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.

Responses to 'criticism'

I would like to add responses from an Islamic perspective (as conveyed in RS of course) to the criticisms on this page. any objections? And if we have this page why don't we also have "Praise of Muhammad" page? Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Cleopatran Apocalypse:. This article could also include responses which is kind of praises, i guess.Ghazaalch (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: Absolutely not. This article is about criticism, not apologetics. There is no need to have responses to critics. Including that would give the article a point-counterpoint quality, which would violate the WP:NPOV policy by giving the responses the last word. The most neutral article about criticism just presents the criticism without presenting judgments about the criticism. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Anachronist Why can't you have response to criticism? Where in the NPOV policy does it say that you cannot have counter points? Maplecreek1 (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Maplecreek1: Criticism is the subject of this article, not debates about criticism.

Perhaps you missed this part of the policy: WP:FALSEBALANCE. There is no requirement to give equal weight to counterpoints, particularly when the counterpoints themselves have WP:RS problems that prevent their inclusion.

Or maybe you missed the WP:RNPOV part of the policy, which states, "Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view can be mentioned if it can be documented by relevant, reliable sources...."

And therein lies the problem. Counterpoints to criticism typically quote primary sources (such as Quran or Hadith or somebody's blog), and these are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES that we avoid, particularly when those sources don't even address the critics. Instead, those primary sources are often presented as a "counterpoint" along with someone's personal non-scholarly interpretation, and we cannot include that because of the policy that prohibits WP:Original research.

I hope that's clear. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Anachronist: There are several reliable secondary sources that mention these criticisms and their responses. I don't understand why they can't be included here, when they do meet the standards you are referring to, and are definitely pertinent to this article. - Wakemeup38 (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Then by all means, make a proposal citing those sources. In the years this article has been in existence, people appear on this talk page with views based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and attempt to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE based on inclusion standards that don't exist. "Criticism" is nothing more than the passing of judgment about the merits of something. It doesn't need to be debated, just presented. WP:FRINGE also applies here; it is preferable for views about criticism to be cited or discussed in multiple other sources, not just one. The section Criticism of Muhammad#Age of 3rd wife Aisha is a good example, which presents not just the criticism but well-sourced scholarly views that provide proper context. If you want to do something similar elsewhere in the article, go right ahead. But one thing we want to avoid is a point/counterpoint style of prose, particularly if the counterpoints resort to quotations of religious texts. The original question in this section was about providing responses from an Islamic perspective, and that is still unacceptable. What a reader should find in this article is context about the criticism, not apologetics. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Improving the Article

Hello @Sa.vakilian: and @Kamranazad: could you name some reliable sources, to help me improve this article? Ghazaalch (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nasr's article in Britannica can be a good source. --Seyyed(t-c) 13:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Praises of the Prophet Muhammad

There are several academics, Muslims and non Muslims, that have praised the Prophet Muhammad for various reasons. I don't see any reason why such an article should not exist alongside this article. - Wakemeup38 (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, we have a redirect title Praise of Muhammad in poetry but not an article about praise in general. Try writing the article and see how it goes. Citing multiple secular academics who provide significant praise, not just trivial mentions of it, would confer sufficient notability on the subject to merit inclusion. I suggest you work on it in draft space (e.g. Draft:Praise of Muhammad) to give you time to develop it without someone coming along and deleting while you get it ready for main space publication. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Having two articles, one covering Muhammad with a positive POV and one with a negative POV would be a POV fork. It is better to have a single article called "Perception of Muhammad" or "Historical evaluation of Muhammad" that covers both praise and criticism and gives all views due weight.Bless (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Anachronist: and @Wakemeup38: for feedback.Bless (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree we should avoid a POV fork. However, I disagree that this criticism article isn't neutral. The point is to present each criticism in proper context, and that's what this article does. See the section on Martin Luther for the briefest example. I have no objection to anyone proposing a new draft, or specific changes that that cite reliable secondary sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Wikipedia:Content_forking#Point_of_view_(POV)_forks says that this article "must include suitably-weighted positive and 'negative opinions, and/or rebuttals (emphasis is not mine)". It also says 'if possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"'. So the specific change proposed is to move this article to "Perception of Muhammad" and to include both praises and criticism in proportion to their due weight.Bless (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Request Edit to Source Information for Thomas Aquinas (1.3.2.1)

The excerpt from Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles is sourced as Book I, Chapter 16, Art. 4, which is incorrect. The correct location is Book I, Chapter 6, Art. 4

Is there an online link to the text so that your edit can be verified?Bless (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)