Talk:Criticism of Muhammad

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"

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.

Use of primary sources

I notice a few sources, mainly YouTube videos but not all, where we are quoting critics directly, ie editors have picked out statements that they think useful, rather than found secondary sources discussing for instance what Sam Harris has to say. Doug Weller talk 12:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I went through and added publisher=YouTube to all the YouTube citations. I found four of them.

• #56: Geert Wilders is a well-known blowhard politician who is vocal about his disdain for Islam, and his fulminations have gotten a lot of press.
• #57: Debate with Sam Harris.
• #58: Lecture by Sam Harris.
• #158: Appears to have a secondary source citation along with it although I don't know what it says. The YouTube citation could probably be removed safely, depending on the context given in the secondary citation.

Regarding those first three, they seem to be there just to verify that the person actually said what is claimed. Removing the citation would violate WP:BLP; even though this isn't a biography, a controversial statement attributed to a living person does need a source.

I agree a secondary source would be better, particularly for Geert Wilders. I'm not so sure about the Sam Harris citations. He has a background in philosophy, and he is recognized as a notable critic of religion in general who has valid things to say, definitely not a crackpot. Quoting him might be similar to quoting criticisms directly from other notable critics who are long dead, as the article does with Saint John of Damascus, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and Voltaire. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Modern historians

I found the following a bit problematic:

“Modern secular historians […] acknowledge that the material came from "beyond his conscious mind."”

The reference is a book from 50 years ago.

This sounds like the article is claiming all modern scholars are of this opinion, which is doubtful (although I’ve not researched it). I’m not sure what ‘behind his conscious mind’ means, really, and I’m not sure readers will either — does the book expand on that?

Would there be a better way of wording this, or stating the claim made in the book? Or am I nit-picking? Peacefulsmile (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

To what are you objecting? An historical perspective from 50 years ago isn't "old" except to someone younger than a baby boomer, and scholarly views about ancient history don't generally flop around in that short of a time. It doesn't say "all" scholars have this opinion. The phrase has meaning when read in the full context of that section of the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

After reading above discussion I landed directly to the article section Criticism of Muhammad#Late 20th century I found following concerns specially relating to content referred to "The Cambridge History of Islam (1970), Cambridge University Press, p. 30" (As of now reference no. 183)

A) Volume No?: The Cambridge History of Islam has multiple volumes so it is difficult to verify or further read.

B) It's vague, can 'which ones' be clarified?: In the term 'Modern secular historians' words modern and secular are partially vague more over it does not answer 'which specific ones'

C) Some readers can miss the understanding of context: While discussion on 'consciousness of mind of the discussed persona is understandable to the readers who have detail exposure to such discussion; To the readers who are not pre exposed to such discussion, the section is not clear enough 'why consciousness of mind of a certain person' is being discussed at all and what all that discussion does mean.

D) Self contradiction: (calls in confirmation of what referred source is really saying) :The same ref is later quoted to say "..The further question, however, whether the messages came from Muhammad's unconscious, or the collective unconscious functioning in him, or from some divine source, is 'beyond the competence of the historian'.. but earlier quoted to say "..but they acknowledge that the material came from "beyond his conscious mind."

E) Unclear: If at all it is self declared certain topic beyond competence of historians why we are quoting historians? really whether domain of consciousness is not domain of psychology? at the most philosophers

F) Ambiguity: Even with rest of the context, the way part of sentence is formed: "..they acknowledge that the material came from "beyond his conscious mind.".. is used, it is likely to catering to more than one meaning even inherantly potent to contradict each other, it's like whoever likes whichever meaning take that one and be happy!

G) Strange compounding: Following part sentence "...the important point is that the message was not the product of Muhammad's conscious mind...." is compounded to earlier sentence in such a way that William Montgomery Watt is saying so, So is William Montgomery Watt saying so or is it a sentence from some other author?

I hope above helps brainstorming to improve the section. Thanks, Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist:

Thank you for your reply! I think the claim ‘behind his conscious mind’ is too vague and abstract to be understood by most readers, and easy to misinterpret as supernatural in nature, or pathological, or random, etc — which is it, or does the reference not expand on it. If it doesn’t, is it a helpful inclusion?

I also think it does imply that all modern secular historians hold that view, as if the debate is over; maybe other readers would make this same mistake, therefore could it be reworded for clarity?

If the reference specifies which historians are in agreement, or how the author arrived at that view, then that might be helpful, if it doesn’t, then maybe presenting it as a view of the author would work better?

I’m not familiar with Wikipedia’s guidance around this kind of thing: happy to take your lead. Peacefulsmile (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bookku: thank you for this much more detailed appraisal of the section!

The contradiction problem is a good point; I think it further reveals what a woolly area this whole “behind his conscious mind” concept is. It’s certainly not an area of expertise that I’d associate with historians: modern, secular or otherwise, and the author seems to acknowledge this, whilst offering his own view on that very topic regardless. Peacefulsmile (talk) 12:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

For such an important article, the citations are surprisingly sloppy. I've fixed the ones I could but others I just had to tag as {{incomplete citation}}.

Peacefulsmile, the rule around here seems to be this: if you want anything done properly, you have to do it yourself, so you will need to beg borrow or steal the source texts, find the answers to your questions, then update the article. [I have zero expertise in this topic, I just happened to have a watch on it because one of the 'citations' was an islamophobic hate site (removed)]. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Understood, thanks for your help! Peacefulsmile (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

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)