Talk:Criticism of Muhammad/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Ownership of slaves section

I just picked one section at random to look at in some detail. This one has some problems:

JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

what these pages suffer from is that they are worded in such a way as to present the critique as a factual statement and not an assertion which may or may not be true so it ends up reading like a history lesson instead.Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the best approach is to work through the article a section at a time, to ensure that the references support the text (sometimes the refs do not; sometimes there is synthesis involved), and add tags where they do not.
The greater problem, in my view (based on my brief work with the article) is that it seems to mostly not be a "Criticisms" article (i.e., a scholarly critique), but rather is mostly a "collection of criticisms" (i.e., faultfinding). I think these are two different things. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have seen a few editors now mention the quality of the quotes and the article, i think we should first decide what is to be taken out or left in and then work with the rest.Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. Do you want to list some easy suggestions for removal, so we can get consensus? JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Content Discussion

Doing it one statement at a time would be best i think that way it gets discussed.

  • During the time of Muhammad[1] and later in the Middle Ages, Jewish writers commonly referred to Muhammad as ha-meshuggah ("the madman" or "possessed"), a title contemptuously used in the Hebrew Bible for impostors who think of themselves as prophets.[2]

This isn't a criticism its an accusation [if taken literally, although it seems to be name calling by the masses] and an insult ["contemptuously used in the Hebrew Bible"], they just deny he was a prophet and no issue besides that is raised [implicitly].Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought id list the statements in the first section at least that are not criticisms by any definition of the word.

  • Christians were also often dismissive of Muhammad, with some producing highly critical accounts of his life.[3] Some reports on Muhammad's life and death include claims circulated by Christian writers that Muhammad died drunk and was eaten by pigs.[4][dubious – discuss][verification needed] Such stories and opinions were circulated with the knowledge that Islam forbids both alcohol and pork. Such caricatures of Muhammad extended to works of literature and poetry. In Dante's Inferno, Muhammad and Ali are portrayed as being in Hell, subject to horrifying tortures and punishments for their sins of schism and sowing discord. In the Middle Ages Islam was widely believed to be a Christian heresy. In other works, he is described as a "renegade cardinal of the Catholic Church who decided to start his own false religion".[5] A milder depiction occurs in 13th century Estoire del Saint Grail, the first book in the vast Arthurian cycle, the Lancelot-Grail. Here, Muhammad is portrayed as a true prophet sent by God to bring Christianity to the pagan Middle East; however, his pride leads him to alter God's wishes and he deceives his followers, though his religion is viewed as vastly superior to paganism.[6] [this is just history and not criticism, its also subject to WP:SYNTH]
  • Heinrich Knaust in 1542 wrote that Muhammad's parents gave birth to him on the outskirts of Mecca. After his father's death, he lived with his mother and grandfather. When he reached maturity, he saw that the people could not decide whether to follow Christianity, Judaism, or Arianism. So, remembering an astrological prophecy that he would begin a new religion, he pieced together parts of the Christian and Jewish Scriptures. These he had learned from an Egyptian monk and the heretic Sergius. His goal was to make a law that he could get both Christians and Jews to submit to.[8] [has no factual basis he just made that up as no source reports this, isn't criticism and just history or propaganda, its a narrative]
  • Gottfried Leibniz, held that belief in Muhammad, Zoroaster, Brahma, or Gautama Buddha is not as worthy as belief in Moses and Jesus, yet praised Muhammad and his followers for spreading monotheism and "abolishing heathen superstitions" in the remote lands where Christianity had not been carried.[not in response to anything, i think its a poor attempt to balance the article]
  • Mahomet (French: Le fanatisme, ou Mahomet le Prophete, literally Fanaticism, or Mahomet the Prophet) is a five-act tragedy written in 1736 by French playwright and philosopher Voltaire. It made its debut performance in Lille on 25 April 1741. [interesting but this isn't the place for it]
  • In 2002, Evangelical Christian leader Jerry Falwell called Muhammad "a terrorist," though he later apologized for the comment, saying that he had made a mistake when responding to a "controversial and loaded question."[14]
  • Dutch feminist writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali has called him a "tyrant"[15] and a "pervert".[16] Netherlands Party of Freedom leader Geert Wilders calls Muhammad a "mass murderer and a pedophile".[17] [not serious critisism but name calling]

ill quote another editor on this article and this section in particular "the article is based on the WP:SYNTH notion that there is a continuity from medieval Christian views of Muhammad through to recent writers opposed to Islamism.". Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

At first glance, I agree with your entire list. Let's see what other's have to say. Then, the next step would be to remove these, assuming consensus. Thank you, JoeSperrazza (talk)
The list, as presented, looks OK. That is, none of these things belong in this article. I have not compared it to the article itself (for accuracy or completeness). Hans Adler 09:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
i left out the Luther quote because i thought that needed to be discussed on its own but i also don't think it is critisism.Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that some of that could be removed, particularly historical portrayals such as Dante's, which are covered in other articles. However, let's not redefine "criticism" as something other than the simple passing of judgment, which is all it is. The Geert Wilders quotations, for example, aren't simply name-calling. People don't speak in sound bites. If you look at what Wilders actually says, he goes into detail explaining his views. Therefore he is criticizing Muhammad. The same goes for other examples characterized as name-calling. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Their is no use complaining about the standards of an article when your the one campaigning for the inclusion sub par material. A few editors now have objected to the inclusion of material that is little more than name calling and opted for more serious criticisms that have depth. Isn't the aim of any wiki article to be rated A class and all editors should work towards that aim, this will never occur with current material. Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this article is low-quality. The solution for sub-par material is to improve it, not remove it. This is an encyclopedia; its purpose is to be encyclopedic. What you casually dismiss as "name calling" happens to qualify as criticism, and your personal definition of criticism isn't relevant. As criticism, it should be expanded. Geert Wilders is an excellent example; he has spoken volumes about his views, yet all this article does is quote a sound bite. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
You cant improve on this material unless you write the criticism yourself, why don't you just do more research and find better quality statements which discuss the same issues at least then we can move on to balancing the article rather than arguing over a list of labels and defamatory statements.Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Bold, Revert, Discuss versus Edit War

Fellow editors,

There's been some recent edit/reversion cycles that are worthy of discussion.

Lede citation

Here are the edits in question: [1], [2], [3]

Here are my thoughts:

  • The source cited, http://www.myspear.org/quran_stoning_women.html, seems like a reliable source, albeit with a point of view of a critic of Islam. Thus, I think it does work as a substitution for the "citation needed" tag
  • However, the change of the text from "what critics describe as" to "his" does not seem to be supported by the source cited (as that source is from "a critic" and does not purport to be neutral, thus changing that one sentence from one that seems neutral to one that is not.
  • The most recent (as of this writing) change from "what critics describe as" to "what critics say to be" seems to result in equivalent meaning.

I suggest leaving the text as described about. Let's discuss, if anyone feels discussion is warranted, before further reverts are made. I'll leave a brief note pointing to this comment on each editor's talk page. Thank you, JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

WP's policy is very clear; for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth. To establish notability of a controversial view, the view must be judged by statements from independent, verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. Al-Andalusi (talk)
Al-Andalusi, I don't disagree with anything you've written. However:
  • I can't tell from your comments whether you agree or disagree with what I've written.
  • What do you think of the current state of the article? JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The critics mentioned in the article like Younus Shaikh, Parvin Darabi, and Tasleema Nasreen are notable as critics What they have said should be presented on this Criticism page. The references prove the fact that critics say so and does not necessarily mean that it is the truth. --Fancy.kira (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Notable critics and what they have said should not be removed from the page with the point of view of Religious fanaticism. --Fancy.kira (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Fancy.kira, I agree with what you've written as well. What do you think of the current state of the article? JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
To all - let's discuss the article and its merits and areas of improvement needed, rather than just changing and reverting others' changes. Thank you, JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
JoeSperrazza, The article seems to be fine. I added a link to Robert Spencer's book about Muhammad lacking the morality to prevent rape of slave women. [4]

Thanks again. Hope someone does not revert the reference. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fancy.kira (talk • contribs) 20:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Theseker and Kira's insertions

Kira, allow me to point out some problems with your (re)insertions:

  • [5] and [6] are not reliable secondary sources. Furthermore, many of other sources are primary. You should be able to take criticisms out of secondary sources if they are noteworthy, in compliance with wikipedia policies. For the same reason, I had previously deleted this material you erroneously assumed was removed by vandalism.
  • Regarding the discrimination against women section, the Daily Mail is a tabloid, and this is not a reliable source. Other sources are generally primary.
  • The "Murder of Asma bint Marwan" cites only the Sirat Rasul Allah, which is an account of Muhammad's life by a Muslim historian, Ibn Ishaq. However there is no critic mentioned. Planuu (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Planuu, I must remind you once again that primary sources are appropriate — indeed desirable — to reference statements made by those sources. Regarding the faithfreedom.org source, for example, it is the best source for statements by critic Ali Sina. It would be silly to get such statements from secondary sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Amatulić, perhaps you could explain why faithfreedom.org is an acceptable source? It seems not to be, and my reason for saying so has to do both with reliability and notability of the source.
  • Anyone could put up a website, or publish a tract, with their criticisms of anything.
  • The question to be answered is: "Is that author's criticism worthy of encyclopedic inclusion"? I beg your pardon that I don't know enough about the source to judge that, nor is it clear from the references. However, if sufficient otherwise reliable secondary sources made note of these criticism by faithfreedom.org, that would provide a reliable indicator of the notability of those criticisms.
JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
If you don't know enough about the source, well, Wikipedia comes to the rescue. Faith Freedom International is an organization notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia, and that article lists several sources referencing that organization. Ali Sina ex-Muslim is the founder of that organization, and also has his own Wikipedia article although the notability is questioned. Faith Freedom International is mentioned also in several books as an organization critical of Islam and Muhammad (just do a Google Books search for the organization and ignore those books published by Ali Sina). There should be no question about the reliability of a primary source for referencing statements made by that source. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
That's not true. Per Wikipedia:Fringe theories:
"For a fringe theory to be considered notable, it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals, even if they are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. To be notable, secondary reliable sources must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it." Al-Andalusi (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Amatulic, If primary sources are acceptable, then by what criteria will you choose to omit and include criticisms? Are we to allow this article to grow indiscriminately, as long as the criticism is from a noteworthy or marginally noteworthy critic? I really think you should reconsider your position on primary sources, because you'll find that other criticism articles generally do not have nearly as many of them as articles of Islam-related criticism do, and this contributes to the higher quality of those other articles. I agree with Joe. Not every criticism by a critic is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, and secondary sources help us to gauge which ones are. Planuu (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Planuu, you misunderstand the purpose of primary sources. Per policy: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." I am not advocating including criticism from any random person with a web page. However, criticism from notable individuals or organizations should be included. In that sense, your removal of references to Faith Freedom International was wrong, because plenty of secondary sources are available to establish its notability, but those secondary sources need not be referenced for information more readily obtained directly from the primary source. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand that you do not want to include criticism from any random person. However, there is a plethora of criticism out there, even from just the subjects that may be noteworthy. How do you propose to separate criticism that merits inclusion here from that which does not, if you've decided we don't need to use secondary sources? Planuu (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Planuu, thank you for the details. It is helpful to know where editors feel there are problems. I think it would be helpful to go through each issue with materiel added (and then removed, re-added, and removed again) line by line, so any flaws can be documented clearly and (hopefully) addressed here, prior to another cycle of almost edit-warring.
Here're my comments on your comments:
  • I completely agree that we must use reliable and non-primary sources.
    • http://www.faithfreedom.org/ certainly seems to fail both criteria
    • Pardon my ignorance, but I'm less certain about http://www.myspear.org, being unreliable, per se, but I agree it is a primary source. Per policy, these can be used with caution, so a blanket rejection of its use would seem inappropriate. However, as the policy says, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."
    • As this addition uses the source http://www.faithfreedom.org/, previously discussed, I agree that your removal was appropriate. Of course, if a reliable, secondary source is available to support that addition, then it could be added back, appropriately referenced to that better source.
    • I also agree that http://www.thereligionofpeace.com is not a [[WP::RS|reliable source]]
    • I don't agree that the Daily Mail being a tabloid makes it automatically an unreliable source. If you can show policy, guidelines, or even an essay at WP to the contrary, please do so. Otherwise, I do think additions to any article properly referencing a Daily Mail article could acceptable (depending upon other factors, of course).
    • Regarding your last point, perhaps you could explain why a reference from Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad. Apostle of Allah isn't appropriate in this case? (Pardon me for displaying my ignorance here).
Thanks again, JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your input Joe. I agree very much so with what you've said regarding Wikipedia policies. The Daily Mail has a history of being sued for inaccurate information, especially regarding persons, and for this reason I feel it's not particularly useful here. However, I do not feel strongly about it, and if you or another editor were to insist on using it then I would just let it go. The "Life of Muhammad" is a biography written by Ibn Ishaq. Ibn Ishaq is not a critic of Muhammad, nor is his work written to criticize Muhammad. Thus, I feel using information from that book presented here as criticism would be misleading. Planuu (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Summary of WP's policies

Quoted and collected from a number policy articles (mainly Wikipedia:Fringe theories):
  • For any viewpoint described in an article, mainstream or controversial, only independent reliable sources should be used.
If an indepedent reliable source is found, then:
[1] For editors to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by the independent secondary sources. Sources that would summarise the arguments, delineate their context and importance.
[2] A Wikipedia article should not make it appear more notable than it is. Reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.
[3] The quote should only be included if it can be contextualized in a verifiable and neutral sense.
  • Notability:
For a controversial, disputed, or discounted idea to be considered notable, it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals, even if they are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. To be notable, [1] secondary [2] reliable sources must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it.
  • On the use of Primary sources:
"Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary source of information, summarizing the information gleaned from secondary sources, and in some cases from primary sources. Primary sources about research and investigations should only be used to verify the text and should not be relied upon exclusively as doing so would violate Wikipedia's policies on original research."
Al-Andalusi (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, this is very useful. JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Likely Sockpuppet

I've looked very carefully at Theseker's additions and I do believe that this user is very likely a sockpuppet of User:Lanternix. He added much of the same material and even used some of the same exact sources as Lanternix attempted to use. Other editors have also commented that this user inserted unreliable sources or sources that do not even support the text. Please do not reinsert any of it unless you personally verify the appropriateness of the source and relevance of the material. See this investigation and this discussion for details. Planuu (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I wondered if a sock wasn't involved in those edits, but didn't have the history to tell for sure. You should file a Sock Puppet Investigation report, if you feel the behavioral evidence supports it.
Sock-puppetry, for any reason, but in particular to push a point of view is anathema to a good article. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I will file an investigation request over the weekend. Planuu (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You need reliable secondary sources for criticism

I deleted some material that was referenced to primary sources only, and one paragraph that used two tafsirs as a source (which actually contained no criticism). Why is that this was hastily restored? Anyone can look at a primary source, link to it, and say this is bad for so and reason which is precisely what is being done with those paragraphs. 173.3.4.174 (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that Wikiislam is not a good source, you're still blocked for edit warring on a number of other well-sourced passages. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I would really like it if you picked something out as an example so that I can demonstrate that your comment is false. Anything that I removed was either a self-published source, had no secondary source with criticism, or had an unreliable source. As an administrator you have seem to have an appalling lack of understanding of WP:RS. By the way, my IP is dynamic, but I agree not to edit the article for the period you blocked my previous IP (~30 hours). Also, you have the exact same amount of reverts that I had (3), excluding the revert of a bot, so it may be prudent for you to block yourself. 69.115.151.161 (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Lanternix, the references you added are a complete joke, and in violation of WP:SPS. Unless you can find reliable sources, I still intend on removing this questionable material. Planuu (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, if you don't like some of the sources, you are more than welcome to take it to RSN. As far as I am concerned, these sources are perfectly reliable. Moreover, the controversial piece you are trying to remove is filled with copy+paste verses from the Quran and copy+paste hadiths from Sahih al-Bukhari. Not really sure what in Islam is more credible than these sources!!! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 04:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
The reliability of the Quran and Hadith have nothing to do with this discussion. What guidelines and policies do you use to arrive at the conclusion that the secondary sources you've referenced "are perfectly reliable"? Planuu (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
How exactly does the reliability of the Quran and Hadith have nothing to do with this discussion??? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 04:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY. I am only questioning the secondary sources you've added. Planuu (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You'd think it would be a fundamental rule that in order to critisise a muslim about something that he should at least believe what he is being criticized about and not subject 1/3 of the world's population to the imaginations of others. If your going to quote the Quran or primary sources Quote their Islamic interpretations as well not their convoluted misinterpretations. To put it plainly if its not part of our belief system then what on earth are you really criticizing your own imagination? Ibn kathir (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, had you actually read the sources I added, you would have discovered that many of them are Islamic interpretations of the Quran verses and hadiths that encourage slavery, rape of female slaves, coitus interruptus with female captives of war, etc etc. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 19:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and "1/3 of the world's population" ? Is that what they call wishful thinking? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 19:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
You've yet to show that the sources are in compliance with Wikipedia's policies. Planuu (talk) 07:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

23% of the world population if you want to be pedantic about it, regarding slavery it was never "encouraged" it was regulated and rights where given to the slave, anyone who actually has studied Islams stance on slavery would see it was discouraged as you wont find any source that "encourages" it. Rape is forbidden in Islam so essentially you are lying, coitus interrupts or relations with what your right hand posses as the Quran says is only permitted when consent is given and this is the Islamic belief there is no other view regarding this so you are twisting what the sources say or don't say i would imagine. The Quran is not a chronological book, it was revealed over a period of 23 years and then re-arranged into the order you see it in today so pulling one passage from the Quran is essentially taking it out of its context.

Ibn kathir (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see no problem with the evidence provided by λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ.

Does Islam encourage rape? This is not just the opinion of those who criticise Islam, it's also the opinion of some Muslims. See this as one example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1327970/Islam-Channel-rapped-advocating-marital-rape-calling-women-prostitutes.html (A Muslim religious channel allowed presenters to condone marital rape. The host told viewers that it was 'not strange' and 'not such a big problem' for a man to force his wife to have sex.) This link also: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/regulators-british-islam-channel-promotes-rape-encourages-violence-against-women/. True that the channel later apologized and declared "In a submission to the report, the Islam Channel said it 'does not condone or encourage violence towards women under any circumstances' and 'does not condone or encourage marital rape'", but it was already too late. It was already censured by the TV watchdog.
Does Islam encourage rape? Fatwa number 33597 on the Islamic website of Shaikh Muhammad Al-Muajjid’s ‘Islam Questions and Answers’ (http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/33597) reads:
Does Islam encourage pedophilia (sex with children)? No doubt. See this:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old

(Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:).

Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

(Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64).

Does Islam encourage raping of female slaves? No doubt. See the verse of the Koran that says:

Koran (33:50) - "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those slaves whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee"

(Koran (33:50))

Also

Abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or the captives whom their right hands possess

(Koran (23:5-6))

Also

And all married women are forbidden unto you save those captives whom your right hands possess

(Koran (4:24))

Also see Tahfeem ul Qur'an by Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, Vol. 2 pp. 112-113 footnote 44; Also see commentary on verses [Quran 23:1]: Vol. 3, notes 7-1, p. 241; 2000, Islamic Publications. Tafsir ibn Kathir 4:24.

This also encourages slavery in Islam, which answers your other question.

--JPosten (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

All this is classed primary research and irrelevant. Rape is not permitted under Islamic law which is the end result of Muslims researching their own books [and not others interpreting them for them] and this is their beliefs, you going into primary sources and then saying no you do promote rape is baseless since this isn't how Muslims themselves view these sources. Unless you can find a specific legal ruling promoting rape you don't have a case. The base assumptions you have made such as assuming you can re-interpret Muslim texts and then force your unqualified interpretations on an entire Muslim population is ignorant.

Are you even aware that their are entire fields of study and sciences that exist to inter prate these texts, i can easily go through each one of your quotes and show you the ignorance of your claims and im only vaguely aware of these scientific fields.

an obvious example ":Does Islam encourage pedophilia (sex with children)? No doubt." first pedophilia is not sex with children, so here you already dont know the scientific definition of the word, second the need to affirm your statement even before you have made your case is a testament to you manipulating arguments to promote a false logical construction in the minds of people who cant see the fallacy of your claims.

Here is another idiotic assertion,

":Does Islam encourage raping of female slaves? No doubt. See the verse of the Koran that says:" again you feel the need to reaffirm your claim even before proving it, if your words had any truth to them this would be self evident in the argument itself.

"

Koran (33:50) - "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those slaves whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee"

"

if you had any analytical understanding you would see the passage speaks nothing of rape but the permissibility of concubines among slaves, you have imposed a nature of that relationship on the passage as a result of your imagination even though it doesn't speak of one. The reality is after firmly fixing in your mind that Islam promotes rape even prior to any honest investigation you have begun to make assumptions based on vague passages that clearly you don't know what they mean or are referring to.

What you are quoting is not Islamic law but accounts in history whose relevance and place in Islam you have not understood. its the equivalent of saying every historical narrative is a precedent for law [or a law in and of itself], if you have no understanding or qualifications in Law then you wont ever understand.

I will again state the obvious if a Muslim doesn't believe what you are saying then you are only criticizing your own imagination, we have been studying these texts for 1400 years and no law permitting rape exists in any book. here is a common response to the site where you are getting most of this dribble from.Ibn kathir (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

JPosten, the requirements for this article are rather clear. Muhammad must be shown to have been criticized by a reliable source for these things. Whether or not one finds them personally deplorable, or whether or not Muhammad encouraged something that you might find immoral is irrelevant. It's simple: find secondary sources criticizing him for these things, and if you want to include the primary source material you've quoted, you'll need a secondary source to interpret it for you. You cannot provide interpretations of the primary source material on your own. Whether or not something is the opinion of some Muslims is also irrelevant. These Muslims are not criticizing Muhammad for their interpretation; rather you are using the interpretation to support your notion that Muhammad encouraged various activities. The missing link is criticism from reliable sources. Planuu (talk) 08:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


According to Wiki the Islamic punishment for rape is stoning.


"Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, a Pakistani Islamic scholar, has examined hadith related to Rajm in his book Burhan, which considers the issue of Rajm not having been prescribed in the Qur'an, which has presidence over the Sunnah for Muslims. Ghamidi concludes that the Quranic punishment for adultery in verse [Qur'an 24:2] does not leave room for any other interpretation[5] but that stoning may be prescribed for someone who rapes or habitually commits fornication"

Ibn kathir (talk) 07:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Stoning may be a punishment for conviction, but that practically never happens (at least not to the attacker). It is virtually impossible for a woman to prove rape according to Islamic standards. First off, a woman's testimony is considered only worth half that of a man in court (Qur'an 2:282). Secondly, there is also a rule that she must have at least four witnesses.

Sometimes a stoning does take place, though I think it is more often the woman/girl who is killed. Such was the case with Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, a thirteen-year-old Somali girl who was gang-raped and subsequently stoned to death on October 27, 2008. A more recent case took place in Bangladesh, on January 30, 2011, where a fourteen-year-old girl was lashed to death instead of being stoned. Those are just two examples, and they are tragically not particularly rare incidents. --69.128.204.110 (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Secondary sources for criticism

On pedophilia

Scholarly sources for pedophilia criticism:

  • Filler, Daniel M (2003). "Terrorism, Panic, and Pedophilia". Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law. 10: 345.
  • Many books and articles refer to Baptist preacher Jerry Vines characterization of Muhammad as a "demon-posessed pedophile" (reported on CBS News on 11 October 2002), including [7], [8], and Nimer, Mohamed (2002). "Muslims in America after 9-11". J. Islamic L. & Culture. 7: 1.
  • Discussion of Geert Wilders and others: [9]

There are more, but that should put to rest any question of removing this criticism. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think slight editing is required,

Scholarly sources for pedophilia label:

Click on show to view the contents of this section

No one questioned he actually said it, the quality of the statement and depth of [any] analysis [for that matter] is just not present. I don't think we should be writing the criticism for them that would be synthesis and primary research and the manner in which the statement is intended is clearly stated in your links.Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 08:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Why did you feel the need to re-quote the entire text that I wrote? In the context of those sources, "pedophile" is a criticism, not a label.
You are still defining criticism as more than it is. The fact is, the pedophilia criticism has widespread coverage. I provided reliable secondary sources, including refereed academic journals, that recognize this particular criticism. The first link provides analysis. You want more in-depth coverage? Try this from Cox News Service: [13] These links are more than trivial mentions. The simple fact is, this pedophilia criticism meets the WP:N threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Amatulic is correct, the criticism regarding pedophilia is notable, common, and covered by multiple reliable sources. There can't be any serious question about whether or not to include the material, the only real questions are which references provide the best coverage and which quotes should be used to illustrate the point. Thanks for your good work providing sources Amatulic. Doc Tropics 18:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I have no issue regarding its inclusion in the general sense if you can find a source dealing with it in a scholarly manner, but you wont because any notable scholar would know the subject he is critiquing [Muhammad] and the definition of the term he is using and scientifically speaking Muhamamd is not a pedophile so no scholarly source can exist.Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 07:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
You clearly ignored the sources I provided. I will point out that scholarly sources are not required. Only reliable sources are required, per the Wikipedia:Notability policy. You have been asked repeatedly to stop trying to force your own personal definition of criticism on this article. I ask again, please stop. It is getting tiresome. The pedophilia criticism had widespread coverage in reliable sources, therefore it will stay in this article. Whether people are offended or insulted by it is completely irrelevant. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
is that a warning of some sort, stop asking for material that is of a higher standard or else? i suggest you stop using the word scholarly with this source because that is the last thing it is. Essentially your manipulating definitions for the inclusion of insults and not criticisms that are meant in an encyclopedic manner.You should say the pedophilia insult had wide spread coverage, any source that actually deals with it in a scholarly manner would be forced to check the factual basis of thier work and at this stage of the discussion this differentiation should be clear.Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
An academic journal isn't scholarly? My, my. That's really grasping at straws.
Nobody has asked to stop asking for higher standards. All I am saying is that you have provided no valid reason for removing this criticism (yes, it is criticism by definition, which you have yet to learn is not mutually exclusive from insult). Yes, it's insulting; that's irrelevant. Your comments indicate you haven't examined the sources. Certainly more scholarly sources are desirable. However, please understand that more scholarly sources are not a requirement for inclusion of criticism. The simple fact is, this criticism merits inclusion. It has been leveled by multiple notable people, and it has been covered widely in reliable sources. Therefore, it belongs in this article. I suggest you recognize that fact and work to improve the sourcing rather than continue protesting because you don't like it. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Your blind assertions negate the fact this is a low quality statement improving the sourcing does not change that fact,My My how you keep missing the point.Your interpretation of definition's and policy has resulted in an article whose entire content Is insults and not an encyclopedic page befitting Wikipedia's standards for a criticism page. At least you finally admit it is an insult after how much argumentation and denial on your part? Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
It's established that there is one or more reliable sources covering this pedophilia label, though you two still disagree on whether the term has been used as a mere insult or reasoned criticism, right? Perhaps you should bring this issue to the larger community. If they set some standards on how we can differentiate between the two, then we can move forward on this issue as well as others. I think Hans' comments below are certainly a great starting point. Amatulic, I'm sure you're more familiar with how to bring this particular issue to the attention of the community at large. Planuu (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I took this issue to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and here are some of the responses it received.
  • "I think this article, although it has the trappings of respectability in terms of images, citations etc, is a model of a bad Wikipedia article. It's wholly unbalanced and basically just a laundry-list. Wikipedia is not censored, but there is also no reason for it to be so mind-numbingly stupid."
  • "this article is highly problematic. There seems to be an encyclopedic Christian views of Muhammad trying to get out of the earlier sections. After that is just miscellaneous "anything bad anyone has ever said about Muhammad", i.e. the article is based on the WP:SYNTH notion that there is a continuity from medieval Christian views of Muhammad through to recent writers opposed to Islamism. I have yet to see a good "Criticism of..." article and wonder whether we should ask WikiProject Religion to comment on whether any of the Criticism of religion articles are worth having."
What other notice boards can this issue be taken to? Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Forumshopping won't change the outcome of this discussion and is generally discouraged. A number of independent editors are already involved on this page but none support you on this particular subject. Your personal opinions are clearly not supported by policy, editorial consensus, or objective reality. You need to just drop it and try to make a positive contribution somewhere. Doc Tropics 21:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Well that's rather inaccurate and dismissive. A number of editors seemed to support Ibn kathir's general feelings toward this article, and one editor just below supported his position on Luther's opinions. However, what I'm suggesting here is the community form sort of consensus on what is criticism and what is not for the purpose of any "Criticism of..." article, and that hasn't been done at all in the previous discussions, either here or on the noticeboard. Planuu (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm still trying to figure out why you and the other editor wont just look for more scholarly criticisms and fervently keep defending these statements that are clearly "insulting". Its one thing to keep things here on a technicality but when your intention is to improve Wikipedia you don't hold on to what is at the bottom of the barrel just because your right you look for quality and depth. Just because you believe the quotes are in line with wiki policy that is not a formula for success [an A class article].Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm still trying to figure out why you seem to have a WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitude and are so intent on removing anything you perceive as "insulting" to Muslims. Or why you refuse to accept the basic definition of criticism, as defined in any dictionary, as the act of passing judgment as to the merits of something. Or why you refuse to accept that criticism is not always scholarly. Or why you refuse to accept that criticism can be insulting at the same time; it need not be one or the other. Or why you can't understand that the burden is on you to show, using reliable sources, that these criticisms were intended as insults, and you have failed to do so. Or why, now that you admit that this criticism merits inclusion per Wiki policy, you still refuse to make improvements on it yourself, but instead continue to demand removal. Or why you can't accept that the goal of an encyclopedia is to be encyclopedic, and therefore removing things that have widespread coverage in reliable sources (and in this case, scholarly sources) is not in line with that goal. I find it curious that every time one of your demands is met, you come up with further objections. Let's move on from this one, shall we? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
You cant figure it out because you assume that what i mean by insulting is that im insulted or offended. A page whose entire content is insults is hardly encyclopedic, in line with wiki policy and not what is intended by a criticism of article. As soon as any attempt is made to improve the quality of this article into an A class article all these quotes will have to be taken out as they hardly qualify as scholarly criticisms. your entire weak argument is for their inclusion on technicalities that are not that convincing and barely in line with the intent of the term critisism. A serious criticism in the least presents an argument and doesn't rely entirely on labels and slogans to prove itself, no matter how you twist around definitions no one will actually believe any of these are serious scholarly criticisms they barely rate as criticism based on your vague all inclusive definition, you have already admitted thier quality, as 'a criticism need not be scholarly", well go start a web page or something this is an encyclopedia scholastic endeavors are given preference over comments whose basis is urban myths, propaganda and mob mentality.
So where are you now in terms of identifying what these statements are, so far you have admitted they are insulting criticisms. ill look that up in a dictionary and get back to you on the difference between an insult and an insulting criticism. Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

On Geert Wilders

There should be no question of including criticism by Geert Wilders, who produced an entire film (see Fitna (film)) that went into great detail — far more than mere "insults" or "labels" or "name-calling" as Ibn Kathir has characterized it. That film provoked reactions world-wide (see International reaction to Fitna). The sources are all there in those articles, so there is no need to repeat them here. There is no question that Wilders' criticisms also meet the WP:N threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

On Martin Luther

It has been proposed to delete comments by Martin Luther, one of the more prominent figures in the history of Christianity. I daresay this proposal has zero merit to anyone familiar with western history. Numerous secondary sources reference Luther's views of Muhammad. Here's one: [14]

Luther's intent was not to insult Islam, but rather to draw a comparison with the Catholic Pope and conclude that the Pope is worse! Luther's objective, after all, was to split off from the Catholic church, and he succeeded in that, spawning what has become the family of Protestant Christian denominations.

There is no question that this criticism (by the pure definition of criticism as the passing of judgment as to merit) meets the WP:N threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. It may be worthwhile to clarify Luther's intent, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Was the inclusion of this previously contested? Planuu (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, by Ibn Kathir, in the lengthy section above called "Changing the Title". ~Amatulić (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
It's also contested by me because it's not criticism in any sense that has meaning in an encyclopedia. By the way, Luther wasn't just anti-Muslim (due to the Turkish threat in Europe at the time) but also antisemitic, and in an extreme and extremely notable way. See Martin Luther and antisemitism. Yet he is not mentioned even once on criticism of Judaism, and that's precisely as it should be. Hans Adler 21:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
You make an excellent point Hans. However, how are we as editors to differentiate between hate speech and criticism? I ask this as question because I don't know the answer, and also because it seems to be a recurring issue on this talk page. The criticisms at criticism of Judaism seem to be much more academic and scholarly than those listed here, as many critics now or previously listed here espouse extreme anti-Muslim views, yet their criticisms are still listed here. I assumed I could do nothing about it on that basis alone. Planuu (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Ultimately you can't write an encyclopedia without common sense and good reading comprehension. Contrary to a common misconception, our policies are not a substitute for that. (E.g. when we know something to be false, we don't make our articles claim it, even though the few reliable sources talking about the matter may agree it's true. We had such a case due to faulty reporting about internal Wikipedia affairs.)
There are experts who look at the facts and come to considered conclusions. On the other hand there are people such as Martin Luther or Geert Wilders who feel strongly about a topic and spew out a stream of affirmations of their feelings. ("I paid for an argument. This is not an argument, this is abuse." [15] Quoted from memory.) The difference isn't hard to tell. The first category belongs in a "criticism of" article, the second does not.
You can see the difference in the reporting by reliable sources:
  • Books about Martin Luther report his antisemitism and his strong anti-Islam statements and sometimes discuss the background of his feelings. They don't discuss what we can potentially learn from Luther's texts about Muhammad or Islam, or about Judaism or Jews.
  • Even when what someone says is actually true, or at least arguably true, when it's not well-founded criticism but just formulated as an insult it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. At least not under articles related to the target. E.g. when Françoise Ducros called George W. Bush a moron, most people worldwide agreed on the substance, even many of those who felt it's not something one is allowed to say. Yet we only mention this insult in Françoise Ducros and 2002 in Canada, but not in Public image of George W. Bush. (It could have a short mention there, but should certainly not get any weight.)
  • On the other hand, reliable sources do explain in detail what Luther criticised about the Catholic Church, because there he had a point and used proper arguments. (Otherwise he would not have had so many followers.)
Hans Adler 23:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I think all of these quotes remain in the article based on technicalities and not because they adhere to the true aims or intent of an encyclopedia. it's more a manipulation of policies rather than an attempt to uphold the initial aims, intentions and spirit of them. This is common in law and the judges often refer the intent behind a particular law in order to see past a lawyers "spin" on it, see Statutory interpretation for example. Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 07:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I just watched the Argument Clinic video i think its a good example of how words can be manipulated if the true intent behind them is not acknowledged. I think that video also describes the "Arguments" we have been having here, the common ground should be how are these statements intended not technically an insult is a criticism...."No it isnt"...Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your input Hans. I appreciate it. Planuu (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
So do I. I agree with Ibn kathir about how words can be manipulated. That's what this article currently does regarding Martin Luther, and I object to the current presentation of that quote. Note what I wrote about Martin Luther at the beginning of this section: He put forth his criticism of Muhammad not for the purpose of insulting Muslims, but to play upon the general negative European sentiment toward Muhammad at the time to convey, to a Christian audience of readers, a comparison between Muhammad and the Pope, for the purpose of claiming that the Pope is worse than a "first born child of Satan". If this entry is kept in the article, it should include the proper context. As it is now, simply quoting what Martin Luther said isn't an acceptable way to present it.
One problem with removing this quotation is that it's so famous, so widely covered that somebody will simply add it back in a similarly unacceptable fashion. To head off this situation, it would be best if we presented the quote properly, with the correct context. Ibn kathir's forum-shopping on WP:NPOV/N did result in another good source explaining where Martin Luther got his views from. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Your proposal is a good compromise. Planuu (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
this isnt a history page, we are not here explaining critisism this is why the quote doesnt belong here becouse it is a label it itsnt self explanitory and doesnt have context like a real critisism would. The proposal also falls short of what Hans said a critisism should be, instead we are left filling in the blanks.Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You're making things up again Ibn Kathir. You say: "this isnt a history page", but it is! It covers 1,500 years worth of criticism - that IS history. You also claim: "we are not here explaining critisism", but that is an absurd statement; of course the article will explain the criticisms, their context, and their meaning in such a way that a modern reader will be able to understand. Please stop making up these ridiculous "rules", it's just nonsense. Amatulic's proposal is exactly right: a common, widely known criticism needs to be included, and needs to be explained fully, in its historical context. That is exactly what a criticism article should do. Doc Tropics 14:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

According to the title, the focus should be about Muhammad himself, not his image. We could have an article "Image of Muhammad throughout history" that would deal with people's views on him. But this is, according to the title, an article about criticism of Muhammad. That's a related but different thing. In the context of an encyclopedia, criticism is the kind of thing that oriental scholars produce as part of their profession. This article should look at Muhammad's successes and failures, at his short-term and long-term legacy, and its consequences for Arabs and the world at large. If there is no need for such an article, but instead only for an article that lists historical insults (as well as historical praise, per NPOV), then the article can be renamed. Hans Adler 16:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
No PHD-less Tropics [before you cry to the admin board i suggest you look at your racist use of my name] it isn't a history page it is a criticism of page, the history stuff that is currently on here is subject to wiki synth and should removed, in fact Amatulic already agreed to some of this material being removed above . the entire page should be reworded so it is a criticism of page only and only serious criticisms should be present. You cant explain an insult unless you have material specifically dealing with it otherwise what you would be doing is primary research and subject to wiki synth, you would be hypothesizing about the nature and intent behind the comment which is why insults shouldn't be used they have no immediate context. Some comments are so outlandish they cant be rationalized if taken literally like this one.Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
No one has suggested taking the comment literally. In fact, I and others have advocated against taking it literally as the article currently presents it. Rather, the comment should be presented in proper context. And it should be included, for encyclopedic completeness, because it is a well-known, well-documented judgment levied on Muhammad by one of the most influential persons in the history of Christianity. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. This person, "one of the most influential [...] in the history of Christianity" also wrote the following in his 1543 On the Jews and Their Lies:

Ein solch verzweifeltes, durchböstes, durchgiftetes, durchteufeltes Ding ist’s um diese Juden, so diese 1400 Jahre unsere Plage, Pestilenz und alles Unglück gewesen sind und noch sind. Summa, wir haben rechte Teufel an ihnen. Wenn ich könnte, wo würde ich ihn [den Juden] niederstrecken und in meinem Zorn mit dem Schwert durchbohren. Jawohl, sie halten uns [Christen] in unserem eigenen Land gefangen, sie lassen uns arbeiten in Nasenschweiß, Geld und Gut gewinnen, sitzen sie dieweil hinter dem Ofen, faulenzen, pompen und braten Birnen, fressen, sauffen, leben sanft und wohl von unserm erarbeiteten Gut, haben uns und unsere Güter gefangen durch ihren verfluchten Wucher, spotten dazu und speien uns an, das wir arbeiten und sie faule Juncker lassen sein … sind also unsere Herren, wir ihre Knechte.

It is such a desperate, thoroughly wicked, poisoned and devilish thing about these Jews, who for these 1400 years have been and still are our plague, pestilence and all misfortune. In sum, we have real devils in them. If I could, I would fell him [the Jew] and pierce him with my sword. Yes, they keep us [Christians] captive in our own country, they let us work in the sweat of our noses, [let us] earn money and goods, while they are sitting behind the hearth, idling, flaunting and baking pears, eating, quaffing, living smoothly and well off our gathered wealth, keeping us and our goods captive through their cursed extortion, taunting with all that and spitting at us, that we work and let them be idle squires ... so [they] are our lords, we their servants.

This was followed by a 7-point program for dealing with the "problem" (1: burn the synagogues, 2: destroy their homes, 3: destroy their writings, 4: death penalty for rabbis ...) that was later taken up by the Nazis with explicit reference to him.
Was that also "criticism"? Luther is well known among German Protestants as a source for the most absurd quotations regarding almost every topic. (One of the most popular is an 18th century invention, though: "Why don't you belch and fart? Did you not like the food?") You will need better arguments to include him in this article, especially with any kind of weight beyond a mention as slightly related trivia. Hans Adler 18:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see how any of that is relevant here.
Perhaps you should try reading this: http://www2.luthersem.edu/Word&World/Archives/16-2_Islam/16-2_Boyce-Henrich.pdf - a very readable translation of more of Martin Luther's writings, which reveal his motivation for his views against Jews, Muhammad, and the pope: that basically, they fail to recognize Jesus as Christians do, and instead turn away, and turn others away, by recognizing some other authority. To many devout Christians, even today, that qualifies as "evil".
I have quoted the dictionary definition many times already. Criticism is the act of passing judgment as to the merits of something. Whether you like it or not, the fact remains that Martin Luther is an influential figure in Christianity. It so happens that Luther's views of Muhammad pervade much of his writing. Luther's view of Muhammad is one basis for the primary argument he made in his lifetime, to criticize the Pope to justify a split from the Catholic church. it isn't merely an "absurd quotation regarding any topic" as you suggest. It serves no encyclopedic purpose to omit his views. It also serves no purpose to include is views without the proper context. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, let's continue this discussion once someone has returned the material with what you consider the proper context. Meanwhile, here is a quotation from your reference: "Luther was a person of his time, and his language expresses the roughness of the age. It is not helpful to point out that most commentators of his time were far less informed and much more diatribal than Luther. It is better to remind ourselves that here we have an aspect of the “burdensome past” which calls us to penitence and apology." In other words, what Luther said about Muhammad tells us a lot about Luther and his environment, and very little about Muhammad. Luther was not qualified at all to pass "judgment as to the merits of" Muhammad, and apparently that's not what he did. He used him as a template to express unrelated and tangentially related thoughts. Hans Adler 22:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
It's becoming increasingly clear this quote is more trouble than its worth and would require an entire section on its own just to contextualize it [if possible] and it isn't even relevant to Muhammad the individual unless he was claiming his mother was the wife of Satan.Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 04:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I am sure he would have said that as well if he had thought of it. Some people are just not able to say "I don't like you". They feel that they have to say something like "I think you are a thoroughly bad person, an incarnation of Satan, and the sun of a myopic skunk and a lame platypus." Martin Luther and Geert Wilders, and possibly a few others quoted in this article, fall into that category. Everything they say must be taken with a few full salt shakers and will only very rarely be criticism in our technical sense of the word. Hans Adler 14:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Ibn kathir: That was clear to me from the beginning. If it is only becoming increasingly clear to others now, I apologize for my underlying assumption in my previous comments that others understood this as well. Requiring a separate section isn't a reason to remove the entry. I was hoping we could collaborate on creating one.
Hans Adler: I think it's more accurate to characterize Martin Luther and Geert Wilders as being unable to say "I fear you." Try viewing Wilder's film sometime, which goes into depth on his criticisms. Fear, it seems from my studies, is at the root of these statements. What Yoda said seems true: "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate...." ~Amatulić (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Thats giving undue space to an insult that isnt intended as a serious critisism and relates to Muhammad the indaviduals actions or merits, even if taken in the general context of the times and culture he was living in its more directed at Islam and muslims in general and you could say he didnt now how to say Islam or muslims or turks out of the fear that was clouding his judgment. You would in reality be hypothesising about what he was referring to in muhammad the indavidual and turning this into a history page to justify or prove this point rather than maintaning a page of serious critisisms dealing with real issues more specific to Muhammad.In the end this isnt a page about Luther or anyone else listed on this page so it isnt a place to come and learn about them. Iβn Kᾱτhir (τᾱℓк) 22:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Ibk kathir, once again, please stop characterizing criticisms as insults as if they were two separate things. It's engaging in original research to conclude that "he didn't know how to say Islam or Muslims or Turks". The fact is, Martin Luther wrote disparagingly about Muhammad, specifically, in much of is writings. You are correct, this isn't a page about Martin Luther. It's a page about criticisms of Muhammad. And Martin Luther certainly did his part criticising him. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
No, he did not criticise Luther in our technical sense of the word. And it does not take original research to see this any more than to see that we don't have to take seriously any reliable sources that claim Santa Claus to be real. It's becoming more and more obvious that you hope to force this stuff into the article because you are attached to the idea that Muhammad might be a relative of the devil, or maybe just to the idea what Muslims think when they come here and read such nonsense as if it was something to be taken seriously. Poking fun at religion, even specific religions, is fine as far as I am concerned. But it must be done intelligently and with taste. Hans Adler 23:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
"Technical sense"? In the technical sense of the word (see any dictionary), Martin Luther's commments constitute criticism. Didn't anybody even read the source I presented (and which you quoted) above? He makes disparaging remarks about Muhammad, and he explains his reasoning for them. That is criticism any way you look at it.
I completely disagree with you that it's fine to poke fun at Islam or Muhammad in this article. I do agree that we must include Martin Luther's criticism intelligently and with good taste. I would advocate omitting Luther's specific comment about "first born child of Satan" and simply have the article say something like "On multiple occasions, Martin Luther wrote disparagingly of Muhammad. At the time, the thrust of his argument was to justify establishing a Christian religion divorced from Catholicism, and make the Pope seem as evil as possible. One way to buttress his argument was to leverage prevailing European views about Muhammad, combined with Luther's own view that any religious leader who emphasizes anything other than following Jesus Christ is evil, to show that the Pope is at least as evil." This is off the top of my head and would need to be reworded properly. 23:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
All our "Criticism of" articles can exist only because they are supposed to use the term exclusively in the sense of the second or third definition in in this online dictionary, for example, and not the first. An article that is about the first type of criticism is a POV fork, which is explicitly not allowed. See the policy section WP:NPOV#Point of view forks: "A point of view fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted in Wikipedia." Your proposed text has everything to do with Martin Luther and has nothing at all to do with Muhammad. It has no business in this article because it is completely and utterly off-topic unless you regard this article as a dumping ground for everything negative that has ever been said about Muhammad. Hans Adler 18:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
And this of course is all against wiki guidelines of what a Criticism page should be, It has to discuss Both negative and positive aspects of an issue being raised and you cant do that if an insult has no context what so ever. Mentioning something bad and then mentioning something good in an unrelated manner does not equate to balancing a criticism page....Amatulic I will stop characterizing criticisms as insults if they are two separate things [didn't you argue earlier they where the same]. if you don't mind stop characterizing Insults as criticisms specifically. If "you" believe insults come under criticism then their are different types of criticism and this one is classified as an insult. This page is about presenting serious criticism not serious insults. Iβn Kᾱτhir τᾱℓк 08:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Ibn kathir, there is no guideline requiring both positive and negative aspects of an issue. We do have guidelines about sources, point of view, and weight. If you can't find any positive criticism, then there is no need to give the positive any equal weight.
Furthermore, for a criticism to be an insult, one must look at the intent and motivation. Martin Luther's objective wasn't to insult Muslims. Anyone can see that just by reading his writings. He wasn't even addressing Muslims in any of his writing. He was addressing Christians to make a point. As I said before, criticism is the passing of judgment on merits. You made up the requirement that criticism requires argument and reasoning — and Martin Luther provides that also in his writings, so his "insults" as you call them, qualify as criticism by your own personal definition. A notable individual, who authored notable writings that have been the subject of many secondary sources, who made extensive comments about Muhammad and explained them from his point of view, certainly merits inclusion. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
There is an entire policy section and a full content guideline for the single purpose of forbidding precisely the kind of article that you are obviously trying to defend here. See WP:NPOV#Point of view forks (the first paragraph of which I quoted above, in bold) and WP:POVFORK. If an article collecting random negative "criticism" of Muhammad with no connection to the actual historical person's faults or merits is not covered by that proscription, then, pray tell, what kind of article is covered by it? Do you want me to start a section at a noticeboard to get more input? Hans Adler 18:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a simile can clarify some issues if people aren't to entrenched in there views. In another page i came up against this wall,

  • "creationism is a fringe theory" by consensus and according to wiki policy. [this is the simile to Mr Luther's statements]

Implying God is a fringe theory and shouldn't be given undue weight and relegated to obscurity in Wikipedia.

Then you actually read what the consensus says,

  • Perspectives which advocate non-scientific or pseudoscientific religious claims intended to directly confront scientific discoveries should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis, with acknowledgment of how the most reliable sources consider the subjects. For example, creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced research — denialist histories, for example — should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic. [this is the simile of a reasoned criticism]

Basically, it isn't simply labeled a fringe theory and ignored it is evaluated on a case by case basis for it's relevance and weight in each specific topic and cant go up directly against science in a science specific page. Martin Luther's insults [labels if you like] are the short unreasoned assertions against muhammad and not the reasoned out argument which clearly explains the thought of the individual. if Luther wrote against Islam and muhammad then Quote that and not this unreasoned assertion which doesn't allow for balance or education [the aim of an encyclopedia]. Iβn Kᾱτhir τᾱℓк 07:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I provided sources that show Luther explaining his views. It seems I am the only one who read them. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I can only guess that you are primarily referring to the source which says at the beginning: "As was the case with most issues he was called upon to address, Luther’s remarks on Islam were extensive. Still his writings about “the Turks” or the “religion of Muhammad,” as he regularly puts it, reveal a rather limited perspective. That limited knowledge was in turn stretched by constant political and social pressures on him to respond pastorally and theologically [...] It was this continuing threat that accounted for the fact that much of Luther’s knowledge of Muslim religion and customs came primarily from secondhand reports about the Turkish enemies."
This is an article about Muhammad. The material you want to include is relevant to Luther. Muhammad is not the kind of person whose article needs a trivia section that lists all mentions in the popular and other media. Low-quality criticism and pseudo-criticism with no relation to the actual person just doesn't belong here any more than we should. Surely the point that Islam isn't actually Christianity and that Christians aren't happy about Jesus playing only a minor role in it has been made by people with better qualifications for speaking about Muhammad. Hans Adler 23:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This is an article on criticism of Muhammad. I was referring to this source: http://www2.luthersem.edu/Word&World/Archives/16-2_Islam/16-2_Boyce-Henrich.pdf -- particularly Luther's own words that begin a bit over halfway into the document. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

On Ali Sina / Faith Freedom International

More than a trivial mention of Ali Sina ex-Muslim and his organization Faith Freedom International; discussed/commented 3 or 4 times in the book's foreward: Kim Ezra Shienbaum (2006). Beyond jihad: critical voices from inside Islam. Academica Press,LLC. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Other sources can be found in the Wikipedia articles on each subject. The organization focuses more on Islam itself than Muhammad in particular, however, so perhaps the criticisms are more appropriate in Criticism of Islam rather than here. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your last sentence Amatulic. Planuu (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, Ali Sina/FFI's primary focus is criticism of Islam rather than Mohammad so it's more appropriate to that specific article than this one. Doc Tropics 00:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

question about the reverts caused by sock puppets and questioning the reliability of criticism

There was an entry regarding the fact that Muhammad did not prevent his fellows from committing rape with captured women.

"but yet neither they nor the prophet seemed at all troubled about the more important question concerning what was, essentially, rape. These women had suffered the trauma of seeing their fathers and brothers murdered, their homes vandalized and perhaps burned to the ground, and they themselves were taken as captives. It just doesn't seem to be the right setting for a 'consensual relationship'"

The link was given to [[16]], a book that is written by a notable author Robert_Spencer_(author) who has an article on wikipedia. Why such a reference is called unreliable and blanked by sock puppets?

When an author is notable, his work primary source can be taken as a reference. Again, the reference is showing that a critic has said so. It does not mean it is showing the truth. Also other authors like Taslima Nasreen and Parvin Darabi are notable enough. When a user reinvents criticism it simply sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT here. --Fancy.kira (talk) 09:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Your edit here was rather disingenuous. If you've seen my block log, then you've also seen that it was a mistaken block. You also omitted the fact that you undid Al-Andalusi's edits. In fact you've been reinserting the work of a sockpuppet. At least three editors agree that we need secondary, and not primary sources, on the criticism. Perhaps you'd like to address those concerns. Planuu (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree that Fancy.kira's revert seems inappropriate. Bold,Revert,Discuss is worth reading - it is time to discuss. Please, discuss, in detail, line by line preferably. We can get consensus for a good article. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Planuu's old revision of his talk page shows him as a sock puppet. old revision here Can Planuu justify his grounds? I would vouch for Fancy.kira --Thaimoon (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC) — Thaimoon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The vouching of a single purpose account means nothing. I disagree with Planuu here, but as an established editor and an admin I can vouch for Planuu, who started out as an IP address and eventually created an account. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Well of course you're going to "vouch" for kira, Lanternix. After all, she's supporting the edits you made with your other account. Thank you, Amatulic. Planuu (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree with all of Fancy.kira's changes, but the Spencer quote seems very useful as an explanation of general events and important context for specific criticisms. I'd suggest we find a way to include it. Doc Tropics 18:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Spencer is notable but not reliable to be quoted directly from his books, please see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 5#Consensus. -Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Can that be used as a criteria for other indaviduals and Quotes on this page , for example Ali Sina whose only barely notable and hardley reliable. Iβn Kᾱτhir (τᾱℓк) 22:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Of course. The consensus there was 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 should not be given undue space (except on his own article). Still if there are secondary sources that quote him, we let him stay. All of that would apply to any source including Ali Sina. Ali Sina, however, has been quoted in secondary sources. Whether he deserves mention in this article is something that consensus seems to be against; he's more appropriate to mention in Criticism of Islam. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Do secondary sources establish his reliability or notability, because he isn't reliable and i am not questioning his notability. Iβn Kᾱτhir τᾱℓк 09:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Pictorial representation

would request you to plz remove the 3 pictures at the start of the page as those are very derogative and offensive. The article is just a criticism and people are free to share their ideas. The criticism would definitely not change either the image of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) nor do any harm to him or his believers. Both respect and disregard is given by Allah. Allah gives respect to those he want and gives disregard to those he want. No one has any power to do any harm to anybody. The pictures representing the Prophet of the 2nd largest religion in the world as being burned in hell should not be put up in such open manner. This would not only harm the reputation of this page as a neutral channel but also keep away a good chunk of people away from this web site. I believe that picture is here just to hurt the sentiments of Muslims and nothing else. If someone drew a fresco with an objectional content why show it to the whole world. That was the persons choice and i am sure he would get his due on the day of judgement. --Tausique (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think the first three pictures should be removed as off-topic. They are not illustrating criticism of Muhammad, they are illustrating Muhammad's reception in Europe. It's the same problem as with Luther's opinion (discussed above). The fourth picture appears to illustrate something that Muhammad actually did and is criticised for, so it would seem to be appropriate. Hans Adler 22:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
It isn't the same problem as with Martin Luther. I agree that the second and third pictures are unnecessary, along with Dante's views — those are simply depictions of Muhammad, not criticism. The first one, however, is intimately connected to early Christian criticism of Islam. I advocate keeping it. Bahira's views were considered heretical and were regarded (incorrectly) as an inspiration for the Qur'an. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the relevance of the first, their is nothing in the description giving it context. this passage is not accurate;
  • Ibn Ishaq writes that Muhammad approved the beheading of some 600-900 individuals from the Banu Qurayza who surrendered unconditionally after a siege that lasted several weeks.[31]
Ibn ishaq didn't write anything, he collected accounts of events for the sake of cataloging them [which was the case with many Muslim historians such as Tabari] and did not comment on the authenticity of his accounts or that he even believed them. this was exactly the practice of al Tabari who's own work would seem to contradict itself due to varying accounts of a single event and he never indicated which he gave preference to or what his personnel opinion was, as i said Muslim historians collected these narrations to catalog them they did not write histories in the western sense and the only thing they would do was to organize and them chronologically. In fact Tabari was criticized by western scholars for this very fact because they couldn't understand why he had conflicting accounts, Ibn ishaq could have very well known the weakness in the narration [it only had one source the Muslim descendants of the jews, why would you tell your children you where guilty of anything so its unsubstantiated and incomplete in its account of event i.e one sided, from the loosing side] and still cataloged it. Iβn Kᾱτhir τᾱℓк 06:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Tausique, they don't believe in morality or wisdom on wiki so even if you are right it wont change anything. To be objective and neutral they believe there is no such thing as right or wrong even though its a ridiculous proposition in reality. Iβn Kᾱτhir τᾱℓк 06:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not accurate. I'm sure most editors believe there is right and wrong, morality and wisdom, but this is an encyclopedia. It must be neutral and report EVERY notable thing without judgment. The goal here is to document the sum total of human knowledge, and to do that we must necessarily also document subjects that are wrong, immoral, unwise, untrue, nonsense, offensive, etc.. That's our job, and we are required to keep our personal opinions from censoring content. What we believe privately is fine, but Wikipedia is not our conscience. Our conscience is something we must privately guard, nurture and educate, but this is an encyclopedia. Just as we have no right to force our opinions on others or harm them for not agreeing with us, we also have no right to allow our own beliefs to influence our editorial judgment. Keep in mind that NPOV does not refer to content here, but to an editorially neutral attitude. Do you agree? -- Brangifer (talk) 07:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
that's fine in isolation and theory but I'm critisisng the way in which this is carried out in reality and essentially the end result in many cases and that is a page that promotes immorality [by all standards but the perverse i.e those who have no sense of it] in the name of neutrality and objectivity which is something different from peoples own personnel preferences. Censorship and wisdom are two different things when reasoned out and understood. Iβn Kᾱτhir τᾱℓк 08:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
And what justification do you give for showing the picture with Prophet Mohammed(PBUH)being depicted as being burned in hell. How can you even say that in the fresco it is depicted. Does the fresco come with a footnote. I believe it is nothing but your own imagination no fresco ever comes with any tag or footnote. Just because someone started an article does not mean he can put in anything he wants. As i said earlier i dont have problems with criticism but pictoral depiction and that too a non authentic one should not be put up.Who ever has started this article is requested to plz remove the pictures.Tausique (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
You both misunderstand me. I understand your feelings and sympathize with them. This is a painful matter for you. Understood! I am not defending any particular picture or the way it may or may not be used here. I have had nothing to do with this matter and haven't even looked at the pictures. That is unnecessary when discussing policy. If the inclusion of the pictures is being done improperly, then I wish you well.
I just feel you're using the wrong arguments, ones which are asking us to violate our policies and undermine the main purpose of Wikipedia. I am explaining our policies and the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not to be used to censor information (words, ideas, images, etc.) and it must present all notable information, well-knowing that it is bound to offend someone's sensibilities. Notability is established by reliable sources. Content within articles is determined partially by editorial judgment, but censorship is not allowed here, regardless of feelings, moral issues, truth or falsity, etc.. I'm well aware that showing pictures of Muhammad is offensive to Muslims and I sympathize with your feelings. They are very understandable, just as many articles and images here are considered extremely offensive to Jews and Christians. It hurts their feelings too, but you don't see them making the same types of objections, at least not to the degree which Muslims object.
That's likely because most of them live in open societies, countries where freedom of expression and freedom of speech is mandated by law and custom. Those freedoms are enjoyed (and exploited) by the Muslims who live in those countries. Those societies believe that we all should live together on this planet in peace, and that means we must allow each other the freedoms we wish for ourselves. It's called The Golden Rule. That means that the rights one denies another are rights one is denying for oneself. If you think another should not be allowed to express themselves, then the same reasoning will be applied to you and you will not be allowed to express that which you wish to say. That's not a very pleasant society to live in. We have to allow each other freedom and learn to be adults by controlling our own feelings. It is not their offensive actions that are the problem. It is our own reaction to what they say or do that can be the problem. Becoming offended is the problem. It's a sign of weakness and immaturity.
Wikipedia doesn't make exceptions for ANY religion. Wikipedia won't change its policies on that point.
@ Ibn kathir, I asked you above if you agree (with my comment above this one). You have not answered that question and I'd appreciate a reply. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
i do not understand as to why you are not getting the point. The picture shown there is an offensive one and again i would ask the same question as to how do you know that the fresco is of Prophet being tortured. Is it in the footnote? As far as i know frescos do not come with any notation or foornotes. I live in a free country and society where freedom of speech and action is permitted and it is better then your country however i do not go about insulting others and that too a Prophet and neither of my people does it. You would never see a Muslim saying anything wrong about any person or religion. We only say and do things to defend ourself and to maintain our dignity. Freedom of speech should be practiced however who gives you the right to disrespect anyone. Society cannot dwell if we do not respect each others feelings and sentiments. What you show here is something to disgrace The Prophet and is irrelevent to this post. The article would still be valid even without the picture then why not remove it. If you think you can justify the picture then i am sorry you will not be able to. Tausique (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
No, it is you who are not getting the point. The fact that something is offensive to someone is no reason to remove it. Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for further information. I suggest you read it all before commenting further. Images of historical significance will be retained regardless of any Islamic desire to censor them. In any case, I have removed two of the images just now, as we seem to have a consensus that those, at least, are unnecessary. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Amatulić's removal of the 2nd and 3rd pictures, for the reasons given. I will add that I support removal of the remaining picture (it was the first one), as it doesn't illustrate or explain the text to which it is tied. If it didn't mention the monk in its caption, I'd have no idea why it was included in the article. I can't even tell who is supposed to be whom in the drawing. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I tried to modify the caption to explain that picture's significance to criticism of Muhammad. That picture shouldn't cause offense either. If you click on the picture you'll see a full description, but such a description doesn't really fit with the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank You Tausique (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Amatulić, thank you for your edit. I almost hate to ask - is there a WP:RS that can be referenced for this sentence? "In early Christian criticism, Bahira was a heretical monk whose errant views inspired the Qur'an." JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I didn't check. I got that line from the article about Bahira. That article references one source for the whole paragraph: http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx ~Amatulić (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Checking the link, I have two questions (and pardon me if they've been covered before):
  • Is the website for The Othordox Christian Information Center (whatever that is) really a reliable secondary source?
  • Assuming it is, its reference on this topic is not definitive: "This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, [101]... 101. This may be the Nestorian monk Bahira (George or Sergius) who met the boy Mohammed at Bostra in Syria and claimed to recognize in him the sign of a prophet." emphasis added.
In the interim, I think the text you added to the caption would be more neutral and better supported by the references if it:
  • Was reworded slightly to say "In early Christian criticism, it was claimed that Bahira was a heretical monk whose errant views inspired the Qur'an."
  • The reference to The Othordox Christian Information Center be added to that sentence.
Thanks again, JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The opening paragraph of that external link should answer your question. It says it's a translation of another source. I agree with the edit you made to the caption. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, as I made the edit, it did seem I answered my own question. Thanks again. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
can the caption that reads
  • Ibn Ishaq writes that Muhammad approved the beheading of some 600-900 individuals from the
be changed to
  • Ibn Ishaq collected a narration that says that Muhammad approved the beheading of some 600-900 individuals from the

Ibn Ishq didn't write a history he collected narrations, these are two different things if you have ever studied this, one assumes Ibn Ishaqs personnel opinion which hasnt been established while the second phrasing is exact in its description.

BullRangifer, i did reply to your comments look directly after them. The means do not justify the ends. Iβn Kᾱτhir τᾱℓк 08:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Ibn, thanks for pointing it out. What do you mean by "a page that promotes immorality"? Where is a page "promoting" it? -- Brangifer (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Ibn kathir, I made the change as suggested, but you are free to do so as well. I think this qualifies as a non-controversial change. By the way, I don't know if it was intentional, but you reversed the aphorism about ends and means. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
yes i did intend it, he was describing nobles means by which the end wasn't so noble and justifying it because of this intention at the end of which he made the statement wiki isn't censored referring to his understanding that a standard of morality is intentionally being ignored for other reasons than there benefits and harms.

"a page that promotes immorality"....i was speaking in the general sense and this is one such page that promotes hate due to its original content, its fake synthesis which gave the impression of legitimacy and historicity and over all the manner in which these quotes are presented with no balance or neutrality that also give the impression the whole world was against Muhammad from the middle ages until today. that occurs when the entire content of the page is insults [and not one or two quotes that enrich a page as is the intention behind wiki allowing such material], defamatory statements rather than reasoned out serious criticism dealing with real issues that enrich the reader by the thoughts they are sharing whether right or wrong. Iβn Kᾱτhir τᾱℓк 10:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_Muhammad/Archive_4&oldid=1087723517"