Talk:Criticism of the Quran/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Criticism

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

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

Revert war

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

it has been ascertained above that partisan websites cannot masquerade as reliable sources: they don't meet WP:RS and they wouldn't be used anywhere else on this encyclopedia except as primary sources. in fact, even in this article they are being used as primary sources. the kind of sources we are supposed to be using are reliable secondary sources which objectively discuss the topic. ITAQALLAH 14:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I've read the archives.
Could someone who disagrees spell out their objections to the above statement? The archives are unclear.Hornplease 20:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
"Reliable sources for criticim are those which state the views of the critics." If that's the assumption on which we are proceeding, it is inaccurate. Reliable sources are those that report notable criticism. Its not our job to determine that Spencer's criticism of Islam is notable but Bal Thackeray's is not. Hornplease 20:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Why is Spencer, who's sold millions of books on the subject, not a reliable source for criticism? I disagree with removing the material. - Merzbow 02:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
i'm thinking that we should be able to find reliable documentation of the main arguments in Spencer's works (the premise is, of course, that his works are prominent enough to have been discussed in reliable literature i.e. mainstream US book reviews, which is a given if some of them are best-sellers). that also helps against excessive usage which is an issue with the current war and violence sect., and i think the article is quite unbalanced in that regard. the websites mentioned above aren't likely to have the same kind of coverage, and reliance on these kinds of sources should be reduced IMO. ITAQALLAH 03:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

No consensus to remove, and no consensus to stay, either. Robert Spencer is most assuredly not "as close to an authority on criticism of Islam" as we have got. He is a notable critic of Islam. Someone aware of his work and of others is "an authority on criticism of Islam. Many, many academics in religious studies document the criticism of religions and study major critics and evaluate notable arguments and the milieu in which they are made. Jihadwatch is a primary source for criticism of Islam. What part of this is difficult to understand? Hornplease 00:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Note Itaqallah has made a similar point five days ago, above, which has not been responded to while an irresponsible edit-war has been conducted. Hornplease 00:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Merzbow, we certainly are not going to regard a man that charges Islam as being a "violent", "intolerant" religion to be a reliable source. Please see WP:RS#Extremist_sources. And you claim that there are no critics of Islam more reliable than he is wrong. Try Maxime Rodinson or William Muir or Jane Gerber. Learn to look beyond Spencer/Warraq/Sina etc.Bless sins 01:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
ad hominem. Any highly notable criticism (such as Spencer/Warraq/Sina, etc) is a reliable source for critical viewpoints. At worst, they are primary sources on criticism. That alone doesn't make them unreliable or extremist. SefringleTalk 01:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The policy on extremist sources, which I personally have doubts about, is ad hominem. Take it to that talk page, and I might agree with you.
If you can find a reliable source from a scholar of criticism of the Quran rather than from a critic of the Quran saying what Spencer says, then you might have a leg to stand on. Hornplease 01:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The policy is also very vague as to what sites are extremist and what sites are not; almost as if leaving it up to the consensus of the article writers to determine whether or not the source is extremist or not.--SefringleTalk 02:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Pardon me, Sefringle, but my Latin is not so sharp. So I don't exactly know what you mean by "ad hominem", nor am I about to read an unsourced article to find that out.Bless sins 01:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It is a fallacy, and if you bothered to read the article, you might know what I am talking about; I'm not going to explain what can easily be discovered by reading the article.--SefringleTalk 02:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Please demonstrate how any of them is a "reliable source". If you can demonstrate that, then you will be able to put into wikipedia that Muslims are "evil" are all the other crazy theories that these narrow minded individuals come up with.Bless sins 01:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You demonstrate how the responses are reliable sources first. You need to give more specific examples as to how they are not reliable sources, other than the "muslims are "evil" are all other crazy theouies..." arguement, because, as I already pointed out, it is ad hominem. --SefringleTalk 02:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It is up to the editor who wishes to use a source to prove they are a reliable source and not for others to prove otherwise (see negative proof). If any of the critics that are being mentioned as unreliable have had their work in peer reviewed journals or cited by other scholars, then they should be given some weight in this article otherwise they would be considered Extremist sources. → AA (talk) — 06:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
"Peer reviewed journals" don't publish criticism of religion. That is not the job of scholarly journals and not within the scope of professors' work. Go to Scientology, for example, one of the most notably heavily-criticized religions around, and you will find few, if any, criticism cites from professors. In short, there is no consensus in Wikipedia for requiring criticism of religion to come from peer-reviewed sources. Merzbow 08:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Have any of these critics in question had their work published and agreed upon by other reliable sources? We can't just have any extremist's views used on Wikipedia just because they are notable for something or other. We still have to adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:V policies. → AA (talk) — 08:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
"Peer reviewed journals" don't publish criticism of religion. They do, however, review the work of notable critics. This is what I have said several times.
Scientology is not a reasonable comparison (obviously.) I think you would do better to consider Christianity. I personally, without having to look, know of Science and Christian Belief, Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, the New Humanist. There are no doubt several others. Other than journals, books reviewing criticism of religion are published regularly by major academic presses; consider, for example David Martin's "Does Christianity Cause War?" from OUP. Major sociological journals are also full of articles studying the effects of religious indoctrination on societies. For Richard Dawkins, for example, I would recommend not quoting him but any of the studies of his critiques, such as Dawkins' God by Alistair McGrath; again, published by Blackwell.
Obviously, the equivalent holds true for Islam and for textual criticism of the Qur'an. If we are writing a genuine encyclopaedia here, then directly quoting mavericks like Spencer, who have no review of their work - no quality control, as it were - is unacceptable. If we are using this as a soapbox to repeat polemic, however... Hornplease 17:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The policy and guideline would therefore suggest that these "critics" views are not represented in any articles apart from their own.

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

→ AA (talk) — 17:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
"Scientology is not a reasonable comparison (obviously.)" No, not obviously. Islam has only very recently begun to come under serious examination in the West. And who fact-checks Dawkins' books? They are not peer-reviewed either. He's as much a maverick as Spencer (and if you read his books, he's far more polemical). - Merzbow 05:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
And again Hornplease, I don't know why you keep insisting that only reliable sources that cover other reliable sources are reliable, not the reliable sources themselves. So far you're the only person I've encountered on Wikipedia who advocates this. McGrath is no more reliable than Dawkins. - Merzbow 05:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
If I am the only person who has explained this to you, I apologise. I hope, however, that you will respond to the actual points that I have made with more care. McGrath is not "as reliable a source as Dawkins" in one very particular way: McGrath is a reliable source about Dawkin's criticism. If you are to pick and choose what Dawkins has to say, nothing prevents massive edit wars about what part of that primary source of criticism should be included - because you are not a reliable source on what Dawkins' major arguments are. Similarly, if the criticism of the Quran is to be handled in an encyclopaedic manner, then simply quoting from "critics" is both bad research methodology, and not in line with our policies on original research and reliable sources. We need to quote from reliable sources on criticism, not reliable sources of criticism.
(Personally, I would like to see Dawkins removed as a primary source from the criticism of religion article. However, he is not quoted directly there, but paraphrase, and those paraphrases are broadly in line with major reviews of the recent work of the "God critics", so I do not see it as particularly urgent.)
I urge you to read this again. I am not saying "reliable sources that cover other reliable sources are reliable, not the reliable sources themselves"; I am saying that some things are primary sources. A notable critic is a primary source for criticism.
(In any case, where does it say JW is reliable?) Hornplease 06:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I think we have clarified what the problem is. Since you calim you want reliable secondary sources about criticism, that is an acceptable addition, but it does not justify the selective removial of sourced content which is presented as critical views. Since you think content which is primary sources should be removed, prehaps you can show me the policy which prohibits primary sources? As I have said twice now, primary sources alone is no reason to selectively remove quotes which certian users doesn't like. There is nothing wrong with those sections which you removed. And I did explain how JW is reliable as a primary source; it is reliable as a primary source presenting the views of critics; see the above section. Spencer is paraphrased here as well and not quoted directly, so how this comparision to Dawkins fits is unclear.--SefringleTalk 18:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Thank you for contributing. That does not count as discussion,however.Hornplease 06:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
What's your point? Arrow740 06:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was clear. You have not contributed to the discussion. Hornplease 07:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
If my reasoning is unclear to you, say so. Otherwise, address it. Arrow740 07:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Believe me, the moment I see any reasoning, I will address it. Hornplease 07:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I would believe you, but you have already demonstrated the falsehood of that sentence on this talk page. Arrow740 08:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
How? where? what reasoning should I see? What have I not responded to? Point me in that direction. Hornplease 08:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

This is subtly different from the MA article. (Incidentally, I do not misunderstand what a 'primary source' is; my livelihood depends on my not making that error. The writer of NOR was told at the time that he/she was being unclear. If you read the talkpage, you will see that there is considerable discussion -in which I am, unfortunately, not really a participant at the moment -on how to make the divide clearer.) And "unable to convince people there" means you and two others, so don't make it sound like I took up arms against a sea of enemies. If it is you objecting in both places, perhaps it is you that misunderstands the nature of sourcing? I have made this argument elsewhere successfully, I believe.
Please take a look at the title of this article. This is an encylopaedia article about the criticism of the Koran. It is not a location for criticism of the Koran. The primary sources of criticism are critics: "documents or people very close to the situation being written about." Secondary sources "draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims;" in the case of this article, claims about the nature and scope of criticisms of Islam. Spencer is a man who is, more than anyone, "very close to the situation being written about". By quoting from people notable as critics, you are conducting OR about the nature of their criticism. (Unless you are choosing passages that they themselves set up as representative of their opinions, but thats another story.)
Your claim that "A critic of religion writing about that religion is undisputably a secondary source. The primary source would be the documents he is analyzing - most notably, the Qur'an." would be correct - in the Koran article. If Spencer is an RS, go ahead and put him in there. I will not object. The simple truth underlying the intuituin that Spencer is a notable critic but not an encyclopaedic source is that we should be quoting those who can summarise his criticisms, note those that are particularly novel or have seized the public's imaginations. Not the passagese that some WP reader likes. Hornplease 03:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a completely novel interpretation, against what policy explicitly says. If you disagree with the definitions and examples in WP:NOR, the burden is on you to get it changed first. - Merzbow 06:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
And by your logic, a History of the Roman Empire article couldn't quote historians of Rome at all (including modern historians), because they would be primary sources, but the Roman Empire article could. Clearly an absurdity. - Merzbow 06:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
You've claimed its novel before; that's hardly true, given that you can't quote a single piece of policy that contradicts it, while I can quote policy that explicitly supports it.
Incidentally, your "History of the Roman Empire example is valuable: Historiography of the Roman Empire, if it existed, should avoid quoting historians directly. Consider Decline of the Roman Empire. There's a reason the former article is redlinked. The latter "references" several historians but is based on secondary work treating Gibbon et al as sources. Hornplease 07:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, "Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims", and "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about". This article is not about meta-analysis of criticism of the Qur'an. We are not writing "about" the critics, it is not "Criticismiography of the Qur'an", just as "History of Russia" is not "Historiography of Russia". This article is about the Qur'an, just like "History of Russia" (which references dozens of "direct" historians like Conquest) is about Russia. - Merzbow 17:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
(Deindent) No, the title is "criticism of the Qur'an", and the article is about criticism of the Qur'an. I am puzzled by how you can argue differently in the light of the big, boldface title of this page. I note you quite happily duck the Decline of the Roman Empire article. In any case, the history of Russia article studies the history of Russia and quotes those who are experts on the history of Russia. This article studies the criticism of the Koran and quotes those who are experts on the criticism of the Koran. (Not those who are notable critics.)Hornplease 10:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hornplease has a valid point. Only qualified critics should be used as reliable sources in this article. Don't just cite any [redacted per WP:NPA] :D216.99.52.170 20:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Decline is a sparsely-sourced article that needs a lot of work, as compared to the Russia article, which has innumerable cites. But I'm glad you brought this up again, as it gives me another opportunity to quote policy: "An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, is a secondary source." - Merzbow 21:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly! And a scholar's interpretation of the criticism of the Koran is a secondary source. Come on! Follow the policy you yourself quote! Look at the title of the article! Etc. Hornplease 21:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
See the refs in the first paragraph of Criticism of Islam. These critics have been written about and reviewed. Once established as reliable and notable on the subject, they can be used as references in articles about that subject. "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." This is basic stuff. - Merzbow 00:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
They are not established as reliable on the subject of Islam. They have been established as notable as critics of Islam. They have not been established as reliable students of criticism of Islam. Lockman indicates that Pipes is a notable critic of Islam; we should quote Lockman on what he thinks are Pipes' major points about the Koran, rather than attempting original research by quote-mining Pipes ourself. This is basic stuff. Pipes is not an RS about criticism; he is merely a notable critic, which is all that the citation indicates he is.Hornplease 12:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


Why don't you think Pipes is a RS? And, I suggest you review the meaning of "original research" - quoting another writer is never original research. Alexwoods 14:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
"Quoting another writer is never original research": yes, it is. If the writer in question is producing work that is the direct subject of the article, namely "documents or people very close to the situation being written about", then WP:NOR enjoins us to "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" based on that. Hornplease 15:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Merzbow is largely right when he says that most academic peer-reviewed journals/newspapers/books don't forward subjective opinions- i think the point being missed here is that this doesn't stop them from mentioning where this has occured. any site forwarding a critical opinion is itself a primary source for that very criticism. Hornplease's example regarding Pipes is spot on, and the same applies to Spencer and anyone who may have reviewed his work. ITAQALLAH 13:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
As opposed to quote-mining Lockman for when he references Pipes? Please don't quote-mine Lockman - you'll need to pick and choose from somebody who discusses Lockman. And so on... clearly an absurdity. You have the choice of Afd'ing this article if you think that no sources meet RS. Failing that, attempts to cleanse it of reliable critics will be opposed. - Merzbow 19:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Several sources meet RS. AfDing is not an option, and if it came to an AfD, I would vote against. I don't see your point.
Finally, I am not attempting to cleanse this article of sources. I am attempting to ensure that the our policies on OR are respected. As I say above, "If the writer in question is producing work that is the direct subject of the article, namely "documents or people very close to the situation being written about", then WP:NOR enjoins us to "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" based on that." Let me make this clear again: We don't need to quote-mine Lockman (as an example.) We need to quote him. He is a reliable secondary source. Spencer is a primary source. We quote secondary sources. Your argument ad infinitum is not applicable, since our policy specifically tells us to stop at a the second stage; namely, to discover what scholar of the criticism of the Koran tell us, and to reproduce that here.
I will for a moment respond to your claim that I am 'cleansing' things in a similar spirit, and then we will forget it: you seem to think that this article is a repository for critical things about the Koran. It is not. It is an attempt at codifying what has been said in scholarly sources about the criticism of the Koran. If you think so, you miss the purpose of this encyclopaedia - it is not a soapbox for views either critical of or apologetitic for any religion or cause. As I say before, the critical study of a religions' sacred text is a very notable subject, and we need an article on it. However, any such article that is merely a bulletin board for notable critics of that religion and its political aspects merely demeans the project. Hornplease 21:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I had no specific editors in mind when I said that "attempts to cleanse" the article would be opposed. Did you have specific editors in mind when you referred here to "revert-happy POV-warriors"? Anyways, the article does not make any "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" about the work of reliable, secondary sources like Spencer. It simply reproduces them, authors who have already been noted for their criticism by tertiary sources. And it is indeed the Qur'an being written about, we are just reproducing what Pipes et al write about the Qur'an in the category of criticism. - Merzbow 21:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
To answer your first question, yes I did, and you were naturally not among them. It shouldnt surprse you: do see the title of this section.
Again, "reproducing" claims of this sort is a no-no. Please. And I note that you conflate two things in your reply. If Spencer were a secondary source, then we would not need to avoid making analytic claims based on his work. But he is not a secondary source, as you cannot deny that he meets the main definition of a primary source, namely "documents or people very close to the situation being written about". He is the subject of this article, since criticism of the Koran is what he does. Thus, as a primary source, we cannot use him to make analytic etc. claims. But, you say "anyway, the article does not" make such claims! Excellent, because then the whole primary-secondary debate becomes moot, does it not? Really? The first thing I see is that Spencer is used as a source for "Some critics believe that it is not only extremist Islam that preaches violence but Islam itself, a violence implicit in the Qur'anic text." That's not an interpretive statement?
Your approach is simply mistaken. Here, especially, you seem to think that finding a couple of statements that support a line in a reliable source seem to indicate that "that line is sourced and relevant and not OR". This is simply not the case. This page is about the criticism of the Koran. That is its title. It is about what Spencer and company, as well as other critics, including those who discuss its literary quality, its claims to be divine revelation etc., have to say. In order for us to summarise those primary sources in a neutral and accurate manner, and in keeping with our policies, we use secondary sources. Unless you change the name and subject of this article, or change WP:NOR, you do not have a leg to stand on. You cannot claim "this article is about the Koran" when, clearly, the title says otherwise. Hornplease 14:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)



Merzbow, thank you for taking the time to deal with these specious posts with common-sense analysis. Arrow740 23:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Please feel free to join in, if you have any actual points to make. You had better start using talkpages soon. Hornplease 14:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Quran vs Science

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

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

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

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

Minor fix please

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


Quran word of Muhammad or the third Caliph

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

I understand your confusion in the matter, but according to WP:MOSISLAM#Qur'an and Hadith:
"The Qur'an and the Hadith are considered to be primary sources, as defined in WP:NOR. Therefore they should not be quoted to make an argument or imply a particular interpretation unless one can also cite a reliable secondary source that supports that usage."
We need to use a reliable secondary source which already makes the argument, or the implied interpretation, even if it seems blatant to us. Such is Wikipedia policy.--C.Logan 20:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you.I understand the policy but people write here thing without source at all but just add "needs additional citations for verification".I mean you can read the Haidth and there no other option to understand it.So we can write it and mention that we should add more citations.Second we say it is according to the Hadith.It don't say that what has happended but only what has happened according to the Haidth.132.72.71.114 20:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The first sentence in WP:V is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". I might agree with you, but this particular interpretation of primary sources must be verified by reliable secondary sources.--C.Logan 21:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I found second source:"The Origins of the Koran, Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.77.82 (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
By Ibn Warraq? I find Warraq acceptable, but some users do not, and there appears to be an ongoing debate on this subject. I believe the recent resolution on another page was to include Warraq's arguments only when present in third-party, reliable sources (as some users argue that Warraq isn't reliable); for instance, when he is quoted or referenced in another publication.--C.Logan 17:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that he only edited the book. The problem with this is that it's still just primary source squeezing unless Warraq specifically makes the connection and provides commentary. However, if he does, then this may be removed because of his perceived unreliability by some. I can't say for certain without taking a closer look at the source.--C.Logan 17:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
C.Logan, I thank you for your fair attitude but Muslims will always claim that anybody that criticized Islam is unreliable.The question is if he is considered reliable by Historians community.If he teach in university etc.Anyway it is only claim that some historians say that.In such case it is totally true and it is only fair to include it.87.69.77.82 19:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
That's a tough statement. You're blanketing things; people of any believe system will attempt to shoot down the credibility of those they disagree with. Ad hominem justifications for dismissal are certainly employed by Muslims, but Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Sikhs, and those of other religions and belief systems will do the same as well. There is a problem of sources like Warraq being rejected, while less reliable sources are allowed to go about their business in a variety of topics (this is actually a matter which I've been thinking of acting on...). It's important to note that Wikipedia has a standard for establishing reliability; as it is, pro-Warraq editors have been too lazy (or absent) to make a sufficient case for him. The burden of proof lies for those who wish to add information to the article, and therefore Wikipedia has an exclusionist philosophy. The issue with Warraq is further complicated by his anonymity, as it is not possible to verify his credentials (and the use of a pseudonym obviously implies that he doesn't want anyone to know his background). Warraq, for all we know, could be one of the most well-trained scholars in the field, but as long as he hides behind that name, it will be increasingly difficult to prove his reliability on the subject. I hope you understand this reasoning. As Warraq is only the editor of this source, I don't see as great an issue arising from its inclusion.--C.Logan 02:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The book contain information from the historians: Ibn Warraq, Theodor Nöldeke, Leone Caetani, Alphonse Mingana, Arthur Jeffery, David Samuel Margoliouth, Abraham Geiger, William St. Clair Tisdall, Charles Cutler Torrey and Andrew Rippin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.77.82 (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


Restructuring

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

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

Ant that is the problem. Articles need structure, yes, but wikipedia is not a debate, and this article should not read like one. Yahel Guhan 07:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
You bring good point but I do NOT think this article is read like debate.On the contrary.I think it just show both sides.You offer in my opinion will make it to look even more like debate by mixing it.Now you read the criticism and the response as separate thing and not as argue.87.69.77.82 09:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

qoutes from the Hadith

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

Oren.tal, you cited the Muslim Student's Association hosted on the USC website - which stores primary sources (Qur'an, ahadith) on its domain. that's what you cited, and that's a primary source. ITAQALLAH 15:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
This more than stores primary sources because they also have explanation about misconceptions.This site is on the list of the site to answer criticism of Islam.Second that Hadith is also mention in the book that was ONLY edited by Ibn Warraq and were written by reliable historians like Theodor Nöldeke, Leone Caetani, Alphonse Mingana, Arthur Jeffery, David Samuel Margoliouth, Abraham Geiger, William St. Clair Tisdall, Charles Cutler Torrey, Andrew and of course Ibn Warraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.77.82 (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
By the way it is NOT Muslim Student's Association not at least to what they say but I maybe wrong.87.69.77.82 15:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
"This more than tores primary sources because they also have explanation about misconceptions" - you're not citing that part of the website, you're citing the pages listing primary sources. the issue of Ibn Warraq is a red herring, you aren't citing him for your OR insertion, you're citing a primary source. ITAQALLAH 15:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
see USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts. please learn about the sources you are using before using them to push a viewpoint. ITAQALLAH 16:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
what are you claiming that we are not allowed to quote the Quran or Hadith.You quote many time such thing.I don't use in the Hadith as proof for anything but just mention it for itself.There is nothing wrong in mention Hadith.79.180.0.177 17:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I must make it clear the article don't use in the Hadith to claim anything except from claiming that this what the Hadith say.You don't need second source for the obvious.Just like people mention the Quran,Hadith and the bible without any second source.It don't claim that according to the Hadith that what happened but only that that what the Hadith claim that happen.That what the Hadith indeed claim that happen.No OR and no primary source but only say thing for themselves.87.69.77.82 18:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
you are using primary sources which you interpret as reflecting an assertion made by Ibn Warraq. see WP:OR. ITAQALLAH 19:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
No I am not use any interpretation.It say he ordered to burn.There is nothing to interpret.As for Ibn Warraq he only edited the book.I think I told that more than once.I don't use in any primary sources.But it is not that were are not allowed to cite primary source.Not to use but to cite.The article don't use in the Hadith as proof of anything except from that what the Hadith tell or in other word it say the Hadith say what the Hadith say.We do it all the time with the Quran,Hadith and the bible.The are cited by wikipedia but not as source of course.87.69.77.82 22:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The Hadith in question is not in itself criticising the Quran. 87.69.77.82is using the Hadith as a source to criticise the Quran. This cannot be allowed as per WP:OR. If the Hadith is question has been used by an RS to criticse the Quran, then please cite that source. On its own the Hadith cannot be included. Sufaid 13:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Robert Spencer

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

I think it would be a good idea to mention, probably in a section near the top, all the notable critics of the Qur'an (including Spencer). This is because he is notable, as the above editor correctly noted.Bless sins (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
That would be fine. But we don't need a point-by-point analysis of their claims, especially if they're not actually experts, like Spencer.--Cúchullain t/c 23:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Prestor John, we agree he is notable, and we agree he should be mentioned as a critic. However, we argue that he is not a reliable source, and he should definitely not be given 1/3 of the space in this article. Still if there are secondary sources that quote him, we let him stay.Bless sins (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly.--Cúchullain t/c 23:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I concur. ITAQALLAH 01:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Skeptics Annotated

Is the following link a reliable source: [1] ? I don't think so, but perhaps someone can provide a rationale.Bless sins (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No I dont think its a RS for references (in the way its being used right now). Thats pretty much OR like using any Quranic verse directly, however its ok as an EL. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Go ahead and remove it.--Cúchullain t/c 00:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Move suggestion

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

I'd have to oppose that title, because it makes no sense to me. It is confusing. Yahel Guhan 09:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Nope, too long and complicated. Also, what we have is inline with other 'Criticism of' articles. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I've always thought that a more neutral title might be something like 'Views on the Qur'an', so that it would account for both criticism and responses. It could also account for other alternative views which might be prevalent in scholarly thought but not necessarily 'critical.' ITAQALLAH 16:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
No, the focus of this article is criticism, like other criticism articles. If there are 'alternate views', they could fit in Quran or {{QuranRelated}}. Renaming this article to "Views" will give the false impression that there is no criticism on the Quran when thats the focus of this article. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
By the same argument, "Criticism of the Qur'an" gives the impression that there are no responses.Bless sins (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
No it doesn't, it only implies that there has been criticism. We can of course give responses to the criticism, this is done on all other "criticism of" articles. The current title is fine, perhaps the only legitimate thing about this article.--Cúchullain t/c 21:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
What makes you think the article is not legitimate? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Until very recently it was largely an advertisement for Robert Spencer, and the bulk of the article was attributed to primary or unreliable sources, mostly Spencer. A real article can be written on this topic, but this one has a long way to go.--Cúchullain t/c 21:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, better sources need to be added and the article could be improved. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ali to Shakir

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

Do also note that I'm not suggesting changing Shakir to Ali elsewhere. I'm just questioning why one translation favoring more explanatory parentheses is being replaced by another, despite both being equally as valid. ITAQALLAH 00:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Please answer this question: is stuff that is in parenthesis part of the Quran? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Does it have to be for us to use it? Since when can we not use verse translations with parentheses? Parentheses aid explanation, and is a standard facet of translation when a raw rendering will not encapsulate the full meaning. ITAQALLAH 01:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Here we go again with 1500 indents and replies. Ok, why should we use a different translation in the main article, when both of the sub articles are using the correct unadulterated non-censored translations? The word lightly is being used to soften the meaning of the verse. Its not part of the Quran. Apologists like to push this translation because its "softer" and it doesnt let the reader know the true meaning of the Quran. We will use the translation which is being used in the other articles. 2 were using the version I switched over. Now we have 3, makes sense?--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Matt57, please don't accuse one of the translators of censorship. These translators probably have a much better understanding of Quranic Arabic then you and I. And the parentheses are placed to make sense out of a text literally translated.Bless sins (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You're not doing anything worse than I am. Are you accusing the other two translators of not being accurate or explanatory enough? This is two against one. How is Yousaf better than the other two people in this case? How is he right and they're both wrong? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Matt57, let's put personal opinions aside. It's not for you or me to say which translation is more accurate or "non-censored." What I see is three valid renditions - you have switched from one to another because you personally find it more "accurate." I don't accept this rationale.
Also, don't make it a 2v1 thing. Pickthall uses a completely different word, so leave him out of this. ITAQALLAH 19:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Answering Islam

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

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

The website has a copy of Campbell's book, thats how its being referenced. Its Campbell's book that is the source. What are you referring to? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Using the website as a source for Campbell or anyone else. Note, that sometime ago wikipedians at WP:RSN came to consensus that websites like frontpagemag.com could not be used as reliable sources for accurately reporting opinions of people. Similarly I don't think answering-Islam is accurate for reporting Campbell. Have you read Campbell yourself?Bless sins (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I have not. Fine, I will confirm this myself. Give me some time. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I have Campbell's book, and can confirm that the website reports his statements accurately. Arrow740 (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that saves me some work! --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 06:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
No probs. This is actually the case with Haykal, where I had to go to the library to verify him by myself.Bless sins (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'm finding that out. Note that Maurice Bucaille is similarly not authorized to comment on science in Islam. If we are unable to find proof that these two people have any peer reviewed stuff, or dont have any qualifications to comment on the science in Quran then they will both have to go. Similar to Maurice who is just a doctor, Campbell is "an American physician who was an expatriate doctor for the family of the King of Tunisia for 20 years." (which I found on a non-reliable website but for now we can assume its true). Note that Buccaile and Campbell are both responding to each other any way so it will make sense if we get rid of them. And it looks like Buccaile is being used on a number of pages, all of which will have to be cleaned up if we decide he's not a reliable source. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, we will have to decide about whether to use Karen Armstrong or not. If people have not agreed on using Robert Spencer, we should definitely not use Maurice or Karen Armstrong. Again, there are a number of places where she is being used. I think we need to continue this "cleanup" drive and clean all Islam related from non-reliable sources. This should be our mission. In case we decide to keep all these people, we have to apply the principles firmly and uniformly. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Bless sins, any evidence that she is an islamic/religous scholar? There is none in her wikipedia bio.Yahel Guhan 05:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree with these suggestions except that Karen Armstrong has published several works in peer-reviewed reputable journals and scholarly encyclopedias. Those works of her, I think, could be used, others should be removed. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
That looks reasonable to me, if she has published any stuff in scholarly journals, they can be kept (though it doesnt look like she has anything related to Islam in her journals). I'm trying to determine some kind of universal and fair system here to evaluate these people. We should all pledge to clean up Islam related articles from sources who we cant say should be used. We should apply these standards uniformly, so for example if Robert Spencer is not being accepted as a reliable source than perhaps Maurice Buccaile should not be accepted as well. I'm not sure what these standards of inclusion are with relation to Islam related articles. I think I want to start a page on Wikipedia project Islam where we list sources and people and the reasons to include or exclude certain people. This will help apply standards uniformly as well as prevent disputes from turning on again when a matter has been decided. The reasons to exclude or include would be determined by consensus from everyone. Our articles are not in good shape due to sub standard sources being used. This is a serious problem. This has also lead to bloating of the articles and further edit wars and discussions, which are often on the sources. Cleaning up these articles will help us all out in a lot of ways. I feel this should be our task right now, i.e. to determine who is reliable and who is not. Anyway, I will think more about this in the coming days but I feel something has to be done about the sources being used. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It might be best to open a thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles), so we can add it to the general MOS guideline, and get the involvement of the other editors who edit islam articles. Yahel Guhan 06:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Sources aren't MOS issues. I recall several editors strongly opposing any discussion of sources, so we had to relocate it to WP:ISLAM. ITAQALLAH 19:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Lets get to the real issue here. Roughly 80% of all wikipedia articles need a lot of work, reguardless of topic. It isn't just a problem with Islam articles, the problem is with all articles. Just hit the "random article" button a few times. You'll see what I mean. Yahel Guhan 06:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, you are right. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 06:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Severe punishments

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

It is about Hudduds that are prescribed in the Qur'an. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Not all Hudduds are prescribed in the Qur'an, I believe many of them are Islamic acts. For example is amputation of the limbs cited in the Qur'an? I'm not sure. (Imad marie (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC))
Amputation of the limbs is in the Qur'an. Stoning for adultery is not. Some others are. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
What about "death penalty being applied for homosexuality or sodomy"? and "crimes being against God and a threat to the moral fabric of the Muslim community" (Imad marie (talk) 08:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC))
I don't know about "death penalty being applied for homosexuality or sodomy".
If you would like to write about Muslim views on these topics, I suggest you refer to the works of modern Muslim thinkers who try to address this issue together with other ones. One example is Fazlur Rahman's Islam and Modernity: Transformation of an Intellectual Tradition. Here is a description of it(source: Wielandt, Rotraud. "Exegesis of the Qurʾān: Early Modern and Contemporary ." Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān):

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_the_Quran/Archive_4&oldid=1136642829"