Talk:Criticism of Islam/Archive 7

Strong focus on morality in the lead
Most of the lead section talks about moral issues. Only a short reference about the mere existence of theological criticism is mentioned. The article itself however, talks about issues within Islamic theology, such as the allegedly miraculous Quran. Would someone mind to add other criticism than morality to the lead?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

ambiguous statement in the lead
In current version, there is an ambiguous statement at the exact end of the lead: Similar arguments have been made in other countries in which Muslims are a minority, such as China, India and Russia. But it is not clear what similar arguments are being discussed. I couldnt understand either. Would someone kindly update/elaborate that sentence? Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The statement seem to be continuation of previous sentence '...Some commentators have made assimilationist arguments against Muslim immigration to the Western world... Here the argument seems that Muslims do not easily assimilate in local culture or avoid local cultural assimilation.
 * That is quite regular criticism, This line of criticism believes that believer - non-believer (Kafir) binary emanating from    mainstream conservative  Islamic thought distances the individuals & community from mixing up with non Muslim communities effectively.
 * Since as a reader you could not make out, then, may be some fine tuning is required in the sentences.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge&#39; (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I tweaked it. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you folks. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Changed a very confusing sentence
The last sentence in the Sam Harris section of "ethics in the quran".

It was so confusing I had to click on the link to "jizya" to find out what it meant. The original sentence made it sound like the muslim ruler was paying the tax to non-muslims.

I also decided to put quotations around the word "protection" because it seemed to be used in the way that modern american gangsters use the term. This is very culturally specific, and people unfamiliar with modern american slang would probably assume that it's meaning was the common, non-slang, usage of the word.

Also it was kind of a run-on sentence that needed the word "and" in order to flow properly.

Ultimately this sentence was just a grammatical atrocity. Even if my edit is found to be unacceptable someone more skilled than myself needs to make sure that the new approach is more readable than the original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.94.202.78 (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Requesting inputs
Greetings,

Adequate and nuanced overview for even non– Muslim audience is expected out of the articles Muslims and Muslim world. Whether the articles are achieving that purpose adequately? Requesting and expecting proactive participation in providing inputs from non–Muslim audience too along with Muslim users.

Since the article Muslim world is tagged various improvements it can not be submitted to formal review process still I feel the article deserves more inputs for content improvement.

Requesting your visit to the articles
 * Muslims and
 * Muslim world
 * and provide your inputs @


 * Talk:Muslims/Archive 8 and
 * Talk:Muslim world

Thanks

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 06:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Request approval for following addition on improper sexual conduct with minors in Islamic sources
My addition has been reverted multiple times without a serious justification. As you can see, it is fully sourced: "====Sex with pre-pubescent girls and age of Muhammad's wife Aisha==== Critics have noted that the 4th verse of the 65th chapter of the Qur'an (Surah at-Talaq) seems to imply the permissibility of consummating marriages with girls who have not reached puberty. This criticism is significantly reinforced by classical Muslim commentaries on the verse, such as Tafsir al-Jalalayn and the tafsir of Maududi "


 * Isn't this your own work on the sources of Islam? I mean, they might be valid, but an encyclopedia is not a place to publish your own works, but a tertiary source, which only sums up points of already published work. I was not involved in these reverts, just checked them when I watched my Watchlist, and trying to give an input.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * What do you mean my own work? The sources themselvs are clear on this. You want me to link to a page of someone actually criticizing this as opposed to focusing on the particular case of criticism towards the marriage with Aisha, which already has a few links here? Frankystein3 (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You claim that "this criticism is significantly reinforced by" the primary sources cited, and yet no evidence is provided that demonstrates these sources reinforce criticism. That's original research, which we cannot do here. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The criticism originates from the critics' interpretation of Sura 65:4 of the Qur'an itself. Now the counter by defenders of the Qur'an would be that that's a misinterpretation. The critics, however, have a very strong position because other primary sources that Muslims consider authoritative, namely highly respected Muslim scholarly commentaries throughout the ages actually AGREE with the so-called "misinterpretation": turns out that was indeed the correct interpretation, at least for many Muslim scholars throughout time. I have proven this beyond any doubt. Here's a quote from one such a scholar that I linked: "Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible." (https://quranx.com/tafsirs/65.4) 2001:8A0:6800:AA01:985F:F2E:A641:754B (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Then cite the critics, not the primary sources. You didn't do that. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Anachronist@VenusFeuerFalle@Frankystein3 Is it a good idea to have this discussion at two articles? The main discussion seems to be at Talk:Criticism of Muhammad Doug Weller  talk 18:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that this change was being spammed across other articles. Yes, one place is best. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Me neither, didn't even know there is a seperate article aout criticism of Muhammad.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Anachronist@VenusFeuerFalle he added the same material to Criticism of the Quran. Doug Weller  talk 12:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Refs

 * It wasn’t easy to support Salman Rushdie in Bangladesh. Then I realised fatwas are contagious; Taslima Nasreen, theprint, 2022 August 14

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 10:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)