Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles/Citing scholars

Online Sunni resources
I actually found some online Sunni resources.

Tafsir:
 * Tafhim al-Qur'an - written by Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi.
 * Tadabbur-i-Qur’an - written by Amin Ahsan Islahi. (translation in progress)

Writings of Javed Ahmed Ghamidi accessible through:
 * www.renaissance.com.pk - in English
 * www.studying-islam.org - in English
 * www.al-mawrid.org - in Urdu, Arabic, and English
 * www.ghamidi.org - in Urdu

Websites being run by Al-Mawrid, Institute of Islamic research:
 * www.understanding-islam.org - in English

SaadSaleem 05:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Saadsaleem, thanks very much! It will be useful for us. Just a question: Who are the famous schoalrs writing at Al-Mawrid? I mean, when we quote something from it, we should say "Scholar X says T", but we can not say "Institute X says T". And of course, if some article there is written by a student or a non-famous scholar, we can not quote it in wikipedia. If you know, would please let us know the name of famous scholars writing there? Thanks --Aminz 05:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Main author on www.understanding-islam.com is Moiz Amjad and main author on www.renaissance.com.pk is Shehzad Saleem, both of them are Associate Fellows in Al-Mawrid and are working closely with Javed Ahmed Ghamidi. --SaadSaleem 06:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Online Shia resources
 In English 
 * Parts of Tafsir Al-Mizan by Allameh Tabatabaei

 In Farsi 
 * Selection of Tafsir Nemooneh, also, Tafsir Kosar

Proposed guildline

 * We should not write "Some Muslims argue X" and then reference it to some Muslim website. Wikipedia can only quote renowned Muslim scholars.


 * Depends on the website. I'd say that some large, well-established websites are fairly representative of mainstream Sunni thought. If we're discussing Salafism, it's crucial to refer to websites, as that IS one of the ways that Salafism is propagated.


 * Could you please name the websites for editor's use.


 * We have to be cautious with websites, but one way we might evaluate a website as a source would be to see if Major newspapers are citing it as a source. If it is cited by the BBC, the Washington Post, and Der Speigel, it is probably a useful resource. Tom Harrison Talk 22:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Radicalist websites often make the news, but this fact does not qualify them as good sources for Wikipedia. Pecher Talk 14:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For western academic works on the biography of the prophet, one can refer to the works of scholars such as Montgomery Watt or Wilferd Madelung or William Muir etc. Among them Montgomery Watt seems to be more sympathetic towards Islam. It is better to avoid using writers such as Karen Armstrong who are not in a very high scholarly status. If you would like to quote Karen Armstrong, you may want to get access to the original references of her works and get access to the original sources.


 * See the list of scholars at Historiography of early Islam. I'd say that one good source would be Berkey's book, The Formation of Islam, which is an introductory text, points readers to more detailed works, and is quite recent. DGL introduced me to Hugh Kennedy and his The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates, which is also a good survey.


 * Another method, that many may be already familiar with, is to look in the bibliography of an authorative book by an emminent scholar. See who Montgomery Watt mentions, and then see if those he mentions have written anything recently, and then do the same with those books until you find one about the specific subject you are interested in. Tom Harrison Talk 22:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I support this proposal; in general, a good list of scholarly biogrpahies of Muhammad (sic, not "prophet") should be in the references section of the respective article. Pecher Talk 14:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sometimes Professors have their syllabus online, and you can see what they are having their class read. If you are near a University, you can look in the course catalogue, and then go to the bookstore and see what the texts are. The other thing one might do is call or email a professor and ask him to recommend a book. I have not done this myself for years, but in the past I found even emminent scholars very approachable if you had a genuine interest in their field. Tom Harrison Talk 22:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You can have free (but limited) online access to many of their books at books.google.com or amazon.com. You can also search for a word (like dhimmi) in books.google.com and find good books.


 * If you can afford $15 a month for access to an online library, Questia has a spotty selection of Islam-related books. They don't have everything one would want, but they have enough to justify the money, IMHO. You can search the library without joining.


 * In the US, if you have a library card at the local public library (usually free to city residents) you can often get a card at the library of a nearby public university or community college. This may get you access to their online databases like Lexis/Nexis, Jstor, and the Oxford English Dictionary. Tom Harrison Talk 22:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note that websites such as "Answering-Christianity.com" are not reliable sources, because they are neither written by famous scholars nor peer reviewed works. Articles at islamic-awareness.org are fortunately more tend to have references (This is a sign of scholarly work :) ). So, if you found something there, try to look up for its source and then look up the original source. If you are lucky, you'll get a good sourced piece of information.


 * We can safely use Islamonline.net for articles written by Yusuf al-Qaradawi himself as he is a renowned scholar. For other articles, those articles or quotes that are signed by scholars that their degree of famous-ness could be established, could be used.


 * No, al-Qaradawi may be a famous Muslim scholar, but he is no academic. Thus, he may be a contemporary authority on matters of Islamic jurisprudence, but even then, he may be cited only for his own opinions of Islamic legal matters, and not for anything else. Pecher Talk 14:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Another useful source is John Esposito who has written many introductory texts on Islam and the Islamic world and is sympathetic towards Islam. For example, he has addressed issues like the rise of militant Islam, the veiling of women, and democracy. Esposito emphatically argues against what he calls the "pan-Islamic myth". He thinks that "too often coverage of Islam and the Muslism world assumes the existence of a monolithic Islam in which all Muslims are the same." To him, such a view is naive and unjustifiably obscures important divisions and differences in the Muslims world.


 * It's against the spirit of NPOV to endorse one single scholar in preference to everybody else. Pecher Talk 14:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Michael Sells and Muqtedar Khan can also be useful.


 * Fred Donner is great. Carl Ernst is useful. So is Moojan Momen. Reza Aslan's book is popularized, but he has a useful bibliography.


 * Wow, Reza Aslan is persian :D But is he famous enough in the community?


 * He's not a respected academic YET but he's very well known in the media. If you google him I think you'll find many interviews, TV appearances (including the Colbert Report!), etc. He's young, he's cute, he's photogenic. Plus he writes extremely well. Zora 10:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * All persians are cute :P --Aminz 10:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Articles on Islam severly lack proper references. For example, on Muhammad article (date 8/5/2006) we read "'Muslims believe him to have been God's (Allah) last and final prophet of Islam, to whom the Qur'an was revealed. According to traditional Muslim biographers, Muhammad was born c. 570 in Mecca and died June 8 632 in Medina, both in the Hejaz region of present day Saudi Arabia.'" Both of these sentences are factually correct but they need to be referenced to a renowned Muslim commentator. They could not be stated without being referenced even though they may be obviously correct.


 * I think that's taking it too far. You don't have to reference stuff that is OBVIOUS and found in every introductory text. That's one of the tics that makes dissertations-turned-into-books so hard to read; the nervous authors give cites for everything. It's like slogging through mud. If I say that the sun will probably rise tomorrow, I don't need a cite. If I want to give the probability that it will rise (might it go supernova?) then I should give a cite for whoever calculated the probability. Zora 09:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I know I am taking it hard; but if they are OBVIOUS, then they could be easily referenced. I think it is good in the sense that people at least will pause a bit before adding something to wikipedia. --Aminz 10:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This doesn't need to be referenced. Sure, go ahead and reference them, but it's superfluous. Perhaps the date of birth and date of death are worth referencing though. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 04:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Zora. BhaiSaab talk 04:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * But don't you think doing that will 1. Make people to practice doing research instead of writing things out of their knowledge? This would improve the quality of works on Islam related articles. 2. Generally will reduce imperfect covering of a subject 3. Makes vandalisms and sneaked false information more easily detectable. All in all, I think doing so will be a good habit. --Aminz 04:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Academic responses to commonly found criticisms of Islam

 * Works of Montgomery Watt in general. Particularly, On page 229, Watt Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, Watt addresses many commonly known criticisms, here: . Also here:


 * Paper by Azizah Y. al-Hibri published here: Al-Hibri, Azizah Y. (2003). "An Islamic Perspective on Domestic Violence". 27 Fordham International Law Journal 195. It addresses the issue of alleged domestic violence in Qur'an and also women related issues.


 * Works of Michael Sells. For example, here, he addresses the claim that Islam is a religion of violence in contrast to Christianity, a religion of peace.


 * D. S. Margoliouth in his book Mohammed and the Rise of Islam states "The charming and eloquent treatise of Syed Ameer Ali, The Spirit of Islam, is probably the best achievement in the way of an apology for Mohammed that is ever likely to be composed in a European language".