Talk:Criticism of Muhammad

criticism of muhammad illiterate

Jews used to criticized Muhammad for being illiterate and claim that this fact invalidates his claim of being a prophet. I believe that this Source: Allusion to Muhammad in Maimonides' Theory of Prophecy in His Guide of the Perplexed By Yehuda Shamir, University of Cincinnati

This fact should be mention.

Request

Please make this page an extended confirm protection page like the Muhammad page. I've found instances over this page's history that people have vandalized it, overshadowing the shortcomings of Muhammad and Islam altogether.

Ref

• Wood, P. (2021), Censorship in the Study of Early Islam. CyberOrient, 15: 78-99. https://doi.org/10.1002/cyo2.18

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Spencer

I intend to remove Spencer's sub-section entirely. Jihad Watch is listed as WP:DEPS by our project, and has no place in refs; Spencer himself is Islamophobe and our article is well refed in that regard, making his views irrelevant.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Robert B. Spencer is a notable critic. We have an article on him. An encyclopedic treatment of the subject of criticism of Muhammad should include views of notable critics, particularly those who are notable primarily because of their criticism. The fact that he isn't reliable doesn't matter, because the article is citing Spencer only for the purpose of quoting. Same is true for other critics mentioned in the article such as Geert Wilders; he spouts ignorance, but he's vocal and notable for it.

That said, I believe that the section on Robert Spencer is unduly long. It could be summarized in a few sentences, and be done with it. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Notable criticism is rational business, Spencer is a notable hate monger.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

"====Sex with pre-pubescent girls and age of Muhammad's wife Aisha==== Critics have noted that the 4th verse of the 65th chapter of the Qur'an (Surah at-Talaq) seems to imply the permissibility of consummating marriages with girls who have not reached puberty. This criticism is significantly reinforced by classical Muslim commentaries on the verse, such as Tafsir al-Jalalayn and the tafsir of Maududi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankystein3 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• I remain opposed to this content. First, I think the sources are being misinterpreted, as neither Tafsir al-Jalalayn or Maududi are explicitly about pre-pubescent girls. Second, neither is about criticism of Muhammad, the topic of this article. There appears to be plenty of reliably sourced, on-topic content to summarize, so I'm not seeing a reason to pull in content that's not obviously about Muhammad. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. Nothing in either of the citations says that this was (1) the view of Mahommed or (2) that he has been critised for it (which is the topic of this article). It may have a place in Criticism of Islam provided that it is supported by a reliable source that say so, as I explained in my 16:58 message (below). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  In fact the topic is disussed extensively at Sexuality in Islam#Puberty and Islam and children#Marriage, so you may struggle to find anything new to say. The important point is that it is not for us as editors to criticise (or praise) but only to report honestly and fairly the consensus of expert sources. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  Excuse me, no it is not discussed extensively there. There are *ZERO* references there to the key verse and its overwhelming scholarly interpretations. Frankystein3 (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  I will concede that if you are unfamiliar with the topic and the way the Muslim scholars write commentaries on Quranic verses, Jalalayn's may seem obscure, BUT if you read MAUDUDI's section on the link, particularly this part: "Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible", and if you STILL don't want to see what's in front of your eyes, then I'm sorry, but this is plain dishonesty.

  Furthermore, if you think this has no link to Muhammad, you're wrong because of the already included sexual intercourse with Aisha, which was 9 years old by consensus at the time.

  Thirdly, even if you ignore this, a valid criticism would still be the VAGUENESS of his doctrine that inspired such mainstream posterior interpretations, at the very least. Frankystein3 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  I still don't see it, and I'm being honest. In context Maududi is talking about women who are divorced or widowed and who are not menstruating regularly due to pregnancy, onset of menopause, or other reasons. Onset of puberty is never mentioned. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Sura 33:49 in the Qur'an is related to Sura 65:4 in the sense that a waiting period (iddah) is only for women who have had sex with men. This is to prevent doubt about the fatherhood and problems arising with this. Now, with that being said, I'll post Maududi's commentary on this again with extra emphasis: "Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls **WHO HAVE NOT YET*** menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but ***it is also permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her***. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible". He even PREEMPTS criticism by essentially saying at the end: "If this disgusts you, tough luck! The Quran overrules your opinion!!" Frankystein3 (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  So essentially you are criticising Mahommmed because one Salafi scholar (who may have had his own motives) gave that interpretation of the Quran. Sorry, WP:Wikipedia is not a forum: nobody is interested in your opinion [or mine].

  Let me repeat: you must cite a reliable source which reports overwhelming consensus among scholars and – critically – that they criticised Mahammed for having written those verses, despite believing that he merely wrote down the words of Allah. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  I am writing an (increasingly, as sources become more widely available in English) common criticism of Muhammad. I have already said countless times that this isn't the fringe opinion of "one Salafi". This has been the mainstream opinion for centuries and centuries. I find it extremely arbitrary that I have to find a book by someone saying in more or less exact words that Muhammad's doctrines promote practice X, which large numbers of scholars have likewise interpreted to mean X". Furthermore, that Muhammad wrote only Allah's words is dogma, and would clear him of all responsibilities. Why allow pages of criticism in the Quran here if you can use that argument? Oh, verses A B and C in the Qur'an endorse violence under circumstances 1, 2 and 3? That's only Allah's words revealed to him, he just wrote it down, don't shoot the messenger. It's absurd. 2001:8A0:6800:AA01:985F:F2E:A641:754B (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  We still seem to be talking past each other. The sources you provide do indeed say or suggest that consumated marriage to a child is permitted (though other sources say that, although the marriage is permitted, consumation before Baligh is not). But all that analysis is irrelevant for this article because this article is what it says at the top: Criticism of Muhammed. That means criticism by notable people. The personal opinion, interpretation, synthesis, conclusions of Wikipedia editors like you and me cannot go into articles. See policies WP:No original research and WP:Synthesis.

  (I may have been responsible for the confusion. I don't for a moment consider "but it is the revealed Word of the Lord / Allah / Yahweh / [insert favourite imaginary friend here] " defence as justifying anything, especially not paedophilia. My focus was on the 'criticism of Mhuhammed', that you will not find criticism of him in the work of Islamic scholars.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Ok I got it. So I'd have to find some published book or article from someone that basically agrees with what I said, rather than me just saying that there "exist" critics without mentioning them, right? And what kind of person would that be? What are the necessary qualifications of that person? We have guys in these type of articles like Christopher Hitchens Ibn Warraq who, accurate and valuable though their inputs might be, have no formal degrees in their areas. So can I simply quote an author like these? And if not, how does this not limit pages of criticism in age where academia tends to avoid these polemics as much as possible, as opposed to the 19th or 20th centuries with people like William Muir, an academic who was also a polemicist? 2001:8A0:6800:AA01:985F:F2E:A641:754B (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Provided you are cautious about wp:cherrypicking, that's more or less correct. First, a good clue to whether someone is wp:NOTABLE enough is to see if they have their own Wikipedia article. (eg Christopher Hitchens Ibn Warraq does not but Christopher Hitchens does.) It is not essential that they do but it is a clue to how big a hill you have to climb to show that their opinion matters. If it is just one person, then you have to say who said it (e.g., "according to Karl Marx, religion is the opium of the people"). A statement in wp:Wikivoice like "it is generally believed that liquid water is prerequisite for life as we know it" would need the support of maybe two citations, each of which clearly shows that the authors have distilled the clear consensus of experts. Doing this for objective science is hard enough: doing it for religious beliefs is very hard indeed – especially if the religion in question has fragmented into multiple sects and multiple interpretations. And do it all while maintaining WP:neutral point of view. You are setting yourself probably one of the most difficult challenges on Wikipedia: I certainly would not attempt it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Ok appreciate it, glad we at least straigthened it out 2001:8A0:6800:AA01:985F:F2E:A641:754B (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for coming to the talk page to find how best to express this sensitive issue. It appears from your talk page that you don't understand why your first edit was reverted, so let me explain: you wrote the Quran is unanimously viewed in classical Muslim commentaries as allowing sexually active marriage (and concubinage) with pre-pubescent girls. So the citation would need to (a) say that the Quran is unanimously viewed in this way; (b) that it allows sexually active mariage with pre-pubescent girls. The citation you gave said neither of those things, which is why I reverted it. I would have done the same if the article was about the craters on the far side of the moon: the topic is irrelevant because it is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that citations are reported honestly and accurately. You did not do that, so I reverted your edit. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I am against this addition beacuse it is original research. It might be a valid point, but Wikipedia isn't for promoting ideas, but collecting ideas which got popular and noticable by scholars. This tafsir seems to be rather a new found source to undermine, that Islam has some issues with sexual relationships and authorized it. But there isnt a notable ongoing debate about these tafsirs.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• You think this qualifies as a source for public debate and criticism? https://books.google.pt/books?id=bzyCDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT60&dq=%22quran+prepubescent&hl=pt-PT&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwirsLT8w574AhWDQ_EDHWrYCTYQ6AF6BAgHEAI#v=onepage&q=%22quran%20prepubescent&f=false The author has a Wikipedia page: Waleed Al-Husseini Frankystein3 (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  How about this? https://books.google.pt/books?hl=pt-PT&id=VPdNAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22quran+prepubescent&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=egregious Author: Johann Hari Frankystein3 (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Unfortunately Google Books doesn't offer a preview of those pages. Are the authors criticising (a) Islam (b) the Quran (c) the interpretation of certain verses of the Quran by some scholars (d) Muhammed for having written those verses? It matters! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  There’s a big background to this which I think explains this editor’s presence. See the lead of

  Nupur Sharma (politician) which is all over the right wing news outlets. And the BBC just as an example.[1]. Doug Weller talk 20:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  There is indeed a large background to this - that's my whole point which I'm now being required to prove! - but I did not write this because of the recent polemic in India. I wrote edits on this months ago on Rationalwiki.org, for example. Frankystein3 (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'll quote the relevant parts of the first one (the second isn't very good) and you be the judge of where it would fit best:

  1 ) - " This parodied verse had been judged particularly outrageous by Muslims. "And wasn't it you also you who said 'Scandal, o Scandal. What shall be called a Scandal? That you should marry a dazed, nine-year-old girl named Aisha". This verse criticizing Muhammad's sexual licentiousness and marriage with the young Aisha (which I compared to an act of pedophilia) had been relayed around the world in every language vaia the internet. Islamic websites had denounced it (...) Their arguments were completely nonsensical and ignored the Quran's own teaching, which authorizes marriage with pre-pubescent girls, in the Surah on divorce [65:4 quote]. The verse clearly addresses the question of menopausal women, but since it also mentions prepubescent girls, it demonstrates that the Quran implicitly authorizes marriage with children. (...)" Frankystein3 (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  This was from Waleed al-Husseini's book mentioned earlier. Frankystein3 (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  You do realise that marriage of such young girls occurred in Europe also? Doug Weller talk 20:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  You again?? Who cares what did or did not happen in Europe? First of all, European people and kings of the past are not major - and allegedly perfect - religious figures. Second of all, even if it was Jesus himself who did it or preached it, then it would belong in BOTH "Criticism" articles, of Jesus/Christianity and Muhammad/Islam. Frankystein3 (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Incidentally, there are also two very separate components to this. One is marriage, and another is consummation. You seem to be assuming that marriage means consummation, and that was indeed the assumption in the BJP comments. You'll need a source for that. Secondly, Islamic tradition is generally pretty firm on pubescence coming before consummation, and girls can go through puberty at an age as early as eight years old, so the 'pre-pubescence' claim needs some extra specific sourcing. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  You're lying. Read the tafasir of Sura 65:4. That's my whole point, it's to take the focus AWAY from just Aisha and focus on the universality of the allowing of pre-pubescent consummation. Sura 65:4 is all about consummation because it mentions the Iddah (see Sura 33:49) which is only for consummated marriages. Puberty has moreover NEVER been a requirement for consummation in classical Islamic jurisprudence. The principle they took was being "physically ready", which did not necessarily entail puberty. Now that we dealt with the Quran and jurisprudence, I'll put the final nail in the coffin with a hadith with its most respected commentary in parenthesis: https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6130 Frankystein3 (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

References