Talk:Criticism of the Quran/Archive 1

Something is wrong with this page
Something is wrong with this page, as it is not desplaying the entire article.--Sefringle 03:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved.--Sefringle 03:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Where
Another example is verse 11 of Sura 35, which deals with the origin of mankind.

''And Allah did create you from dust; then from a sperm-drop; then He made you in pairs. And no female conceives, or lays down (her load), but with His knowledge. Nor is a man long-lived granted length of days, nor is a part cut off from his life, but is in a Decree (ordained). All this is easy to Allah.''

Critics claim that this verse contradicts the scientific notion that man descended from a common ancestor with apes.Muslims generally respond by stating that the verse is not referring to human evolution, but rather to the origin of life, similar to many other verses, for example:


 * Where exactlydoes this verse say that humans have not evolved from apes.

''He it is created you from clay, and then decreed a stated term (for you). And there is in His presence another determined term; yet ye doubt within yourselves!''

''state that humans were created from clay (see clay theory of origin). Another verse also state that humans were created from mud molded into shape. 15:26 Also, the Qur'an also states that life originated in water. 21:30 24:45''


 * When there is a scientific theory for both origin fro clay & water, how does this contradict science.

Another common rebuddle by muslims is the denial of evolution being a fact.


 * The article is about quran & science, not muslims & science.

A third claim that critics use is that the quran says the moon gives off light:

Blessed is He Who made constellations in the skies, and placed therein a Lamp and a Moon giving light

''It is He Who made the sun to be a shining glory and the moon to be a light (of beauty), and measured out stages for her; that ye might know the number of years and the count (of time). Nowise did Allah create this but in truth and righteousness. (Thus) doth He explain His Signs in detail, for those who understand.''

''Critics interpret these verses to say that the moon shines light. Muslims interprit these verses to be saying the moon reflects light from the sun, and not that it produces its own light.''


 * This is something amazing, noor has always meant reflected light, I never heard anybody say that moon gives off light . F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 21:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

11.35: "And Allah did create you from dust" means man was created from dust, and NOT through evolution. It contradicts science by saying that man was dircetly created, while evolution clearly states that man was not directly created from pure elements, but evolved from other organisms, which evolved from other organisms, etc., who were created from these elements.

In arabic, "noor" or "نور" means light, not reflecting light. --Sefringle 02:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In arabic noor means light that is accidental, borrowed, not own , reflected , refracted etc . Unlike this, the word for personal light, essential, created by self is Dhia (ضياء). This is the word thats used for Sun in 10:5 . Its also important to mention that when both words are used, it is to differentiate, both kinds of light, otherwise noor means light only ( without describing which kind of light it is ) . For more see Science in the Qur'an, Shabir Ally


 * 11:35 says man was created from clay. It just gives th first & last events of creation of man. With or wothout evolution, this is not mentioned in this verse. I dont think you are in a position to create meanings in verse out of your own understanding.


 * BTW try to keep articles scholarly, FFI & AI are Islamophobic sites. The article based on them/anybody that hides his face is WP:OR. F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 16:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well good. We seem to have come to some agreement on what noor means. It means light. The light in the verse would be refering to light produced by the moon. In other words, according to this verse, the only thing it is saying is the moon produces is light that is different than the light of the sun,, but it still produces light.


 * verse 35.11 does not give the first & last events of the creation of man. Man was not created from dust. The first organisms, which were Bacteria might have been, but man never was. Bacteria are not human. That is like saying dogs or trees are human. The verse clearly says Allah created man from dust, which is not true at all.


 * This article is entitled criticism of the quran. By definition, it is going to have sources by critics of Islam. Who else would critize the quran? Whether you think they are Islamophobic or not is your opinion. If you disagree with them, do so, but have a better reason than "they hide their face." These websites are only being used to provide us with a critics opinion/arguement. They are not being use as a source for factual data. --Sefringle 07:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually we dont . There is difference bw personal light & borrowed light. Regarding 35:11, as I said before, it never says anything about presence or absence of intermediate stages. So dont introduce your personal understanding into it . The criticism should be scholarly, we dont ask anybody on the street & write encyclopedia based on his views . Take a look at WP:RS. Find somebody that is authentic, dont make it a laundry list of claims . Sorry but if you arnt able to produce authentic sources , this article will get really small . F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 17:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My interpritation of verse 35.11 is literal, meaning what it says is exactly what it means. The verse clearly states that man was created from dust. Your interpritation is not literal, it is subjective. By the literal interpritation, the verse is a scientific contradiction. By your subjective interpritation, it is not. You tell me not to introduce my personal understanding of the verse (which is shared with many critics of Islam as well as many muslims, whom all deny evolution), however aren't you introducing your personal understanding of the verse? How is your interpritation different from your personal understanding?


 * Ali Sina has created a website critical to islam that has recieved over 3 million visitors this year alone. I believe that qualifies him as a critic. If we have to dismiss his work as "islamophobic" and cannot include his opinion as a critic's opinion, than couldn't the same thing be said about any critic of Islam? I can say anyone is prejudice in order to attempt to disqualify their opinion. I can also say John Esposito is a muslim apologist to disqualify his opinion. How would you define a "scholarly" critic? One who agrees with your views? I would understand you saying his website isn't reliable for data on the life of mohammad or for things unknown about Islam, but for a critic's opinion/arguement, which is the context in which his sources are being used, Ali Sina is a reliable source. --Sefringle 06:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Semen from the loins
Someone please include S. 86:5-7. It reflects the premodern (Aristotelian?) belief that semen comes out of the lower back. Arrow740 21:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Translation of the arabic word "nur" (نور)
There apparently has been some misconseption about the translation of this arabic word, and its relation to whether or not the quran says the moon is its own light.(,and, ) to clarify it, see this article by wikipedia, as well as this website .--Sefringle 03:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Mountains don't prevent earthquakes, sorry
Someone removed the line "Further, it is not true that mountains render the earth's crust more stable." As I indicated this can be found on page 171 of Campbell's book, and it is a quote by a professor of geology. The exact quote is as follows:

"While it is true that many mountain ranges are composed of folded rocks (and the folds may be of large scale) it is not true that the folds render the crust stable. The very existence of the folds is evidence of instability in the crust."

In fact this part of the book goes on to prove that the formation of mountains (by either of the two processes by which mountains are formed; the creation of folds in the earth's crust or by volcanic activity) in fact causes earthquakes. So Muhammad couldn't have been more wrong. I'm being restrained in not putting all of this in; don't remove the one sentence about this. It would be vandalism and could eventually lead to a block. Arrow740 09:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed that line, because we already said it in a slightly different way, and mentioned revelent sources. It is just getting repreatitive to say it again.--Sefringle 01:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's fine now. Arrow740 10:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Funny criticism
"Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."

Notable critics claim that these verses are a scientific error since the sun does not actually set in a spring of murky water. Who claims it means that sun actually set in a spring of murky water. Please refer to one tafsir which support this claim. Do you read any literary text.--Sa.vakilian 02:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll give you a tafsir. "it set in a spring of murky water." Arrow740 09:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a metaphore.--Sa.vakilian 04:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to convince yourself of that, that's fine. If you want to get a source which says that it's a metaphor and cite it, that's fine too. You can't remove a sourced criticism just because you disagree with it. What we're doing here is reporting WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY. THIS IS NOT WP:OR. Read the rules of wikipedia before you start messing things up. Arrow740 10:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Muslim veiwpoint :The verse says, “he found it set in a spring of murky water” i.e., according to his vision and sight that’s why Allah does not say “it is setting”.

He probably reached shore of the ocean and saw it like that because there was but water at the furthest of his sight that’s why He says “he found it set” and does not say “it sets”. (Al-Baidawi, Anwar-ut-Tanzil wa Asrar-ut-Taw’il, Volume 3, page 394. Published by Dar-ul-Ashraf, Cairo, Egypt) (Al-Qurtubi, Al-Game’ le Ahkam-el-Qur’an, Volume 16, page 47. Published by Dar-ul-Hadith, Cairo, Egypt. ISBN 977-5227-44-5) When Zul-Qarnain reached the furthest west and no populated land was left, he found the sun as if it sets in a dark spring, but it is not in reality. The same when sea traveler sees the sun as if it sets in the sea if he cannot see the shore while in reality it sets behind the sea. (Ar-Razi, At-Tafsir-ul-Kabir, Volume 21, page 166) “Until, when he reached the setting of the sun" means he followed a certain way till he reached the furthest land he could go from the west. As for reaching the setting of the sun in the sky, it is impossible. What narrators and story tellers say about that he walked for a period of time in earth while the sun was setting behind him is unreal, and most of it is from myths of People of the Book and inventions of their liars. "he found it set in a spring of murky water" means he saw the sun according to his vision setting in the ocean and this is the same with everyone ending to the shore seeing as if the sun sets inside it (i.e. the ocean). (Ibn Kathir, Tafsir-ul-Qur'ân Al-'Azim, Volume 5, page 120. Published by Maktabat-ul-Iman, Mansoura, Egypt) --Sa.vakilian 11:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Imam Al-Baidawi notes,
 * Imam Al-Qurtubi states,Al-Qaffal said: It is not meant by reaching the rising or setting of the sun that he reached its body and touched it because it runs in the sky around the earth without touching it and it is too great to enter any spring on earth. It is so much larger than earth. But it is meant that he reached the end of populated land east and west, so he found it - according to his vision - setting in a spring of a murky water like we watch it in smooth land as if it enters inside the land. That is why He said, "he found it rising on a people for whom we had provided no covering protection against the sun." (Holy Qur'ân 18:90) and did not mean that it touches or adheres to them; but they are the first to rise on.
 * Al-Qutabiy said: Probably this spring is a part of the sea and the sun sets behind, with or at it, so the proposition takes the place of an adjective and Allah knows best.
 * Imam Fakhr-ud-Deen Ar-Razi states,
 * Imam Ibn Kathir states,

who exactly is "Syed Kamran Mirza"?
and why is he notable? that FFI article also seems to regurgitate "SKM"s polemic. can somebody please provide critique from somebody a bit more notable?

there are also problems with spamming of verses, and blatantly unencyclopaedic language. there may also be concerns regarding giving undue weight to critique. lastly, there are many weasely wordy statements, in the place of which we can have specific attributions as to who exactly claims what.  ITAQALLAH  14:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Criticism of islam is largely internet based because islam gives license for muslims to kill critics of islam. As such SKM is a notable critic. Try using a search engine. Arrow740 22:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * with less than 800 hits to his name, as well as ourselves knowing totally nothing about his background or education, he seems to be an amateur dabbling in polemic. there are plenty of websites and noted personalities you can use, you have no need to rely on "SKM".  ITAQALLAH   22:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * His writings are posted on websites that even you will admit are notable. As such his writings are notable. Arrow740 23:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * of course they aren't. such websites invite "community participation" and invite any one at all, regardless of their educational background or notability, to have their name up on the website with an article next to it. it does not make the critic notable. i wonder if you would argue for your own notability and inclusion on wikipedia were you to one day submit a few of your own personal analyses to a website like FFI. fact is, not everyone on the list is notable (some are just forum users trying to get into fictional writing, visibly), and some of the personalities are laughable. SKM isn't a notable critic, and we know next to nothing about him: why are you citing him as an authority in an encyclopedia?  ITAQALLAH   23:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is called "Criticism of the Qur'an." Criticism of the Quran is a noteworthy thing. It takes place largely on the internet. The points we are attributing to him are a valid phenomenon to report on here. The messenger doesn't really matter, however this guy seems to be a pretty important internet critic of Islam. What's the big deal about his name? Arrow740 23:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * yes, criticism of the qur'an is notable. not everyone who engages in it however, is. therefore, we base the article upon those established critics. we do not include (essentially) phantom critics and name-drop as if they are important or notable, when they clearly are not. similarly, we don't include every and any criticism under the sun: we include only those critiques which are prevelant and notable (and if they are notable, they will surely have someone notable espousing it).  ITAQALLAH   17:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want you can replace the links with your choice of these:, , or , and I'm sure I could find others if I spent more than a minute searching. Arrow740 22:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What is wrong with including the name? It is only extra imformation about who the critic who said this imformation is.--Sefringle 07:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe Itaqallah can prove to us why it is against wikipedia rules to include the name of the critic. Arrow740 09:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * if he was the only one presenting this criticism, the critique itself would have no place here. his work is more akin to juvenile gutter polemic with the habitual 'CAPS TO EMPHASISE THE POINT I'M MAKING'... there is no reason to embarass wikipedia by pretending that those with just-reached-puberty mentalities are 'notable critics' by citing their name (implying that they are notable), unless of course those are the best, most academic sources you have. this article itself currently makes a joke of wikipedia policy.  ITAQALLAH   15:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * According to the What Wikipedia is not article, it says "Less well-known people may be mentioned within other articles." I believe that line therefore allows Syed Kamran Mirza's name to be mentioned.--Sefringle 04:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * yes, "less well-known people", indicating at least some degree of notability which does not quite reach the level of that required for a bio article. to exploit such an ambiguity, claiming that it supports inclusion of people whom we know virtually nothing about and to name him as if he is a prominent critic clearly goes against the spirit of WP:RS and WP:V.   ITAQALLAH   13:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no "as if." He is not referred to as "prominent" in the article. He is a notable critic of Islam, as his writings are prominently featured on websites which get millions of hits a year. Also, we are not including him, as you nonsensically suggested. We are including references to his writings, which are notable. We are not giving any biography of him. In naming a person whose material we use more than once we are only being informative. Arrow740 01:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

you are propping up yet another straw man. you, as well as Sefringle, are also equivocating biographical article notability requirements (WP:BIO) with general source notability(WP:RS/WP:V), believing that a clear ambiguity in the WP:NOT text allows for you to name-drop Mr. X. this is in clear contention with the spirit of other established policies and guidelines. "informative"? what exactly can you tell us about "Mirza" which is established from independant sources?

700 google hits totally ridicules any suggestion that his writings or his persona are notable (he signs his articles, thus a name search gives an indication as to how widespread his articles are. an extract search suggests the article in question doesn't seem to be very widespread at all). his "writings" may be considered "notable" for those who subscribe to your niche of internet browsing tendencies, but for the vast majority he remains unworthy of note and recognition.

FFI/mukto do not display his self-submitted articles because they contain academic merit, they are placed there entirely because of their skew, and such websites encourage amateur contributions, so this says almost nothing about Mirza nor his sloppy work. anything else there is to say on this point i have previously mentioned. perhaps we should open an RfC and see what some uninvolved editors think?  ITAQALLAH  14:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Criticism of the Quran is notable, it takes place largely on the internet because of the death threats critics get, and SKM is a prominent one of these critics, for reasons I outlined. Arrow740 22:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * criticism is notable, yes. i don't believe that merely its presence on the internet is what makes it notable, i think there are plenty of scholarly personalities who have splashed out on critique. hiding away because of death threats? can you substantiate that from independant reliable sources, or do we have only Ali Sina's sobbing to go by? 700 ghits does not indicate the pseudonym Syed Kamran Mirza is prominent, this an objection you've yet to answer.  ITAQALLAH   00:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is allowed to include Syed Kamran Mirza's name as a primary source within this article according to the WP:RS. It says "Widely acknowledged extremist organizations or individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should be used only as primary sources." I believe that in this context, Syed Karman Mirza's name is being used as a primary source.--Sefringle 03:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Contradictions in the quran
I have added this section. For the purpose of NPOV, if the muslims have a rebuddle to any of the contradictions, please add it.--Sefringle 07:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Watt, Endress
of course, they are relevant. Watt is questioned about severe punishments and he makes that comment, actually starting with OT. Endress also mentions the reason for such punishments in early islam. --Aminz 09:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Old Testament referrence is irrelevant. This is Criticism of the Qur'an. You seem obsessed with comparing Islam to other religions. If you want the real comparison, I would suggest that the proof is in the pudding, i.e. look at the ethics of Muslims vs. the ethics of Jews and Christians and you will see the difference between the religions. As regards the Endress thing, it was a non sequitur. If you want to include it make some connection between it and the criticism. Arrow740 09:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Watt was questioned:

Q."Many Westerners would question the value of dialogue with Islam because, for example, they see the Sharia as being cruel. Do you think this is true?"

A. "Well, similar punishments are found in the Old Testament - including, for example, the cutting off of women’s hands in Deuteronomy 25. In Islamic teaching, such penalties may have been suitable for the age in which Muhammad lived. However, as societies have since progressed and become more peaceful and ordered, they are not suitable any longer.

If we demonise one another we cannot even debate such things. Dialogue is therefore imperative. It helps us to discern not just the meaning of the Holy Scriptures, but also the relevance that God wants them to have in our times."

So, it is quite relevant. The Endress quote is explaining a functionality of these punishments in early Islam --> because it was necessary for the environment in which women had several husbands, men could get infinitely many wives. It is in fact very interesting. There was a kind of marriage in pre-Islamic arabia, in which ten men were sleeping with a woman immediately after each other.... Funny practices but these are all irrelevant. --Aminz 09:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why don't you explain why this discussion of the Old Testament is relevant in this article, entitled Criticism of the Qur'an? I don't really know what your argument is. It will be easier to respond if you state it clearly. As regards the Endress thing, you can include it, just include it in a way that makes sense. And as regards irrelevant things, Christianity and Judaism had banned polygamy long before Islam did (hmmm...) Arrow740 09:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Judaism didn't ban polygomy. Jews living in Muslim lands were also practicing polygomy (I've read this in Lewis I believe). Christians probably had much more reasons to condemn polygomy. Anyways, the connection between punishments in OT and Qur'an gives one insight: The issue is more deep. Let's ask our Jew friends about it. I dunno. Watt says that. Muslims feel better to see they are not alone. It is not all reasoning. Anyways, --Aminz 10:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Itaqallah put it back in, perhaps without reading this section of the talk page. I'm asking for a reason why the reference to the Old Testament is relevant in this article. As regards the Endress quote, I'm not saying it can't be added in, just that the way it has been done makes no sense. Itaqallah claims that English is his first language so he should be able to insert it smoothly. Arrow740 22:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The OT one is stated by Watt. The Endress quote (though okay now) is better to be rephrased so that it focuses on strict punishment. i.e. a sentence like "Without strict punishment had the functionality that it was only through ...." something like that i dunno. --Aminz 01:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why should we include the OT quote? Arrow740 02:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You are just finding quotes that are pro-Islam, or at least rationalize flaws in Islam, and place them in the article whether or not they make sense where you put them. Please give a reason why the Old Testament quote should be included. "Watt said it" isn't enough. You need to say, "Watt said this, and I want to include it for this reason..." As regards the Endress quote, please copy the entire paragraph where you found it in the book (and any other material needed to understand the context) here. Arrow740 09:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Here it is: "The social system ... build up a new system of marriage, family and inheritance; this system treated women as an individual too and guaranteed social security to her as well as to her children. Legally controlled polygamy was an important advance on the various loosely defined arrangements which had previously been both possible and current; it was only by this provision (backed up by severe punishment for adultery), that the family, the core of any sedentary society could be placed on a firm footing." Sorry for being late. --Aminz 03:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please quote more fully. It is not clear what "this provision" is. Arrow740 03:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Read it yourself here: http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0231126832&id=DzLZrLh07YwC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&vq=The+social+system&dq=Islam:+An+Introduction+to+Islam+gerhard&sig=S0yIM4nlFXSYzr4a6odwsyn0Ye8&hl=en


 * --Aminz 04:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's still not clear, we might need more than that one page. Why don't you try telling me what the "provision" is. Arrow740 05:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The provision is Islam's social reforms. --Aminz 06:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That doesn't even make sense, as one is singular and one is plural. Arrow740 22:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have to explain. I am quoting the source and showed you the page. If you like, go and get the book and read. I am convinced it refers to part of the reforms. I don't have to convince you about anything about the content of the book. --Aminz 04:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the OT connection should be there for example because saying Qur'an prescribes severe punishment might make some think that Islam is cruel (and I think this is the point critics want to get at). --Aminz 03:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Remember to place criticism before response. Also note that Deuteronomy was written over a thousand years before the Quran. Arrow740 03:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Jews believe the Torah laws are eternal and Bible that we have today is the same as Moses's one. The Qur'an was also written 1400 years ago. --Aminz 06:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My point is that it doesn't make sense to try to say that the Quran was good in some way by comparing it so something written at least ten centuries before. Arrow740 22:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Categories
I think we can all agree that bhaisaab's decision to delist this from the Islam category was vandalism. I also think that there is sufficient connection to science that we should include it in Islamic Science as well. Arrow740 08:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree.--Sefringle 21:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You said in your edit summary "...Bhaisaab didn't even put it in a Quran subcategory..." Perhaps you need to check what categories this article is already in. BhaiSaab talk 21:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way you seem to be calling a few too many edits vandalism. Then when you realize it was a mistake, it's not really beneficial to your reputation as an editor here. I suggest you get a good read over WP:AGF. BhaiSaab talk 21:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Quran is a subsubcategory to Islam. This article, while concerned with the Quran, is concerned with the entire Quran and the integrity of the Quran as a religious scripture, and so with the integrity of Islam itself. As such this article belongs in the Islam category. As regards my allegations of vandalism, you deleted a link to something quoted by a secondary source and did not mention it in an edit summary . This was after I had already reverted it back. Maybe this isn't the wikipedia definition of vandalism, but I consider it to be vandalism. Arrow740 21:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Faithfreedom, Spencer, and Seyed Kamran Mirza
Wikipedia should not use these sources (no scholarly encyclopedia does). If you would like to criticize, find an academic scholar who does so. --Aminz 01:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is called criticism of the Qur'an, an important subject. The people you listed are the prominent critics of Islam. If you want to argue that the entire article should be deleted, try to get it deleted. Otherwise it and the sources stay. Arrow740 02:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This sentence is quite unscholarly :"Some critics believe that it is not only extremist Islam that preaches violence but Islam itself, a violence implicit in the Qur'anic text." I MEAN such statement really needs to be attributed to an academic scholar. --Aminz 02:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It needs to be attributed to a notable critic of Islam, that's it. This isn't a history article. Arrow740 02:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

In any case Spencer is really great, and if you read one of his books you would agree. He uses even more quotes than you, and he actually uses them appropriately. It is not the case that everything in wikipedia needs to be attributed to a tenured professor. Arrow740 02:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why doesn't he then publishes his book in an important press like "Oxford University Press"? I would then love to read that book. --Aminz 02:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's ask for an administrative comment. Do you agree? --Aminz 02:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Which of his publishers don't merit being called "important"? Arrow740 02:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This page is only reflecting a horrible Islamophobic image and nothing else. The people you have over-qouted here are just few people who use a FFI website! They are not acclaimed scholars but only looked upon for references for hate since 9/11. Its sad! Really the friend asked a very good question, show us which reputable press like Oxford or even Penguin books have decided to publish their any thing? I really wonder what a disgrace this article is for an encyclopedia! (UJMi 23:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC))
 * Uhmi, please see this. It is the wikipedia policy when dealing with religion.--Sefringle 22:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Background"
This is not the proper article for your version of "background" on the issue of war and violence, Aminz. Put it in a new article. Arrow740 05:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

We should give a summary of scientific information and then you can go ahead and write whatever criticism you would like. There is no reason to hide the undisputed information. --Aminz 06:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is called Criticism of the Quran. You make articles too long by wikipedia standards. If you want to put more quotes from silly scholars on wikipedia you have the ability to do it, however if it's not directly related to criticism of the Quran, it should not go here as this article is already quite long, and I have a fair amount of material to add to it which actually is criticism of the Quran. The format for this article is criticism, followed by rebuttal, and we are very specific. That is a good way of approaching an article on this topic, and we would produce the best possible article on this topic if you would also adhere to this guideline. Arrow740 06:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * wiki is not a paper encyclopedia. any appropriate information that is relevant and useful which contributes to the discussion should be included. "The format for this article is criticism, followed by rebuttal, and we are very specific." - no, that is the format of the unscholarly critique spam, which incidentally you have not been consistent in adhering to. any kind of scholarly discussion, from established academics (i.e. not graduates from the local circus) about controversial aspects of the Qur'an which have received critique or about criticism of the Qur'an in general should be welcomed.  ITAQALLAH   14:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yawn . Arrow740 22:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * perhaps you should re-read what i wrote above.  ITAQALLAH   00:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The principle that we should not have criticism, response, criticism, response, and on and on, makes sense here just as it did where you applied it. Arrow740 09:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * For a quick "background," it should describe the topic in one or two sentences, and not include any verses.--Sefringle 03:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There was an RfC on this. See the section below--Aminz 04:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, please read the follow up section before renaming the section again. --Aminz 04:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Aminz revert warring
This article is about criticism of the Quran. As in all other similar articles, we have criticism follows by response. You preface criticism with excessive quotations, many of which are out of context, and for which you cannot provide context. Your wording violates NPOV as you state as fact things which have not been proven. I try to make constructive improvements to this article, while you make wholesale reverts. Arrow740 11:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed this complaint and changed the worst excesses, putting responses behind criticism and removing some off topic stuff. Unrelated to this, I have also tried to remove to silly and substandard references to "Qur'an". Both in English and in Arabic, that word is preceded by an article. Please respect the rules of the English language. Str1977 (smile back) 00:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Category removals
User:Itaqallah keeps removing the Islam category from this article, though it clearly is an Islam-related topic. I feel this is disingenuous and wrong. RunedChozo 18:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * every qur'an related topic is an islam related topic, and if all the qur'an related topics were in the islam cat (which, of course, is not the case), there would be no need for a qur'an category.  ITAQALLAH   18:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not so, a square is a rectangle is a polyhedron, to wit. RunedChozo 18:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

X Professor at Y
This is done in many article such as new antisemitism written by a couple of admins and elsewhere in wikipedia. Please don't remove it. You may know these people by the readers don't necessarily know them. I agree that it might become unencyclopedic is we do this over and over--Aminz 23:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the practice, wherever it occurs. It needlessly bloats the article. I prefer preceding a name merely with his field (I know this can be tricky) and deal with the rest in an article on that person. Str1977 (smile back) 09:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with str1977 on this. Each case must be considered on its own, but one of the nice things about hypertext is that we can link to people instead of cranking out mini biographies when a name is mentioned. If they have no article, even a footnote is often better. Tom Harrison Talk 02:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As I had to encounter this again, let me describe my views on this in detail:
 * We have the name of the scholar, sure.
 * We may want to include his field scholarship, though that is dispensable if the person has an article (blue wikilink). Another factor is how complicated such an addition would be: "Historian Kunibert Smyth" would be fine but "Kunibert Smyth, professor for history and literature" etc. is more wordy and I am less inclined to keep this.
 * Finally, we absolutely need not include the institution the scholar has a chair at. I will revert (within the Wiki-rules) any attempt to repost that cruft.
 * Str1977 (smile back) 19:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment.
The dispute: We know that Islam has been (mostly recently) criticized for Jihad. I've made a short summary of the ethics of warfare in Qur'an (neither defensive nor critical, an academic one) and added that to this article to provide some context. But some editors don't think it should be there. But I think it is: 1. much shorter than the criticism section, and 2. is nothing but a short summary and provides a neutral summary before any criticism or defense.

I'll request some Admins to comment on the existence of this short summary. --Aminz 02:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * NEUTRAL summary? QUestion is does Islam encourage the agressive Jihad against non-Muslims. you can argue either way BUT saying this 'summary' is neutral for this question well youve gotta be kidding.Opiner 03:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It is taken from Encyclopedia of Qur'an which is an scholarly source written by a non-Muslim and this article is about the Qur'an. --Aminz 03:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That makes your use and placing of it neutral?Opiner 03:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That's the only source that I've seen which focuses on the Jihad from the perspective of Qur'an alone. Do you have other sources of the same scholarly level? --Aminz 08:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The question is about your using and placing of the source not about its including somewhere on Wikipedia. About WP:NPOV not WP:RS. Everyone telling you this. PLEASE listen.Opiner 08:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Who is this everbody? You and Arrow740 is not everybody. Let's wait for the RfC. --Aminz 08:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Str1977 also telling you exact same thing. WP:NPOV≠WP:V! Think, otherwise why two policies?Opiner 08:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I know. Please bring an academic source at the level of the source there and show why it is POV. I think it is NPOV. If you think it is not, then please prove it. --Aminz 08:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is about criticism of the Quran. Thus, the section in question is about not about the ethics of warfare in Qur'an; instead, it is about critics' views of the ethics of warfare in the Quran. This should be obvious even to Aminz. Arrow740 09:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, I am responding to Aminz' request that I give my opinion, and do not plan to otherwise involve myself in the article. Given the difficult nature of the topic, everyone seems to be doing a good job. I think it makes sense to use summary style and mention briefly the position of mainstream Islam on what the Qur'an teaches. Violence and Islam is an important contemporary topic. Summarizing gives the reader context, and provides a link to further information. This seems to be broadly consistent with how the other sections are presented. Obviously it must be kept brief, and must not unbalance the article. It should not become a fork (pov or otherwise) of any other page. There are several articles about violence and Islam, so some careful choices have to be made. Fortunately, there is no deadline. Best wishes to all, Tom Harrison Talk 14:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I found this after all, Aminz and Arrow. I agree with Tom on all he said. As for the Crone piece, it has its place in this article, in this section but not atop of it. This article deals with criticism and hence a section begins with the criticism and then with responses and other perspectives. A Crone starting piece giving "the" scholarly position is out of order. It is not a "neutral" summary - it is Crone's (scholarly) view. Contrary to a statement above, WP does not adhere to APOV but to NPOV. Finally, Aminz says it is the only source dealing with the issue from the Qur'an only. Whether this is a possible approach is questionable (compare "sola scriptura") but even so, above it was disputed that the piece is based on the Qur'an only. Str1977 (smile back) 09:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, "summary style" means that the main articles, Islamic military jurisprudence and Jihad, are to be accurately summarized here. I usually take the first paragraph or two and copyedit it into a section. If that does not give you what you need, changes should be made to the main article. Tom Harrison Talk 14:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

How we should work on this article
Please, everyone state their opinions on the following two guidelines. It would help if you chose to Agree or Disagree with both.
 * This article is about Criticism of the Quran. The subject of any article should be discussed most prominently, in any section of that article. Thus, a general discussion of a certain aspect of the Quran, while indirectly relevant to criticism of the Quran, should not be the primary focus of any section. Such a discussion would be better suited to the Quran article, or should have its own article.


 * This article is about Criticism of the Quran. To merit inclusion in this article, it is enough that an author be a notable critic of Islam; an academic pedigree is not required, as criticism of the Quran is primarily conducted outside of academia.

Can everyone involved in the edit warring state their responses to these two guidelines? Thanks, Arrow740 09:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think a small section as a summary of the mother article is not bad but also good. Let's wait for the RfC. --Aminz 09:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * On #1: Yes, the main focus of this article is criticism of Qur'an and we should discuss the main subject in other articles in details. But I think it would be the best to give a short summary of the academic POV (not taken from 'criticis') at the beginning of each section (to give background, seting up the discussion etc). Then we can have criticisms and responses. One point, this article is about Qur'an and not Islam. So, if there is something in Islam which is not Qur'anic, we should not include it here. Like Encyclopedia of Islam vs Encyclopedia of Islam. And lastly, the size of the criticism sections and response sections should be approx. equal.


 * Agree. But only in this article and in the criticism sections, not in places where general information is given. If the views of critics are criticized, as with spencer, then that can go in response section (together with spencer's defense of course)--Aminz 10:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up
I do not agree with your summary idea. One problem with this is that I do not think it would be possible to provide short neutral summaries of the issues. The Crone piece is not neutral; the Quran advocates certain treatment of pagans, and a different treatment of Muslims, so her piece (if you summarized it correctly) is not only biased, but false as well. Another problem is that, again, the focus of the article is the criticism itself, and general discussions of particular issues belong in other article. Perhaps we could link to the Quran article. It just doesn't make sense to start sections with material that doesn't really belong. Arrow740 10:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * if you think she is not neutral, then you can find reliable sources and add them as well. we can say prone says this and the other guy says that. we can then summerize it. --Aminz 10:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "The basic principle in fighting in Islam is that one should treat other communities as they treat one's own." This is wrong. Moreover, it is an opinion stated as a fact. It nowhere says in the Quran, for example, that Muslims should behead other Muslims. We cannot use Crone. I don't think we should have a section dedicated to a summary of the ethics of war in Islam anyway, because it would be impossible to find a short, neutral, informative such summary. Please try to find a more neutral source (Lewis might be a good place to start). Moreover, the Islamic military jurisprudence is the appropriate place for such material, where it is already presented in extensive form. I am placing the summary of the Islamic military jurisprudence article here in this article. Arrow740 22:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

First, what matters is academic POV not our POV. And sure, we can attribute everything to Crone. And lastly, this article is about Qur'an alone. The mother article is not necessarily written based on reliable sources and wikipedia itself is not a source for itself. --Aminz 22:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We have to use common sense in writing this article, and in reading the work of scholars in general. Crone as you have presented her is biased, so it doesn't make sense to use her as the source for a summary in a very important place in the article. The other article and the Jihad article contain discussion of the Quran. Crone shares your POV so you keep pushing her. Do you really think that's the way we're supposed to edit? Arrow740 22:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Crone is the only source I have which specifically talks about Warfare in Qur'an (since she wrote in Encyclopedia of the Qur'an) --Aminz 22:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You have to admit that the first sentence of your summary is merely her opinion, stated as a fact. Even if you put "Crone says...", it will still be her opinion, and a pro-Islam POV. This is not acceptable. If we need to get administrators in here we can, because it is obvious that statements in the summary are biased and misleading. If you cannot find a balanced source, then we should just link to the relevant articles, Islamic military jurisprudence and jihad, where the issues are discussed at length. Arrow740 22:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added POV tag because you think there are other sources. We can keep the tag for sometime while you are trying to find sources. --Aminz 22:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "You think there are other sources." When did I say that? I'm saying, as it is, it is unacceptable, for the reasons I stated above. I do not believe that we need to quote people. We should just give a very short summary of information stated in the relevant articles. This is the most balanced way to proceed. After all, this article is about criticism of the Quran. Arrow740 22:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources for wikipedia. --Aminz 23:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We don't need to get specific. As it is this section is undisguised POV pushing. Arrow740 07:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethics of warfare in Qur'an vs. Patricia Crone's perspective
Patricia Crone is NOT a neutral writer, and her writings should not be consitered the standard for this article. It would be better to call the category that discusses her opinion "Patricia Clone's perspective."--Sefringle 00:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * hardly any writer is neutral. at least Crone has respectable academic qualifications in the relevant field (i.e. Islamic studies), which neither Robert Spencer nor Ali Sina- both of whom you rely heavily upon in this article, can boast. it is not merely Crone's perspective, as the article has been endorsed as the most appropriate entry on this topic by the editors at Brill Academic publishers (who compiled both EoI and EoQ) which does give an added weight of authority to Crone's article.  ITAQALLAH   01:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not saying her opinion is irrelevant to this article. What I am saying is it is not fitting to have it as the summary of war and violence for this article, because she is bias. Patricia Clone's perspective would be a far better title, because then, we are not saying that her opinion is more valuble than the other critics, which would not be NPOV. Why do we even need a "general ethics of warfare" categroy anyway? The two sentence summary at the beginning of the "war and violence" section does that just fine in my opinion without incorperating POV.--Sefringle 01:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added other sources. Now it is not only Patrica who is speaking. --Aminz 09:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But it still is her opinion. We cannot state her opinion as fact. That would be POV. while she Ms. Clone's perspective is relevant, it should be mentioned under a neutral title. "General ethics" is not a neutral title for this category.--Sefringle 21:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have attributed quotes to her. The neutrality tag is for that (that meanwhile you find other reliable sources). And it is no longer *her* views. --Aminz 21:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The "Criticism" section does just that. Should we just combine the two sections?--Sefringle 21:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the criticism section is written by unreliable scholars. I am going to use reliable sources to refute each of the criticisms. --Aminz 21:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * However, in coordinance with the NPOV policy, it is also important to have the summary neutral. Clone is not neutral. If we include her beliefs, which we should, we shouldn't include them in the "general ethics" category, because that would not be neutral. It would be better to call it by her perspective.--Sefringle 22:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality is achieved by providing more reliable sources. The POV tag remains for awhile. Please find university-press published books written by scholars who are not disputed (as I've done) and add them to the article. --Aminz 22:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The neutrality of Patricia Clone is disputed. --Sefringle 22:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please show me an academic scholar who disputes her scholarship and I'll take it out. --Aminz 22:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not saying she isn't a scholar. I am saying that calling her perspective the official general ethics perspective is not acceptable according to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, because of her pro-Islam bias.--Sefringle 23:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly, it isn't. Getting some other people of questionable reliability to agree with her on two of her uncontroversial points doesn't save this section. I've moved it to Islamic military jurisprudence where it belongs, not here in Criticism of the Quran. Arrow740 00:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I think it does belong here, but under a neutral title--Sefringle 00:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It serves no purpose here; it is not neutral so it doesn't work as a summary, and it speaks more to the topic of the other article. Arrow740 00:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But it does mention many relevant verses related to Islam and science and it mentions a scholars perspective. However, I don't think it should be titled "general ethics of warfare in the quran."--Sefringle 00:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Science? I have no problem with having a neutral summary that mentions verses. What we had is not that, and belongs somewhere else. Arrow740 00:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. It wasn't neutral. However it does belong on this page, just not as a summary. It belongs here as a perspective.--Sefringle 01:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is about criticism of the quran. Her perspective doesn't figure into that. It belongs elsewhere. Arrow740 02:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

We had an RfC over that. The fact tag is there for you to find other reliable sources. The sources added were books published by renowned presses. If you think the section is not neutral please find other non-controversial sources and bring balance back to it. --Aminz 01:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We didn't. The RfC was about the general idea of background, not your POV summary. I think a short two sentence summary suffices, and is the only way to be neutral. Arrow740 02:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If you think it is POV, then neutralize it using other reliable sources. --Aminz 02:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We have a neutral, appropriate summary now. The Crone POV piece is now in the more appropriate article. If you're going to keep fighting to include her point of view on ethics of war in Islam (which clearly doesn't belong in an article about criticism of the Quran), we're going to have to have mediation. Arrow740 03:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

answering-islam.org
This webpage (answering-islam.org) contains unverified original research. Why does wikipedia cite it in this article?

And about the Quran vs Science debate. You cannot compare the two since the Quran is from divine origin, while science is merely the work of us humans. Science is a continous process, it still continous to change everyday, and it fails to answer many fundemental questions, etc.


 * No. Muslims BELIEVE the Quran to be of divine origin, whereas nonmuslims believe it to be made up by Muhammad himself. And this article is about those who believe the quran to be made up by Muhammad himself and why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.173.227.133 (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC).


 * This article is concerned with criticism, so critics are cited. Your second point is no basis for editing WP. Str1977 (smile back) 19:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The quran claims to be of devine orgin. The purpose of this article is to show the views of those who disagree with the quranic claim to devine orgin. Since many muslims claim there are no scientific errors, critics of Islam have looked in the quran for scientific errors, and this article attempts to show the errors they found and the muslim defenses to them.--Sefringle 21:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Answering Islam and Faithfreedom.org website
Like someone said above, why cite Answering Islam as a source? And why cite Faithfreedom.org as a source? Ignoring the fact that I'm Muslim, you'll see that both of these sites lie about Islam and state things not found in the Qur'an.

It's one thing to critisize a religion, but it's another to lie about a religion, as Faithfreedom.org and Answering Islam do.

Armyrifle 22:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You believe they lie. Other people may have a different opinion than you on that issue.--Sefringle 22:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Prove that they lie (though it is irrelevant to this article). This article is about criticim of the Quran, and they're among the most notable critics. Arrow740 23:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sefringle - that argument can go both ways. And to Arrow740: his argument/my comments are on his talk page. Armyrifle 01:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

When I peruse the criticism of Christianity page, I see a lot of things I could term "lying" or "intentional misunderstanding" or "malice". Still, these things are included and rightfully so, if these criticisms (an awful euphemism) are actually made. There is still room for rebuttal and reply, but we cannot simply ignore criticisms (even false and stupid ones) if they are notable. Str1977 (smile back) 02:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

To anyone wishing to declare these sites as "unreliable," please see this first: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources--Sefringle 00:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The discussion is not yet concluded. BhaiSaab talk 23:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

After re-reading the policy, I think it is quite clear whether or not these are acceptable sources.
 * "Widely acknowledged extremist organizations or individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals and their activities. Even then they should be used with caution."

If these sources are being used in their articles, they are being used as secondary sources, not as primary sources. If FFI had its own article, for example, it would be appropriate to use the website itself as source. It is certainly not appropriate here. I'm sure we can find better sources for criticism. BhaiSaab talk 01:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They are a primary source for criticism. This article is about their activity, criticism of Islam. Arrow740 03:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is not about their activity. It is about a general activity in which unreliable sources are being used. If you want an article about their activity, they should have their own articles if they're notable enough. BhaiSaab talk 03:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Putting the word their in italics doesn't change its meaning. Arrow740 03:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Really? Is this article dedicated to faithfreedom/Answering Islam? Then it's not an article about their activity. It's an article about Criticism of the Qur'an, which they happen to engage in. BhaiSaab talk 03:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Is this article dedicated to faithfreedom/Answering Islam? Then it's not an article about their activity." Illogical. Arrow740 04:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately one word responses don't prove much. Use Ron Hubbard's "activities" for sources in psychology, and let me know of the outcome. BhaiSaab talk 04:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your response does not make sense. If you wish to express something, please try again. Arrow740 04:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What doesn't make sense is the argument that "we can include criticisms from FFI and Answering Islam as primary sources about their activities." Who cares about their activities? Why do their activities need to be in this article? Are there criticisms particularly notable, more so than the other millions of other unreliable websites that are dedicated to the same topic? Are you going to include the activities of all the other websites as primary sources? The argument falls flat. This is the entire reason we have WP:RS in the first place. BhaiSaab talk 04:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Who cares about their activities?" Millions of people per year.
 * "Why do their activities need to be in this article?" Nothing needs to be anywhere, what's your point.
 * "Are there criticisms particularly notable," Yes.
 * "more so than the other millions of other unreliable websites that are dedicated to the same topic?" If there a millions of websites you prefer, please list them. Arrow740 05:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If they're so important where are their Wikipedia articles? Why are their criticisms particularly notable? Are these arguments coming from thin air? Yes... BhaiSaab talk 15:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Those are extremist hate sites, not RS - they do not belong here. --Striver 16:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should resign from this organization. Arrow740 15:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * They are reliable sources for their own arguments, which are in large part the subject of this article. Please read the entire talk page, because it is getting tiresome for me to explain things to you. Arrow740 12:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:RS says about such extremist sites,  "Widely acknowledged extremist organizations or individuals should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals and their activities, and even then should be used with caution." For even criticization, you need to follow WP:RS and WP:V rules. End of discussion.  TruthSpreader Talk 13:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * They are notable critics of Islam. A large part of this article should be devoted to their criticism, for they are the most notable people making many of these criticisms, and the criticisms are well reasoned and referenced, and are read by the millions of people per year who visit the websites. There are a plethora of Muslim websites that have arisen in attempt to respond to their criticisms, and this article relays and cites these attempts as well. The criticism of these websites and the response of the Muslim websites are both notable activities. Isn't all of this obvious? Arrow740 13:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Mate! good reasoning, but I am sorry, your explanation doesn't fall into the policy of wikipedia. The policy, which I quoted, talks about these famous and notable sites.  TruthSpreader Talk 13:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The policy says very clearly, these sites can be used to describe these organizations and their activities only, so go to their articles, and put whatever you want to put, but as policy says, be cautious.  TruthSpreader Talk 13:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your quote does not use the word famous or the word notable. But it is clear that when it comes to criticism of the Quran, these websites are both famous and notable. This article is in large part about the activies of the people on the websites in question. If it will make you feel more secure somehow, when the page is unprotected you can attribute the criticisms on a point by point basis. Arrow740 13:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Mate! I sympathize with you, but WP policies don't allow us to do that. :(  TruthSpreader Talk 13:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop referring to me as "mate," and I have no use for your sympathy. An attempt at a logical argument might be worth reading. Arrow740 13:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is nothing to reason. Wikipedia policies speaks for itself.  TruthSpreader Talk 13:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Truthspreader. Arrow's statements are not valid arguments nor are FFI/A.I. valid sources. BhaiSaab talk 13:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed it does. Please read this and this and tell me what you think. Arrow740 13:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What are you trying to prove. Ibn Ishaq is a primary source! whats the big deal?  TruthSpreader Talk 13:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Ibn Hisham's edition of Ibn Ishaq's biography of Muhammad is a very big deal, since it's widely viewed as accurate, and is a good way to find out how Muhammad treated people. Arrow740 13:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. I can't find relevance of your comment to our discussion.  TruthSpreader Talk 14:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So did you read those sections? Arrow740 14:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So do these comments have a relevant point to this discussion? BhaiSaab talk 14:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If the things described in those sections had not happened, I probably wouldn't care about this article. Why do you ask? Arrow740 14:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So pal! can't help with you personal problems on Wikipedia. You should read WP:RS and WP:V compatible sources, rather than primary sources and Original research, that might answer some of your questions and also help in constributing to wikipedia in a more constructive way. Cheers!  TruthSpreader Talk 14:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In case you didn't pick this up, I changed the subject. The conversation had become pretty boring. I'm not suggesting that Ibn Ishaq was a critic of Islam, though if a modern historian wrote what Ibn Ishaq did, he might be called an Islamophobe. Regarding the websites you guys hate, I've demonstrated why their activities are notable as regards this article. Arrow740 14:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you haven't demonstrated why the activities of "the websites you love" are important for this article. BhaiSaab talk 14:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ibn Ishaq is completely irrelevant to our discussion. Secondly, your argument for FF/AI are good, but doesn't go along wikipedia policies.  TruthSpreader Talk 14:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That is your WP:OR. Arrow740 14:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How come! I didn't even say anything, and that is WP:OR.  TruthSpreader Talk 14:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:OR on Policies. Let's cite some academic journals that interpret Wikipedia policies for us so we don't do original research on the policies, shall we? BhaiSaab talk 14:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And by the way, FF/AI are "widely acknowledged" websites, and the policy under discussion is for them. A better route would be to file a case in WP:ArbCom and change WP:RS.  TruthSpreader Talk 14:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The OR thing was a little joke. My point is that your interpretation of the rule in question is somewhat forced. Indeed the websites are widely acknowledged. Even if you succeed in labeling them "extremist," they're the people who disseminate a lot of the criticisms of the Quran. Thus, this article will be in large part about their activity. My point earlier was that in this article, you can make as strong an assocation between these websites and the criticisms we attribute to them as you'd like. If that means including some discussion of the notable, widely acknowledged websites in question, go ahead. Arrow740 14:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good for them, if they are criticizing Qur'an. Bottom line is, wikipedia policies will have to be side lined before we will take such a step, which me, and other wikipedians are not ready to do that.  TruthSpreader Talk 14:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Here, again, is the policy: "Widely acknowledged extremist organizations or individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals and their activities. Even then they should be used with caution." This article will by its nature be about their activities, and we are using them as a primary source for that. If it is your intepretation of the rule that they can only be used as primary sources for articles about both them and their activities (i.e, you are adding the word "both" to the rule), then you can make this article about those websites to any reasonable extent necessary to conform this article to your interpretation of the rule. Arrow740 15:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice try! Their activity is to criticize Islam plus whatever they do, and this source can be used just to describe them. To state any information on wikipedia regarding issues like Qur'an and Islam, they cannot be used. The information has to come from WP:RS and WP:V compatible source.  TruthSpreader Talk 15:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And by the way, what FF/AI do and their functionality and their agenda is pretty much irrelevant to this article.  TruthSpreader Talk 15:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Nice try!" I wish I could say the same for your last two posts. Arrow740 15:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The sources can be used as Primary source for organizations or individuals and their activities and Not to describe other phenomenons.  TruthSpreader Talk 15:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, you got it. Arrow740 15:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope that you've got it as well.  TruthSpreader Talk 15:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not permitted to use an Al Qaeda website or video as a primary source in an article about terrorism (say, as a source of their beliefs, or arguments)? Arrow740 15:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Principally speaking, No! If they can be used, then only to describe their own activities but not to explain Israel-Palestine issue or Iraq war. I hope that this example would clear ambiguities in your mind.  TruthSpreader Talk 22:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If your answer is no, you are unreasonable. Arrow740 01:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't (yet) read all of the above, but the sites are proper references for criticism of Islam or of any of its elements, such as the Quran. The policy quotes speaks of "their activity" - well, and criticizing Islam is the main activity of these sites. Hence this article is about their (and other, similar people's) activity. How can we have an article on criticism when we filter out certain criticisms voiced (assuming that they are notable) ... I have no doubt that many of the criticisms are distasteful to the believer and some are probably ridiculous, inaccurate, slanderous. Nonetheless, they are included if notable. You can then add a Muslims (or whoever disagrees) repond ... passage to it.
 * The same goes for other issues, including links of a "criticism of Israel" article. Of course, an al-Kaida website (assuming that it is not generally disallowed) can be used as a reference for certain viewpoints, namely these of the terrorists.
 * Finally, I hope none of our fellow Muslims editors here, that contest the legality of links to "Answering Islam" has ever touched a link to "Answering Christianity". Can you all assure that? Str1977 (smile back) 14:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Be my guest to remove all answering christianity links! Secondly, this is gross violation of WP:RS, if you think that "extremist websites" can be used for their activities (which you think that criticism of Islam is one of them, hence, you can use it for Islam articles) then it is true for all academic sources i.e. even a "reliable secondary source" is only used in its area of expertise and its focus. Hence, you are making no difference between extremist websites and "Reliabe Source". And it is a very illogical interpretation of WP:RS policy, which says very clearly that "extremist websites" can only be used as primary source only to describe the organization and its activities only.  TruthSpreader Talk 14:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thirdly, I've stated above again and again, FF/AI are "well-acknowledged" websites and the policy under discussion is exclusively for them.  TruthSpreader Talk 15:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, to address your points:
 * I find the quality of Answering Christianity really deplorable but I do think that they can be used a references for criticism. I am not about to remove them all. I am just suspecting that some are dealing double standards. You, TruthSpreader, are not doing that, as I believe you.
 * Criticism is what these sites are doing and hence this is their activity. The article's structure can be summed by "Some people criticize the Quran for X,Y,Z. (reference: A,B,C)", to which Muslims reply F,G,H (reference: K,L,M). And now if B stands for Answering Christianity what is the problem. This is first and foremost not a facts article but an opinion article (of course, worded in NPOV fasion, with proper references etc.) To highlight my point take this extreme example: "Jews have been accused of global conspiracy" (reference: Mein Kampf) - the accusation is totally wrong and extremely disgusting and the author on of the greatest criminals that ever breathed, but still as a refrence it is valid.
 * Finally, I agree with your third point: these websites fit this policy. However, I don't agree with your reading of the policy, as explained in the last paragraph. Str1977 (smile back) 16:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Answering Islam and Faithfreedom.org website which present a point of view critical of what they describe as Islam's track record of extreme violence and malevolence towards the non-believers. For the most part these are simply websites that advocates universal respect for human rights and freedom of religion. Why some editors are insisting that respect for human rights and freedom of religion and freedom of speech equates to an extremist point of view is the question we should be asking ourselves.--CltFn 16:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Or we can ask ourselves why certain editors are insisting that we use websites that are maintained by bigots. But the fact is that it doesn't really matter what answer we get when we ask ourselves that; it matters what the content of the website is and whether we can apply it here. BhaiSaab talk 01:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My 2¢
IMHO, websites such as answering Islam, answering Christianity, answering my grandma, faithfreedom, faithXyz etc are websites w/ an agenda. When there's an agenda, there's a POV. --  Szvest   Ω  Wiki Me Up ®  15:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But whats you analysis in the light of WP:RS policy for Partisan and extremist websites; can these be used to criticize Islam or Christianity, when policy says that they can only be used as primary source to describe them and their activities.  TruthSpreader Talk 15:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What i commented above doesn't contradict what you just said truthspreader. Maybe it is an indepth interpretation from myself. Instead of being harsh on implementing the policy i tried to be more explicit hoping editors understand better the guideline. According to the RS, Partisan and extremist websites should be treated with caution and should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals and their activities, and even then should be used with caution. This is what the guideline states and i wanted it to be more clearer. It should be noted also that a guideline is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. In our case, common sense tells us that a website w/ an agenda is a website w/ POV. --  Szvest   Ω  Wiki Me Up ®  16:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fayssal's comment unfortunately is without substance in relation to this issue. Of course they have an agenda (everyone has), of course they have a POV (every sane person has), but when they are used as what they set out to be, that doesn't matter. Criticism, lest one wondered, is always POV. Str1977 (smile back) 16:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It carries substance Str. Neutral point of view leads and guides us to WP:RS. --  Szvest   Ω  Wiki Me Up ®  16:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you really want to tell me that external links, references etc. must conform to the NPOV policy. Boy, would we be bereft of links then, if someone actually enforced this policy, if it existed. Str1977 (smile back) 16:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd have been more happier if i were a boy but i am not one, Str. I haven't talked about External links at all. --  Szvest   Ω  Wiki Me Up ®  16:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about my mistaking you for a boy, but my point still stands. External links are any kind of links pointing outside of Wikipedia (as opposed to internal or Wikilinks). Hence the references we are talking about are external links and no policy requires them to be NPOV. Str1977 (smile back) 16:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Str! I think it would be a better idea to change WP:RS before talking on this issue. What you are saying is totally against WP:RS.  TruthSpreader Talk 16:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Truthspreader!!! (So, now please refrain from using exclamation marks on me. Thanks.) Indeed I can find nothing in that policy that requires sources to be NPOV. This would actually be impossible in our case, where criticism is the topic. As I said, criticism is necessarily POV. Str1977 (smile back) 16:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries re boy. I see your point now. It is hard to define which articles are to be linked as ext links. The guideline is not even clear (see n° 2 at External_links) but again it brings common sense to the facade. The problem now is "does a critical website factually presents accurate material or verifiable research"? If yes than they would be welcomed. In our case, it is still hard to come to a point here as everyone would argue for or against that. I am really interested to see (as this issue is related to many Islam-related articles) a list of websites that wikipedia could use as external links or sources. I suggest we raise this issue to the village pump. We need to bring the community and get it involved. Otherwise, we will never reach a concensus here. --   Szvest   Ω  Wiki Me Up ®  17:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree Fayssal about the research, but this all depends on what kind of article we are writing. In a simple general article about Muslim history I would advise more care than in this article which presents and discusses criticism, and the discussion includes rebuttals and responses. But how can a criticism be discussed if it is not allowed to be posted in the first place? Str1977 (smile back) 19:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Liberal movements in Islam
I removed this line: "There is a movement among some modern liberal Muslims to 're-interpret Islamic verses about ancient punishments,' in the words of Professor Ali A. Mazrui" because it is irrelevant to this article. However, if someone were to write an article about liberal movements in Islam that seek to re-interpret verses in the Quran and hadith, that would be extremely interesting. Arrow740 03:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"Liberal" Islam really is just about ignoring the Hadith completely and following only the Qur'an; not about reinterpreting the Hadith/Qur'an differently. Armyrifle 03:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, mainstream Islam interpets the verses of the Quran to have meanings within a certain spectrum. There are certain ideas from the Quran, as interpreted by almost all Muslims, that are unpalatable to the West, such as dhimmitude, harsh punishments, murder of apostates, polygamy, etc. Arrow740

Hmm
Interesting how these series of Criticism articles have expanded and evolved since I drifted away in the summer. Some advice... definitely all additions should be meticulously sourced on at least a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. Polemical sites such as 'faithfreedom', 'answering-islam', and 'answering christianity' have a place, but they should be cited SPARINGLY. Certainly pages and pages of cites from just these sites is not appropriate. Spencer is certainly a higher-quality source on the criticism side, and even writers like Karen Armstrong are better than these anonymous websites on the response side. - Merzbow 09:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Those websites are notable, reliable sources for criticism of the Quran. If you can find other sources for the material we are attributing to them, you are welcome to include references to those as well. Arrow740 22:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The editors of those websites are mostly anonymous and are mostly amateurs with no degrees to speak of. That is not to say that there isn't good analysis on some of these sites. There is (and to their detriment, many university professors refuse to engage in the kind of analysis of the Quran and other Islamic sources that they've been applying to the Bible for decades, out of fear of political correctness). But quantity does not make quality. Where the sources lack, keep it short, and upgrade as superior sources are found. - Merzbow 05:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would add two more likely sources of their reticence besides the fear of political incorrectness. One is the fear of assassination. The other is the fact that these university professors would have had a hard time getting their PhDs if they were harshly critical of Islam; that's why Spencer didn't get a PhD in Islamic Studies. Regarding these websites, are you denying that A) they are notable sources of criticism of the Quran or B) they are reliable sources for criticism of the Quran? "Superior" sources for some of the more specific criticism of the Quran probably won't be found for years, until the ivory tower changes. Hopefully, that's already happening. Arrow740 05:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they should be used sparingly but some guys up there don't want to allow them at all. That these critics lack degrees is certainly of some importance, but it is not enough to simply discount them as critics. Criticism is criticism after all, not necessarly a scholarly balanced report. ... If it were I would have to turn over to Criticism of Christianity right now and blank almost the entire page. Str1977 (smile back) 14:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The solution for this is easy, as I suggested above. Give the polemical web sites only as much space as they deserve - a paragraph or two here and there. Those who are trying to remove ALL of it need to stop. Somebody should sit down and condense the disputed material to about 1/3rd its size. - Merzbow 04:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You run the risk of making the article uninformative. Arrow740 07:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sometimes less is more. Readers are always free to follow links to the original websites if they want to read more about a particular criticism that we summarize here. - Merzbow 02:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Why don't you take a section you have an issue with and put a proposed replacement on this page, and give justifications for anything drastic. Arrow740 02:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not getting back into editing these articles... simply offering a suggestion to end the edit wars. - Merzbow 23:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The various jihads
That section doesn't have to do with the Quran, can we just agree that it belongs in Criticism of Islam, not Criticism of the Quran? Arrow740 23:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Since we're all watching this page like hawks, I'll take no response as acceptance. Arrow740 23:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A reformer
a reformer in the sphere of morals. I do not believe that these italics are Watt's (not even he is that bad). So I'll give you guys a day to prove me wrong then resume removing them. Arrow740 23:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

We don't have to. I'll try to provide the reference and it is your job to go to library and check it. --Aminz 00:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The italics are very bad style, as anyone who has taken classes in writing in an English speaking nation is well aware, and Watt is such a person, so you're the one who put in the italics. Also you are required to reproduce sources when requested. Arrow740 06:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * i don't believe you are in any position to issue ultimatums to other editors. fortunately, we work to no deadline. if Aminz claims to have access to a source and cites it then the relevant extract should be provided if editors request verification, as this is part of what collegial and collaborative editing entails.  ITAQALLAH   16:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't put it in italic. You might want to remove the italic style but not the quote. --Aminz 17:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have little doubt that Watt said that. Even if he is correct, the quote is irrelevant, because Muhammad was reforming a very backward society, and the quote makes no statements about the morals of the society when Muhammad was done reforming. They were still pretty bad in many respects, and this has continued to be the case until today. Arrow740 03:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That is your OR. --Striver 16:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you disagree with what I said? Arrow740 21:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Protected
I have protected the page from editing. There is no point in simply reverting back and forth. Please discuss and work out the differences. If nothing else, it's a break. Thanks to everyone for the civil discussion, considering the difficult topic. Tom Harrison Talk 19:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

After I unprotected the page, the first two edits were reverts. That is not useful. It is not the case that everyone is entitled to three reverts in every twenty-four hours. Anyone who disrupts the page by edit-warring will have his editing priviledges suspended. Tom Harrison Talk 14:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Request unprotection when you work something out. Tom Harrison Talk 22:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have unprotected the page. Please use dispute resolution if there are disagreements. Tom Harrison Talk 01:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

A mistake
Mohammad called "profit" in the article. Please correct it, change to "prophet".--Nixer 22:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A Contradiction and a Critique
First the critique. We don't have a stable definition of criticism. In fact, it is working on a few levels. There is a superficial amount of textual criticism. There is only literary criticism in as far as we talk about "perfect Arabic". Mostly, what this article means by criticism is polemics. Someone who says "I don't like the Qur'an" is a critic of the Qur'an. I suppose if that is the goal of this article it is doing a decent job. However, in that case we should stop arguing for "scholarly" since scholars don't typically devolve into polemics. It will just be an Ahmed Deedat vs. Jimmy Swaggart deathmach. The drive to "add scholars" means that, say, when a scholar believes "the Qur'an inspired the wars against the Byzantines" someone will think "that sounds bad" and then add it to the criticism despite that statement of the scholar's belief not having anything to do with criticism. We need to avoid this.

Now the contradiction. We have the competing forces of the scholarly drive and the polemical one. To have it be criticism in the polemical sense which this article is using as its primary definition you want to have scholars which leads (or did in criticism of Islam) to project criticism onto a scholar's matter of fact statement. Therefore we are kind of left with the bottom of the barrel in terms of who to work with.

And remember don't say "some critics believe" when your source is one author. Be precise because: "Many muslims believe Islam is a religion of peace, and that Islamic extremist terrorism is political terrorism or the actions of a few extremists. Many critics of Islam, and some Islamic fascists believe that violence is Islamic, and that Islamic extremist terrorism is religious terrorism or true islam." is not an acceptable paragraph. Frankly, it is stupid. gren グレン 20:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with your first two paragraphs. When an editor places a scholar's work in an article about polemics, he implies that the scholar is engaged in polemics, thus turning scholarly work into a polemic; the editor is creating something, so this is OR. This should be avoided. The placement of material often necessitates a certain interpretation of that material; when the material is primary material this new interpretation is often OR. What's your issue with the paragraph you had an issue with? Arrow740 07:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the third paragraph. Any suggestions for improvement?--Sefringle 23:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I think before anything else is done we need to define criticism in order to give this article a set scope. Without that we have no real criteria for inclusion--which I think has led to some of the edit wars that go on here.  I also don't believe that we should make this article too broad.  That is to say we may want to split it up into: Textual criticism of the Qur'an, Polemics on the Qur'an, etc.  I use polemics only for lack of a better word.  Polemics has definitely taken on a pejorative meaning which can make it difficult to stay NPOV while referring to an author as a polemicist.  Possibly Criticism of Qur'anic morality would be a suitable title?  That would fit Ali Sina, Robert Spencer, etc.  They are not notable in regards to textual criticism--but they are notable enough critics of Qur'anic morality.  Textual criticism is also too specific because it also deals with historical criticism.  The point is, it should be split into pieces that make sense.  Moral criticism makes no claim at 'objectivity'.  It classifies Islam and points out what it believes is wrong with it.  This is not inherently bad or bigoted or anything of the like--but it is very different from those investigating Qur'anic origins.  I know you asked how to fix that one paragraph--but I think this issue is more pressing.  Comments? gren グレン 08:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Extremist websites
Mate! you are using faithfreedom as secondary source not as a primary for the organization itself. you have a funny argument, but mate! nobody has understood the policy, as you have.  TruthSpreader Talk 09:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Mate, your argument is funny, as your take on the policy is still not accurate. Str1977 (smile back) 14:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I second that. Arrow740 22:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

i think Merzbow's suggestion above is a reasonable compromise. the people currently arguing for the use of such websites are not intending to use it with caution and sparingly as advocated by WP:RS and common sense, they are intending to spam the "criticism" articles with as much ill-informed unscholarly diatribe as possible, as exhibited by the recent reverting.  ITAQALLAH  23:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I will replace some of the material from the websites with material from books. I personally am willing to let the "noor" discussion go, too. Arrow740 23:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * About the noor discussion, nobody made any comment on it at the top of this talk page.--Sefringle 00:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right. No one is proposing specific compromises, so I thought I'd start somewhere. Hopefully edits like this and this will not occur again, now that itaqallah has admitted that the sources he previously dismissed and censored can play some role. Arrow740 01:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can come up with a proposed condensation of some of the material as a compromise. This won't include faithfreedom, as I think faithfreedom crosses the line into extremism as opposed to being merely partisan. - Merzbow 02:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How so? Arrow740 21:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Page overrun by Muslim POV pushers
I note that a number of Muslim Guild members are here and POV pushing heavily, screaming about "talk page" while never posting there and serially reverting proper material. If they have problems with the items being placed by others, and they insist on crying about "go to the talk page" then here I am: post your goddamn complaints rather than just serially reverting people like Arrow! RunedChozo 19:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Compromise attempt
OK I made an attempt here:

Diffs

This is a diff of a working draft of this article I created as a subpage in my user space; the initial version was taken from the currently protected version of this article.

I removed all the faithfreedom material, and vastly condensed the answering-islam stuff. This article still needs tons of work, but hopefully this might be enough to stop the current edit war. - Merzbow 07:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * answering-islam is also not acceptable. It should not be used at all. --- ALM 10:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you're in the minority on that view, ALM. - Merzbow 20:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well AI is definitely not an authentic source . Secondly most of their claims (Like semen from loins, sun setting in water, mountains preventing earthquakes) have been refuted many times. It would have been nice if some reputed scholar had critised Islam with logical arguments, sadly enough , all so called critics that we muslims get are of the categoy of "noisy crickets". F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 09:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is authentic. You are right, it has been refuted that semen comes from the loins, the sun sets in water, and mountains prevent earthquakes. Arrow740 10:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Can we come back to the article rather than going round & round in Sina styled debate . BTW policies make it authentic, not you F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 11:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't entirely reject your draft. I see you removed the semen from the lower back contradiction, which is in fact sourced from AI and a book by notable critic of Islam. I also don't see the problem with including Faith Freedom and Answering Christianity, as even if you can show them to be extremist (and AC might be, due to their denial of Muslim involvement in 9/11), we are still using them as primary sources for their own activities, so there is no violation of the guideline. However I agree with you that much can be condensed. I also will replace internet material in the war and violence section with material from Spencer. Arrow740 21:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, extremist sites may be used as primary sources about their own activities in their own articles, but not as sources for commentary about other things (like in this article). If you want to edit my draft, by all means, that's what it's for. - Merzbow 22:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The "in their own articles" phrase does not appear in the guideline, which is only that. I will work on your draft, but I will include some FF material. You didn't answer my question in the above section. Arrow740 00:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * One suggestion I have for the draft is to show the entire verse rather than just name the verse. Though that mihgt be getting too long again.--Sefringle 03:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's why I didn't quote the entire verse. I thought that would be giving undue weight to these sources. If a reader is interested he can always follow the link. - Merzbow 07:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

One thing that must be agreed upon by all users is that answering-Islam, is NOT a scholarly source. Scholars identify who they are, what sort of education they have, whether they have been acknowleged for thier research, what institutions they are associated with etc.

Consider the following quote from AI; "Some [want to] know who we are... If you are one who seeks answers to these questions, we would like to ask you: What would you need these answers for? We have no desire that people believe our arguments just because some respectable names of persons, organizations or churches are attached to the site."

Clearly the website (in its own words) wants to maintain the anonymity of the contributors, thus the material published by this website could be written by someone with very little knowlege on the Quran. Thus I don't see any reason why material from this website should be included on Wikipedia, unless ofcourse, we know more about the author and his/her background that makes him/her a scholar on the Quran.

If we want to use this missionary site, we might as well start posting from personal blogs of random persons across the internet.Bless sins 19:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no love for answering-islam. Honestly I'm OK with referencing them in small bits, or not referencing them at all. But anonymous guys writing on islamonline.net or submission.org, which are both referenced in the wife-beating section, are not any better. If we want to keep answering-islam out, then so should these guys be kept out also. If we want to consciously make a decision to have a smaller but higher-quality article (while continuing to balance the material), then we have to decide explicitly to do that. - Merzbow 00:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that AI is not scholarly as such, but I would also remind you that criticism is not required to be scholarly. Str1977 (smile back) 00:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Str is right, and what we can do is try to get as many criticisms as possible sourced to Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Bat Ye'or, etc, while keeping the other polemics that have aroused the ire of the many Islam propaganda sites, and include the "rebuttals" of the Islam propaganda sites. Arrow740 01:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC) I personally will try to do a major revamping in the next few days, I'm just a little busy with real life at the moment, as many of you can probably understand. Arrow740 01:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I put in my compromise version. I still think it's a good start. - Merzbow 19:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That is unacceptable. You have not made the case for removing all Faith Freedom stuff. If anything Faith Freedom is more notable that Answering Islam. Arrow740 03:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merzbow's attempt at a compromise is entirely reasonable, and does away with all of that needless spam.  ITAQALLAH   03:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We are going to have to make a compromise attempt. And while I agree it is unacceptable, I think we can use Merzbow's draft and make a few editings. Maybe we can find some more reliable sources, or at a bare minimum, quote each verse mentioned. I know we don't want to make it too long, but currently it is too short.--Sefringle 03:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding evolution, Please see The relation between Islam and science. I think this needs to be added to this article. And it is from a reliable source.--Sefringle 21:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The man quoted there is not trying to criticize Islam, far from it. The fact that his attempt to reconcile science and the Quran is actually quite funny doesn't mean that we can include it here. Arrow740 03:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He may be an apologist, but he has pointed out a scientific flaw in the quran by saying he believes in creationism. Sometimes the best criticism is pointing out the stupidity in your opponents arguements and using those arguemnets against them.--Sefringle 03:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you entirely. However as I wrote above, if we take something which isn't meant to be criticism and portray it as criticism, then that's OR because we are the ones making the argument that Islam is wrong, not him. Arrow740 03:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The link you inserted seems OK. Arrow740 03:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Setting of Sun
Well I found this in Tafsit Ibn Kathir. A sad news for all critics.

(85. So he followed a way.) (86. Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of Hami'ah. And he found near it a people. We said: "O Dhul-Qarnayn! Either you punish them or treat them with kindness.) (87. He said: "As for him who does wrong, we shall punish him, and then he will be brought back unto his Lord, Who will punish him with a terrible torment (Hell).) (88. "But as for him who believes and works righteousness, he shall have the best reward, and we shall speak unto him mild words.'')

(So he followed a way.) Ibn `Abbas said that he followed different routes to achieve what he wanted.

(So he followed a way.) Mujahid said that he followed different routes, east and west. According to one report narrated from Mujahid, he said:

(a way) means, "A route through the land. Qatadah said, "It means he followed the routes and landmarks of the earth.

(Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun,) means, he followed a route until he reached the furthest point that could be reached in the direction of the sun's setting, which is the west of the earth. As for the idea of his reaching the place in the sky where the sun sets, this is something impossible, and the tales told by storytellers that he traveled so far to the west that the sun set behind him are not true at all. Most of these stories come from the myths of the People of the Book and the fabrications and lies of their heretics.

(he found it setting in a spring of Hami'ah) meaning, he saw the sun as if it were setting in the ocean. This is something which everyone who goes to the coast can see: it looks as if the sun is setting into the sea but in fact it never leaves its path in which it is fixed. Hami'ah is, according to one of the two views, derived from the word Hama'ah, which means mud.

F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 09:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Too bad the Quran doesn't say that, huh? His explanation of the semen from the lower back one is even more entertaining. I'm interested in seeing a "tafsir" for the mountains preventing earthquakes verse, too (and there are many more contradictions that are really funny. Wine has some benefit, but is yet an abomination, etc). Think of it this way, Farhansher. If it was suddenly discovered that the semen from the lower back verse was somehow inserted by lying Jews after Muhammad died, wouldn't you be relieved? Arrow740 10:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * May be you should learn to respect what you dont/cant comprehend . Wine, as was used in those days had some economic benifits for poor people , & still it was/is a sin . Quran never said mountains prevent quakes , & , testicles actually come from lower back . But then, who am I telling.


 * F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 11:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You would be. Arrow740 00:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the more prudent issue is whether or not to include part or all of this explaination in the article. My vote is to include it, but on the condition that it is fully cited. But thats just my vote.--Sefringle 03:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

My case against FaithFreedom.org
FaithFreedom.org crosses the line from partisan to extremism, and thus should not be used as a secondary source. I don't find this a great loss because almost all of the criticism Sina makes on his site is available from other, non-extremist sources. I'll provide some quotes from his site as evidence:


 * "Islam is a cult created by a psychopath. It cannot be reformed. It must be eradicated."
 * "Muhammad was insane. Like Hitler he was a brilliant and manipulative psychopath."
 * "Millions, if not billions of lives will be lost if we do nothing. Time is running out!"
 * "FFI is the fist of humanity in the mouth of Islamic expansionism. We intend to expose the ugly face of this impostor and eradicate it from the face of the earth."
 * "Islam and Nazism"

It's one thing to say Islamic extremism/terrorism or Islamism must be fought; certainly Ahmadinejad has opened himself up to comparison to the modern neo-Nazi movement with his recent holocaust denial conference. But to say that all of Islam must be eradicated, and that Islam itself is equivalent to Nazism, in no unambiguous terms, is unacceptable extremism. - Merzbow 06:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree that calls for erradication are not criticism. Criticism in this article means "The Quran is bad because ...." Hence also criticism of M. as a psychopath or insane (even if factually incorrect - neither Muhammad nor Hitler were psychopaths) or an impostor are on topic on "Criticism of Islam" or "of Muhammad" but not "of the Quran". If the criticism can be sourced differently I see no reason for using FF (by which I do not want to prejudice against the usage FF in general. Str1977 (smile back) 10:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * i think Merzbow is right in suggesting that we try moving away from using FFI as a source for criticism. FFI's critiques are easily found in other resources. if not, then the arguments themselves probably don't merit mention at all- much of the material found on it are simply user/reader-submitted articles and analyses. are we compelled to report these DIY critiques? i agree that criticism doesn't have to be scholarly, yet i don't believe the purpose of this and other such articles is to document every criticism available. it is simply to report those types that are common/prevelant and notable (with a few examples), and preferably those circulated amongst academics. what i do envision for such pages is to reserve the majority of dialogue for critiques found in the academic works (and yes there is quite a bit), while keeping the internet DIY sensationalism minimal and certainly not a central part of these articles. you don't see Criticism of Christianity packed with some of the ridiculous stuff you find on answering-christianity.com or any other anti-Christian websites, and rightly so.  ITAQALLAH   19:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we might need Unscholarly Criticism of the Qur'an or Extremist Criticism of the Qur'an. --Striver 07:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Both are high POV names--Sefringle 08:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

FFA is on discussion for being listed on Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)/Partisan and extremist websites --Striver 07:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Those quotes you listed are not extremist. Of course Islam must be eradicated; it would be extremist to say that Muslims need to be wiped out to accomplish this goal, but Faith Freedom doesn't propose killing anyone. Arrow740 01:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if FF called for the killing of Muslims, we could still use them as a primary source for their activity, i.e. their criticism. Arrow740 01:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sword verse
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Regarding this verse, in the "responses" section of "war and violence", there is a rebuddle to this verse. However, in the "criticisms" section, this verse is not mentioned. This should probably be changed.--Sefringle 10:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Almost certainly Spencer talks about this verse in one of his books. - Merzbow 17:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This verse came in a war situation. If you add it out of context without explaining what the context verse referred to then I will delete it because adding it will be WP:OR. --- ALM 18:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm no you won't... you can add responses from apologists who say the critics misinterpret the verse, but you can't delete criticism from a notable critic. - Merzbow 18:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You said "critics" in first sentence then I hope you will provide more than one references? You said notable critic in second sentence then I hope that the critics will be notable too. Obviously in that situation I will not delete it and will only provide references from Tafsirs that tell the context (of war) in which the verse comes. However, I do not think Sefringle has even mentioned his aim to provide any references. In that case (without references) I will delete it because without any seconday sources it will be an WP:OR  ALM 18:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Content relevance needs to be sourced, otherwise it will be OR, specialy in sensitive topics like this.--Striver 18:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. The more notable the critic, the more he deserves to be quoted. - Merzbow 20:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Spencer has a 14 page discussion of it, including references to the hadith collections, Ibn Kathir, and others, and I will condense it down to a paragraph sometime soon. It's in Onward Muslim Soldiers on page 130 in case anyone is interested. Arrow740 02:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But in the mean time, as long as that verse is not mentioned in the "criticisms" section of this article, it makes no sense to include a rebuddle to it in this article. Either the rebuddle needs to be removed, or the verse needs to be added to the "criticisms" section.--Sefringle 06:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * it cites 9:1-5 as an example of verses typically and most-frequently misrepresented.  ITAQALLAH   06:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Most frequently misrepresented? According to who? Who mentions them? This needs to be established in the "criticisms" section, or else it is irrevelant.--Sefringle 07:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the relevence of verse 9.5 to the responses section still has not been mentioned in this article, I removed it. Some critic who mentioned that verse has to be mentioned in the "criticisms" section before a rebuddle to that verse is posted here. Otherwise, readers would get confused as to why a verse that isn't being criticized is being rebuddled.--Sefringle 01:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, let's wait until there's actually criticism of those verses in the article until we post rebuttals. - Merzbow 02:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Censored information
Way back I added this information from Encyclopedia of the Qur'an but it was harshly censored.

Then I added other sources to show that it is not only Crone's view. But again, it was censored. --Aminz 06:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Clearly biased POV. If anywhere, it needs to be condenced and added to the responses section.--Sefringle 07:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The most authorative sources on Islam are biased POV and Spencer is a good source?!! --Aminz 07:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * i don't think Crone's view can be so easily dismissed. she is, after all, a real scholar. and her article has been endorsed and published by the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, perhaps the most authoritative resource on this subject.  ITAQALLAH   07:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me remind you the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an has a pro-muslim POV. But I am not suggesting dismissing it. I am saying that the imformation presented by Clone should be consitered a response to criticism, and not a general neutral summary.--Sefringle 07:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What?? It has Muslim POV?!!! Encyclopedia of the Qur'an is published by Brill Academic Press and is a real academic source which is used by researchers in the field. Nobody in academic circles refer to Spencer. Spencer is writing for typical people while Encyclopedia of Islam is writing for researchers. --Aminz 07:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Muslim researchers. It is the same as the Catholic Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Judaica. All are POV for their own religion, and have scholars that support their own viewpoint. But they are still POV.--Sefringle 07:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * they aren't muslim researchers. they are non-muslim, western secular academics. and some of the most qualified. check out the EoI article.  ITAQALLAH   07:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Even scholars can have a POV.--Sefringle 10:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, Encyclopedia of Islam and Encyclopedia of the Quran are not Islamic Encyclopedia or Qur'anic Encyclopedia. They are not prepared by Muslim researchers but by western academic scholars. --Aminz 07:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see the dispute here... Crone is a notable source and her views can be quoted. She's certainly no Muslim apologist; she's well-known for completely rejecting the traditional Muslim account of how the Qur'an was composed. I'm going to add her views to the Composition section. - Merzbow 07:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a very good addition. But on those accounts, Crone is in minority. F.E. Peters states that except a few nobody has failed to be convinced the Qur'an is the words of Muhammad: Quoting Peters from The Quest for Historical Muhammad :


 * "Why, then, is there such apparent skepticism about retrieving the actual words of Jesus from the Gospels, while there is no similar debate about the Quran, which is generally thought to represent what issued from Muhammad’s mouth as “teachings” in the interval from A.D. 610 to 632? Indeed, the search for variants in the partial versions extant before the Caliph Uthman’s alleged recension in the 640s (what can be called the “sources” behind our text) has not yielded any differences of great significance. This is not to say, of course, that since those pre-Uthmanic clues are fragmentary, large “invented” portions might well have been added to our Quran or authentic material deleted. This latter charge has, in fact, been made by certain Shia Muslims who fail to find in the Quran any explicit reference to the designation of Ali as the Prophet’s successor and so have alleged tampering.’ However, the argument of the latter is so patently tendentious and the evidence adduced for the fact so exiguous that few have failed to be convinced that what is in our copy of the Quran is, in fact, what Muhammad taught, and is expressed in his own words.’"


 * "... To sum up at this point: the Quran is convincingly the words of Muhammad, perhaps even dictated by him after their recitation, while the Gospels not only describe the life of Jesus but contain some arguably authentic sayings or teachings of Jesus."


 * --Aminz 07:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * True, it's a minority view (although so few Western scholars have done textual and archeological work in this area I think there's a high chance opinion may change drastically over the next 30 years, but who knows). I've kept the first paragraph worded in the same way. - Merzbow 08:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Apostasy in Islam
I think this shouldn't be covered in this article which is about Criticism of Qur'an rather than Criticism of Islam. The punishments for apostasy mainly come from Hadith and not Qur'an. Encyclopedia of Islam writes:

"In the Quran, the apostate is threatened with punishment in the next world only; the “wrath of God” will fall upon him according to a sura of the latest Meccan period (XVI, 108-9) and severe punishment ( #aù9§b ) “except he did it under compulsion and his heart is steadfast in belief”. Similarly, it is written in the Medinan sura III, 80 ff., “... This is the punishment for them, that the curse of All§h, the Angels and of men is upon them for all time (82); the punishment shall not be lightened for them and they shall not be granted alleviation, (83) except for those who later repent and make good their fault, for Allah is forgiving and merciful. (84) Those who disbelieve after believing and increase in unbelief, shall not have their repentance accepted; they are the erring ones. (85) Those who are unbelievers and die as unbelievers, from none of them shall be accepted the earth-full of gold, even if he should wish to ransom himself with it; this is a painful punishment for them and there will be no helpers for them” (cf. also IV, 136; V, 59; IX, 67). Sura II, 214, is to be interpreted in the same way, although it is adduced by al-÷9§fi#Ê as the main evidence for the death penalty, “... He among you who falls away from his belief and dies an unbeliever—these, their works are fruitless in this world and the next, and they are the companions of the fire for ever"

I suggest we remove this section and add it to somewhere else. --Aminz 10:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This section has relevance here, because there are some quranic verses relating to Apostasy in Islam.--Sefringle 10:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In case, one needs more sources of news type, here is one but BBC is not a reliable source anyways. --Aminz 10:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WHAT!? BBC isn't reliable? According to its article, it is one of the most reliable news sources avaliable.--Sefringle 10:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is irrelevant but as you said, it is a reliable source for news not for its views on Islam. It is not reliable for a scientific encyclopedia. I can not imagine that Encyclopedias like "Britannica Encyclopedia", etc etc use BBC as a source on Islam. --Aminz 10:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree with Aminz.... think the Apostasy section in the main article Criticism of Islam already covers the subject very well, and as he points out the hadith are more relevant than the Qur'an here. Therefore this article should mention the subject only very briefly. - Merzbow 20:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * i agree.  ITAQALLAH   09:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Problems with this article
1) First thing that needs to be clear is what constitutes a critic. Does he need to have a verifiable face or not . Does he need to have relevent & verifiablee education or not . "Critics dont need to be scholarly"....my sweper, barber & butcher criticise everybody from Cain to Bush . Bat yeor, sina, spencer .....who are these guys.

2) What constiuites a criticism. A genuine fault which has been proved beyond doubt, or a collection of anybody's flawed understanding . A person who cant identify an alphabet of arabic, should he be sited when he says that quran has grametical errors.

3)Until the assumed fault has been proven, the claims remain allegations . Both arguments & counter arguments need to be cited. but as allgetions , not as criticism.

F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 04:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're misunderstanding what criticism is. Criticism does not have to be 'proven' to be criticism, not according to any dictionary I've read. Our goal here is to represent all notable criticism, whether we think it's true or not. And as I've said above, I'm open to modifying these articles to remove all anonymous criticism (such as from AI) ALONG WITH all anonymous responses (such as from islamonline). - Merzbow 06:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Our goal here is to represent all 'notable criticism, whether we think it's true or not. I agree however, notable mean those that are well published and not from some Mummy-Daddy website run by some ghost (we do not know about). Everything should be cited and from well reputed sources only. No original research, no faith-freedom and family websites. --- ALM 09:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I refer you (again) to the definition of the word you're using, this time "notable." Arrow740 10:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * May be you should do it too . Any face less name with no relevent/verifiable qualification is not called notable . BTW, I remember that it was you who wanted only those people to be cited in Quran and science who were both scolars of Islam & Science . Plz make up your mind . We need to apply same policies everywhere on WP, no dual standards. If these face/qualification less people are notable here, all those well known scholars are notable there too . If you find any academic doing these criticisms , feel fee to add him . Cheers ! F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 15:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * ALM was trying to talk about the criticism itself, not the critic. Perhaps you should attempt to improve your reading comprehension. As regards the other article, that is not an article about polemics like this one. To get polemics you go to a polemicist. Arrow740 03:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * ALM is again to institute a need for a critic to qualify for a license to criticism. A critic must be identifiable and notable. I think that AI fits that, though of course it shouldn't be overused. Critics don't need to be scholars or academics. Str1977 (smile back) 10:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Critics don't need to be scholars or academics" You cannot be more wrong.
 * Arrow740 I supported you effort on The Quran and science because I assume you a neutral but now I feel you have changed your standards here. At The Quran and science you were not accepting people who had published books but here you are in favor of quoting faith-freedom. It is not good friend, please reconsider your stance. --- ALM 10:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was afraid you would deny your aim but thanks for clearly stating it. However, it is you who could not be more wrong. It is indeed a strange view that you first have to qualify in any way so that you may be allowed to criticize someone or something. If I wrote such things on Criticism of Christianity, people would laugh at me and rightfully so. Please reconsider your stance. Str1977 (smile back) 10:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"Critics don't need to be scholars or academics" It is such an amazingly wrong statement that I wish I can post it on my user page with link to you. However, I cannot because it might be consider a personal attack. --- ALM 10:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am indeed amazed that anyone could claim that you need to get a license to criticize. You must indeed look down upon those "low-life non-academics" that should "better hold their tongue". (Lest you wonder, I am an academic.) Str1977 (smile back) 10:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sefringle, i think you should cut down significantly on reinserting this verse-spam. it doesn't beat good prose, and it just takes up unnecessary space when you do it as excessively as you are.  ITAQALLAH  01:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * i'm having problems trying to salvage anything useful from this paragraph:


 * As many critics of Islam, as well as many Muslims will point out, the quran is not compatible with modern evolutionary theories.   This has led to a contribution by Muslims to the creation vs. evolution debate. Some Muslims have pointed to some verses that are partially compatible with certain aspects of evolution to try to claim that evolution is compatible with quranic science, but as a whole, the quran points to creationism being the correct theory on the creation of man. This theory is also supported by the hadith.


 * i'm sorry, but the above is class-A waffle and brimming with original research. you don't source analyses to primary sources, and you don't use cites to forward unsupported assertions. the last few sentences are prime (and painfully amusing) examples of this.  ITAQALLAH   02:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Verse spam? Hardly. Verses are quoted in every other section of this article, why not here?--Sefringle 06:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * other poorly written sections aren't an excuse for accommodating another one. it can be covered equally as well in a lot less space, as Merzbow has shown. the article is already bloated enough as it is. there are still some areas which have excesssive quoting where its simply not needed, i will deal with these soon.  ITAQALLAH   06:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I fixed the sources. The article is not that long. What is wrong with quoting the quranic verses in this article?--Sefringle 06:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 60kb+ is long. nothing wrong with quoting verses. that's not a license to do it whenever and wherever, and the way you're doing it is inappropriate. other sections, like the apostasy one, need to have the list-crufting removed too.  ITAQALLAH   06:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They do not need a list curfting. There are plenty of articles on wikipedia that have a lot of lists of quotes, however they are appropiate. Likewise, they are appropiate here too.
 * Besides, reguarding evolution, you completely deleted the verses related to evolution, without even leaving a link.--Sefringle 06:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

i already stated: verse-spam doesn't beat good prose. there's also plenty of other articles with original research and skewed prose too, mind you. i think the current changes are a step in the right direction. about the evolution stuff, sorry about that (i didn't realise). feel free to reinsert the link(s) in the style of the above two paragraphs.  ITAQALLAH  07:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * These changes are not in the right direction. They border on excessive censorship. These are currently the two shortest sections of the article, and quoting the verses is helpful to the reader by giving them all the imformation necessary to make their own interpretations of the imformation given. How can there be a discussion of a verse if the verse isn't known?--Sefringle 07:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * well Merzbow was working on a compromise between having a spam version and not having one at all, and i have to applaud the version he proposed. censorship of what? the Qur'an? the verse is known because you link to it. the current science section version and your version have about the same amount of non-quote prose, yet your version takes up four times as much vertical space than the current version. and your contradictions version takes up about ten times as much vertical space than the current version. in both cases, your version does not provide any further useful information by liberally inserting verses wherever possible (especially when links will do). your version crosses the line into tiring verse-spam, nobody wants to read that. all we're doing is compressing the material to make it more readable while taking up less room. and surely that's a good thing.  ITAQALLAH   07:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Last I heard, we were making a "compromise" that wouuld limit the amount of extremist website material mentioned to stop the revert wars. My version of the "contradictions" is so much longer, because the current version is only 1 tiny paragraph. The "science" section is not much longer. Besides, the Women in Islam article freely insurts verses whenever possible, and it is effectuive there. Likewise, it is effective here. Even if we do less quoting, some quoting is necessary in this section.--Sefringle 08:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "My version of the "contradictions" is so much longer", yes, because 90% of it is verse spam. as for pointing to other articles, please re-read what i wrote above. the quoting isn't effective, it makes the section less succinct, and produces a load of white gaps. more isn't always better, that's probably why we have the template .  ITAQALLAH   08:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It most certianly is effective and necessary, and my version did not have too many quotes. But the current version has too few quotes. Quoting is necessary sometines in articles. Besides, is wikipedia supposed to be pretty or accurate?--Sefringle 08:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * the way you have been quoting is not effective nor is it necessary. the links are sufficient here.  ITAQALLAH   08:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * neither is the way you have been. No quotes is just as bad, if not worse, than too many quotes.--Sefringle 09:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "neither is the way you have been" what do you mean? i haven't been quoting. i have been removing excess where necessary, and in the science/contra sections it reads a lot better without all the quotes which take up more space than necessary.  ITAQALLAH   09:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Removing excess! You're removing far too much. Some quoting is OK. This current version you changed this article to is unacceptable. see here It doesn't read any better this way. If anything, it is more confusing, overcondensed and less accurate.--Sefringle 09:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * yes, that is removing excess. you're not engaging in "some" quoting, you're engaging in loads. you've re-introduced some factual errors and spelling mistakes also, as well as reinserting some either irrelevant or unnecessary verses. that, and i think you've crossed four reverts :/  ITAQALLAH   09:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Those verses are relevant. Could you explain how they are not relevant? NAd I counted. I am at 3.--Sefringle 10:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * a lot of the Jews/Christian ones aren't relevant. the other stuff is excessive. your two latest restorations could be seen as #3 and 4, but i'll assume they were supposed to be strung together. that context argument you're restoring has also essentially been repeated elsewhere in the responses section, but this sect seems to be much more skewed (undue weight) and pretty unnecessary.  ITAQALLAH   10:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * you have also removed some relevant tags, like the one requesting verification as below.  ITAQALLAH   09:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sefringle, could you provide the extract from Encyclopaedia Judaica for that statement in the article which needs verification (under christians/jews sect)? thanks  ITAQALLAH   08:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * any response?  ITAQALLAH   09:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I just copied the tag from the Islam and antisemitism article, so you might want to add the discussion tag there.--Sefringle 03:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The full quote is: "From the theological standpoint, the Koran also contained attacks against the Jews, as they refused to recognize Muhammad as the prophet sent by God." If you wish to continue the discussion, do so at Talk:Islam and antisemitism--Sefringle 05:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr Sefringle & Arrow, may be I wasent very clear before. If Internet trolls like Spencer is is considered good source for writing WP, I'll re-add all citations with "better reputation" on Islam and science article .As I said before, make up your mind. You cant have it both ways .If one doesnot need to be educated to be a critic, same should be the case for finding a link between Quran & science. Cheers. F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 09:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wrong. Arrow740 10:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * F.a.y. good to see youre attacking people in the RfC.. Probably wouldnt come back except youre making it sound so dramatic how can I resist?
 * What youre needing is the article Promoting of the Qur'an where were gonna talk about different way Quran is promoted. There the standard should be the same.Opiner 01:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Article RFC descriptions must be phrased neutrally, according to the RFC policy; I changed it to be so. - Merzbow 19:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks. Youre either a good admin or should be one soon.Opiner 04:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh - while I have every respect for the job admins do, I don't have the time or the temperament for it. :) - Merzbow 05:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sura Like Unto It
Of course the Qur'an makes that claim. I'll try to source it using academic sources soon. I do however think the response to claim should come from an Arabic scholar given this and this. --Aminz 01:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't even mention this claim in the article unless we can find a notable criticism of it. - Merzbow 02:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction Answer: Mountain In Islam
There is mistakes to say Islam is not compatible with contemporary scientific views (about mountain).

"Have We not made the earth as a bed, and the mountains as pegs?  (Quran, 78:6-7)"

"And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you...  (Quran, 16:15)"

Its consistent with modern science:

- Mountains have roots deep under the surface of the ground. (Press and Siever, Earth, 413.)

- Mountains, like pegs, have deep roots embedded in the ground. (Andre Cailleux and J. Moody Stuart, Anatomy of the Earth (McGraw-Hill Companies: 1968), 220.)

- shows how mountains are peg-like in shape, due to their deep roots. (Edward J. Tarbuck and Frederick K. Lutgens, Earth Science (USA: Macmillan USA: 1993), 158.)

ComFlash2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.111.4.200 (talk • contribs).
 * It is not true that mountains prevent earthquakes! Unfortunately, according to Muhammad, they do. Also yes, the other verse is consistent with modern science. So is the one saying you can enslave the wives of unbelievers you kill. So what? Arrow740 07:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Where does it say in the Quran exactly that "Mountains prevent earthquakes?". Are you making this up? 130.113.128.11 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you... (Quran, 16:15)" 81.173.227.133 17:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)--Robert

Verse 4.34
I think we should quote an official English-Arabic dictionary for the translations of the words "nashooz" and "idribuhunna" to english and include them in the article.--Sefringle 08:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Get a couple different ones. The fact that Ali put "lightly" in parens shows it's not a valid translation. Arrow740 10:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

War and violence intro
As User:Grenavitar stated above, this section needs to be fixed, because of bad word choices. If you have any suggestions on how to improve this section, please mention them.--Sefringle 02:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticising the Qur'an as an offence
In some countries, such as Brunei, criticising the Qur'an is illegal. Should this be reflected somewhere in the article, or is it already covered elsewhere? Andrewa 00:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It has already been covered elseware, or at least that is where it should be covered. See Criticism of Islam--Sefringle 02:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That section is on-topic, but it doesn't cover this currently. And my impression is that Criticising the Qur'an is taken far more seriously than other sorts of criticism by at least some muslims, and perhaps deserves an article of its own. Andrewa 03:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Honestly I don't remember encountering mention of "criticism of the Qur'an" as being a specific punishable offense when I researched and rewrote the Apostasy section that Sefringle mentions. I think it just falls into the general category of blasphemy, which in turn falls under the category of apostasy in Islamic law. - Merzbow 04:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm actually talking about the national law of specific Islamic states, which may not be the same as Islamic law. Andrewa 08:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps; if you want to come up with a proposed edit then I'm sure we can speak to that more accurately. - Merzbow 01:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Find"
Please see the multiple definitions of the word here. The intro was perfectly neutral as the use of the word "find" there was not so as to imply that fault exists in fact. The attempt to make it neutral merely make it poorly written. Arrow740 09:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Perceiving fault" is an awkward phrase that a native English speaker would not use in writing. The sentence "this article is about criticism of the Quran" is entirely neutral, clear, and well-written. Arrow740 16:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * my suggestion was fine. yours establishes too little context: we should make absolutely clear that the article is about critics who allege faults in the Qur'an.  ITAQALLAH   16:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No it's not. Arrow740 16:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * yes it is. i am a native speaker, you know. and it makes perfect sense.  ITAQALLAH   16:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you should be able to read the title of the article. Arrow740 16:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The intro is neutral now. I had concerns about the earlier version which talked about faults as a fact instead of alleged faults. --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  17:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Slavery section
This section contains no criticism of the Quran! Arrow740 16:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. It specificly says "Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi comments that verses 23:1-6 of the Qur'an explicitly allow sex with slave girls outside of marriage." That sounds like a criticism to me.--Sefringle 05:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes it does, but here as is often the case with Islam, statements of obvious facts about Islam sound like criticism. There is actually no criticism (the subject of the article) and I'm going to remove the entire section shortly. This is all covered in Islam and slavery. Arrow740 05:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think deletion is in order as much as maybe a rewrite of the section in a way that does include criticism. I'm sure that somebody has critized Islam for its allowance of the practice of slavery, especially since muslim scholars agree that it is allowed.--Sefringle 06:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I will comment it out for now, maybe little bits of it will be salvaged. Arrow740 06:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I uncommented it. There is criticism of the Qur'an in that section - it permits the existence of slavery. See the Robert Spencer link in the first sentence. - Merzbow 06:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * One sentence of criticism and then a page of POV? Do you know the title of this article? Arrow740 06:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would think I know, I wrote that entire section from scratch. Also see Lewis qoute where he says that "these reforms were strongly resisted by religious conservatives who saw themselves as upholding an institution that was "authorized and regulated by the holy law."" in the paragraph discussing the resistance of Muslim countries to absolving slavery. That is directly relevant. - Merzbow 06:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merzbow, Nasr adds that there were also many pious Muslims who refused to have slaves and persuaded others to do so. cf Seyyed Hossein Nasr, The Heart of Islam: Enduring Values for Humanity, p.182. --Aminz 07:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... many is technically three or more, either way the actions of Muslims is distinct from the Quran, and this article is about criticism of the Quran, not criticism of Muslims. Please remove it. Arrow740 07:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So is the view of conservatives since not all Muslim scholars are conservative. --Aminz 07:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? I'm signing off for a few hours. Arrow740 08:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The section should not start out with justification by comparison with Judaism and Christianity. Also al-Hibri is not a historian or Islamic studies scholar. Arrow740 07:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You have a point that there should be more pointers back to direct sources for criticism. I'm 100% sure the standard sources (Spencer, Warraq, etc.) hit upon all the major points discussed in this section like slavery's general acceptance in the Qur'an, the slave girl passage, and modern day slavery in Muslim countries. In fact, I'm 99% sure I can dig these up just from that one Spencer book in the next 10 minutes. - Merzbow 07:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, thank you. Arrow740 07:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

New sections
This article should have a "further reading" section at the end of this article. And second, if possible, we should get more critics opinions on the quran. I am positive that there are people other than Robert Spencer and Ibn Warraq who have criticized the quran. Maybe Mark A. Gabriel. Anyway, we should add additional critics opinions to this article.--Sefringle 05:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like Mark Gabriel is actually trained as a historian and so we can use him in the non-criticism articles. Same with Serge Trifkovic, maybe Ibn Warraq as well. Ibn Warraq has edited a book with contributions from some heavy-hitters. Arrow740 05:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * could you explain exactly what qualifications Mark Gabriel has which relate to Islamic studies?  ITAQALLAH   07:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * He has a masters from and taught at Al-Azhar university. And on a related note having a PhD in History gives one a qualification to discuss all history. Arrow740 07:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I guess it would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. It was an Islamic university after all and they have different standards. Arrow740 07:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to take a look at the Islam: Opposing Viewpoints article. They seem to mention many different views on this topic, some of which may be useful in finding more critics and opinions.--Sefringle 05:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is lots of criticism that we know about that we haven't added. Maybe we could organize and assign tasks through the taskforce. Arrow740 05:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
It might be time to start archiving this talk page.--Sefringle 02:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Criticism of the Quran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150202024354/http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/002-qmt.php to http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/002-qmt.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140606204827/http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/033-qmt.php to http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/033-qmt.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140606204827/http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/033-qmt.php to http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/033-qmt.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Criticism of the Quran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070729115247/http://www.renaissance.com.pk/maytitl20.htm to http://www.renaissance.com.pk/maytitl20.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061019034818/http://www.islamonline.net/English/Science/2006/05/article07.shtml to http://www.islamonline.net/English/Science/2006/05/article07.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114085246/http://www.salon.com:80/books/int/2007/01/02/numbers/index3.html to http://www.salon.com/books/int/2007/01/02/numbers/index3.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306193941/http://www.shiasource.com/al-mizan/self/tafsir-2-106-107/ to http://www.shiasource.com/al-mizan/self/tafsir-2-106-107/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080708102707/http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu:80/~khaleel/ to http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~khaleel/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061230062211/http://www.submission.org:80/women/beating.html to http://www.submission.org/women/beating.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Criticism of the Quran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906130646/http://www.saudigazette.com.sa:80/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20150727251595 to http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20150727251595
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050404235348/http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=7061 to http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=7061
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050404235348/http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=7061 to http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=7061

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Criticism of the Quran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050404235348/http://www.islamonline.net:80/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=7061 to http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=7061
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050404235348/http://www.islamonline.net:80/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=7061 to http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=7061

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Criticism of the Quran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061215191645/http://www.tolueislam.com/Bazm/misc/IA_Evolution.htm to http://www.tolueislam.com/Bazm/misc/IA_Evolution.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Criticism of the Quran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20150727251595
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~khaleel/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320233336/http://www.dnd.nl/showarticle.php3?newsID=15018 to http://www.dnd.nl/showarticle.php3?newsID=15018
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050404235348/http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=7061 to http://memri.de/uebersetzungen_analysen/themen/liberal_voices/ges_beating_22_03_04.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050404235348/http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=7061 to http://memri.de/uebersetzungen_analysen/themen/liberal_voices/ges_beating_22_03_04.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020327203120/http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Quran-4-34.htm to http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Quran-4-34.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)