Jump to content

Talk:Criticism of the Quran

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 213.123.194.188 (talk) at 10:33, 20 July 2015 (→‎Islamoiphobia should be prevented: rm duplicate section.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ezra

Should mention the bit about Muhammad accusing the Jews of worshipping Ezra as the son of God(!)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's Right, Jews Worshipping Ezra as the son of God, as you can see in the verse 9:30. By the way, my name is Ezra also. StrategyFan (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction

There is not more than one verse "stating that Christians and Jews will be rewarded as a result of their belief in God" in the Quran - this is incorrect.

I had to therefore replace "even though there are some verses" with "although there is a verse".

(Obviously if you think this is wrong, add the relevant verse)

Cheers,

Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think the article is showing the full reality, but I hope I can help add more details to make more understanding and correction of thoughts about the Quran. I am Muslim and originally arabic so I can understand that there may be misunderstandings. We can not correctly criticise the Quran only if we understand its style and each Sura (chapter), some people take chunks of its sentence and forget the context, that makes the criticism to correct. Therefore, to get to correction we need more knowledge and understanding of this book. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death penalty for adultery and homosexuality

The traditional Shari'a rulings on death penalty for adultery and homosexuality is not taken from the Qur'an (and arguably go against it (4:16; 24;2 etc)). I think they should be talked about in the Criticism of Islam page but in the Criticism of Qur'an. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


it is true that if we're going to keep a Criticism of the Qur'an article separate from the main Criticism of Islam, it should make very sure to actually discuss the Quran, as opposed to Islam in general. The Hudud article mentions the Quran exclusively for stating that such punishments are not prescribed by it, so this entire section is perfectly misplaced here. --dab (𒁳) 14:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies left out

Why aren't more inaccuracies being listed? Examples: Pharaoh trying to crucify Moses (crucifixion was a Roman punishment and not done in those days) - Sura 7:124, there was no man named John before - Sura 19:7 , misplacement in time of the Tower of Babel - Sura 40:37, a Samaritan existing during the time of Moses - Sura 20:83-97, etc. These things are important and need to be in this article. --63.226.104.225 (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these are valid and should be placed in the article. Other criticisms such as Sura 19:7 are interpreted differently. Why is it that there is an entire section of perceived anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, and yet we have nothing similar for the criticism of the Qur-an article? --CABEGOD (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ user 63.226.104.255, you need to prove your details, so if the Quran was not correct what makes other history book more true, so we need science here. Moreover, the verse you refer was not that Pharos wanted to crucify Moses, but he crucified others. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need better sources for "justifies violence" in War section

Regarding the War section: there is a sentence that reads something like: "the Qur'an has been used to justify violent acts", which is okay, but it needs better sources. That sentence was followed by a list of about 30 passages from the Q, but there were no secondary sources. I've removed the list of verses. I'm sure this is a well-documented topic, so someone should be able to come up with some secondary sources that make that assertion ("... justifies violent acts ...") and those sources should identify the passages, and then the sources can be named in this article. --Noleander (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The versus come from a written note (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mohammed_Reza_Taheri-azar-_Letter_to_The_daily_Tar_Heel, "Meditation II", "G. Instructions and guidelines for fighting and killing in the cause of Allah") requested for publishing by a US citizen who attempted an act of violence in 2006 citing the Quran as justification for his activities (Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar SUV attack). This note was originally added as a (scanned) image by another user, but I believe was unable to remain on Wikipedia due to copyright infringement of Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar. The versus however appear to have been left in their extracted form for sometime as a primary source. The source description appears to have been removed by someone in 2009 leaving a stray comma.
(2:193, 8:39, 8:73, 85:10, 9:14-15, 8:17, 9:13, 2:251, 2:154, 9:19, 9:11, 9:120, 2:44, 8:72, 9:38, 33:36, 4:89, 9:12, 2:178, 5:45, 42:39, 5:33, 8:12, 47:4, 9:5, 2:190-194, 2:216-218, 3:167-175, 4:66, 4:74-78, 4:95-96, 4:104, 5:54, 6:162, 8:12-16, 8:38-40, 8:57-62, 8:65-66, 8:72-75, 9:12-14, 9:19-21, 9:29, 9:36, 9:39, 9:44-46, 9:52, 9:81, 9:36-38, 9:93-94, 9:100, 9:123, 16:110, 22:39-40, 22:58, 25:68, 26:227, 33:25, 33:60-62, 47:20-21, 47:35, 48:16-22, 48:29, 49:9-10, 49:15, 57:10-11, 59:13-14, 61:4, 61:11-12, 73:20).
Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the background info. That particular source "letter to the daily Tar Heel" doesn't seem particularly reliable or significant, so I don' think that source alone is sufficient for restoring the long list of verses into the article. If any editor wants to restore that list of verses, or similar material, I'm sure there are dozens of very reliable sources (there have been many, many books published in Islamic terrorisim in the past 10 years) and I think the encyclopedia needs to use those books (or something equally reliable) as sources. Also, if a list of verses is inserted in the article, it would be better for readers if the body of the article contained brief paraphrases of the verses, and the verse number were down in the footnotes. --Noleander (talk)
  • The Quran does not allow war but justice, the article needs to give verses that have act of war or allowance of war. The criticism will be critical only when it justifies real facts that Quran verses are encouraging war. I think the section related to war was not critical and not true. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published sources

Amatulic, how can the inclusion of this material be consistent with WP:SPS? I'm pretty sure it can't. The individual is not an "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." 69.115.152.200 (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you are an administrator, so I'm sure you know these policies like the back of your hand. I anticipate a cogent response. 69.115.152.200 (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sina is recognized as a notable critic of Islam. Richard Dawkins references him, as do others. I find Ali Sina quoted and several non-self-published books available on Google Books. Because he has gained such recognition and references, and quotations by him appear in third party publications about criticism of Islam, he qualifies as a critic for the purpose of this article, which is to describe criticism of the Qur'an.
Furthermore, self-published sources are appropriate to reference when describing the views of the author of the source. The source is being referenced for no other purpose than to provide a verifiable source for something Ali Sina wrote. Therefore, the source is being used entirely consistently with WP:V and WP:SPS.
If you still feel the source is being misused in this article, I invite you to post your reasoning on WP:RSN. ~Amatulić (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you believe this individual is notable? Has he been the subject of several articles in reliable third-party publications? I don't think a trivial mention qualifies him. For one thing, he doesn't have a Wikipedia article. Can you show me the reliable books he has been in? I was only able to find one other on Google books. Richard Dawkins did not use him as a reference, and only listed the name of FFI and the URL in his book. Also the other "Criticism of (religion)" articles are maintaining a high standard for their sources. Why can't the same be done with this article? Given his marginal notability (if that is a relevant factor) and his lack of recognition as a established expert on this topic, I do not think he should be used here. 69.115.152.200 (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ali Sina founded a notable organization that is critical of Islam. Faith Freedom International has its own Wikipedia article because it meets the notability threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. For the purpose of being encyclopedic, it is important for this article to provide at least one quotation from that organization's founder. No policy or guideline has been violated by doing so. And the article is keeping with high standards for sources by quoting the source directly, which is one of the few valid reasons to use primary or self-published sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it's important to quote the organization at all in this article. If I were to quote Jew Watch in Criticism of Judaism or Criticism of the Bible, do you think it would improve or undermine the credibility of those articles? 69.115.152.200 (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case the article would be improved by becoming more encyclopedic, which is appropriate. It is especially desirable to link related articles together, and such an addition would accomplish that purpose.
It seems we have a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT going on here. No policy or guideline is being violated by inclusion of this text. It has been restored multiple times by different editors. This article is about criticism, so it is appropriate to describe criticism. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amatulic, you can't be serious. I had expected you to respond by saying my analogy was imperfect but instead you state it would be okay to insert Jew watch into those articles. This is not a case of "I don't like it..." One can't throw out Wikipedia's reliable sourcing standards just because this is a criticism article. Articles should still reference only scholarly material.
You seem to be seeking an exception under this section of SPS guidelines, but the material does not satisfy the second condition nor the third condition in that it involves claims of topic material not directly related to the subject. Would you care to try inserting Jew watch opinions into those articles? I would love to see how other editors respond. 69.115.152.200 (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about labeling here. It should be okay to say that "A critic said "Y," if Y was obviously germane. It would be "nice" it critic A were notable, but sometimes they are not. But I guess I agree that A should then be quoted in some reliable-type media, journal or whatever. I guess I am now agreeing that it can't be self-published if the statement itself is not terrifically insightful on the surface. "Student7 says that 152.200 is a fink", self-published, would not be allowed. "Student7 says that 152.200 has failed to provide more than six instances of Wikipedia Policy violations" might be allowed because it can be quantitatively verified. Note that if it can be refuted, in this case, it probably shouldn't be used!
Note that the ACLU and NAACP can be termed "Red-neck Watch", but they are quoted anyway. Labeling, per se, should not only work in one direction (MY way!). 22:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
To the anonymous editor: Yes, your analogy is imperfect. We are trying to build an encyclopedia here, so anything that enhances the encyclopedic nature of an article is fair game to include. If Jew Watch publishes actual criticism of Judaism, it would be appropriate to mention, but they don't do that. Instead, they engage in historical revisionism, conspiracy theories, and hate speech, so your analogy is flawed.
No, there is no exception to WP:SPS guidelines here, because WP:SPS isn't relevant, as has been explained to you already. When quoting the leader of a notable organization that actually engages in criticism and not just hate speech, it is necessary to reference the person's own words. Al Sina's is a notable critic of Islam, and this article is about criticism. Note also that Al Sina also has his own section in criticism of Muhammad. If you have a problem with using works published by that organization as a source of criticism, then WP:RSN is the place to discuss it, not here. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He should have no section in criticism of Muhammad, and the only reason I have not removed it is because the article is protected from editing by anonymous users. At the same time, the article uses sources from another wiki so to use that article as a measuring rod of his qualifications to be cited in Wikipedia is problematic because the article has multiple instances of unreliable sources.
My analogy is more proper than you realize. If you believe that FFI does not engage in conspiracy theories , hate speech, etc. then you are insufficiently familiar with the material on the website. If anyone decides to reinsert the source into this article, I will take the matter to WP:RSN as per your instructions. Thank you. 69.115.152.200 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can always create an account. The only reason I haven't semi-protected this article like so many other Islam-related articles are already protected, is because we have one anonymous editor (you) who has attempted to be constructive and engage in intelligent discourse. Controversial Islam-related articles generally receive only disruption from anonymous IPs.
Talk:Criticism of Muhammad and other talk pages are not protected from anonymous users. You can always discuss problems there, even if you can't edit the article.
Nobody claimed that FFI doesn't engage in those things also; it's clear they don't like Islam. However, they also publish valid criticism, from the point of view of a former Muslim. I don't see that coming from Jew Watch.
The material will likely be restored by someone, so WP:RSN might be a good place to go when you find it convenient. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This needs to be changed from "Self-Publishing" sources to "reliable sources" WP:RS. Yes, if the guy is a nut, we shouldn't be using him. Point out a few "nutty" webpages and we will review his contribution. I don't feel that comfortable using WP:NN authors anyway, but about half the refs (a guess) in the encyclopedia are from nn writers.
I hope we aren't down to using Dawkins as a source for anything outside of science. He is simply an anti-religious screwball himself. Being referenced by him is surely not a very good testimonial IMO. Quite the reverse. Student7 (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dawkins is notable not only as a scientist and author, but also as an outspoken critic of religion who receives significant press coverage. With his educational background and coverage, his words carry more weight than other nutcases like, say, Rush Limbaugh. Your or my opinion of him is irrelevant. Referencing by Dawkins constitutes reliable third party sourcing.
I'll point out that this article is called "Criticism of the Qur'an". It isn't called "Criticism of the Qur'an by people qualified to make judgments". If the criticism has reliable 3rd party coverage, that is sufficient for inclusion. It remains to be seen whether Ali Sina's criticism has such coverage. Next month I hope to get some time to look for it, if others don't do so first. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dawkins, the Michael Moore of religious criticism? He may have written a book that sold well, but that hardly constitutes, in his case, criticism that can be regarded seriously for an article of encyclopedic caliber. We would hope for scholarly criticism, not ranting, which Dawkins was even doing in his otherwise fine, because it was science, Ancestor's Tale. Student7 (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sequencing problems

This may be an ancient criticism and long since answered, but I remembered seeing a criticism that when Mohamed died, his followers wanted to record what he had dictated. Scribes had taken his dictates down on "whatever" was handy, including eggshells! No dates on materieal which they had not deemed important. As it happens, his pithiest comments were made early in his preaching career, his tortured, much longer ones, near the end when he had lots of information to consider. The organizers (it was said) decided to place the longer stuff first, shortest last! If true, one of the stranger and most perverse organizations ever. So the reader assumes that he saw "clearly" near the end and had shorter statements which may have superseded and overrode the former, when the opposite was true. (And no, the commentator wasn't reading it backwards. Come one!  :). Student7 (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Film heavily based on Reliable sources not a valid source?

With the possible exception of Abdullah Al-Araby (who appears to be reliable, ex-Muslim, so he knows what he's talking about), the following writers have been vetted by various Wikipedia editors and generally regarded as reliable sources for the subjects they write about: Robert Spencer (author), Serge Trifkovic, Bat Ye'or, Abdullah Al-Araby, and Walid Shoebat. Would someone please explain to me why a film (Islam: What the West Needs to Know) that essentially aggregates what these writers say is somehow "fringe"? -- Frotz(talk) 23:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Amatulic's advice, I am dropping the pursuit of adding a link to Islam: What the West Needs to Know here. -- Frotz(talk) 23:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quran criticism of other holy books

The Quran mentions the two holy books (Islamic holy books) the Tawra and Injil as authored by Allah (God's name in Islam). However, the Quran mentions that they were altered and that the original text had mentioned the last prophet of Allah which the Quran says he is Mohammad. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Abdusalambaryun: Please provide secondary sources that state that. To expand, we are only allowed to use direct quotes to show the actual content. Any analysis needs a secondary source. See Criticism_of_the_Quran#Violence_against_women for an example of this. --NeilN talk to me 15:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN: Thanks, ok, as you know I am new here and need some help, so thanks again and I will write here first to see if I got it right :-) Abdusalambaryun (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Quran mentions in Sura (2) Albaqara, Aya 75-79, Sura (4) Alnisa, Aya 46, and Sura (5) Almaeda, Aya 13 and Aya 41, that there were people that changed altered the religious text of previous holy books as the bible and Tawra. These are the verses references for the Quran criticism to previous religious texts. I will check others and add here. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 04:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism reason if any

Mostly there are reasons for criticisms of any thing or any person. I discuss here that Wikipedia should consider mentioning reasons of such acts or behaviour from authors by referencing. This way it is more justified for readers and it will make editors more not taking sides. In this article, the reason is clear, because the Quran criticises some religions and som believes. The Quran is the primary subject but the article should clarify the reasons with referencing the Quran verses that criticises issues of others with its reason why. However, if we just say this reference "X" criticises the Quran of mentioning "A" because of "B", there maybe another reason "C" that "X" does not mention but another reference "Y" does. Moreover, in complicated issues referencing all X,Y and any more can help see the real picture of criticism acts/behaviours. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we mention criticism A, we can't comment on that criticism ourselves but would need another source (which will have to meet our criteria for sources) that discusses criticism A. See WP:SYN. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yes that is my point. The Quran criticised many thoughts and religions so then the Quran became criticised. Therefore, this section needs to address the verses that is criticises others. The source I need to be clear is actually the subject which is the Quran. The reason why the Quran is criticised is mostly because it started to show others as wrong so it criticised, so then the article editors are showing sourced of one side and not the other real related side. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So first you need a reliable source which says that that's why a person criticized the Quran. For example, if you have a reliable source which says that Sam Harris criticizes Quran because the Quran criticized neuroscience at verses X, Y or Z, then you can include that information with due weight where Harris's views are mentioned. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Firstly, that is only a muslim point of view that the Qu'ran has been criticized by others in response to criticism of the Qu'ran. It's obviously a generalisation intended to discount any criticism. Secondly, I don't think you understood Dougweller's point. Please read WP:SYNTH. This says, in effect, that if you want to say that Religion X criticises the Qu'ran because the Qu'ran criticses Religion X, then you must find one source that says all of that. What you are not allowed to do is use one source that says Religion X criticises the Qu'ran and a second source that says the Qu'ran criticises Religion X and put them together to say Relion X criticises the Qu'ran because the Qu'ran criticizes Religion X. I hope I explained that clearly enough. DeCausa (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Quran mentions in Sura (2) Albaqara, Aya 75-79, Sura (4) Aya 46, and Sura (5) Almaeda, Aya 13 and Aya 41, that there were people that changed altered the religious text of previous holy books as the bible and Tawra. Moreover, The Quran mentions in Sura (48) Alfateh, Aya 29, that the believers Muslims were described in the religious text of Injil (Gospel), and In the text of the Tawra. So there are reasons why the Quran was criticised because it discusses the previous holy books, and those current books had no text referring to Quran's arguments, so many authors wrote their views and criticisms.

Abdusalambaryun (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's called "original research" in Wikipedia - read WP:OR and is not permitted in the article. DeCausa (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Archives Talks and Editors Consensus

I see many archives but are there concensus documented, not sure. However, it will be nice if I review the archive and bring in this section the summary, so that I check if something is not missing. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that will be a useful exercise as the talk page is not the only way, or even the main way, that consensus is created. If you read WP:CONSENSUS you will see that consensus also arises out of edits being made. So if an edit is made and is not reverted it is deemed, after being kept in the article for some time, to have consensus support. Also, consensuis can change. So, as an example, you could have a situation where something is expressly agreed on the talk page in 2008 and implemented, but is then changed in 2011 through an edit but without discussion on the talk page. If it is then not reverted or subsequently changed, it becomes the new consensus in place of the 2008 agreement. Of course, there's nothing wrong with now challenging that consensus either through an edit (but WP:BRD would apply) or by opening a talk page discussion thread. DeCausa (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editor criticism not references

In section; Violence against women, where is the criticism that mentions violence. The title says violence, so we need references to authors saying there are violences. The editors' voice is very clear but we need true references to be more reasonable. Please change title or show references to the same title. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The article provides evidence that the Qu'ran advocates violence against women, see this: "Verse 4:34 of the Quran... as translated by Ali Quli Qara'i reads 'But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them.'... 'Marmaduke Pickthall's, Muhammad Muhsin Khan's, or Arthur John Arberry's. Arberry's translation reads "admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them.'[74]" However, there are no sources actually criticizing the Qu'ran's encoragement of violence against women. But I suggest we don't delete for the moment: it's highly unlikely that criticism of sura 4:34 doesn't exist, and it should be looked for in the first instance. DeCausa (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oath by God

"Bell and Watt thought that cases where the speaker is swearing an oath by God, such as surahs 75:1-2 and 90:1..." - The verses mentioned read: 'I do call to witness the Resurection Day and I do call to winess the self reproaching spitit' and 'I do call to witness this city'. Where is the speaker swearing an oath by God?

The source is self-published and unreliable. So I removed that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk • contribs) 14:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Zabt of Tahzeeb, this is not self-published. --NeilN talk to me 14:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was oblivios of this but We should use common sense to remove this as in accordance with Pillars of wikipedia. Where is it the claim of these islamophobes mentioned. Criticism means analasys of (in critics' view )faults in disapproving way. As the thing which is fault in their view doesn't exist hence it is not criticism but false criticism. It is fact we wikipediens shan't say what Bell and Watt said, we shall view fact. If you wish, you can make another article named false criticism of Quran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk • contribs) 14:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zabt of Tahzeeb, as Richard Bell (Arabist) and William Montgomery Watt directly contradict your claims, it seems you're more oblivious than you thought. --NeilN talk to me 14:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ok. Add NPOV tag also in accordance with guidlines on disagreement.'The sky is blue', there is no need to cite it, what these people mean. If you know then tell me so that we may reach consensus or; cite reliable refrences to support your claim on article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk • contribs) 15:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't add NPOV tags to articles because an editor's (incorrect) opinions. You need to find reliable sources that support your claims first. --NeilN talk to me 15:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is talk page which does not require citation. About citation I said to you was for the improvement of ariticle which require citations so that everyone can understand their view. I think you are fighting with me rather than improving article. I've cleared my point. If you do not agree then you should. This is for discussion on the subject of article not me. You should study wikipedia guidelines. For explaination you can see dictionary to get meaning of word criticism (free dictionary.com) and Quran(quran.com) to check meaning of given verses. Do not waste time to long an irrelevant article. I've made my point clear, if you can falsify than talk about improvement of article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk • contribs) 15:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All you have done here is provide two false claims (work was self-published, authors were Islamophobes) to try to justify your removal of the material. That's it. --NeilN talk to me 16:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point 1. CRITICSM mean ANALYZE FAULTS in disapproving way. If false does not exist actually than it is not relevent to criticism but islamophobia. Virtually all scholars issue on Jesus article was resolved by merriam-dicrtionary. 2 see Quran.com to see meaning of verse 3. If you can't falsify above 2 points then discussion is ended and prooved that article is irrelevant. Don't waste time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk • contribs) 16:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AstroLynx, do you know what Zabt is talking about? As far as I can see, they are using their own opinions to rebut Bell and Watt. --NeilN talk to me 17:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NeilN, Zabt appears to be a new editor (his account was created only a few days ago) and obviously has little experience in editing (often forgets to sign his postings and disregards the common practice of adding new postings and sections at the bottom of the talk page). He clearly doesn't like the Bell & Watt quote but appears to be unable to provide coherently argued reasons for removing it. AstroLynx (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islamoiphobia should be prevented

we wikipedians shouldn't promote Islamophobia. We should mention the thing that is presumed bad by critic. It is policy generalization are bad. For example What is that jewish encyclopaedia says so and so. Which morale? The opposition remains silent. Such stereotypes shouldn't be promoted as they are islamophobic and spread faults of Quran which does not exist. eg. some says something is in Quran but it is not in Quran. If it cannot be explained then it should be removed. Wikipedia policy is Generalizations are bad. I try to modify, if someone has diasagreement talk on talk page otherwise silence means consensus. For example confusion over speaker. The opposition remains silent on talk page but when removed, they reverted 2 times nor show consnsus. What?. Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zabt of Tahzeeb: No, your removal was reverted because you are tossing around false accusations of Islamophobia. Also, the points you're trying to make are barely understandable. Again, the source is by two respected scholars. Find another academic source that rebuts their statements (not your opinion). --NeilN talk to me 17:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

now the point is clear you are still doing so because I said these scholars islamophobe. It is irrelavant to subject. I've given 2 points. You can falsify them. Wikipedia says that If you cannot than you're saying to prove sky is blue by give reliable sources. While I say you yourself can see it. I've provided you 2 points, you can make clare by looking at their sources. I am not reverting because 3rd time means edit warring. You 1st time remained silent I assumed consensus. But now I shall thankful to you if you accept sky is blue as editors of Jesus article accepted. And don't make statement about to make discussion look rubbish me rather focus on the improvement of article - it is fact. If you cannot answer these two points then kindly remove the section. And my silence willn't means agreement. I've don't time to waste on your false comments about me but for improvement of article. All is done in accordance with wikipedia guidelines- you can see them. 1. Wikipedia says sky is blue, no resource is needed. 2. Virtually all scholars issue of jesus' article was resolved by dictionary. If you dan't answer my previous two points then your consensus is assumed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk • contribs) 18:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your first point is irrelevant and your second point is unintelligible. --NeilN talk to me 18:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you are mentally retarded. If someone ays Will you accept this. No you'll not. Rather than throwing answers. MENTION the reasons to falsify this. I've explained everything in previous answers. If you cannot your consensus is assumed. Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All right, since you can't seem to make your points coherently, I will wait for someone else to try and do so. You may not take this as agreeing with any of your edits. --NeilN talk to me 18:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My points 1: Difinition of Criticism is analysis of faults in disapproving way. 2: Definition of Islamophobia is prejudice against Islam source: dictionary - you can consult any. 3: verses swear oath by God. False source Quran.com. 3: since the section indicates faults that doesn't exist. It is Islamophobic not criticism of Quran suorce: common sense


My point is in accordance with wikipedia guidelines: reasons 1- primary sources can be used for descriptive purposes. 2-pillars of wikipedia state editors use common sense 3-virtually all scholars issue in jesus article was solved by dictionary 4-my claims are supported by reliable sources conclusion 

The section under discussion is not relevant to criticism of Quran whether it is watt or other.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk • contribs) 19:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article on criticisms of the Qu'ran. By its very nature, the article has to describe the various criticisms that have been made - that does not mean the article is implying that those criticisms are correct. It appears that the text you object to has a reliable source for the fact that the criticisms have been made. If you have reliable sources that say those criticisms were motivated by Islamophobia, then please bring those sources in (and clearly identify who is claiming the arguments were based on Islamophobia). But whatever you do, please don't simply delete sourced information simply because you disagree with it, and please do provide reliable sources for additional information that you do bring in. EastTN (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia guidelines and user EastN

Everything is to be done in accordance with wikipedia guidelines. Any editor by making his own guideline cannot implement on wikipedia to get pleasing material like EastN. Criticism means analyzing faults in disapproving way. It dooesn't means alleged criticism. Dictionary, according to wikipedia guidlines, is more reliable source than EastN and should be used to achieve consensus on matter as in jesus' article. Hereby it is clear that the section confusion over speaking of verses is irrelevant to criticism. If someone cannot provide claim in accordance with wikipedia guidlines. This will be presumed consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk • contribs) 20:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zabt, please assume good faith on the part of other editors, slow down, and try to explain yourself a bit more understandably. One of the most difficult things to understand about Wikipedia is that it is based on verifiability, and not "the truth". As a practical matter, editors with very different backgrounds and beliefs are not going to come to a consensus on the "truth" of very controversial topics such as this one. However, we can come to consensus about what various reliable sources say about a topic. So, for example, the article on Criticism of the Bible includes criticisms that many Jews and Christians strongly believe to be incorrect and unjustified. They are included, however, because reliable sources make those arguments or report that others make those arguments. For Jews and Christians who disagree, these are of course alleged criticisms (and yes, the word "alleged" is used several times in the article).
You seem to be saying that since - as you understand them - particular arguments are incorrect, they do not represent real "faults" in the Qu'ran, and so they cannot constitute "criticism." I would make a few comments. First, it's important even for Muslims who wish to defend the Qu'ran to understand the arguments that have been leveled against it. Helping the reader understand what those arguments are is the purpose of articles such as this one (and the ones on Criticism of the Bible and Criticism of the Book of Mormon). Second, what you and I think about the Qu'ran doesn't matter when we're editing Wikipedia - what matters is what can be verified through reliable sources. Third, personal opinions will vary on which arguments against the Qu'ran are valid, and which are not. Many devout Muslims will believe that none of them are valid and the Qu'ran is without fault. Using your line of reasoning, then, they would conclude that the article should include nothing. Many non-Muslims will believe that most, or perhaps even all of the arguments against the Qu'ran are valid. Again, using your line of reasoning, that would imply that all of the criticisms should all be included. Thus, your approach would lead to endless arguments over what should be in or out. That's why verifiability is so important. It's the only hope we have of coming to agreement about what should or should not be included. The simplest way I know to put it is this: when editing "criticism" articles we report on the arguments that have been made, but we do not make up our own arguments.
On another note, if you are responding to something said in a particular section on a talk page, it makes it easier for everyone to follow the conversation if you reply in the same section. EastTN (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


If I was concerned about Islam, I would censor whole content. I changed my saying place to make headings of new suggestions for improvement of article. CRITICISM means ANALASYS OF (things that are) FAULTS (in critics' view) IN DISAPPROVING WAY. I'm neutral it is clear I'm and concerned with improvement of article. But when the thing critic view doesn't exist. It is objectionable, IRRELAVENT to criticism and proves that source is biased. Relevant content is elected by editors. Quoted Quranic verses can be looked and understood by without special knowledge. Does Clattering means God? This particular section is Not RELEVENT to criticism as explained in dictionary definition of criticism; needed to be in anti-islam or phobia.


As for Torah ,Gospel and Quran (that I didn't discuss here) Things that are actually sanction and are faults in critics view. I don't defend childstoning [Number] or wifebeating [Nisa] as they are sanctioned by scripture and can be understood by any common person who study them. but are considered fault by critics. IMPROVE ARTICLE.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk • contribs) 00:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

criticism of Islam and Islamophobia are not Synonymous

Criticism means ANALYSIS of (things that are considered) FAULTS (by critic) IN DISAPPROVING WAY. I quoted relevant definition otherwise say faults and merits collectively- that is not relevant to article.

Anti-Islam and Islamophobia means PREJUDICE (dislike due to percieved things) against Islam.

It is not my original research. You can view any dictionary when watt percieved fault that doesn't exist and criticised. It is anti-Islam not critticism.

Original research? Can be called alleged criticism.

Criticism is the point that actually exist and viwed fault by critics. But anti (Islam or christianity) is that point which falsely attributed and then criticized defame religion.

Childstoning and wifebeating are actually criticism not such things. Because they are sanctioned by scripture and when we civilized we realized they are true.

I was solely concerned to improve article, as SELECTION OF CONTENT is under the hands of senior editors and they should recognize the confusing terms through dictionary and NOT TOO GENERALIZE - and that is wikipedia policy.

I assume good faith to all editors and think they will pay heed on my recommendations, not just recommedations but facts according to wikipedia policy.

For that reason I rose the discussion of islamophobic section.

However, if you think they are synonymous then merge the articles of Anti-religion and criticism of Religion. Other wise my point is clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk • contribs) 00:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"when watt percieved fault that doesn't exist and criticised." And again, what you think about Watt's views doesn't matter. Only what other reliable sources (i.e., not you) say matters. And please stop adding new sections to the middle of this talk page. It is getting disruptive. --NeilN talk to me 01:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let presume it is reliable resource. It is not RELEVANT to article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk • contribs) 01:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't this criticism relevant? --NeilN talk to me 01:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobe like him is not a worthy of matter.

My matter, My core discussion is it is not relevant to this article but to islamophobia. Is it relevant? Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have provided no sources indicating the authors were islamophobes, your opinion is irrelevant. --NeilN talk to me 01:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decide you self (off course not addressing to those who lack the ability). Is it criticism or islamophobia? Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last post on the matter. You don't get to decide. I don't get to decide. Wikipedia follows what reliable published sources say. --NeilN talk to me 01:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neiln, I've provided dictionary, you deny this. I think you've taken personally but I was not intended to. I was intended to improve article. As if you want to make such articles really better you'll concede. Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately your inability or unwillingness to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines limits your ability to improve the article. A dictionary offers no use as a source for the authors' purported islamophobia. See WP:SYNTHESIS. --NeilN talk to me 02:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All right it has proved that everything was in accordance with wikipedia guidelines. And another point Islamophobia,. You have become clear that you cannot criticise Quran by reliable sources because you don't have them. To equate it with altered Gospels and Torah, carry on making self claimed faults and not using such claim in Jesus' article. It is fact you cannot deny.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_the_Quran&oldid=672254129"