Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of critics of Islam


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was - Delete - The main point raised by the deletes is that there is a problem in WP:OR in determining what/who is a critic. The keep advocates do not address this particularly well - CltFn is the first, and says "Its a list, like any other wikipedia lists of", which is subsequently seconded by a variety of users. There is a problem in that problems which were cited for deletion were not addressed. Angry inquiries to my talk page. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

List of critics of Islam
Article *must* rely on OR to decide who's a critic and who isn't Frescard 21:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I guess my original motivation for submitting this article was a bit brief - but to me it seemed like a clear-cut case that only needed a brief notice, but obviously it does need some more explanation:
 * While this list may be "interesting" and "timely", that alone does not justify inclusion here. The main hurdles it has to overcome are Verifiability and No Original Research.
 * Verifiability: Classifying a person as a critic is very hard to prove. First of all, what is a "critic"? Does he have to reject Islam altogether? Does he have to hate it? Or is it enough to just be dissatisfied with certain aspects? Then - even if a clear definition could be agreed upon, how will inclusion in this list be determined? A brief quote might be helpful, but what if it's taken out of context? What if that person later changed his mind? What if the person approves some parts of Islam, but rejects other parts? Which gets us to the next hurdle:
 * No Original Research: Who will decide who fits the criteria of being a critic? The WP editors? That will be a lot of judgement calls to make, and will probably only end up in an edit war. Islam-opponents will try to classify everybody as a critic, and Islam-proponents will try their best to achieve the opposite. Unless we have a third-party source that did the classification already, these are too fundamental a judgement to make for editors.


 * Delete - while this could be referenced, it isn't, and does nothing a category couldn't handle better. Yomangani talk 01:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - It is markedly improved from the state when nominated (well done to those working on it), but there are still many "critics" listed without any citations to back up the claims, plus some questionable citations ("imprisoned...for blasphemy", for example, doesn't strike me as NPOV way of assessing whether somebody is a critic). Yomangani talk 14:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as proposed. A category would have the same problems. Gazpacho 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Its a list, like any other wikipedia lists of.--CltFn 01:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete No criteria for inclusion, and I can't see one that wouldn't be original research.  However, a category can work, as the guidance on assigning categories is to keep the number minimal and to use only the ones most associated with the subject - so the only people in it would be those highly known for criticizing Islam as a major portion of their (encyclopedically relevant) life work.  GRBerry 02:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Lowered (to the extent it matters) my opinion to Weak Delete. The List has improved since nomination by addition of reasons some are deemed critical.  This material would not be replicable in a category.  There seems, however, to be no coherent criteria for inclusion yet, so that concern still needs to be addressed.  I still don't see one that wouldn't be original research, so I still think deletion is the right answer.  GRBerry 02:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, bad list, WP:NOR, POV list. If not, category should be included, but it will also have the same problem. --Ter e nce Ong (T 03:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Informational quality in itself does not warrant deletion. Check deletion guidelines.Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 13:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. BhaiSaab talk 03:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per CltFn Bakaman Bakatalk 03:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I think this might be better as a category, but it could have value as a list. To have value as a list each name should perhaps include a book or article they wrote that criticized Islam. See Category:Books critical of Islam to aid that.--T. Anthony 05:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wholly pointless--Aquinas stole all of his theology from Arab Aristotelians, etc. Lots of people criticize Islam, a list to that effect is to difficult to put together.-Kmaguir1 08:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Stole is rather unfair. He adapted much from them, but from that he went in a new direction applicable to Catholicism. It's like saying Dante stole from Vergil or that Marx stole from Hegel.--T. Anthony 08:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - as per Terence.--Kitrus 12:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Lists are important, and this is a hot topic. --Britcom 12:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Valuable tool for those wishing to explore related information. Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 13:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - Article has no references/reasons given for inclusion of the people listed, obviously a bias from the author (of the article) to paint/label certain people as anti-Islamic and which seems to be the case. - ResurgamII 13:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Lack of Informational quality is not a valid reason to delete an article. Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 13:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course it is; lack of resources to make a proper article probably indicates a non-encyclopedic article. BhaiSaab talk 16:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This article documents the perception of Islam in this eyes of historical figures. Very interesting topic and useful in locating sources .--Amenra 14:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete because this list is worthless unless we attempt to define critical first. Just about every Muslim scholar has had a problem with something the academic community would call Islamic.  Amina Wadud doesn't like many salafi tendencies Ibn Wahhab doesn't like Sufis.  They are all critics in some sense.  We could narrow this down to non-Muslim critics but then we have to figure out who is Muslim and who isn't--which, I think we should be able to agree that self-identification is the important aspect but it will inevitably lead to vandalism with people removing Amina Wadud and Rashid Khalifa because they "aren't Muslims".  As it stands now this list is completely anecdotal.  Does it matter that Dante had a few lines critical of Islam?  It seems to me that's about the same as putting Mel Gibson into critics of Judaism.  I think we should agree that critics applies to people who have made actually critically studied Islam.  Wansbrough and Crone (as far as I know) don't get into moral judgments about Islam but they question the typical assumptions of Qur'anic origins.  The main issue we need to deal with is Muslim critics of various aspects within Islam.  To call them "reformers" is rather aggrandizing and just about every Muslims author I can think of fits this category in some way.  How do we deal with that? gren グレン 11:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I could be misunderstanding those who worked in it, but I think this list means people who are critical of Islam in any form rather than a particular element of it. The most obvious being people who think the Qur'an and Muhammad are morally repugnant, but I imagine it could also mean something less severe. Like people who feel that the Qur'an and the basis of Islam is based on false notions or write about why they feel Islam is inferior to other religious or philosophical positions. Some of this could dovetail into general critics of religion, but I think they're wanting people known for focussing on Islam. (Or if not they should want names of people who focussed their harshest criticism on Islam)--T. Anthony 09:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Meets all the requirements of WP:Lists, and is very notable as Islam is a very prevalent religion and a powerful world force.  Mugaliens 15:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak provisional keep. The nominator's argument for deletion is essentially "oh no, there could be a content dispute about inclusion", which is unpersuasive. This is one of the few lists that could be a valuable encyclopedic resource. But the article as it stands - just a list of names without comment - is very unhelpful and reeks of WP:OR. I'd support deleting it in a later AfD unless all entries are individually referenced and sourced, e.g. "Joe Schmoevich - Bozarkian Member of Parliament who sponsored a bill in 1985 to outlaw the sale of the Koran, source: Bozarkian Chronicle of 12 June 1985". Sandstein 17:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It pretty sad how even here the contributions are done clearly in accordance to the "party-line". The pro-Islamists would like nothing more than having this list disappear as quickly as possible, and the anti-Islamists (as well as, of course, the authors/contributors) are vehemently against its deletion. And, just like in the articles, arguments are twisted to suit each one's purpose... One positive surprise that came out of this though, was the discovery that there are some truly independent and neutral editors out there, who aren't attached to any fixed POV, and who work to defend WP, not their own propaganda. Perhaps there is still hope...;) --Frescard 20:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well said mate, couldn't have said it better myself but just for the record, this article was started by JuanMuslim, so I guess our little theory as nice sounding as it is, does not hold water--CltFn 04:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't quite see what the fact that the list was started by a Muslim has to do with anything. Perhaps the original motivation behind creating this list was different from its current use. But I'm talking about now. And if you look at the contributions of the voters there is a 100% correlation between their attitude towards Islam and how they voted. Of course, as I said, there are some editors where it's impossible to tell from their history what their personal POV is. That's how it should be. But as soon as an editor's contributions and votes become predictable, he has most likely become an opinion pusher. --Frescard 06:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this would be better as a category and there is no other "List of critics of X" articles at the moment. That said I voted weak keep because I don't see why there can't be. There are people known for their writings critical of Islam so I don't see a problem with a list in theory. There are also people known for their writings critical of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientology, Catholicism, Environmentalism, George W. Bush, and television. A list of critics on those could also be fine too if done right. Or it could all be avoided, but I decided to go weak keep to err on the side of caution wrt deleting.--T. Anthony 08:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --Vsion 04:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per norm. Similar articles have been deleted in the past because defining critic is problematic, peoples are living persons who my dislike the label, and OR required in defining them.--Tigeroo 06:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per nom and gren. For example, Edward Lewis is listed there but he is not a critic. Indeed academics usually don't define themselves as critics though they may criticize particular aspects of Islam. Polemics do. --Reza1 08:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The statement about Lewis is just dealing with problems concerning the list as it stands now, not whether it's good or bad.--T. Anthony 08:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My point is that how one can define who the critics of Islam are? How can one deal with the controversy and possible edit warrings? The article is inherently very prone of that. Again we have the WP:OR problem. I will change my vote if all editors agree that only those who have identified themselves clearly and unambiguously as critics of Islam as a whole (rather than being critics of certain practices or traditions) should be listed there. (i.e. around 99% of people listed there should be removed). Grand Ayatollah Yousef Sanei, a Shia Muslim religious authority, is listed in that article. I think he may sue wikipedia for that :D. --Reza1 08:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * He must have been in an older version. I took out the Muslim reformer section because that seems like a separate issue to me.--T. Anthony 14:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, he was there I just took him out when removing that section. Also I put a few names back in that section.--T. Anthony 15:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My concern is not really whether reformist Muslims are critics of Islam or not. It is that whether a consensus would be possible in which one is considered a critic of Islam if he/she identified himself/herself clearly and unambiguously as critics of Islam as a whole (rather than being critics of certain practices or traditions). I don't think so, since this would mean that almost all of the people listed there should go away. --Reza1 01:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete per norm. I would have supported this article if there was a definitive criteria for considering someone a "critic" -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  01:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. If particular editors are having trouble acertaining what constitutes a "critic", that's a problem with the editors in question, and not with the article concept itself.--Mike18xx 02:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.