Talk:Criticism of Islam/Archive 6

Islamic law - Apostasy
Hi,

I think the information on that tab is absolutely wrong

Apostasy on that article, it divided between man & woman which is wrong because the rules are the same for both of them....

Apostasy for The four Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence doesn't say of apostate killing except he fights the Muslims, The issue is simple, the blood of the Muslim is forbidden for the Muslims so how about a person apostates Even though he is still considered a Muslim, they all agreed if he's only fighting the Muslims then he is considered officially not a Muslim....

So if we're going to put a fact as a headline then we should put it right then we can put the opinions or criticisms about it.... I think to put something as a criticism it should be a reliable thing, it's like to say the chicken gives a birth, it's wrong from the first place....

Check out these links from a reliable English sources from a famous web-site owned by Al-Azhar scholars & supported by the president of the Muslims scholars Union Yusuf ElQaradawy....

in 2007 http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-about-islam/faith-and-worship/islamic-creed/166989.html in 2009 http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-the-scholar/crimes-and-penalties/apostasy/172501.html in 2009 http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-the-scholar/muslim-creed/177956 in 2006 http://www.onislam.net/english/shariah/contemporary-issues/islamic-themes/432346

They all say obviously there's no punishment for apostasy.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elbarck (talk • contribs) 06:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know why no one replied me yet.... I want to explain what I said before if it wasn't explained well.... The issue is simple, put the fact then put your opinions as you want, but to put something wrong as a fact isn't right, you're (wikipedia stuff) the ones who said that the four Sunni schools said so while they didn't also you're the ones (wikipedia stuff) who separated the punishment between men & women not me, I just ask to fix those information nothing more....--elbarck (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) You would need to be able to refute the scholarly sources that are there. They probably can't be removed because they are scholarly (WP:RS). Someone can reply to them.
 * 2) The source you have listed above appears to be WP:POV (to use the shorter term) and not scholarly.Student7 (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

NOT SCHOLARLY WOW.... The whole information on that Apostasy are not scholarly & wrong.... Any kid studying Sharia on his first year would say they're wrong.... My information I put are scholarly %100 & old so no one can say I got a new fatwa about it.... Those fatwas are clear & not from their heads & for many imams who they're scholars of sharia.... If you ask the doctor of you're sick you should ask a scholar of sharia if you want to know about Islam, not asking an editor.... The links titles are even more clear to any one (ask-the-scholar) REALLY WOOOOOOOW on the academic studying--elbarck (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is about criticism of Islam. It isn't about arguing with the cited sources or defending against criticism that some Muslim scholars would claim to be false. These aren't facts we are discussing, but interpretations. The fact remains that we have a reliable source that states the majority view is that female apostates are to be put to death. You have other sources that disagree, but that doesn't mean they represent the majority view.


 * We have an entire article on the subject of Apostasy in Islam. The purpose of the section in this article is to provide a summary of the larger article in the context of criticism of Islam. Where the section here fails to do so, it should be changed, but this article is not the place to go into pro and con arguments. If scholarly sources disagree, then that disagreement should be described in the article apostasy in Islam. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You're repeating the same issue again, I'm not discussing the opinions that called "criticism".... You can discuss the fact but you can't discuss a lie, Wikipedia said the four sunni schools say apostate is killed, if this's an opinion then there's nothing to say about, but this's a lie about a fact, the fact I proved that the four sunni schools say apostate is not killed, I don't how the source there knew that from the first place.... Is he a Muslim at the first place or a muslim like bin laden.... The reliable source I gave are the fact of the majority from Al-Azhar, the main source of teaching Islam in 136 countries.... But lets check the sources you put Are those the reliable sources wikiepedia have, they even have not got an Approval from Al-Azhar or Saudi Arabia :) This's the web-site of Al Azhar of you don't know what's Al Azhar http://www.alazhr.com/ --elbarck (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia of Islam 2003 (Richard C. Martin)
 * Encyclopedia of the Quran Jane (Dammen McAuliffe)


 * Richard Martin isn't even mentioned in the sources. Where do you get that from? I can't comment on the Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an because that work is cited only once and the citation is incomplete.


 * Approval of sources by a university or country is not necessary. And I don't see any disapproval from them either. Approval by a wider academic community matters more. We have an article dedicated to Encyclopaedia of Islam, you can read all about its reputation there. The publisher of both Encyclopaedias (Brill Publishers) is a respected publisher of academic sources.


 * As to the actual reference you seem to be objecting to, it references "Murtadd", an article in the Encyclopaedia of Islam by Heffening that acknowledges that no support for punishment of apostasy can be found in the Qur'an. Nobody is arguing that it does. The claim is that Islamic schools of jurisprudence advocate the death penalty for apostasy. I will admit, however, that the source (see this link) does not explicitly state that the views of the schools of jurisprudence are unanimous on the issue. That source does describe (and cite, see the end of page 736 to the beginning of 737) several Islamic traditions in which the Prophet says to kill anyone who changes their religion; one cannot deny that the death penalty is a fact in some Islamic traditions (and it is certainly a fact in its application in modern times).


 * But you are correct, the claim attributed to the source about the schools of jurisprudence is flawed and should be removed. The apostasy in Islam article offers far more balanced coverage of the various viewpoints, including citing several Hadith that support the death penalty, although that article makes no claim about the schools of jurisprudence as this one does. As I stated earlier, the section on apostasy in this article needs to be cleaned up to summarize the main article.


 * On the other hand, the Murtadd source does describe differences in treatment between female and male apostates (last paragraph of first column of p. 737). The source is rather old, however, and admittedly may not reflect current schools of thought. As a criticism of Islam however, it is valid to point out that females have received different treatment than males, although for this criticism to remain in the article one must find a source actually levying this criticism in the context of apostasy. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

First Thanks for your understanding & your patience :)

Second, I got the name of the editors using Google.... http://www.archive.org/stream/NewEncyclopediaOfIslam/encyclopedia_of_islam_djvu.txt http://www.urirubin.com/Publications.html

The approval of any religious matter related to Islam is taken from Al-Azhar, It's the only source in the world of the four-Sunni schools, It's like the Vatican the only source of Catholic church in the world.... So any academic wants to write about any religious matter has to get approval about his material to avoid the mistakes he did on that article.... Then if he wants to disagree about Al-Azhar opinion he can but can't say it's Islam.... Couple of years ago, when France wanted to ban Niqab (Viel) the french minister of interior visited Al-Azhar and got its approval.... I respect Brill & I read some of its books when I was studying my bachelor but No Muslim on the earth can take his books about Islam as a reliable source as long as it didn't path the approval of Al-Azhar who revise the translation, the sources they used so the information would be right.... http://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2003/12/20084916165259955.html Third, I put examples of some of Al-Azhar opinions about that matter, four links in different four situations & all of them agreed on what I said which means that some how the "reliable source" has something wrong.... In that case what brill missed is what we call "Fiqh or jurisprudence" which means collecting the whole evidences to get a reliable opinion, if he did so he'd know it's a political case at first, It's like the high treason & the punishment according to the dangers the traitor did But if Brill got the approval he would know the philosophy behind it & why so the punishments were nothing or prison or death & that particular hadith of the Prophet (PBUH) to kill anyone who changes their religion was said on a political situation when they discovered that some spies said they're Muslims but they're not so he told the Muslims to kill them so it's not a general Prophet Hadith could be done on any one & the prove of that is the Qura'an Verse which is the main source of the Prophet's Hadith "No forcible in Religion" Brill translated the Hadiths without collecting the evidences behind it.... That doesn't prevent some minorities of radicals to say the opposite like the Pakistani High religious leader....

About the woman punishment, it's said on the same page, it's up to the Imam (Imam in that books means the president nowadays who implements the law because he used to have both legislation & executive authorities) Which proves what i told you before the punishment is politicaly not religious & both man & woman has the same punishment then because the danger in the laws are the same.... I'll try to get you some more English reliable sources....

Third, Thanks again about your understanding & Happy New Year, God Bless You --elbarck (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You may be correct, of course.
 * On the other hand, there are a few religions which have a central "control", a recognized leader: Dalai Lama for Tibetan Buddhists, Pope for Roman Catholics, and several others. There is no central leader for Islam, that I am aware. There may be a recognized school of thought that can be used as a WP:RS. But no single voice for any branch of Islam. Student7 (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Islamophobia categories nominated for deletion
Also, several other Islamophobia categories are encompassed in the nomination. __meco (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Amazing
If you wanna search and find every possible existing lunatic related to a religion or a nation or anything, believe me you will find more.. I am amazed by the heavy work done here to find as much as possible, in order to promote your ideas of hate. Enjoy it more.. regardless how much more work you invest, it will change nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmiegestestor (talk • contribs) 12:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As people have already pointed out, this is an article about criticism of Islam, not Wikipedia criticising Islam. You can pretend that there are no criticisms or you can accept that there are criticisms and that the article covers most of them. It says nothing about the truth or otherwise of these criticisms, merely acknowledges that they exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.188.28 (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Your attempt of delegitimizing the representation of the criticism of islam with leftist buzzwords phrases of "promoting hate" are pathetic to say the least. Wikipedia is neither censored nor under the rule of the ideology of political correctness but supposed to be a neutral source of information.

Ibrahim Al-Buleihi
I believe Ibrahim Al-Buleihi should be mentionend in the article. He holds some interesting views:

''Ibrahim Al-Buleihi: To this day, we are a burden on the West. Even Japan admits that without benefiting from the West, it would not have developed ... In the value, liberties and dignity of human beings, as well as in the development of science, of technology, and of life ... Tyranny is a tremendous obstacle which makes any progress impossible. The West intervened in Japan's affairs as well, and managed to save Japan from tyranny. Today, Japan is considered a model of democracy, of liberties, and of all of the advantages the West has produced.''

''... the situation in Saudi Arabia is sad and shameful, so it is clearly necessary not only to be concerned but to be deeply anxious. I learned early in my life that a dreadful flaw afflicts the lives of others, but at first I did not understand the reasons. My deep anxiety impelled me to study our history and culture in depth in search of the source of the flaw, and also led me to devote attention to the triumphant Western civilization, beginning with Greek philosophical thought, continuing through the political, social, scientific, anthropological and other achievements of the West. I became convinced that Western civilization is exceptional and pioneering, and is not an extension of the previous civilizations: it is civilization par excellence. The excellence of the West lies not in its accomplishments in the sciences, arts and technology, but rather, these accomplishments are the outgrowth of the West's respect for profit, the free system, its liberty, and the establishment of government in the service of the people—the government belongs to the people, and they do not belong to it as like in all other countries of the world. This is a qualitative change, unprecedented in human history, and the source of everything that the human being experiences of the amazing changes in all aspects of life. ''

Sources:

http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=16010.0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_zxuMKP_kqg#! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.49.244.67 (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Film heavily based on Reliable sources not a valid source?
With the possible exception of Abdullah Al-Araby (who appears to be reliable, ex-Muslim, so he knows what he's talking about), the following writers have been vetted by various Wikipedia editors and generally regarded as reliable sources for the subjects they write about: Robert Spencer (author), Serge Trifkovic, Bat Ye'or, Abdullah Al-Araby, and Walid Shoebat. Would someone please explain to me why a film (Islam: What the West Needs to Know) that essentially aggregates what these writers say is somehow "fringe"? -- Frotz(talk) 23:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's reliable enough and a valid source. Brendon is  here  15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no reason by Robert Spencer, Walid Shoebat or Srđa Trifković, who are widely considered to be extremists, should be considered reliable sources.Bless sins (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Who considers Bostrom to be an extremist? He's edited a number of different publications on the subject. Could you provide some evidence for your classification of his position? Note also that just being an extremist isn't inherently a reason for his opinion not to appear on this page, as long as he isn't so extreme as to fall under WP:FRINGE. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've started a section below to discuss the specific issue of Bostom not being a reliable source. Please discuss there.Bless sins (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Women
Shouldn't there be a section on criticisms regarding treatment and rights of women in Islam, given that this is a common topic (e.g. domestic violence, polygyny, divorce laws)? I've added "See also" links to Islam and domestic violence and Islamic feminism for the time being. Forlornturtle (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Bostom is not a reliable source on Islam
Recently content sourced to a book by Andrew Bostom was added to the article. Andrew Bostom is not a reliable source on Islam, and there is past consensus that his book The Legacy of Jihad is also not reliable. If anyone believes that Bostom is a reliable source, the onus is on him/her to prove that (see WP:SOURCE for the criteria).Bless sins (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't see the consensus as being that clear...but I'm not willing to do the hard work to attempt to clarify it myself. Since I think it's better to exclude a potentially reliable source than to include one that is potentially unreliable, I'll self revert. Thanks for finding that discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That book being quoted in [] is co-authored with Ibn Warraq. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's not forget that this is a criticism article. Whether or not we think Mr. Bostom is correct, his book is a reliable source for his criticism of Islam.  The best solution would seem to be to change the text to make it clear that this represents Mr. Boston's criticism of Islam. EastTN (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Why not insert PEW POLLS and more germane QURANIC Verses?
The Quran, chapter, verse&#32;1-6: "# Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allah and His Messenger (SAW) to those of the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah), with whom you made a treaty.
 * 1) So travel(migrate) freely (O Mushrikun - see V.2:105) for four months (as you will) throughout the land, but know that you cannot escape (from the Punishment of) Allah, and Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.
 * 2) And a declaration from Allah and His Messenger to mankind on the greatest day (the 10th of Dhul-Hijjah - the 12th month of Islamic calendar) that Allah is free from (all) obligations to the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) and so is His Messenger. So if you (Mushrikun) repent, it is better for you, but if you turn away, then know that you cannot escape (from the Punishment of) Allah. And give tidings (O Muhammad SAW) of a painful torment to those who disbelieve.
 * 3) Except those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a treaty (who meekly accept dhimmitude), and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).
 * 4) ''Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
 * 5) And if anyone of the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Quran), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not."

The Quran, chapter, verse&#32;105: "105. Neither those who disbelieve among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) nor Al-Mushrikun (the disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah, idolaters, polytheists, pagans, etc.) like that there should be sent down unto you any good from your Lord. But Allah chooses for His Mercy whom He wills. And Allah is the Owner of Great Bounty."

The Quran, chapter, verse&#32;28-30: "28. ''O you who believe (in Allah's Oneness and in His Messenger (Muhammad SAW)! Verily, the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah, and in the Message of Muhammad SAW) are Najasun (impure). So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Haram (at Makkah) after this year, and if you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you if He will, out of His Bounty. Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

29. ''Fight against those who


 * ''(1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

30. ''And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allah's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!"

Most muslims are not terrorists as 80% of them are truly secular but 90% of all terrorists are Muslims.

Secularism: It is a system of social organization where religion is not allowed to play any part whatsoever. Islam is a total antithesis and main obstacle to secularism. Islam is the problem, realize it.

These can easily explain why Islam consistently has been more amenable to violence and communalism than any other religion has been. It is time that sane human beings stopped making apologies for it. And it is time for Muslims—especially Muslim women—to realize that nobody suffers the consequences of Islam more than they do. This is not to say that other creeds could not help inspire suicidal violence. They can. But as a Jain or a Buddhist, one has to work extremely hard to justify barbaric blood-bath and gratuitous hatred. One need not work nearly so hard as a Muslim.

Muslims believe that real Qur'an is "Inscribed on a guarded tablet"(sura 85:22) word of Allah (56:80, 69:43), Moses, Jesus, Jacob too received the same revelations (sura 3:84), the "clear truth and the best explanation" (sura 25:33) which is "explained in detail"…(sura 6:114) with "a distinct explanation of all things" (sura 12:111) that was sent down "to make everything clear" (sura 16:89) & <not to perplex the readers!

So, What happened in Muhammad's life doesn't matter!

Now, Can you name 1 Sura (without cherry-picking please) from the Qur'an which, when read in proper context, unequivocally promotes tolerant and peaceful co-existence on equal terms with the rest of the Mankind (Polytheists, Idolaters, Atheists, Apostates, Gays, Critics of Islam, Cartoonists drawing cartoons of Allah & Muhammad, etc)?

Don’t try. There is none! Don't bother citing sura 109! It's an immutable declaration of disunity, immiscibility…It practically says only Muslims WORSHIP GOD not non-muslims!

Vilifications and vituperations against unbelievers in the Quran: Sura 7:176 "panting dogs" Sura 7:179 "cattle" [if not worse] Sura 8:55, 98:6 "the worst of all animals"? Sura 9:5 "Slay them wherever you find them" Sura 9:73 "Their abode is hell" Sura 46:29-35 unbelieving men are worse than demons… Sura 30:45 allah doesn't love non-muslims… and so on…

By the way, according to Shari'a, non-Muslims may be OWNED AS PROPERTY (SLAVES) by Muslims. The truth is that there is communal-hatred created my muslims wherever Muslims are. Don't run from the truth face it.

Don't believe me. Just use your brain. Search for empirical evidence there are plenty.

"Slavery is a part of Islam...(those who argue that slavery is abolished are) ignorant, not scholars. They are merely writers. Whoever says such things is an infidel." -[ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35518 Saudi Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan, member of the Senior Council of Clerics, 2003]

Have they stopped beating their wi(ves) yet? No! And why should they?
There is a statement "They claim this allows Islam free rein to propagate abuses such as the mistreatment of women and homosexuals..." This is truncated a bit too much for this article. We need a definition of "abuse" IMO. It is very nearly a classic example of the Loaded question fallacy.

Wikipedia is neither for nor against Sharia; nor for nor against beating one's wife (or spouse, to make it equal opportunity! :)  It must make some case for Muslims actually having done this with some magnitude, and this was illegal under law/UN statement, something. It's really too WP:POV the way it is worded. It either needs an explanation, or a better wording, or new material or something. Student7 (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the section has sourcing problems. The sources supplied don't seem to establish the claim; but I don't doubt that sources could be found for it, so I wouldn't challenge it personally.
 * I don't think the statement could be close to a loaded question fallacy however, because the statement is not a question at all. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Many beats wife, no matter which religion they belong to, obviously you can add some explanation, but it shouldn't be more than 2 liners, or else it would be POV pushing. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Tried to reword to avoid fallacy and WP:CLAIM. The problem is that the prior version suggested that it was true that Muslims abuse their wives, etc. This is a belief, in this context, and provides, in this paragraph, at least, no such proof. Way too generic for a general application against all Muslims. Student7 (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed pope's comment
I just removed the pope's comment. Because pope is not really as scholarly as others, who are listed here. Pope's ultimate motive is to promote christianity, he views everything else to be negative. And that's his job too. So whoever oppose this edit, should simply let me know here once. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Everyone has a motive/pov. As far as "scholarly" goes, the last three popes all had doctoral degrees. Pope John Paul II had two doctorates. Benedict was a renown theologian, author of a number of scholarly books. Your argument would eliminate all statements from religious scholars, regardless of credentials. Most theologians have a religion of some sort. Student7 (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * AGreed. Bladesmulti (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Student7, I have reverted my edit back. Now another topic, Mahatma Gandhi is regarded for praises about Muhammad, however he was critical towards muslims, he said :-

“Though, in my opinion, non violence has a predominant place in the Quran, the thirteen hundred years of imperialistic expansion has made the Musslamans(muslims) fighters as a body. They are therefore aggressive. Bullying is the natural excrescence of an aggressive spirit. The Hindu has an ages old civilization. He is essentially non violent. His civilization has passed through the experiences that the two recent ones are still passing through. If Hinduism was ever imperialistic in the modern sense of the term, it has outlived its imperialism and has either deliberately or as a matter of course given it up. Predominance of the non violent spirit has restricted the use of arms to a small minority which must always be subordinate to a civil power highly spiritual, learned and selfless. The Hindus as a body are therefore not equipped for fighting. But not having retained their spiritual training, they have forgotten the use of an effective substitute for arms and not knowing their use nor having an aptitude for them, they have become docile to the point of timidity and cowardice. This vice is therefore a natural excrescence of gentleness.” (ref:The Gandhian Moment, p. 117, by Ramin Jahanbegloo), (ref:Gandhi's responses to Islam, p.110, by Sheila McDonough)

Where to add it? It's worth adding. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was arguing (generally) that some popes are WP:RS. As far as Benedict repeating someone's comment (which appears earlier in the article) in the Regensburg address, your call! Not meaning to be troll-ish, I would vote for deleting it. It was an overrated story at the time IMO. But thanks for agreeing with me in the general case.
 * Gandhi's comment should go under modern Hinduism? I would omit the lenghty comparisons with Hinduism. That does sound like promotion and non-WP:TOPIC. Note that the Hindus have pretty well held their own in persecuting/"defending" themselves against Muslims and Christians in India. Gandhi was talking about a Raj-dominated country, fairly controlled by the British. His observations, which seem like predictions, have not turned out well IMO. Student7
 * Not this way, actually, it's not that he's "modern hinduism", but someone from 19th/20th century. Later on, what happened, is not really concern, as Gandhi was talking about what already happened in last 1300 years. Some muslims claim that Shivaji was cruel/evil, but such arguments are baseless. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I would argue strongly that Benedict's comments were notable, and they're certainly well documented. Yes, he was quoting a Byzantine emperor, but he was doing it to make a point in a modern-day speech, and not in a history book.  Separate and apart from where his quote came from, and what nuances Benedict might have had in mind, the comments were certainly understood to be a direct criticism from a modern Christian leader - otherwise there wouldn't have been protests in the streets.  I don't understand why "scholarly" would be a criteria here.  There are multiple reliable sources for what Benedict said, so that shouldn't be an issue.  Did he know what he was talking about?  That's less important.  Even if he were ill-informed, given his position, what he has to say about Islam is going to be notable - if nothing else because what he says can trigger protests around the world. EastTN (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

India
An editor has been trying to improve on the subsection about India, which is great.

It now reads (with my imbedded comments):
 * "In India, the historical events of large Muslim immigration have been recorded for centuries."
 * I think I will modify this somewhat. But the problem was not "immigration" initially but invasion and colonization. Many Muslims are now indigenous to India.


 * "Indians have been concerned about the religious persecution and conflicts in Middle Eastern nations that might be imported into India.[200][201]"
 * This seems to start painting Islam with a brush that is not yet well developed. It "suggests" something but doesn't actually provide information/statistics. It seems WP:WEASELly.


 * "Today, the immigration of Muslims, commonly from nearby countries such as Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan,[10] Palestine, Iraq,[202] and others have been criticized on the national level."
 * As I tried to mention earlier, we drop all references to current time because, in Wikipedia, it is always "now" unless we say otherwise.
 * Shouldn't this say "illegal immigration?" Nothing wrong with immigration, per se.
 * Why is it being criticized? That is never stated here. Would have to refer to Islam in some manner and be legitimately critical of it. Not that there are illegal Muslim immigrants from Pakistan and I don't like it! That is WP:POV. There needs to be a legitimate point made here against Islam. I am not seeing it.


 * "There are more than 20 million illegal immigrants from Bangladesh alone.[203][204] Illegal immigrants from Bangladesh have been accused of causing violence in the Indian states.[11][12] Some have been convicted of criminal acts, including illegal immigrants from Pakistan.[205][206]"
 * This comes slightly closer to what we are trying to achieve, but not close enough. If my country gets 1 million illegal Hindus, and some of them commit burglary, what does that prove? Nothing against Hindus IMO. Need a tighter logical chain here.

Right now, I think the best bet is to erase the subsection on India and start over. There is nothing here that proves anything bad against Islam IMO. Student7 (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good points by student, actually the main point was to illustrate that problem exists in eastern world too, thus the section enlarged. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, many are indegenious but the point behind it, is that they had no stability in middle eastern so they chose to settle somewhere else in large scale, just like they are notably doing now.
 * You can add back the previous line, "due to the persecution they faced in middle east because of religion", or something that was previously added.
 * Yes, these points are made against the muslim population, not the religion, and it is the part of this article.
 * "accused of causing violence in the Indian states" differs from "burgarly", The author is writing that muslim illegal immigrants have been indulged with the violence, not just crime which is basically common in form. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I deleted it. Subsection proves nothing, nor even claims that Muslims did anything collectively for religious reasons. There is no reason for this subsection. Until there are even claims that religion was involved particularly, this seems anti-Muslim (bigotry against Muslims) rather than the other way around! We're supposed to be criticizing Muslims on a high level. Instead, we are documenting bigotry against Muslims on a low level! Thereby proving that people accuse Muslims indiscriminately! That is no help! Student7 (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Title's section is "muslim immigration" which is either illegal, or criticized. Nothing to do with religion there. But you must see the section, and it's title. You have presented same reasons for removal that can be the same for "western world" as well. But for appropriate The Immigration to India is far critical, considering . Bladesmulti (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * From start of the section, the religion cause is noted, that muslims would get persecuted in middle east, so they migrated to India, and tried to impose their beliefs. And later, the recent form is also noted, in which the report adds the communal violence by the illegal immigrants. It's just more than simple "immigration" or "crime". Bladesmulti (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You speak of "migration to India." That, in modern times, is not a criticism in itself. Many people of different faiths migrate somewhere else.
 * "Tried to impose their beliefs." This is not demonstrated nor stated to any significant degree.
 * "Communal violence by illegal immigrants" has not been demonstrated either. If some immigrants who are also Muslim committed violent acts, that is illegal. BUT, does not demonstrate in any measure, that Islam itself is behind that violence.
 * Weak arguments undermine the intent of this article which is to criticize Islam. It looks like the editors really have nothing to say. And say it at length. That is not only not helpful, it is harmful. It makes Muslims in India look persecuted! Student7 (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Everyone seeks for sharia law, Who are muslims, but who knows that they are actually immigrants or citizens, even in Western nations? If you read this one you would see that it is evident that there is violence. Something any other immigrants have usually never committed. Neither the politicians(even prime minister) gets criticized for not handling the illegal immigrants from a acclaimed muslim nation. Sharia law for regions such as Kashmir have been critical too. But again, how you can target immigrants for the western world as well. You won't find even a single immigrant in whole europe or USA, who is officially imposing beliefs, it would be some of their own citizen. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Still, if it's about multiculturalism, and spread of belief, it is not clear at all whether the immigrants of Europe/USA have seeked to change laws. They are usually the citizens of the country, who do. So the "Immigration" can't be criticized there either. But with the India part, there is convicted violence by the muslim immigrants. Also there are reference to Angola, And even Japan, where it is regarded that they have ban on the propagation of Islam in Japan, nor any islamic languages are taught in the country. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Reversion by Ogress
Ogress, you reverted 2 of my edits. One was a grammar and syntax correction and was reverted unnecessarily. The other is the slogan of Islam and I had put it with the appropriate reference. This article is titled Criticism of Islam and so, criticism should be welcome here! I'm sure that you can reply in the 'response' section, further below.—Khabboos (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Your "grammar" edit changed the meaning of the sentence entirely and in a negative way. Your addition of material was not only placed weirdly but also inflammatory and incorrect. Allah is the Arabic word for "God"; Muslims claim continuity with Judaism and Christianity and the word itself is a cousin of the Hebrew "Elohim" as well as the term used by non-Muslim Arabic speakers when praying. Finally, you chose a highly biased citation and then provided original research. I see absolutely no reason to maintain this information here. Consider how the paragraph you inserted it into starts: "Objects of criticism include the morality of the life of Muhammad, the last prophet according to Islam, both in his public and personal life.[4][5]" It doesn't say, "Muhammad was an immoral person in both his public and personal life", it says "Objects of criticism include the topic."  Ogress  smash! 

Edits by Froggas
I am here to clear some of concerns of user froggas related to my edits. India is home to approximately 150 million Muslims, and the vast majority of them are indegenious. The statement I have reverted undermines this large Muslim populace. Similarly sources about illegal immigration to India state about illegal immigration from 'Bangladesh', not illegal immigration of 'Muslims'. Bangladesh is also home to millions of Hindus and non Muslims and we don't know what percentage of illegal bangladeshis in India are intact Hindus. Further this article is concerned about legal immigration and not illegal ones. Illegal immigrants(Hindus,Christians,Muslims) are always a headache for governments, no matter which religion they belong. Are you saying Islam is a hurdle in the assimilation of illegal immigrants in India. What a joke!Septate (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because it is home to some muslims, that doesn't means that every single reliable source highlighting the immigration problems related to that country would be ignored. In short words you make no sense. Especially when you target your feelings towards the country "india" and remove russia as well.
 * According to source, only muslim immigrant are problematic. Since you are isolating yourself with a single source, you must be aware of the fact that 'illegal' or 'legal', immigrant is immigrant. Don't have to explain anything else now. Foggas (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Illegal immigrant is not considerd as immigrant by the country government. Just tell me, if illegal Bangladeshis(muslims) become very nice people and want to assimilate among local Indian populace, then even if it happens, Indian government will not allow them to stay in India and will deport them them back to Bangladesh. So what is left behind to support your argument? Be realistic! When it comes to Russia, they are talking about Chechen immigrants, but no one knows the fact that Chechnya is in fact part of Russia. If Chechen Muslims don't want to assimilate then it is their own problem, because a part of Russia know as Chechnya is their homeland and they are not immigrants from somewhere else.Septate (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above part you have written makes no sense as usual. Because immigrants are both legal and illegal. According to that book, which is based on immigration, "Indian Nepalis: Issues and Perspectives", writes "The chief problem is the desire of the muslim ministers to increase this immigration into the uncultivated government lands under the slogan of Grow more food, but what they are really after is grow more muslims." About Russia, they are not talking about chechen immigrants, you are clearly making up. The book says "central asia", "azeri"(Azerbaijan), etc. Why there is a need to use your "common sense" when we have sources. If you are going to waste time by misrepresenting sources and making your original research, there will be no benefit, but only loss. Foggas (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that Muslim imams are asking Muslims living inside India(Not bangladesh) to populate uncultivated government lands and multiply in numbers then my dear fellow, its a political problem not religious one. It does not infact constitute immigration(illegal or legal) because citizens of a particular country are free to move inside the country. This means that in order to avoid criticism, muslims should die of hunger in india by living in overpopulated slums instead of migrating to other suitable regions. India is not only for hindus, its for muslims as well. When it comes to Russia, the source also mentions Chechen not just Azeris. Don't see just the title of the source.Septate (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why you have to misinterpret as "political problem", it is evident per source that muslims have force converted. So you are saying that force converting is also a political process but not religious? You are not contradicting yourself when you say that Azeris were not mentioned and now you are mumbling them with chechens. Immigration is concerned with the one country to other country. It cannot be said as "one region to other". First know the basic english then talk.
 * Fact still hasn't changed that there is critical immigration. Now this is your last chance, if you can refute these sources or prove that there is no criticism based on muslims immigrating to India or Russia. Foggas (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all tell me what did you mean while saying Some Muslims, having 150million or more local citizen Muslims is not "some". 150 million figure is double the population of Germany(most populous EU state). But the statement you have added to this article seems to convince innocent readers that Muslims in India are all but illegal immigrants.

Please mind your language while saying the Islam was spread by force in India. You have almost no reliable sources to prove this. Most of the sources which claim that Islam was spread in India through force are Hindu fairy tales. If this is the case then why hundreds of Sufi shrines dot the Indian landscape. These were Muslim missionaries who spread Islam in India.

Further, most of the Bangladeshis migrating illegally to India are in fact Hindus fleeing persecution form Muslim majority. That's why population of hindus have dropped from20%to less then 10% in Bangladesh. So most of the illegal Bangladeshi immigrants are in fact Hindus not Muslims which are overpopulating already overpopulated India. Following source proves my argument.

Also India is not like western countries, Japan, oil rich middle eastern countries, Malaysia,singapore, etc. Where people from third world come by risking their lives to spend a better life. India is infact home to world largest population of impoverished people, even greater they africa. So India is not a country where Muslims from other countries come and Islam becomes a hurdle in their assimilation. Your arguments make no sense.

When it comes to Russia, I have no concern with it. I just made a simple change(land to some extent russia has been critisized) but you reverted it. Simply stating that Muslims are unable to assimilate in Russia undermines the vast majority of 15million Muslims in Russia who are not immigrants and have the own traditions and customs. Even Azeris should not be considered immigrants since they arrived in Russia when Azerbaijan was part of soviet union. Also tell me, isn't Russia a western nation? If it is then it is already mentioned under wider term.Septate (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Most of what you are written is really irrelevant. You lack the basic understanding of English language. I was telling that it is clearly written on the report that immigrants have forced converted others, but you are taking it personally. It has highlighted that immigrants have also caused the rise of mosques. It is comfortably related with religious act.


 * I have added only some sources, and whole 'russia' reference. I would say that you can keep doing your own original research, but make a blog or something for that.
 * It is your own insecurity that is leading you to think that "all people are immigrants" if some particular community is pointed.
 * Russia is not a western country. And you have removed russia 5/6 times, even last time.
 * I am talking to a user who don't even know what "third world" means. It meant for the members of Non-Aligned Movement, see Third world, even Sweden, Yugoslavia were third world. Because you've used the term after 1991 for your own twist that had to do nothing with the term itself, you can consider yourself to be incompetent already.
 * If you want to talk about prosperity, well, anything outside egypt, irag, pakistan, afghanistan, bangladesh, somalia, and number of other nations is much more prosperous and stable. {see List of countries by Failed States Index)


 * Let's make it clear, you have failed to refute that muslim immigration to India and Russia has been criticized. You had removed well sourced material so you needed consensus. Also consider that this is WP:Notaforum. Foggas (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on this topic about Russia but not on India. I don't know what's wrong with my English. Its you, whose English can't be understood. Most of your tenses are incorrect and can't distinguish between past, present and future. I am tired of explaining this whole topic to you. You infact don't want to understand, what I am saying. What did you mean by the 'rise of mosques'. Where there are Muslims, there are mosques. When it comes to forced conversions, they may occur in Pakistan or Bangladesh but not India. It is an impossible task for an illegal immigrant, impoverished, poverty ridden Muslim to convert a bunch of Hindus forcibly in the midst of Hindu majority! Are you telling me a fairytale?Septate (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * heyy, you are saying that a reliable source claims that Muslims are forcibly converting Hindus. You are totally wrong. The source says that an Indian political leader whose name is Gosh has been saying this. Don't misinterpret the source. Can we trust a pro Hindu politician?Septate (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Ghosh claimed Muslim immigrants in India are now attacking Hindus and forcibly seeking to convert Hindu girls to Islam. He has demanded that the Indian government halt illegal immigration from Bangladesh and deport undocumented Muslims back to Bangladesh."
 * That one, because they are official authorities of the country, they have right to present their criticism. Unless you have a complete source that refutes Ghosh claiming any of it. You can probably find more sources online, if you try.
 * Criticism is not only limited with the forced conversion, but also demolition of temples,. By the way, there is nothing like 'to some extant', so stop mumbling there. Foggas (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected
Due to the ongoing editwarring on this page, I've fully protected it for a week. Please work out your differences here instead of editwarring. I could have blocked both of you for editwarring, but decided to try this route instead. I will lift protection as soon as both of you agree to resolve your differences here, and to refrain from making edits until consensus is established. Probably also worth noting: I *will* block if editwarring resumes once protection lapses. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Criticism of Islam
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Criticism of Islam's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceA": From Antisemitism: The 2005 U.S. State Department Report on Global Antisemitism. <li>From Islamism: UMNO Online. UMNO's Constitution: Goal 3.3. From:http://umno-online.com/?page_id=2787</li> <li>From Women's rights in Saudi Arabia: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous bot settings
I have set minimum threads to 8. Quite astonishingly minimum threads had been set to 1 which is utterly unacceptable.

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines provide much good information. for instance : When to condense pages says: It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections.

When I came to the page it contained 2.3KB and most of this would have been in the header.

How weak is the system if it seeks to stifle criticism?

Gregkaye ✍ ♪  13:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * How are the archive settings in any way related to stifling criticism? Minimum threads of 1 was fine when threads were much longer in the past, and more numerous. Now that the talk page is quieter, you changed it. No big deal. You may always move some threads back out of the archives if you want. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Focus, Criticism of Islam direction of this article
I am not an editor here, but saw someone dumping content in as many places as they could find. And the issue I raised on another article is this. Criticism of Islam is the title, and that means the article should focus on items which raise critique of Islam. Like Bernard Lewis being critical of Islam, like Rushdie being critical of Islam, Ayan Rand being critical of Islam, etc. so this page (while I do not agree with--or any page that just is twisted to focus on critique without balance) at least should focus on critique of Islam. What it seems to be becoming is a collection of negative acts people (editors) associate with Islam (the editors are the judges). So If marrying 4 women is a problem with an editor nothing is to stop them adding it here. I have no idea what ISIS and slavery is doing in this article, UNLESS, someone or some group identifies says "Look at what ISIS is doing in the name of Islam" Then you can add it. Just stating ISIS sells girls is not a critique of Islam, although it may fit in an article on ISIS or Slavery and ISIS. I hope I am clear, cuz I am typing fast. Without some structure it becomes a bigots paradise. Is it informative? As Informative as David Duke's Blog on Jews. --Inayity (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This article is about criticism levied at the religion of Islam. This article isn't about perceived crimes perpetrated in the name of Islam. Even if a notable critic uses those crimes as a basis for criticism, the article is still about the criticism and not the crimes. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There are multiple articles where Islamic views or practices regarding slavery are relevant. In this particular article, one of the topics is criticism of Islam on the basis that it codified and protected slavery.  It specifically discusses the claim by critics that slavery still exists in places such as Sudan and Somalia, the "reopening" of the issue by certain conservative scholars, and quotes the views of Shaykh Fadhlalla Haeri and Dr. Abdul-Latif Mushtahari.  The arguments expressed by ISIS in Dabiq are a natural extension of that discussion.  They are at least as relevant as the views of Haeri and Mushtahari; I would argue that they are more relevant because they are actually being put into practice.  For this article, though, all I've included is the argument, and not any information on scope of ISIS' activities in this area.  EastTN (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of religion template
At the the criticism of religion template Vanamonde93 is excluding critics of Islam like Ibn Warraq from the template because they have only criticized specific religions and not religion in general. Yet the template still includes many persons who only criticized specific religions (one of which was added by Vanamonde93 to the template).

There seems to be no rationale why Ibn Warraq, Pat Condell, Oriana Fallaci or Geert Wilders are excluded, but BR Ambedkar, Robert Spencer and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are included in the list of critics. Could someone take a look. --188.29.165.175 (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Why does Opposition to Islam redirect to Criticism of Islam?
Opposition to Islam used to redirect to anti-Islam, which is a disambiguation page, but in 2014 you redirected it to Criticism of Islam. I think this redirect page should be restored to its original target, unless you think its current target is more reasonable. Jarble (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly I don't remember. I'm not at a computer but will try to review this and similar discussions on the naming of "opposition", "anti-", and "criticism" articles when I return from my trip. We should have some uniform convention and I remember discussions somewhere. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the articles that begin with "opposition," the word is usually to a specific act or policy. There is no Opposition to Christianity, Opposition to Judaism, Opposition to Hinduism but there is a Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses. The last redirects to Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. Opposition to a doctrine (like Islam) is different than hostility to a people (Muslims). In that case one usually uses "persecution" or "bigotry." We see no Opposition to Christians, or Opposition to Jews. Our articles on anti-Judaism make some distinctions on our usage of the word "opposition" and how it contrasts with other negative reactions.
 * A google search doesn't shine much light on the use of the phrase "opposition to islam" aside from wikipedia usage. I believe we should delete this redirect. However, a google search on "opposition to Muslim" gives a number of specifics like "opposition to Muslim headscarves," "opposition to Muslim immigration," "opposition to Muslims Brotherhood," etc. Once again, "opposition" is generally used in the context of opposition to specific policies. I believe it would much more useful if we delete the redirect so that the user is force to see a display of article "containing" "opposition to Islam" just as we do with "opposition to Christianity". The full list shows the possible ways of being in opposition to some aspect or policy of a religion. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of "Beheadings" section
An editor has added a "Beheadings" section. There is nothing particularly Islamic about beheadings. (Most European countries abolished capital punishment in the second half of the 20th Century; but when they had capital punishment some of them used beheading for some crimes.)-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Your taqiyya is showing Mehmet. Find me one western country which sanctioned capital punishment for apostasy in the twentieth century. Find me one western country which sanctioned capital punishment for adultery in the twentieth century. Find me one western country which sanctioned capital punishment for insulting a particular 7th century paedophile (pissings be upon him.

Islams obsession with beheading is a very unique fetish, particular to muslims.

--47.55.193.179 (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Savage Slayer

Islamic terrorisim.
This article should have a section regarding the repeated terrorist attacks committed by muslims.

118.149.180.69 (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It should definitely point out that muslims commit crimes against humanity, including torture and mutilation. muslims have a lot to answer for - voodoo would appear to be a more reasonable religion by comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.131.189 (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

This page promotes hatred about Islam.
Please delete this page. It's not authentic work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3reecycler (talk • contribs) 18:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It, however is still encyclopedic and notable, therefore it has the right to be on Wikipedia. Okamialvis (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * @3reecycler: A cursory scan of the references shows over 100, may to scholarly sources. You'll need to explain further how you perceive these sources to not be reliable sources per Wikipedia standards. —C.Fred (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

quote farm
The article, although has some local violation of copy right, is full of quotes which has turned the whole article into a possible copy right violation. It's a real quote farm! Lstfllw203 (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There is some value in relying on direct quotations in an article of this type. It allows the reader to see exactly what the original source said, which can be particularly important for very contentious issues. Having said that, I do think the section entitled "Modern World" goes to far.  Most of the other quotes seem to provide a few sentences, or perhaps a paragraph, to represent a specific critic's thoughts.  This section, however, has a lengthy series of quotes that are all from André Servier. That seems quite disproportionate. EastTN (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I've cleaned that section up. EastTN (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The current version contains a section on the 19th and 20th century which is literally nothing but looooong quotations. The sources look legist and named critics probably notable, but this needs to be turned into an encyclopedia article, or else the quotes should just be deleted.BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Ideally, this article should be based mainly on secondary sources, like any other. These sources would discuss and analyze criticism of Islam. Primary sources is what we have here for the modern period, so we'll have to do with that for now, but I agree that the quote farm in that section is excessive. I think the longer ones should be summarized and the quotes should perhaps be moved to the refs (or indeed removed if they're borderline copyvio). had the right idea, but perhaps the compression was too radical as it didn't convey much beyond the fact that those folks have criticized Islam. Eperoton (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Editorializing and original research
I have repeatedly removed the following statement added by an anonymous editor: "Counter to this criticism from its very beginning Islam had elements that would limit slavery as the following hadith illustrates..." which proceeds to quote a Hadith.

There are two problems with this: The WP:BURDEN has not been met to include this statement. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) The subject of this article is criticism of Islam. It isn't about answers to criticism. This isn't a point-counterpoint article. Answers to criticisms aren't needed here, because that is not the subject of the article.
 * 2) The statement constitutes original research, which isn't allowed. It is the editor's own opinion that a Hadith counters a criticism. No citation to any scholarly source is given to support this viewpoint.

Proposition to remove all unnecessary quotes
The page is really long and like 80% of it is some random old dead guys nobody cares about saying bad stuff about Islam with literally no evidence whatsoever which removes from yknow... Bold textactual critism. It honestly is extremely stupid because people can just say what they want. It's not correct just because it's quoted and old. People are going to come here to look for Islam's fault not what some old irrelevant forgotten dead guy once thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by モハメッド一二三 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:CENSOR. Your content removal seemed nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Foggas (talk) 14:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested edit
The article currently contains three links to the DAB page Christian, and User:DPL bot is complaining about the WP:INTDABLINK error. Two are of the form Christians, and can be mended simply by moving the 's' inside the brackets. The third is probably an unnecessary duplicate link; it could be mended either by removing the link or by reformatting it as Christian. Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Recent content deletions
Where is the discussion and consensus established by Seraphim System who removed about 24,000 bytes content and also the content removed by モハメッド一二三 in violation of WP:CENSOR? Lousy explanations are not enough for removing content which existed for this long and was reliably sourced. Foggas (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , Please discuss here instead of changing the article again. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD says that a person should get consensus before making mass changes. Where is the consensus for removing 32,000 bytes which was censored by these two users (one of whom is blocked and says he will never come back)? I only added back the version from April 2018 which was before the mass removal of content by モハメッド一二三. Thanks. Foggas (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Page is protected for a week. Please resolve the dispute here, not in the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * BRD states something different from what you seem to think (see the "B" in particular). Also, BRD is not a policy, while WP:V and WP:OR are, and content that violates them shouldn't be restored after it's been challenged. You're welcome to restore content that meets WP policies, but in this case you rolled back a month worth of edits by multiple editors, which included sourced additions, maintenance templates, and removal of content that was unsourced, poorly sourced or failed verification. That's not a constructive edit and acted appropriately in reverting it. Please respect the work of other editors and limit your reverts to the specific changes you're contesting. Eperoton (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 January 2019
Resolving disambiguation links:
 * 1) Christians to Christians, this occurs in the lead and the Early Islam section
 * 2) Christian missionary to Christian missionary Leschnei (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 17:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Remove
Please remove "Islam has also been viewed as a form of Arab imperialism and has received criticism by figures from Africa and India for what they perceive as the destruction of indigenous cultures." We certainly don't need to paste this not directly relevant guilt by association of 19th century Arab politics. Nothing similar about historic and present imperialism or colonialism is equalled in the lead section of criticism of Christianity, despite its in fact more clear, explicite, political dimensions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.77.80.116 (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * . Sentences in the lead exist there for the purpose of summarizing the body of the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Article section
I propose the removal of this in the lead section:

‘’Islam has also been viewed as a form of Arab imperialism and has received criticism by figures from Africa and India for what they perceive as the destruction of indigenous cultures.[11] Islam's recognition of slavery as an institution,[12][13] which led to Muslim traders exporting as many as 17 million slaves to the coast of the Indian Ocean, the Middle East, and North Africa,[14] has also been criticized.[15]’’ First of all, it’s very obvious that it’s bias, see WP:Bias, (nothing similar regarding colonization and imperialism in the lead section of Criticism of Christianity although there are more evidence for colonialism and imperialism in Christianity). Secondly, extraordinary claims like this needs extraordinary and academic evidence, reliable and neutral sources, not sensionalistic journalism.

Also this: ‘’As of 2014, about a quarter of the world's countries and territories (26%) had anti-blasphemy and anti-apostasy laws or policies,[7] of which 13 nations, all of which were Muslim majority nations, had the death penalty for apostasy.[8]‘’ ‘’Another criticism focuses on the question of human rights in the Islamic world, both historically and in modern Islamic nations, including the treatment of women, LGBT people, and religious and ethnic minorities, as evinced in Islamic law and practice.[16][17][17] In the wake of the recent multiculturalism trend, Islam's influence on the ability or willingness of Muslim immigrants to assimilate in the Western world,[18] and in other countries such as India[19][20][21] and Russia,[22][23] has been criticized.’’

This should be removed because all of this is already covered extensively in the article section "women in Islam’’, ‘’morality’’ and the other sections under the same article, so there is no need to repeat this and it doesn’t need to be expanded in the lead. The lead does not require more specific instances - the information on apostasy, women in Islam, is adequately covered in the article section ‘’Morality’’ and treatment of women are covered in the ‘’Muslim women’’ section. Thank you. 46.212.241.21 (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It seems well sourced and relevant to me. Let's see what others think. -- Begoon 08:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Your objections make two mistakes: One: as far as I can see your first objection is about bias but the lede statements are well sourced. Also just because other articles such as any criticising Christianity don't have similar criticisms doesnt' mean the ones here aren't valid. Such crticisms of Christianity should be added to relevant articles not the ones here critcising Islam removed. Two: your second objection is in error because a lede should summarise what is in the article in such a way as a reader can get the gist of the article by reading the lede. Therefore the text you object to should be included in the lede. Again it is well sourced. So I can't see a problem with the lede as it is. Robynthehode (talk) 10:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

First of all, the sentence "Islam has also been viewed as a form of Arab imperialism and has received criticism by figures from Africa and India for what they perceive as the destruction of indigenous cultures". This is clearly bias. Also this is the mere opinion of a French author not validated by any historical events. No other sources say such. Secondly, sentences such as "which led to Muslim traders exporting as many as 17 million slaves to the coast of the Indian Ocean, the Middle East, and North Africa" has also been criticized" is vague (this claim comes from one article from the BBC, such claims needs actual academic sources, not BBC and newspapers). Also the information on slavery and colonization is adequately and covered extensively in the article section "morality", there is no need to repeat this. I propose the removal of these inaccurate and vague claims and the other parts about women in Islam should be explained briefly because it's already covered in the article section "women in Islam". 46.212.241.21 (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Clear bias? You will need to show that this is the case not merely assert it. Provide other sources that contradict this. The BBC is a reliable source according to Wikipedia. See WP:NEWSORG. So the information on slavery is well sourced. Again provide a counter source here if you disagree. At the moment your objections are just your personal opinion and editors personal opinions must be supported by sources otherwise they are merely opinion. Lastly you don't seem to understand that repeating information in the lede is perfectly acceptable as it merely summarises that information which is shown in more detail in the article. So no the information on women should remain in the lede. Robynthehode (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2018
The part on slavery in this article has a clear bias. The bias is evident in that it is not clearly stated that the text in the article is not a valid criticism but the mere opinion of a French author not validated by any historical events. Changes were tried to be made to this article but have been deleted without proper notice. Particularily the version of 01:45, 19 September 2018‎ was especially good. There are different sources besides primary Islamic sources like the Hadith collection that is cited an universally agreed upon by Muslims to be valid. Other sources that quote the same hadith are https://islamqa.info/en/94840, http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml and many others. I want to avoid a citation overload.

I think it reflects very poorly on wikipedia that such a clearly biased viewpoint is allowed to remain and even protected.

Shameful and something that needs to change. 65.111.114.121 (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Shameful? I'll tell you what's shameful. It's shameful that you failed to read or respond to the start of a discussion immediately above, which was posted several days ago. It's shameful that you don't understand that you were edit warring rather than collaborating (hint: see WP:BRD for guidance). It's shameful that you didn't read or understand WP:BURDEN, which requires that the person who wants to add material has the burden to gain consensus for it without edit-warring. It's shameful that you cannot understand that the topic of this article isn't Muslim apologetics, it's criticism of Islam. It's shameful that, in spite of explanations to you in edit summaries and on your talk page, you have failed to read Original research or comprehend what it means and why it isn't allowed. It's shameful that you cannot understand why what you added constitutes original research. And finally, it's shameful that you viewed the removal of your edit and subsequent blocking as evidence of 'bias' when it was nothing more than enforcing Wikipedia editorial policies and maintaining the stability of the article, neither of which have anything to do with Islam.


 * So I will try again, explaining to you as simply as possible: Your suggested revision is just your own personal interpretation of Hadith in the context of slavery in Islam. Wikipedia will not publish personal interpretations of religious texts, regardless of the religion. The Hadith were written long before the 'slavery' criticism existed, so the Hadith is not an 'answer' to criticism. You have not offered any scholarly sources that address this criticism in the context of that same Hadith. And even if you did offer such a source, the subject of this article is still about criticism of Islam, not Muslim apologetics. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * This link also shows interpretations of various Muslim scholars that support that Quran and Hadith is pushing against slavery, and towards freeing slaves.  This is not my personal opinion.
 * Pending-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.  JTP (talk • contribs) 05:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Renaming responses to criticism to Islam Apologetics
Instead of using the term "Responses to Criticism", I personally feel the term Islam Apologetics is much more appropriate. In the wikipedia page called criticism of christianity, the people who try to defend christian doctrine are referred to as christian apologetics and rightly so. I believe the same standards should be held for Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krao212 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Requesting input and expansion support
Hi,

I am just in process of initiating encyclopedic article Draft:Ex-Muslims. Please do have a look. If topic interests you then do contribute towards expansion of the Draft:Ex-Muslims.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Deleting this article
This article is generating hate against Islam Islam is a peaceful religion not war like I suggest this be removed Religion generate peace only and this means Islam is bad religion but in reality it is good and various reforms are occurring Bjskehvqvsi (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Criticising ideas is not hateful. Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED. So no this article will not be deleted. In fact I'm offended you should suggest it. Robynthehode (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Schopenhauer
Schopenhauer’s comment on Islam from “The world as Will and Representation“ may be included here.M K Mani muttappillil (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of Fasting
&

Following sentence relating to Criticism of Fasting is now subjected to edit war and deletionist argument is sentence not matching with ref. IMO it is just a technicality. Other RS is likely to be available to support if not same similar sentence. :Bookku (talk) 07:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * <tt>The harmful effects of Islamic fasting on social, economic and health related aspects of regular human life have also been discussed. </tt>

Scope for better and adequate coverage
Just revisited article, In my honest impression, the article has some more scope to cover following aspects better and to adequate level.


 * 1) Abrogation
 * 2) Superstitions in various Muslim communities
 * There is one section @ Islamic attitudes towards science but it only covers science related arguments vis a vis Quran, but Muslim individuals and communities practice many more Superstitions which these two articles has scope to improve upon.
 * 3) Criticism levelled by Ex-Muslims and other atheists.
 * 4) Debate of Quranic createdness seems to have subtle linkage to critique of Islam; subject to availability reliable sources in criticism of Islam point of view.
 * 5) Wikipedia does not seem to have independent article discussing Rights of Muslim women; So while as of now article covers some criticism it has scope to be more adequate and more nuanced criticism.
 * 6) As of now article mainly covers Christian - western and Hindu - South Asian criticism, coverage of many other religious and non religious point of view largely missing, Zoroastrianism, Jainism, Buddhism and more

Bookku (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

David Hume
The list of Hume's influencers does not seem to be substantiated by the source cited. Either their influence on Hume's views should be elucidated or claims to their connection to Hume's ideas should be removed. MaxwellianDaemon (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Addendum to earlier comment: The cited source does contain the list of influencers, but does not elaborate on details of their influence on Hume either. MaxwellianDaemon (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Peer review request
Requesting peer review at Peer review/Women in Islam/archive1,

Bookku (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Requesting help in article expansion
Hi,

Requesting you to have a look at


 * Superstitions in Muslim societies and also Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies

Requesting article expansion help, if above topics interest you.

Thanks and regards Bookku (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Filtered content

 * Just for record and information,

Following content from the article has been deleted claiming to to be gibberish not suitable for lead of article plus being from self published source. Bookku (talk) 05:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "..According to John S. Evans unlike earlier times intellectual environment in which Islam exists is rapidly changing and is no longer able to avoid scrutiny of it's theology, history and practice. In spite of Islamist violent tactics, by passing of each day volume of critical analysis of Islam is increasing and thus censorship of criticism is and will become more and more difficult. Islam is not only being metamorphosed by scholars who are not raised in Islam but increasingly by growing numbers and movement of ex-Muslim intellectuals raising questions which Islamic apologists fail to address sincerely."


 * That rationale for removing that passage seems valid to me. The postmodern writing style isn't appropriate, and a self-published author isn't notable enough to bother quoting. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Pinging who removed that content. I do agree that the source seems to be WP:SPS.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 13:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not mind being pinged, but what would you like me to say? My reasons for removal can be found in the edit summary. --HyperGaruda (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Not Neutral
Hello! Some of the parts of the article are not Neutral as per WP policy and directly accuse of(this and that) Instead it could be made neutral point of view MRC2RULES (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello! Some parts of your post are unclear. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I came here to say you really need to be more specific, I also have no clue what you want. Doug Weller  talk 17:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)