Talk:Criticism of Muhammad/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Where are we At

talks have stalled it seems so where are we at.

I think that any material which isn't a direct and clear criticism be removed. Iβn Kᾱτhir ^τᾱℓк 09:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, welcome back. I don't think anything stalled; we all just needed a break.

In principle I agree. Where we disagree is what constitutes direct and clear criticism. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

To start this page isnt The history of Criticism of Muhammad so the article needs to undergo that transformation, the entire structre is wrong, i think once that has been done it would be eisier to identify what can stay as much of the material pampers to that history notion [which is why it isnt of any notacible quality] rather than concentrating on the critisism itself. Once the categories are redefined than most of these quoes wont have a place as the headings are confusing when you keep in mind it is ment to discuss critical issues and not be a history lesson. Iβn Kᾱτhir ^τᾱℓк 22:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you care to propose a structure here, or create a draft in your userspace for others to consider? ~Amatulić (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism by Source i think is the most effective method, it is the structure of the critisism of jesus and moses pages. Iβn Kᾱτhir ^τᾱℓк 06:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

We've come a long way in removing some persistent trash from this article, though I agree it can still use improvement. Organizing the article using criticism by source will allow us to remain consistent with the other articles. Planuu (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I know of no requirement to be consistent with other articles whose structure is also questionable. A structure that works in one article won't necessarily work in another. Criticism by source wouldn't be best in this case, because some criticisms (such as the one regarding Aisha's age) are leveled by many different sources. It would seem rather monotonously repetitive to have a section for each one. This article should be about criticism, after all, not about critics. We could rename the article to Critics of Muhammad I suppose. But as an article about criticism, it seems best to organize the article around specific criticisms. Right now it's kind of a hodge-podge, with sections about sources and sections about criticism. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Spellburg is the only one mentioned in that section worth keeping, rather than repeat the criticism over and over again you keep the one by the most notable and most qualified to comment on the issue, the quality of the article will improve in that manner as well, i think that is why the criticism of Jesus and Moses pages are of a higher quality. Iβn Kᾱτhir ^τᾱℓк 07:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It almost sounds like you're trying to censor the article, which is not how it's done here. The articles on Jesus and Moses are irrelevant to this article. The criticism of Muhammad have been more or less centred around his dubious activities, not his historical truths and that's why the article on Jesus and Moses are more reflective of truth and such I suppose.. Jesus and Moses were more historical characters, not bloodthirsty warlords like Muhammad was! --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal opinions however have no place ;-) Were does Criticism come from if not from Critics? Find the most collective critisicm, such as the Muslim Conquest, his Marriage to Ashia Ect. Trivial Criticise by one or two critics are not important enough, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Τασουλα (talk • contribs) 16:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the no repetition structure. I would rather see one section per criticism. Moreover, some of the material that doesn't fit this new structure should probably be moved to Medieval Christian views on Muhammad. Wiqixtalk 16:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Where talking about structure of the article not your personnel opinion of the prophet muhammad, keep the insults to your self or learn history from scholars not tabloid websites. Iβn Kᾱτhir ^τᾱℓк 21:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of Danish cartoon which resulted death threats

How about including the Danish cartoons of Muhammad which brought death threats to the cartoonist? [:File:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png] --Freespeech2008 (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No, for obvious reasons. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not, they were criticism of Muhammad. They're pretty relevant. Abyssal (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

They were depictions of Muhammad. The pictures constituted editorial opinions and parody, not quite the same thing as criticism. We already have an article on that topic. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal Of Hate Filled Image

I removed the image in which it was shown that our beloved prophet is being tortured in hell,it is an image which hurts my feelings,I dont care if it is a fresco or a view of what europeans think of our prophet but the truth is no one except god can decide who goes to hell so stop putting such images that hurt other peoples feelings and learn to live in peace,stop creating conflict,the views of people regarding our prophet make no difference to us,we forgive them as they have not read the quran and are ignorant about the greatness of our divine prophet,we forgive them for those comments and that image,blessed be they who hurt the divine thinking they can gain something by it.Muzammil901 (talk) 07:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCENSORED. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It was the wrong justification for the right edit. This article is supposed to be for criticism of Muhammad, not for the western world's conceptions of Muhammad. I am beginning to think that we need to draw the attention of the wider community to the article. (PS: I left a note at WT:WikiProject Religion/Interfaith work group) I see the following options for what this article could be about:

1. Honest criticism of Muhammad as a person and/or of his status in Islam. (Excluding mere abuse and other baseless negativity.)
2. Views on Muhammad in the western world. (Including the large amount of positive views.)
3. Everything negative that we can find about Muhammad.

The article seems to have started as type 3, while pretending to be of type 1. This is how it escapes deletion as a POV fork of Muhammad. The image is not appropriate in an article of type 1, just like this image (depicting an actual piece of art by Martin Kippenberger) would not be appropriate in the article Criticism of Jesus. Hans Adler 10:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hans, your comments, above, are spot-on. I'd like to see it be of type 1 (and I think Criticism of Jesus is a good example), but it is of type 3. What can be done? JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

<sarcasm>I note that the problems here would probably be resolved rather quickly if believing Muslims were capable of the same negative approach to Christianity that the Christian and atheist majority here is taking to Islam, and if they were editing Criticism of Jesus accordingly. This does not happen because Islam recognises Jesus as a prophet. If it did happen, it would force the community to apply the same standards to both articles. Maybe I should ask the Hindus for help with Criticism of Jesus.</sarcasm> Hans Adler 10:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism and suggestion

I've just read the article (as a casual reader) and my first impression is that it still needs some work (but I suspect that was already evident to those who've already posted above). My main criticism is the structure of the article but I'll get to that shortly.

First of all, though, I've noticed here and at Muhammad, that there is little, if any, mention of the possibility that Muhammad may not even have existed. I seem to recall reading some notable author (possibly Ibn Warraq or someone of that cut) who called Muhammad's very existence into question. Consequently, I was surprised not to find anything here about it. And even if my memory is faulty, I'm still confident that someone somewhere would have questioned the historicity of someone who apparently lived so long ago and about whom so little reliable evidence seems to exist.

Secondly, I note that Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq et al are included in a sidebox but why aren't more (if any) of their arguments included in-text? Instead, we start off with Jewish and Christian views (which is reasonable) but then get bogged down in namecalling.

And why non-religious views is subheaded under the bizarre title of "Personal motives" (What the...?) is beyond this reader's understanding. Which brings me back to my main point: I'd like to propose a new layout for this article, which I've outlined below.

1 Perspectives

1.1 Contemporary criticisms

Perspectives of those people and cultures who lived in the region and were directly affected by Muhammad's actions

1.2 Jewish criticisms

Past to present

1.3 Christian criticisms

Past to present

1.4 Criticisms by other cultures

Perspectives, if any, of Hindu, Chinese, African cultures

1.5 Modern criticism

Modern critics who don't best fall into any of the previous categories. They could be subheaded if necessary.

2 Points of contention

As is, but including a section on Muhammad's historicity (sources permitting)

Let me know what you all think. Thanks. -- LordVetinari (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The historicity of Muhammad appears off-topic to me, and is already covered by Historicity of Muhammad. And I am not sure that I agree with your proposed structure -- or that I don't. Hans Adler 16:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's arguable whether it is off-topic but, regardless, don't you think there should at least be a more obvious link to Historicity of Muhammad? Perhaps just a sentence mentioning historicity which links to the main article. I had no idea the Historicity of Muhammad article existed until you mentioned it. Not surprising because the only link to it in this article is hidden away in a tiny sidebox being smothered beside the main body of text. As for my proposed structure, I'm not going to push for it's acceptance; I'm just presenting the structure that I, independent of both this topic and it's editing, would have expected to find. LordVetinari (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

As I stated in a previous section above, I like a structure framed around criticism rather than around critics. The problem is that it may have too many sections, risking repetition of criticism that spans multiple time periods and cultures. I'd prefer to see an article that covers the major criticisms (slavery, laws, women, underage marriage, religious criticisms, etc.) rather than criticism organized by time period and culture. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

LordVetinari, thanks for providing such useful and coherent suggestions, your effort is appreciated! That being said, I tend to agree with Amatulić that a structure based on individual topics would probably be a more efficient presentation simply in terms of reducing duplication. Still, anything that leads to an improvement in the article is worth considering. Doc Tropics 22:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you DocTropics. Although I understand both Amatulic's point of view (criticism not critics) and your own (efficiency), I'd like to elaborate on mine as my views have sightly changed and, also, I don't think my original concern was presented clearly. I think I agree with Amatulic's suggestion as outlined on 25th of March. We need to keep in mind, though, that some criticisms have been official or popular views within certain cultures. Therefore, it needs to be emphasised that some of the individuals cited are not presenting their own personal criticism but simply giving good expression to the views of their community. I'm happy to see Amatulic's structure come to fruition as it makes sense, avoids repetition and is efficient. However, we need to avoid falling into the trap of giving, for want of a better term, "equal weight" to St John of Thingburg (895-943 AD), on the one hand, and Dr Jennifer Something (1958-) on the other. Where the former elucidates prevailing community opinion the latter offers a structured analysis following the dictates of modern criticism under a scientific methodology.

My concern is based on the fact that, under the section labelled Contemporary Western criticisms, the first significant sentence describes the two-word opinion of Jerry Falwell. Seriously?! Granted, he's contemporary (if only to modern readers), he's western (in a west-east sociological dichotomy) and he's critical (if you equate name-calling with criticism), but why is he included in this section? Why is he included at all? The same section sees the well-written views of Ayaan Hirsi Ali reduced to as much substance as Falwell's brief rant. I've read both Hirsi Ali and ibn Warraq. Their writings are structured, lucid and intelligent. It needs to be emphasised that they are no in sense in the same class of critic as an evangelical christian and a politician.

What do I suggest, then? Adopt Amatulic's structure but rely primarily on modern critics as their methodology is more structured, their research has more depth and their final opinions are less likely to be hindered by inter-religious rivalry. Pre-modern critics and their modern counterparts (I include here both Luther and Falwell) are hindered culturally and philosophically, making them less reliable as sources. This doesn't mean that all Jewish/Christian critics should be discounted, of course, merely that "more weight" should be given to those who present rational and structured criticisms.

LordVetinari (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

We should probably also add a section; something like "Responses to Criticism" to include and expand on info in the second paragraph of the lede. Currently the info is sourced and relevant, but doesn't seem to appear in the body (although I may have missed it). Doc Tropics 22:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Isolating the responses in a separate section breaks NPOV for the same reason that isolating criticism in a separate criticism section breaks NPOV. Responses belong near whatever it is they are responding to. Hans Adler 22:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about those responses, just to the text in the second paragraph. The info I mentioned doesn't seem to be covered elsewhere, that's why I'm suggesting a new section. These are not responses to individual criticisms, but actions against critics in response to their statements...separate topic. Doc Tropics 23:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Our Religion Is The Religion Of Abraham

We Muslims have been told by the Quran that if anyone asks us about our religion,we are to tell them that our religion is the religion of Abraham who was never an Idol Worshipper.

Worship of anthropologic objects and having excessive love for anthropologic objects like idols and human beings is indeed a sin against the god who created us because the life given to us is a test and just like god sends water in the form of rain to revive dead lands and create crops,so also human beings will be resurrected by will of god,the god of Abraham,the god of Isaac,and Ishmael,and Moses,Jesus and finally Muhammad(s.a.w),the last and greatest of the prophets,all had one message,"Your god,our lord is One".

I really feel this is one of the best articles on Wikipedia though the inflammatory content of this article needs to be reduced as it is counter productive,you call Muhammad(s.a.w) a pedophile,my question is this,Joseph married Mary(Maryam in Arabic) when she was 12 and his age at the time is matter of debate some saying its 20,some 40 and some even 90,does that make him a pedophile,the fact is at that time,child marriages were a custom among all people,we Muslims consider Mary to be holy,she is one of the most respected figures in Islam,my question is when we respect your holy figures why cant you have the same respect for Aisha and the prophet,why this name calling and this excessively inflammatory content,who are we to decide the age of consent,it is for the girl and her father or mother who decide it.Please read this:http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htmMuzammil901 (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You do understand that not everyone who isn't a Muslim is a Christian? Badger Drink (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)