer-reviews as practiced by academic presses.[74] Regarding the issue of context, Robert Spencer writes that the Qur'an itself provides little context for understanding verses, and notes that the surahs in the Qur'an are not ordered chronologically, but by length.[75] In response to Ernst, Spencer states that "I present the work not on the basis of my credentials, but on the basis of the evidence I bring forth; evaluate it for yourself... Carl Ernst did not and cannot bring forth even a single example of a supposed inaccuracy in my work."[76] Small Text
I am not too sure if the above text is an apporpiate response to be included. If a source such as Spencer is properly attributed and conforms to WP:RS then is material attacking that source valid for inclusion in this article...as the article is not about Spencer. I would suggest removing the above and if any properly attributable POV's exist specific to the critcism, they should be included instead. Spencer's view of context is already present elsewhere in the articleSufaid 07:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
An ad hominem attack is still a response, so Ernst's input is appropriate, as is the response to it. Arrow740 20:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Not saying its not a response.....just unappropriate for an encyclopedia article...better to stick to the issues rather than open a discussion within the article itself on the merits of the references. Takes away from the article quality....
oh contraire. It is very appropiate for this article.--Sefringle 07:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
the section concerning abrogation of sura 9 is heavily weighted towards Spencer. the 'criticism' section, currently a quote-spam, can easily be condensed into a few sentences of prose. even the responses section devotes much of its attention to what Spencer has to say about what is evidently not a response at all. in summary, the section is highly unbalanced. ITAQALLAH 00:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
That is why that section is tagged with {{onesource}}--Sefringle 05:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
i see that Matt57 reverted, claiming that the image meets fair use guidelines. perhaps he could state how. ITAQALLAH 01:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's what the image tag says: "It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots ....... on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, ...... qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.". If you want, I can contact the filkmakers and ask them to provide a much better high resolution image. I'm sure they will agree as the picture is being used in a context they would agree with. Can you now explain why its not fair use?--Matt57(talk•contribs) 01:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
you conveniently missed an important qualification: "...for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents..." - the bullet points list the requirements, they are not optional. see WP:FU. ITAQALLAH 01:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The image caption does include identification of the program. --Matt57(talk•contribs) 01:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
fair use policy mandates that the article text itself must discuss the specific image in question and its verifiable relevance to the subject. see criteria #8, and the images section which stipulates critical commentary. ITAQALLAH 01:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The caption IS the text and it discusses the film in question. --Matt57(talk•contribs) 01:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
<reset>just to correct you, the article must explicitly discuss the documentary in the article text, not merely in the article caption ("The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose"), so that the image's relevance to the article text is demonstrated, which is done through critical commentary. if it is not discussed in the article, then it does not 'contribute significantly to the article' at all. ITAQALLAH 01:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Ofcourse its doing that: "The material must contribute significantly to the article" - the material is there in this article. The captain and the picture form the material and they are significantly contributing to the article, in relation to what the film's purpose was: "to highlight Quranic violence towards women", as claimed.--Matt57(talk•contribs) 02:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the film and picture are notable, but the requirements for fair use seem pretty strict - we have to be sure that it meets all requirements of this policy: Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy. I think fair-use images are being frowned upon in Wikipedia now, so it would be best to get explicit permission ASAP. - Merzbow 02:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
from the counter examples provided, it does seem that the critical commentary must consist of an actual passage in the article. material cannot contribute significantly to an article if it is not actually discussed as a topic in the article text itself. ITAQALLAH 02:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Itaq, how do you claim the narrative is fictional? But that is another claim anyway, its not relevant to the discussion here. Your claim that the image is emotive, is of no importance as well. As I have said "The material must contribute significantly to the article", and this is true in this case. None of the counter examples is similiar to this situation.--Matt57(talk•contribs) 02:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
"As I have said "The material must contribute significantly to the article", and this is true in this case. None of the counter examples is similiar to this situation." - a claim is worth little if it is not substantiated. WP:FU makes extremely clear that the image must be discussed in the article text itself (as it must "specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text"), as well as its explicit relevance to the topic. the counterexamples also show this. the image as it is currently presented constitutes a copyright violation. ITAQALLAH 02:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
It does not. The caption is discussing the film and the content. Do you want to have an RfC or something on this so we can resolve this?--Matt57(talk•contribs) 02:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
i have posted on the talk page of WP:FU concerning this. ITAQALLAH 03:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
It looks like we need significant mention of the film in the article for the image to be valid. Since it's nothing like a scholarly approach, I'm not sure it belongs in any pre-existing section here. But the film is still very notable, as are the filmmakers. How about a section in Criticism of Islam dedicated to notable criticsm of Islam in popular media, or something like that? I think the film is broader than just criticism of the Qur'an. - Merzbow 04:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
that seems a reasonable idea. ITAQALLAH 05:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Good. You should use the screenshot in that article. The fact that the critical commentary is in a caption box or in the body text is rather irrelevant, but it's important that it's bound to the surrounding text in some way. --GunnarRene 23:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Merzbrow, what qualifies as "significant"? I agree that we should expand on this film. This is a very relevant film in relation to Criticism of Islam or Quran. I hope somoene can expand on the film within these articles. --Matt57(talk•contribs) 01:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Not sure, but I think at least a small labeled sub-section would be enough to satisfy fair-use. As I said above, I think mention of this film belongs in a special section that covers popular or even just visual media, and probably in the CoI article, not this one. - Merzbow 07:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree on making a more significant mention of the film and its explanation in relation to the topic. There we can have the picture too. It would be great if we can find out which verses of the Quran were used in the film. I'm searching. --Matt57(talk•contribs) 12:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Response to Arrow740
I am undoing the blanket reversion by Arrow740 of my last few edits for the following reasons:
1. I have re-tagged the opinion of Spencer as the same in not being referenced to Spencer. Just a tiny bit of effort to find the page number in his book will do the trick. As it stands now, with or without the misplaced quotation regarding verse 2:216, it is unreferenced, and citing the Quran is not a valid reference because if Spencer’s opinion is being given HE has to be referenced. This is obvious and really I should not have to explain such things.
2. Arrow740, you have suggested that I am playing some sort of a game. I am not too sure why this negative reaction..but a general etiquette on Wikipedia is called goodfaith….and unless you have a very good reason..please do not question my intentions again as I am extending you the same courtesy against my best judgment. Regarding my separating quotations from citations please very carefully read the prior version of the page before it was reorganized…..or at least read the text taken from there and pasted below and pay particular attention to the full-stop after “2:216”. Or, at the very least, realize that verse 2:216 has nothing to do with war prisoners (unlike verse 8:67) which is the verse actually being quoted by Spencer and also being cited) and every thing to do with the text from where you have removed it.
He goes on to note that according to this same sura (but not others, see below), "Fight is defensive, but not optional," whilst quoting verse 2:216. He forwards that Muhammad is instructed to take no prisoners...
3. I am restoring the text that has been deleted under the pretext “not a response.” It is obvioulsy a response….and even if it was not; still it should be included as it is presenting an opposing POV to the one being presented in the criticism section and the readers have a right to know..and NPOV also merits its inclusion.
This is a version that has the old criticism section: [7]. Now I think you're not clear about that 2:216. In the version before you started moving things around, it was clear that Spencer is citing 2:216 in support of his statement that "Fighting is defensive, but not optional." And he does so on page 121, just as I indicated with the "he goes on to" from the previous sentence where 121 is cited. I'm going to be watching this article very closely. Arrow740 00:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding "3" from above, that is original research, and we have an important wikipedia guideline forbidding that: WP:OR. Arrow740 00:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
That is exactly what I am saying that he is citing 2:216 in support of "fighting is defensive.....". That is why I removed it from the section on war prisoners and placed where it was originally placed and cited. The tagged text is NOT the "fighting is defensive..." one, but the the one on war prisoners and all u need to do is to reference it to the page number in Spencer's book and remove the tag; instead of removing the tag without citing, misplacing a Quranic reference by Spencer, and then arguing against your own edit.
Your writing here is not easy to follow. Please put here the exact statement that you removed from its citation and are now requesting be cited. Arrow740 07:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I really don't know how to make it any simpler for you. Obviously the citation request refers to the text that is tagged. Just take a look and it should be clear. Aslo I have not remove any statement from its citation...instead I have restored the text "whilst quoting verse 2:216" to its original palce right after the words "Fight is defensive, but not optional,". This is how Spencer intended it and this is how it should remain. I really can't understand why you are insisting on re-attaching it to the text about war prisoners when it was never that way to beign with.....and frankly speaking does not even make sense. This is why I reproduced above the origianl text to make things clearer.
Regarding your reason WP:OR for deletion; the text is properly attributed to a reliable source and is only expressing the view of that source on a topic that is directly under discussion. If you think this is not the case....point it out properly here and (as I have said before) the text can be edited to conform it to WP policies.
As I have pointed out before the title Criticism of the Quran signifies that the article is ABOUT criticism of the Quran and not TO criticise the Quran. Thus an article on this must have all POV's as per WP policy....so the criticism must be presented and so should any POV's that are opposing to the critical POV or give an alternate POV of the issue being criticised. We cannot exculde any POV that has to do (directly) with the article title as long as it complies with WP policies, regardless of if it is actually criticising the Quran, as that is not (and cannot be) the objective of this article. Sufaid 08:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
"About criticsm" and "to criticize" is the same thing. If you want to find responses to the criticism, you can work on that but ofcourse you have to source all of it.--Matt57(talk•contribs) 12:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
this is a fundamentally erroneous conflation. articles report criticism. articles do not criticise. ITAQALLAH 15:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Whats the difference between the two? OR is not allowed in Wikipedia anyway, remember that.--Matt57(talk•contribs) 16:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The differance is as Itaqallah said it....the article is reporting critcism and not criticising. Ofcourse OR is not permitted, but unfortunately some editors are repeatedly deleting responses that have been properly sourced and hence the current dialougue. A cursory look at previous posts in this section should reveal that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sufaid (talk • contribs) 18:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
If it's not a response it's OR. I will fix this article tomorrow. Arrow740 05:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Its only OR if its used to push a particualr POV seperate from the sourced material. As that is not the case it is not OR and to top it off very much a response as well. Sufaid 05:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Section titles
Having just changed (again) "Contradictions in the Qur'an" to "Claims of internal inconsistency," I now see, "Criticism of the science in the Qur'an." Like "Contradictions," this is unduly presumptive. For my part, I tend to agree with Dallal and Al-Biruni (and strongly disagree with Zakir Naik and his ilk) that the Qur'an has basically nothing to say about science. We shouldn't prejudge these issues in section titles.Proabivouac 06:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
"We put mountains on earth so it wouldn't shake." "Man was created from a drop eminating from the lower back" (like Hippocrates taught). "Meteors are missiles God throws at demons." "God created the earth in 6 days." Et cetera. These impinge upon science. Arrow740 07:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not certain Qura'nic verse impinge upon science in an editor's opinion is irrelevent. I thinkProabivouac has a point that the titles are presumptive in the way that they are pre-supposing a given POV without recognising the fact that the said POV is controversial i.e more than one POV's exist on the subject. However, as the article is about criticism, this would be sort of self-obvious....meaning as the full article is about criticism which is a POV by definition, the section titles would follow suit....so perhaps are fine as they are. Sufaid 09:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, you are looking at these through scientific eyes. Each of these verses have other interpretations as well. Muslims are quick to show statements in the Qur'an the scientific interpretation of which is only recently discovered. But critics say that these are not meant to be scientific, but when it comes to other passages, they say these are scientific mistakes. --Aminz 01:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Even Ibn Kathir admits to being stumped at the "semen comes from the lower back" verse. When we note that that was the widespread belief of the time, the answer is clear. Arrow740 05:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Warfare- Interview
THe interview is with Khalid 'Abdulhadi Yahya Blankenship is an assistant professor in Islamic Studies at Temple University's Department of Religion. [8]
Relevant passages which might be summerized: "the "violent image" of Islam is entirely a creation of the western media, not the Muslims, who enjoy no input into that media whatever, except occasionally to be used as foils to defame their own religion. Violence in most Muslim countries is very little, and where it is a lot, it has been fomented by outside intrusions, interventions, and forces, as is especially the case in Afghanistan, Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq. Muslims are victims of power politics and have little ability to resist. Also, internally Muslim countries on the whole are far less violent in the crime aspect than our country here."
"the amount of people killed by all Muslim warfare is far less than those killed by western-waged warfare, even by the United States."
" Muslims who have engaged in freelance bombings and attacks such as 11 September are actually very few people."
"Also, the silence of Muslim religious leaders and people is false propaganda. Actually, there is much discussion and condemnation of such events in the Muslim world,"
Lets wait till there is criticism on the subject before you rebuddle that particular point. This really isn't responding to the specific issues of this article.--Sefringle 04:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Last sura
The article says: "Spencer writes that Sura 9 is, according to the Sahih Bukhari, “the last Sura revealed in full." " I thought the Sura Al-Maeda (The Table) was revealed after that. Itaqallah? --Aminz 07:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
According to this muslim site, surah 9 is the last revealed. Table is the 2nd last actually. Interesting. I knew 9 was revealed later but didnt know it was the last (some critics say more "aggressive" content was revealed later after the "peaceful" content). --Matt57(talk•contribs) 12:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Usually critics to make such statements have to isolate some quranic text from its immediate context to make sure it looks "agressive" for presentation purposes. Interestingly some early verses have very similar "agressive" content that is to be found in the later verses such as those of Sura 9. Sufaid 18:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Submission (film)
Thanks to Sefringle to bringing in the screenshot of the Submission film originally. We should make a more thorough mention of this movie in this article as its directly related to the criticism of the Quran. Here are the salient points from which a writeup can be made. I have found the script to make our job easier:
Here are direct mention of verses in the script:
Quran 2:222 - “They ask thee concerning women’s courses Say: they are a hurt and a pollution" (Quran 2:222)
Quran 4:34 - Hirsi says: ""It is written in the Koran a woman may be slapped if she is disobedient. This is one of the evils I wish to point out in the film"." source. "men are the protectors and maintainers of women" ... "First lightly on my arms and legs, just as you, most high describe – ahhhuh O shall I say prescribe – in your holy book;": (4:34).
Quran 24:2 - Verses mentioned in the film's script: "“The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with a hundred stripes;" - this is verse 24:2 ("24:2 Strike the adulteress and the adulterer one hundred times. Do not let compassion for them keep you from carrying out God's law—if you believe in God and the Last Day—and ensure that a group of believers witnesses the punishment.")
Another reference to Quran in a general sense: "The verdict that killed my faith in love is in your holy book."
So we have Quran 4:34 and 24:2 and 2:222 in this film being seen in a critical way. This is great material for inclusion in this article. Anyone who could make a write up from these points? Also, in doing this, this will be a significant mention of the movie in this article and because of that we'll be able to include the picture as well. All of this will be a great addition to this article and deserves its own section. --Matt57(talk•contribs) 12:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Powerful stuff. We might need to see more of the script. Arrow740 20:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed and thats the whole script, the link I pasted. i didnt see this material was included. I'll write something up then. --Matt57(talk•contribs) 19:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Sufaid's organization
One of my fears has been confirmed when Sufaid chopped up the section on Spencer and began to find his own responses to each of the pieces, using material in an original way. This will not be tolerated. If it looks bad to have a section of "criticism" with no "response" then we'll go back to the old format. Arrow740 20:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
First of all niether this article, nor the section under question is about Spencer. Secondly, seems to me your fear is that alternate POV's and responses may exist contrary to the ones being presented in the criticisms, and that they may find thier way into this article. Well one of the beauties of WP is that with multiple editors, all POV's do find a way into the articles to maintain overall neutrality. Regarding my presenting material in an original way; that is a totally baseless allegtion. I have fully referenced all material and as I have repeatedly said before, you are free where to point where I have originated a POV that is seperate from the POV of the material that I have cited, and any such material can be edited. If you can't prove that then, as per WP:NPOV, all alternate POV's and responses (properly sourced of course) directly related to the topic under discussion (regardless of wheather I or any other editor introduces them) should be included, and deletion of the same would be a clear violation of WP:NPOV and THAT, would not be tolerated. Sufaid 06:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Please try to understand. It is you who is making the connection between particular criticisms and the statements of writers. Thus you are conducting original research. I could find scholars saying all manner of things about the Quran that seem shocking or shameful to modern eyes and put them in here. That would be the same situation, and in fact I have removed such statements from this article in the past. Neither is allowed, and engaging in either pursuit damages the development of this article. Arrow740 07:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not making the connection that you are saying I am. If any person makes a certain statment about the Quran using any verse or interpretation, and another person makes a statement contradictory to the first statement about the same verse or inerpretation, then the connection is there automatically due to the fact that 2 person are making contradictory statements about the same issue. In such a scenario scenario WP:NPOV demands that both statments should be presented. You cannot exclude one and include the other. To allege that I am forcing a connection is just not correct. This becomes even more clear when you consider that writers have made the statments I have inculded to counter the criticism againset Islam regarding War and violence. This is crystal clear from the sources referenced. Also the criteria for including material has nothing to do with it being shameful....it has to do with it being in conformity with WP policies. What is damaging this article is inlcuding one POV and trying to exclude the other. Sufaid 08:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
If a source is not responding to criticism, but you present it as such, then that is original research. You have to find a source responding to criticism, just as someone would have to find a source criticizing. Arrow740 20:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
If, as you say, I am misrepresenting the source, then please point it out here. If you cannot do that, then stop deleting source material as that is violating WP:NPOV.
You cannot cite - for one example of many - Pickthall as responding to criticism. That is because he himself did not do so. Arrow740 16:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The book by Pickthall, which is cited, is clearly responding to criticism against Islam regarding war and violence and so is Maulana Muhammad Ali in his book. You did read the sources before giving your opinion on what they are or are not doing, right??? Furthermore even if they were not, thier views, as long as they are topical, could be inculded in the article as alternate interpretations of verses being criticised. However, as in this case thier views have clearly been formed as a response to criticism, this matter does not arise. Sufaid 05:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Are there specific evidences that show that Pickethall and Maulana are responding to criticism, like chapter/section names or introductions that appear defensive or apologetic? I'm not siding with any one side here, just trying to get more information. - Merzbow 06:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the entire text under question, apart from the reference to Ibn Kathir, I can say with utmost confidence that the authors' intentions is clearly to defend Islam againset the criticism alleged against it regarding Jihad and violence. This is evident in the "defensive" language and introductions, at times explicit and at times implicit (There are a number of sources cited so it is not possible to be too exact here). But, the question is, where does the burden of proof lie? I mean, whenever I have wanted to delete or significanlty alter a text (even where the reasons were quite obvious) I have had to painstakingly explain my reasoning in detail, citing the exact and particular text that I deemed worthy of change or deletion, and then come to a conclusion after input from other editors. Point is, it is unfair to just delete large chunks of fully referenced text, and ask the contributing editor to bring evidence to prove it merited inclusion. If the text is referenced, and after having read the source any editor feels there is a problem, then point it on the talk page (citing the exact place where the problem lies). Otherwise, I can just start deleting text where ever I want, and assuming bad faith on part of the contributing editor, ask for proof that the text is compliant of WP policies. But to answer your question yes there is evidence that the authors were responding to criticism (except Ibn Kathir), but I don't want to set a precedent where editors are asked to "prove thier innocence"....although on the condition that it would not become a norm I can do it on one instance to cut this particlar edit war short. Also note that the issue of "author's intent to respond" comes more uder being topical to the section rather than OR. I am saying this after very careful reading WP:OR. Sufaid 10:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it's up to both editors on the side of a dispute like this to cite specific evidence from the sources to back up their argument that it is either a defense or not a defense. Right now the issue seems unclear to me, at least. Arrow, in the meantime could you leave the text in but tag it with the NPOV or OR tags? That would stop the edit war but remind readers it's under dispute. - Merzbow 17:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
As a forward looking gesture I am providing evidence that the sourced authors were responding to criticism against Islam regarding war/violence/jihad, even though the burden of proof does not lie on the contributing editor if the material is fully referenced.
To begin we can take Pickthall (who was specifically pointed out by Arrow although no particular text was cited). Pickthall in the cited book says in the beginning of the book (on page 6):
..there is one thing ofcourse which a Christian will object to always in Islamic teaching, and that is the command to fight in self defence,….the plain command to kill men under certain circumstances…
He then goes on in the following pages to discuss Quranic teachings on war/violence and explain how in his opinion the above mentioned objection is not justified.
Next we can take Maulana Muhammad Ali. He has been referenced several times so I will give more than one instance.
When discussing the sword verse, he says on the same pages as cited in the article:
It is a mistake to regard the order as including all idolatrous people living anywhere in the world……… With such a clear explanation of the fifth verse contained in the preceding and following verses, no sane person would interpret it as meaning killing of all idolaters or the carrying on of unprovoked war…
It is some times asserted that these injunctions, relating to defensive fighting, were abrogated by a later revelation in ch. 9. Yet any one who reads that chapter cannot fail to note…
Thus chapter 9 which was supposed to abrogate, still speaks of fighting…
And in the introduction to the chapter on Jihad he begins by saying:
A very great misconception prevails with regard to the duty of jihad in Islam…
In the footnote that is cited he begins by saying:
Let those ponder who think that the Muslims fought for plunder!.....Only a diseased brain could come to the conclusion that the Prophet “had now determined to resort to the sword to accomplish what his preaching had
failed to do”….. And do not the very words of the verse give the lie to this most irrational conclusion? A picture of distresses and afflictions to which the few converts to Islåm were subjected is drawn in v. 214. They
were few in numbers, poor, exiled, and distressed, yet it became inevitable that they
should fight in self-defence or they would be destroyed. It was their utter weakness and the
enormous disparity of numbers that made them dislike the fighting. And I may add that not
a single instance is recorded in the whole of the Prophet’s history showing the conversion
of an unbeliever under pressure of the sword, not a single case is met with of an expedition
undertaken to convert a people…..If ever there was a just cause for war,
there never was one more just than the cause of humanity at large, the combined cause of
the Christian church, of the Jewish synagogue, of the Sabian’s house of worship, and of
the Muslim mosque, which the early Muslims set before themselves (22:40). Read along
with this verse what is stated in v. 190 and 22:39, and the conditions under which this
injunction was given will become clear. It was an injunction to fight against those who
took up the sword first and turned the Muslims out of their homes. It was an injunction
to fight to end persecution and to establish religious freedom…
I think it quite clear that the authors are giving their opinions with a defensive mindset due to the criticism leveled against Islam regarding Jihad/violence, and as such are obviously responding to the criticism.
I cannot speak for the deleted text that was included by some other editor. Sufaid 13:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll be honest - I cant understand why the material Sufaid is trying to put in, cannot be included. Its relevant to the criticism of Quran and thats all that matters, right? I agree with Sufaid when he says: "Furthermore even if they were not, thier views, as long as they are topical, could be inculded in the article as alternate interpretations of verses being criticised.". We include views on Islam all the time. They dont have to be directly declared as a "response to criticism". Just like we are free to add opinions we think are critical of Islam, we can also put in responses to the criticism. How is OR being violated here specifically? --Matt57(talk•contribs) 17:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree; Sufaid's quotes above make it clear this deserves to be included. - Merzbow 17:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, do we have consensus now to allow the material in? If anyone has concerns please voice them. --Matt57(talk•contribs) 14:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This text needs more clarity
Robert Spencer writes that Muhammad was instructed to take no prisoners,[73] but also suggests that this prohibition "doesn't seem to be absolute", noting that in another verse (33:50) "Allah gives the Muslims permission to take the wives of those they have slain in battle as concubines."[74]
I think a couple of changes to the above text will make it better. Before some editors start imagining I have some ullterios motive, please read what I have to say, it really would improve article quality.
"Robert Spencer writes that Muhammad was instructed to take no prisoners,[73]". I am assuming the cited author (Spencer) is implying that Muhammad was instructed to kill all defeated enemy combantants rather than implying that Muhammad was instructed to let all defeated enemy combantants go free. Perhaps the text should make this clear as in its current form it is a bit ambigious what the author is trying to imply. Secondly if Spencer is quoting verse 8:67 (see superscript 73)in support of his argument then that should also be explicitly mentioned instead of putting that as a reference in superscript.
Sufaid 08:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
He doesn't give the exact citation. He quotes "It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land." He then says this is in the context of 8:67, so I assume it's in sura 8. It doesn't matter, we're just here to reproduce his argument. He doesn't spell out that the Quran tells Muhammad to kill everyone. You do not need to add your interpretation of his writing to the article. Arrow740 20:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
If he is as you say quoting, then he should have given an exact citation, and infact 8:67 is an exact citation from the Quran. THe problem is that his argument based on this citation (whatever it is) is not presented clearly in the article. You dont have to as usual start assuming ulterior motives on my behalf; I am not trying to give my own interpretation to Spencer, in fact I want to make sure that his argument is presented so clealry that room for personal interpretations is minimised. Currently the way the article text is worded it does sound like Spencer is saying that Muhammad was told to kill prisoners. If he is not saying that then what exactly is his criticism of the quran regarding 8:67. I think this section needs expansion to properly give Spencer's views. Sufaid 18:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
^ ab The Cambridge History of Islam (1970), Cambrdige University Press, p.30
^ Issa Boullata, Literary Structure of Qur'an, Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, vol.3 p.192, 204
^ "If…they [Christians] mean that the Qur’an confirms the textual veracity of the scriptural books which they now possess—that is, the Torah and the Gospels—this is something which some Muslims will grant them and which many Muslims will dispute. However, most Muslims will grant them most of that." Ibn Taymiyya cited in Martin Accad,The Gospels in the Muslim Discourse of the Ninth to the Fourteenth Centuries: An Exegetical Inventorial Table (Part I), Journal of Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, volume=14, issue=1, 2003, ISSN 0959-6410
^ "The Holy Qur'an: Text, Translation and Commentary", Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Amana Corporation, Brentwood, MD, 1989. ISBN0-915957-03-5, passage was quoted from commentary on 4:34
^ Kathir, Ibn, “Tafsir of Ibn Kathir”, Al-Firdous Ltd., London, 2000, 50-53
^ "The Holy Qur'an: Text, Translation and Commentary", Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Amana Corporation, Brentwood, MD, 1989. ISBN0-915957-03-5, passage was quoted from commentary on 4:34
^ "Towards Understanding the Qur'an" Translation by Zafar I. Ansari from "Tafheem Al-Qur'an" by Syed Abul-A'ala Mawdudi, Islamic Foundation, Leicester, England. Passage was quoted from commentary on 4:34
