Talk:Criticism of the Quran/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Article protected

... per request on WP:RPP. A full-on edit war has been going on (again) here for some time. The article is fully protected from editing in its current revision, which I do not endorse in any particular way. There is no "right version" as far as I'm concerned.

Can we please try to discuss our issues here on the talk page and work towards consensus instead of wasting energy pointlessly reverting? Thanks - Alison ☺ 08:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is continued in section "Sufaid's organization" Sufaid 13:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Entry for the Submission movie

Below is a writeup mentioning the Submission film. Please feel free to edit. We'll include this after the block is taken out. Now that we have significant coverage of this film, we can use the screenshot image as a fair use:—Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt57 (talk • contribs)

Criticism of the Qur'an in the media

Image of a woman's body with Quranic verse ^{[Quran 4:34]} written on it from the film Submission. It portrays a Muslim woman (dressed with a transparent black clothing) as having been beaten and raped by a relative. The bodies are used in the film as a canvas for verses from the Qur'an.
Link to Actual image to be used after Fair Use is established: Image:Submission screenshot.gif

Submission, a film directed by Theo van Gogh and written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali contains in full or in part, three verses of verses from the Quran which according to the filmmakers promote mistreatment of women .

• "They ask thee concerning women’s courses Say: they are a hurt and a pollution" - ^{[Quran 2:222]}
• "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great" - ^{[Quran 4:34]}, also see An-Nisa, 34
• "Strike the adulteress and the adulterer one hundred times. Do not let compassion for them keep you from carrying out God's law—if you believe in God and the Last Day—and ensure that a group of believers witnesses the punishment." - ^{[Quran 24:2]}

Here are a few lines from the movie acted out by the female actress in the film that make direct or indirect references to the Qur'an :

• "The verdict that killed my faith in love is in your holy book."
• "I feel, at least once a week the strength of my husband’s fist on my face"
• "And after a series of warnings and threats he starts to beat me. First lightly on my arms and legs, just as you, most high describe – ahhhuh O shall I say prescribe – in your holy book; But mostly on the face. "

Hirsi has said "it is written in the Koran a woman may be slapped if she is disobedient. This is one of the evils I wish to point out in the film"

Comments

I think the title of the section should be slightly different than "Criticism of the Qur'an in the media." I assume this would become a sub section to the Domestic bahavior section, as both are of the same topic.--Sefringle 03:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Sefringle. To me it seems the title is a little forced. The referenc to this film can be used simply as a source witin the doemstic behavior section, or in an expanded form as a sub section if editors feel the film is important enough as a source to merit that (personally I think it is not, and there is a wealth of more sober material out there to use a source to criticise Quran vis a vis treatment of women). However I don't agree with including the actress' dialouge. They are clearly sensationalist and based on thoughts of a fictional character. Over all I would like to say that the primary objective for mentioning this film in detail should be to use it as a source for criticising Quran, not as an excuse to inculde the image, that being just an add on to the main objective. Sufaid 05:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

We can change the title to anything, but there must be significant covereage of the movie in the article. I think I made all the coverage that can be there, in relation to this article. Ofcourse the movie is important enough - its very notable in relation to Quran and Islam. It is critical of the Quran, hence relevant to this article. Even if the lines are fictional, they are part of the movie and critical of the Quran and should be included. The image will decorate the article nicely as well, and also qualify as fair use.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the relevance of the movie to the article; the importance of it being a subjective matter, can be left as stated by editors as thier opinions. However I am still not convinced about the fictional lines. Do they add value and do they qualify as RS? Remember that works of fiction enjoy artistic liberty of all types, that is, there is no check on thier content....sort of like a self published book. If they are to be included, then I will change my opinion about the title. Maybe the title should in that case reflect that the discusion is about criticism of Quran in the popular media where artistic licence exists. But in terms of the encyclopedic quality of the article, I would vote in favor of not including; especially as not including still conveys the message of the film, albiet in a less sensational manner..which perhaps is good thing. Sufaid 06:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The lines of the movie dont have to be RS. Its a movie. Yes they add to the value because its part of the movie. I dont care about the title as long as significant information about the movie is included. I also want to make sure the image is included as it improves the article and shows the user what its about. Ofcourse I dont need to tell why images are good to include in articles. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose.This film is not notable enough to be included in this article, plus the image cannot be used in the article (let alone this talk page, which is why I have changed it to a link) per WP:FUC.--Kirby♥time 19:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If the film was not notable enough, it wouldnt have its own article. The Fair use policy will apply here: "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text)" - there you go. Next, the film IS notable in relation to this article. If you read everything above, the film is directly related to Criticism of the Quran and/or Islam. Since its the ONLY film that does this, it sure is notable by all means. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between being notable enough to have its own article, and being notable enough to be included in this article. And it does not qualify under fair use for the same reason that SO many other pictures do not qualify under fair use. Fair use policy is not debatable. The picture cannot be used. And finally, do not edit my comments.--Kirby♥time 19:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, there is no such thing as "not notable enough to be included in this article". All that matters is RELEVANCE. Is it relevant? Yes it is. Is it fair use? Yes if we're discussing the movie significantly in the article, it can be fair use. I will wait for this article to be unlocked and will insert the material in. I will expect you and others to dispute fair use and will see you there at the debate along with others. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

this can easily be covered quite succinctly in a few sentences. the bloating, and more precisely the quotefarming, is quite unnecessary. the prose, where there actually is some, gives an aura of exhibitionism instead of encyclopedic tone (i.e. 'here are a few lines from the movie'). in any case, it doesn't seem to conform to WP:NPOV. is the film itself notable? it probably is. i think, as Merzbow suggested above, there could be a few lines about this in a potential section on 'Criticism of Islam in popular media' (in the Criticism of Islam article), but currently the impression that i'm getting, as Sufaid notes, is that the proposal is an excuse for needlessly parading this fictional and sensationalist picture. ITAQALLAH 19:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesnt have to conform to NPOV. This is criticism of the Quran. If the woman complained of the Quranic wife-beating verse and you're labelling that as not NPOV, then so are all other lines referenced in the Domestic Violence section where people complained in the similiar way about the wife-beating verse. You want to remove those as well? The movie is notable ofcourse. If you can make the coverage of the movie any better than I have, try. The main purpose is to significantly mention this movie as its the only one which criticizes the Quran.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

it doesn't have to conform to WP:NPOV?? seeing as though it is described as "absolute and non-negotiable", i think you might be on the wrong encyclopedia then.. ITAQALLAH 14:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Then remove the following line from the article as well. Is this line NPOV? "Critics claim that "the command to beat disobedient wives" that they believe to exist within the Qur'an "is founded upon a woman’s subservient / secondary status in Islam" - How is this line NPOV and the movie or its lines are not? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support: The film is notable obviously, otherwise it wouldnt have an article of its own in Wikipedia. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I am perfectly OK with a link being added to the see also section, but this does not merit such a substantive inclusion in this article. For one thing, it's not even real criticism; it's just an ad hominem. It is incredibly stupid to put this on par with legitimate criticisms of the Quran. And second, relevance is not a criterion for inclusion. And with regard to it being fair use: it is most certainly NOT fair use. Please read WP:FUC again, and please address all the criteria:

Non-free media criteria
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Non-free media used on Wikipedia must meet all of these criteria: No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. If unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense. For example, the information in a newspaper article can easily be used as the basis of an original article and then cited as a reference. Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from original sources, though simply "tracing" copyrighted material does not make it free. Neither photographs nor sound clips, however, can usually be "transformed" in this way. However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken. Always use a more free alternative if one of acceptable quality is available. "Acceptable quality" means quality sufficient to serve the necessary encyclopedic purpose. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible. Eventually we may have a way to identify images as more restricted than GFDL on the article pages, to make the desire for a more free image more obvious. The material must not be used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media; our use of copyrighted material should not make it so that one no longer needs to purchase the actual product. Large copyrighted photographs from agencies that make their income selling photographs, for example, would likely not be "fair use" as it would be undermining the ability of the copyright holder to make money from their work. The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). This includes the original in the Image: namespace. Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately. The material must have previously been published. The material must be encyclopedic and otherwise meet general Wikipedia content requirements. The material must meet the media-specific policy requirements. The material must be used in at least one article. The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose. Non-free images may be used only in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. This is because it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia (like the gallery of Category:Replaceable fair use images, which is needed to help people find images to replace). The image or media description page must contain: Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder (if it is different). An appropriate fair use tag indicating which Wikipedia policy provision permitting the use is claimed. A list of image tags can be found on the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content page. For each article for which fair use is claimed, the name of the article and a "fair use rationale" as explained at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. The rationale must be presented in a manner that can be clearly understood and which is relevant to the article in question. As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably doesn't meet the criteria above and should not be used.

--Kirby♥time 19:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Also matt, I don't think you are in the right position to defend its fair use when you erroneously used the picture on this talk page.--Kirby♥time 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

My original proposal was to have a paragraph on this film in a section devoted to criticism of Islam/Qur'an in visual media. It's probably too much to list a bunch of quotes from the film also. Since fair use is a topic of mind-numbing complexity, I'll refrain from offering an opinion on that. - Merzbow 00:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a link to here on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, so we can get this issue solved once and for all.As for the information, with or without the image, I think it should be included, just with a different section title.--Sefringle 03:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use is only one issue on hand here, secondary to whether if and how material from the movie should be used to begin with. Going back to Merzbows original proposal and the main objective of this article I have the following observations:

• To use the film as a source for criticism within the domestic behavior section would raise issues of RS; especially with regards to the fictional lines. Here in my opinion use of the image would not qualify under fair use.

• It can be used as an example of criticism of Quran as done in the popular media within a seperate section (original proposal). The aim being to make it clear that the information presented here regarding criticism employs artisitic licence and is hence liable to be sensationalist and possibly inaccurate relative to say a book or serious article on the same subject. In this respect this section should be demarkated quite distinctly from rest of the article. In my opinion the purpose of such a section would be more to present how people have expressed thier anger towards the Quran rather than actual criticism of the Quran itself. Here the image may qualify if it is being use as more than a decoration. Sufaid 07:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the neutral input. I agree with the latter. The point is to hightlight Criticism of Quran in the media. The focus would be that its in the media, rather than if its really like the other criticism. Thats what will stand out about this section and thats what I meant by my original proposal which still stands.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I moved the section to where it is more appropiate. I strongly suggest we come up with a better name for this section title.--Sefringle 00:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

location of Submission entry

I moved the location of the submission entry to a sub section of "domestic behavior" because they discuss similar topics. Domestic behavior is about women in islam, and likewise so is submission. I think they should be roughly in the same location on this page for this reason.--Sefringle 05:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

But the film doesn't criticize in the formal way. It is more emotional. It shows a nude (supposedly) Muslim women telling stories of being raped by her father etc etc. --Aminz 05:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

But in terms of topics, it is most closely related to Women in Islam. What we have written about the film is somewhat similar to the criticisms listed in the "domestic behavior" section. As both topics discuss women in Islam, I think they should be together.--Sefringle 05:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That's true that it shares a common point with the "domestic behavior" section but its category is different. It is using Media to critizie the Qur'an. Further, the topic of criticism of the Qur'an in Media has the potential to be expanded. --Aminz 05:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a chrystal ball. Currently, the article only discusses one media outlet. Secondly, this entire is organized not by type of criticism, but by topic of criticism. We should be consistent with that and put the two topics together.--Sefringle 06:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Do as you wish. --Aminz 06:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The topic is "criticism of the Quran in the Media" which is distinct from domestic behavior. The movie is one example of such criticism and happens to deal with women issues. Perhaps some editors will find other examples dealing with other issues. I think in discussions before this section was included, the original proposal that was reaching consensus was that this would be a section distinct from the other criticisms; otherwise issues of RS would arise and much of the text would have to be edited down (example the words of a fictional character) and the picture may not qualify under fairuse. Hence, lets stick to the original idea and not start another edit war. Sufaid 07:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The theme of the movie is Domestic behavior, i.e. claimed abusive treatment of women in Quran. If there's more media related stuff that we could think of such a move, but the current placing which Sefringle looks more relevant and better placed than before. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Good move, thanks Sefringle. Aminz, could you expand on Further, the topic of criticism of the Qur'an in Media has the potential to be expanded.? I'm not aware of any other criticism in the Media of Quran. Is there any other as well? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use

Kirbytime, can you explain your reasons for removing the image.--Sefringle 21:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free media criteria
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Non-free media used on Wikipedia must meet all of these criteria: No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. If unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense. For example, the information in a newspaper article can easily be used as the basis of an original article and then cited as a reference. Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from original sources, though simply "tracing" copyrighted material does not make it free. Neither photographs nor sound clips, however, can usually be "transformed" in this way. However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken. Always use a more free alternative if one of acceptable quality is available. "Acceptable quality" means quality sufficient to serve the necessary encyclopedic purpose. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible. Eventually we may have a way to identify images as more restricted than GFDL on the article pages, to make the desire for a more free image more obvious. The material must not be used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media; our use of copyrighted material should not make it so that one no longer needs to purchase the actual product. Large copyrighted photographs from agencies that make their income selling photographs, for example, would likely not be "fair use" as it would be undermining the ability of the copyright holder to make money from their work. The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). This includes the original in the Image: namespace. Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately. The material must have previously been published. The material must be encyclopedic and otherwise meet general Wikipedia content requirements. The material must meet the media-specific policy requirements. The material must be used in at least one article. The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose. Non-free images may be used only in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. This is because it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia (like the gallery of Category:Replaceable fair use images, which is needed to help people find images to replace). The image or media description page must contain: Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder (if it is different). An appropriate fair use tag indicating which Wikipedia policy provision permitting the use is claimed. A list of image tags can be found on the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content page. For each article for which fair use is claimed, the name of the article and a "fair use rationale" as explained at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. The rationale must be presented in a manner that can be clearly understood and which is relevant to the article in question. As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably doesn't meet the criteria above and should not be used.

Please address all of these points before including the picture in the article, thanks.--Kirby♥time 21:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Which specific points in particular does the image violate?--Sefringle 21:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Please address ALL of them, thanks.--Kirby♥time 22:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Um...no. If you believe there are points being violated please outline them. You are the one claiming violation so please explain where the violation is happening. IrishGuy ^talk 01:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

How about number 6 then. How does it contribute significantly to the article, seeing how it is quite possible to write such an article with no mention of the film.--Kirby♥time 01:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You must mean 9, since that is the criterion which contains the word significant. It is a film, an inherently visual entity, and thus a screenshot to illustrate a scene from the film significantly contributes to an understanding of its style and impact. Next? - Merzbow 01:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirbymtime, FU has been established. Do not remove this image again. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what ONE admin thinks. This is a possible copyvio. It does not significantly contribute to the article; it's only there to satisfy the sadistic urges of some users.--Kirby♥time 02:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime, refrain from personal attacks ("sadistic urges"). If you have questions about the established fair use of of the image, discuss them here. If you think you know more about what makes a fair use and what doesnt, than the guys at the Fair use talk page, go ahead talk to them. |--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle asked me to comment, so here goes: The fair use rationale on the image page is flawed. "Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the article is about the criticism of the Quran in relation to women, a subject which the film is based on" is not a proper rationale since it needs to significantly contribute to understanding of the film--not the article. I do, however, think it meets fair use criterion. It adds significantly in explaining Submission which is a part of this article. I don't think the question is whether or not the image is significant to the article± . The question is does the screenshot provide "for identification and critical commentary on [...] program and its contents"? That's where significance comes in... not to the article as a whole... if I'm not mistaken. Some will probably read "must contribute significantly to the article" as contradicting me but I think "identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text" clears up the point. If 1) the content about Submission is worthy of being there and 2) the image signifcantly helps illustrate that section then it's fair use. Hope that helps?

±Personally, I feel we could remove all reference to the film and it wouldn't really harm the article (I don't mind it, but it doesn't deserve a subsection). My main worry would be that an image would over emphasize a recent issue in an article already plagued by recentism. But, as always, the main problem is criticism without actors. gren グレン 03:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have read your discussion on the use of this image, and the fair use rationale. My personal opinion is that this image is unnecessary in a serious article like this. Please consider removing it. It may also offend some Muslims who may not like to see such images associated with an article on the Quran. Contemptuous 13:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC). May I add that Quran does not promote exposure of women, and this image (in an article on "criticism") may imply otherwise. Contemptuous 15:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Quotespamming of Submission film

Can someone justify the inclusion of quotes which contradict the rest of the article? Thanks.--Kirby♥time 22:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

How do they contradict the rest of the article? Since the title of this article is "Criticism of the Qur'an" something related to the qur'an needs to be mentioned for relevance.--Sefringle 22:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

the article has a long way to go in purging all the quotefarming, which is quite frequently bloating what can quite easily be covered succintly in a few sentences of good prose. ITAQALLAH 22:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirby, how do the quotes contradict the rest of the article? What policies are you using in order to say this is quote spamming? I'm not aware whether this term even exists. Please do not remove this section without discussing and defending your actions or it will be reverted. Tell me how this is violating policies. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The onus is on you to justify its inclusion. Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--Kirby♥time 00:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The quotes are hardly "indiscriminate". The article is entitled Criticism of the Qur'an and these are referenced, notable criticisms that do just that. Prester John 01:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

the pertinent criticisms are, of course, mentioned. pointless quotes from the movie, and regurgitations of the verses used in full are needless and do not articulate our independent reporting of the critique as espoused by Hirsi Ali. as such, they simply bloat the section and serve no encyclopedic purpose. ITAQALLAH 01:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not a notable criticism. For Christ's sake, this is a snuff film. Are you seriously comparing legitimate criticism of Islam with this crap?--Kirby♥time 01:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not a notable criticism? How many films do you know of which are critical of the Quran and whose director was murdered by an Islamic extremist, and that alone made the headlines? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The current version, with the relevant verses mentioned but not quoted in undue detail, is fine. - Merzbow 01:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, looks fine to me (for now). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

'Incompatibility with Christian and Jewish scriptures' section

the section has been tagged as requiring a complete rewrite since Feb 07. personally, i find nothing in that section discussing any sourced critique, but instead appears to be musings as to what taurat refers to, or where the Qur'an and the Bible diverge (no reason to believe that's a criticism of the Qur'an). as such, i have removed the section. ITAQALLAH 22:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Submission Film, screenshot: FU established

The Fair-use of the Submission Screenshot has been establised. Kirbytime and other users: Do not remove this image from the article again. Sefringle, thanks again for making this addition to the article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"God" -> "Allah"

In this edit with the summeray "NPOV" the word "God" was changed to "Allah". Do people here really think this improves the WP:NPOV quality of the article. DES ^(talk) 21:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

no it doesn't.--Sefringle 23:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The reference used quotes "Allah". Why would we not use the phrase that is part of the reference? It is POV to render this to "God". There has much debate for over a thousand years as to if this is true. Many scholars conclude that Allah is in fact Satan, another POV, albiet the polar opposite POV. To avoid confusion or favoring one opinion over another let's just use what the reference uses shall we? As per Wiki normal procedure. Prester John 00:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

For reference this is the guy who was recently warned by admins for having a userbox that says "Allah is Satan" and for making unilateral "God"->"Allah" changes like this across articles. Very curious. - Merzbow 02:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think they can in most cases be used interchangeably and that, taking a cue from British vs. American English debates, we should be highly suspect of anyone changing articles from one variation to another. And, John, I think the answer from scholars is that in general you see both forms widely used... which means that we can use either form--once again why we should be suspicious of anyone arbitrarily changing this. gren グレン 04:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism

Arrow, the article says that according to critics:"Islamic extremist terrorism is true islam" and Lewis's quote is a response to it. Why do you remove it? --Aminz 21:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Shoving a straw-man into an introduction will not be tolerated. Arrow740 23:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What straw-man? Doesn't the article says that according to critics "Islamic extremist terrorism is true islam"? --Aminz 23:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But it doesn't say that critics claim that Islamic scriptures contain orders to kill innocent bystanders and commit terrorism, because critics don't say that. Lewis knew exactly what he was saying, and he wasn't really saying anything. Arrow740 23:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism is "a political tactic that uses threat or violence, usually against civilians, to frighten a target group into conceding to certain political demands" or a "the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective" according to britannica.

To say that "Islamic extremist terrorism is true islam" means Islam approves this. --Aminz 23:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Would agree with Aminz here. The criticism equates terrorism (which in popular terminology also involves killing of innocent bystanders) with "true Islam". Since True Islam is defined by the basic texts of Islam, Lewis's response is clearly relevant here. Sufaid 17:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Lewis' quote doesn't belong here, because it isn't a refutation of any of the criticism in the article. It is only a statement of his opinion.--Sefringle 04:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

For RfC

The dispute is over addition of "Responses have come from both Muslims and non-Muslims. Bernard Lewis for example says that "At no point do the basic texts of Islam enjoin terrorism and murder. At no point — as far as I am aware — do they even consider the random slaughter of uninvolved bystanders." to the end of the following paragraph:

"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 of those who support Muslim terrorists and Jihadists believe that violence is Islamic, and that Islamic extremist terrorism is religious terrorism or true islam."

One relevant diff showing removal of the text in dispute [1]

Please see the relevant discussion in the above section:Talk:Criticism of the Qur'an#Terrorism.

Thanks --Aminz 10:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Arrow on that edit. This article is written criticism, response. An opinion that is not an arguement has no place in this article.--Sefringle 04:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a place for RfC. Please do not edit in this section Sefringle. Thanks --Aminz 08:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Name of article is dishonest

I think that the name of this article is totally dishonest and that either the title should be changed or major changes should be made to the article.

The article is titled "Criticism of the Qur'An", but a more honest title would be "Debate about the legitimacy of the Qur'An", or maybe "Criticism of the Qur'An with counter arguments"

With the current title of "criticism of the Qur'An", I don't see the intellectual legitimacy in including counter arguments in defense of the Qur'An or in rebuttal to the criticisms.

From what I have read, many of the criticisms are absolutely banal and asinine. For example, the criticism on Allah's statement in the Qur'An that semen originates from between the backbone and the ribs is absolutely worthless. Are not the tailbone (coccyx) and pelvis (sacrum) part of the backbone?

I maintain that the article should be either renamed, or split in two (one article for criticisms, another for defense, maybe keeping the two articles consistent section by section and linking them to one another at the top of each article).

I also feel that my brother and sister Muslims should not be so fearful of allowing criticism of the Qur'An to exist in this article without rebuttal. Let people see these weak criticisms for what they are, and let the outcome lay in Allah's hands.

Surely Allah Is the Greatest of Planners, and Is the Greatest Knower of men. If one comes to this article and is influenced by a weak criticism of the Qur'An, then Allah has already hardened that person's heart with a negative attitude of Islam before that person ever saw this article. If a person were to see these false criticisms for what they are, surely they have their reward with Allah. Rag-time4 00:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

My comments here were removed as "trolling", but to the Muslims here I support my position with the Qur'An 24:57

My only contention is that the article should be renamed or altered significantly to honestly reflect the current title. Rag-time4 17:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is a dictionary entry for the word "criticism": http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criticism

My interpretation of the title was based on definitions 1:2: The act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding. 2:1: The act of criticizing, especially adversely. 3:1: Disapproval expressed by pointing out faults or shortcomings; "the senator received severe criticism from his opponent"

Please forgive my ignorance as to the myriad definitions of the word "criticism". However, this word does, at least for me, carry a negative connotation for the average reader. Therefore, the title should be altered to reflect the fact that this isn't a negative criticism with rebuttal but rather a scholarly criticism which is all encompassing rather than being negative. Rag-time4 17:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As a recommendation, I suggest the article be renamed to "Criticial Analysis of the Qur'An"

I think this is a much more neutral-sounding title. The word "criticism" by itself carries with it a negative connotation for most english speakers, I believe, while I feel that "Critical analysis" is a more neutral term and will more accurately reflect the contents of the article. Rag-time4 17:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Error in the Quran about Jewish faith

This is an article about criticize of the Quran.don't erase this topic.This is NOT soapbox. This is fact.Those verses are appear in the Quran.Next time you will erase it I will report on your vandalism to administrators.If you have something to say then response .I think it should be added to the article.

In sura 9:30 Quran claim that the Jews believe that Ezra is the son of God.However the Jews don't believe in that and have never believed.We should also mention that in the article.don't erase this topic.In discussion people are allowed to bring point.

a few translation: Yusuf Ali "The Jews call 'Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God."

Pickthall "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah"

Shakir "And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah"

Sher Ali "And the Jews say, ‘Ezra is the son of ALLAH,’ and the Christians say, ‘the Messiah is the son of ALLAH"

Rashad Khalifa "The Jews said, "Ezra is the son of GOD," while the Christians said, "Jesus is the son of GOD!"

Irving "Jews say: "Ezra was God's son," while Christians say: "Christ was God's son."

And of course anyone that know Arabic can check the Quran in the original version .A transliteration of the first part of sura 9:30 in Arabic is:

  Waqalati alyahoodu AAuzayrun ibnu Allahi
  waqalati alnnasara almaseehu ibnu Allahi

as you can see the two line parallel for both Jews and Christians.

An Arabic translation of the Quran that say [9:30] The Jews said, "Ezra is the son of GOD," while the Christians said, "Jesus is the son of GOD!" These are blasphemies uttered by their mouths. They thus match the blasphemies of those who have disbelieved in the past. GOD condemns them. They have surely deviated. http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/noframes/ch9.html This is an Islamic website.

Also explenation about this topic: http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Quran/Versions/009.030.html

modern Jews don't claim Ezra to be son of God, nor does there seem to be any such claim in the Jewish scriptures, Talmud, or later writings.

This is NOT my research.this verses are documented in the Quran:

http://www3.alislam.org/showVerse.jsp?vn=30&ch=9&tPN=384

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html

You can also find many more.Anyway it is a fact that the Quran say that and it also a fact that the Jews don't believe Ezra is the son of God and also have never believed.

I have supplied link to the Qu'ran verse.Oren.tal 07:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oren.tal, as discussed here, this is pure OR. Find a reliable secondary source and read up on the relevant policies and guidelines (WP:OR, WP:RS) to understand why this cannot be including in the article in its current form. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 09:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

since I put links to Islamic web site this is NOT persoanl research.I just mention fact about the Quran that claim that Jews believe Ezra son of God and I supplied all source for it. Therefor I am going to put it back. Because I mention facts.I mention the verse and what is Ezra in the Jewish view.Oren.tal 09:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Blogs and polemic websites (whether on Islam or any other religion) are not reliable sources to interpret those verses of the Quran. You need to find a scholarly source who makes this interpretation. Have you read up on the policies and guidelines I referred to above? It would help your Wikipedia activities to familiarise yourself with them. I have reverted your changes and I'm sure if you add it in again someone else will too. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 09:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

AA I think you have a mistake. I don't speak about the sources I have introduced in the discussion of criticize of Islam. I put link to Quran translation web-sites that run by Muslims and all of them approve what I say.I have not making up by myself.So before you think to erase it again check all the sources I supplied. After that come with answer. Wait that I will explain to you and then continue to other. Don't erase only according to your own opinion. Thank. Oren.tal 09:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oren.tal, I think you're failing to understand what original research is and how to use primary sources correctly. I have not removed this material based solely on my own opinion (although I am absolutely entitled to do) but you have been advised by C.Logan and Itaqallah in the Criticism of Islam talk page where you initiated this topic. I have copied across their comments since the subject has moved to this page. Once again, read-up on WP:NOR. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 10:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. we are looking for sources, and not arguments. if you believe it merits mention, please provide some scholarly sources relating this critique. i believe that excludes polemical websites. ITAQALLAH 21:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is considered your research. Essentially, you are presenting an exegesis of primary sources. This is original research, and is essentially forbidden on Wikipedia. What I'm telling you is that you should find a reliable source which backs up your assertions regarding the above verses. Let me reiterate. We should take great care to present information from secondary sources, as primary sources tend to allow multiple interpretations. So, for you and I the above verses mean one thing, and for another person they mean something entirely different. I'm used to this concept, as it happens during Biblical discussions all the time. Therefore, we should stick to secondary sources- for example, if a known expert has mentioned this verse in a publication/book, then we can cite him/her for support in this matter. But as it is, this is merely your own interpretation; that is, unless Jochen Katz is considered an acceptable source on the subject (which doesn't seem to be the case).--C.Logan 21:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) I mention verse in the Quran.If you are Muslims that know Arabic then you know this verse.There is verse in the Quran (sura 9.30) that claim that the Jews believe Ezra is the son of God.You can check th source I have added.On the other hand the moderen Jews don't believe in that and there is no any evidence to that in any Jewish scriptures.I also mention article from web-site that refer to that contradiction.So it is not my personal idea or opinion.I heard about that subject.I checked it and found it true.You should supply real reason for problem.Because I supplied more than one resource.Oren.tal 10:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC) The Quran say explicitly that the Jews believe Ezra is the son of God.There is nothing here about understanding.Oren.tal 10:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC) pay attention to all the sources I have added.Oren.tal 10:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as you're not reading up on the policies and guidelines, let me quote here:

"Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight."

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources."

None of the sources you've cited conform to the above and they are mostly polemical sites. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 10:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A web-site that run by Muslims and offer translation of the Quran,is reliable source for translation of the Quran.I also add article about that subject.For criticism we can use in anti-Islamic web-site and the thing has been done until now.For example there is used in faith-freedom articles.I supplied link to articles about the subject.I also supplied link to the translation of the Quran (only academic and Islamic web-site).I also supplied link to Jewish database about Ezra.Check all the source I supplied one by one.Read them all.If you want I can change the sentence from "However, this claim seems inexplicable" to "However, no Modern Jews..." ,if that what bother you.Since I mention only fact and not opinion there is nothing there as personal.Oren.tal 10:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC) plus there was used in Jihadwatch as source and answer-Islam is not less reliable.Oren.tal 10:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not know the dispute in detail. Quran do not claim that ALL Jews and Christian have this believe. I think even at time of Muhammad all Jews do not take Ezra as son of God. I also understand that many Jews nowaday might not say Ezra as son of God but we need strong sources to claim that NO (not even a single) Jew nowadays have this Shirk. Hence I do not find any error at all.--- A. L. M. 10:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

O.K. then write in the response section.I have mention enough sources.I called the section criticism and not error (even though it is an error in my eyes),because one thing for sure people criticize the Quran for that.But I will totally support in your right to response to this section.Of course the response should be true.There is no evidence at all about any Jewish ever that claim such thing,so take that into account.Oren.tal 11:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Which is exactly why it's original research. C.Logan said it nicely above, that we cannot start doing "exegesis of primary sources" or rely on our own (or polemical website's) interpretations of what it means. A reliable secondary source must be used to present this information. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 11:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, it is probably a fringe theory anyway if there aren't any reliable secondary sources that can be quoted (as the text has been around for 1400 years). → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 11:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This is original research.I have supplied article of answering-Islam (reliable secondary sources) that speak about this.If you have something to say about this subject then write in the response.Second I have supplied primarily sources when I put link to Islamic web-site.The verse appear in the Quran.The debate is not on this.If you claim that there was any Jewish group that called Ezra son of God then write but also added real source for your claim.C.Logan haven't seen all the sources I have added the article.Oren.tal 12:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

answering-Islam should not be used in wikipedia, other than it own article. It is as bad as faith-freedom and company. --- A. L. M. 14:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are saying that Ezra was never considered son of God by any Jewish group. Then it is a big claim and obviously false. I have a deadline in few days. I will give you many sources after my deadline. --- A. L. M. 14:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

answering-Islam can be used to describe the current criticism of Islam.And the site has been used and also has been mention in the list of web-site that criticize Islam. What ever you claim about the Jews s you should write in the response and also supply reliable source.Which mean not anther Islamic source.You should find historical or Jewish.The fact is that today no Jewish claim Ezra is the son of God nor does there is any such claim in the Jewish scriptures, Talmud, or later writings.Oren.tal 16:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I say no modern Jews claim Ezra to be son of God, nor does there is any such claim in the Jewish scriptures Bible,Talmud,Midrash,Misnha or any later writing that claim such thing like Ezra son of God.What ever you have to say about the Jews that you claimed did believed then write it in the response.

"H Z Hirschberg proposed another assumption, based on the words of Ibn Hazm, namely, that the 'righteous who live in Yemen believed that 'Uzayr was indeed the son of Allaah. According to other Muslim sources, there were some Yemenite Jews who had converted to Islam who believed that Ezra was the messiah. For Muhammad, Ezra, the apostle (!) of messiah, can be seen in the same light as the Christian saw Jesus, the messiah, the son of Allah."

— Encyclopedia Judaica, pp. 1108

"...Ezra having been raised to life after he had been dead one hundred years, dictated the whole anew unto the scribes, out of his own memory; at which they greatly marveled, and declared that he could not have done it, unless he were the son of God. Al Beidawi adds, that the imputation must be true, because this verse was read to the Jews and they did not contradict it; which they were ready enough to do in other instances."

— George Sale, The Koran: IX Edition of 1923, London, pp. 152

→ AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 15:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Muslim sources can NOT be used as evidence to what the Jews believed especially in an article that criticize Islam.Oren.tal 16:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Look closely (and maybe readup) on the above sources. They certainly aren't "muslim sources". → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 16:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

you missed that part in the sentence that say "According to other Muslim sources"

My source say what I claim.about the verses we both agree.There is a fact that no modern Jewish claim Ezra is the son of God and there is also anther fact that no Jewish scripture claim that also.As for what you say,well you can write it as well and the response section.Oren.tal 17:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC) This is not original research since I put link to the article of answering-Islam. I have been told by a few people that it has source.

Use WP:RS please

[2] I have remove this. It is because. You have used following.

1. Wikipedia article as a reference.
2. Use of answering-Islam. Which is not a reliable source.
3. No other reference say what you are claiming. They are misused.

--- A. L. M. 15:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

For mention of criticism it is a reliable source.It is not less reliable than faithfreedom that also have been used.Next time speak before you erased. Oren.tal 16:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There were enough atheists that offer me helped in case Muslims will try to censor anything.I only mention fact.Plus I removed the link to the wikipedia article as asked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal (talk • contribs)

There's nothing to censor. All you need to do is add a couple of reliable sources to backup the "criticism" claim. As you see above, I've added two sources which provide valid explanations of the quranic verse. But you should refrain from reverting changes against consensus. Add some reliable sources and all will be OK. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 16:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Faith freedom should also be removed. I will remove all material added using it also. --- A. L. M. 16:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

ALM If you will continue to vandalize this article and other by deleting I will report on you I am going to put back what you have removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal (talk • contribs)

115 Surahs?

I edited the article here because it seems odd that a source would claim 115 surahs and not 114. If someone has the source, it would be nice to know if he does cite 115 surahs. "Hussein 'Abdul-Raof, a professor of Arabic and Middle Eastern studies, states that sura 115 sura was the last Sura revealed (and thus not Sura 9)." I deleted it because there is no source for 115 surahs.

the source says 103, not 115. ITAQALLAH 21:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

war and violence

It wan not original research since he supplied sources.132.72.149.74 14:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

for criticize answering-Islam is reliable source.Plus there was also has source.Do not erase that again.132.72.149.74 14:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

it's not a reliable source. see WP:RS. also, see WP:OR. ITAQALLAH 14:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

for criticism you use in web site that criticize not in pro-Islamic site.Therefore it is reliable when you mention the argue.As you see,I am not the only one that want that.So you better stop erasing all the time.Oren.tal 14:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made." your sources don't fill these criteria. ITAQALLAH 14:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because you don't like it or what it say doesn't mean it is not reliable source.I hold it as a reliable source.Beside of the source where taken from Islamic web-site.Oren.tal 15:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

you must explain why the source is reliable. again, i must point you to WP:OR. Wikipedia articles are not a forum for novel soapboxing. ITAQALLAH 15:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not erase my discussions.Thank.132.72.149.74 14:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

newest discussions go at the bottom, see WP:TPG#Layout. ITAQALLAH 14:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Your source itself do not say itself reliable. It make only a claim saying "as far as I know" [3]. I think that is you who has written it there too? Right? --- A. L. M. 15:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the additions with this comment:

"These are a few examples of excerpts of Islamic literature that receive much critism:"

Criticism from whom? Please discuss here first. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 16:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Christians and Jews in the Qur'an

Criticism = "The practice of analyzing, classifying, interpreting, or evaluating literary or other artistic works."

• Criticism does not mean just negative analysis and hide the positive view of quran towards the People of the book!
• Also it is not OR (WP:OR), as it refers to published facts, ie Quran.

~atif - 12:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

OR says: "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;" - and thats what you tried to do. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am asking who's interpreting in what way? Pls read the quotes AGAIN and tell me where does it say to "curse" or negative view of the People of the book? These verses are all praising the people of the book, no matter how differently you can interpret verses quoted.

It does not introduce any synthesis, these are just verses taken from Quran. Read from a neutral POV and you will find they are nothing but "praising" the People of the book, whand they MUST be mentioned in criticism of Quran ~atif - 15:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have to use this, you'll have to reduce them to short sentences like the rest of the article, and not to huge quote farms. Make sure your input is compatible with the rest of the article. If I started expanding on the verses already linked, it would make the page long. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

ok, I will abridge the content. Thx ~atif - 02:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Any quran references need a secondary source. Alone, it is origional research, as the qur'an is an interpritation. What one person says can easily be interprited as meaning something else. So a secondary source is needed for interpritations. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles).--Sefringle^Talk 03:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Question: Does the same apply to hadith? I've often wondered how to include hadith that seem to either support or contradict parts of the Qur'an, but was under the impression they were in the same catagory. I agree about your edit, in any event quoting things without context is fairly useless. Gtadoc 04:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

yes. It applies to the hadith too. Exactly. Who is to say which interpritation is the right "context"? That is all interpritation, and can easily be interprited differently by different people.--Sefringle^Talk 04:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Interpretation may happen to certain verses and not all. Read the 3 interpretations by Yusuf, Pichthall and Shakir (site), they all mean the same. Interpretation may arise to some verses due to context, choice of meanings of arabic word etc. By your logic, then all verses reference in People of the Book should be removed? I can point many articles where quranic verses have been referred without secondary source, pls help to scrub those as well. Anyways, I have added the secondary sources. ~atif - 09:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Read all three interpritations of verse ^[Quran 9:5]. They are all the same too. This verse can easily be inteprited (and critics often have interprited it this way) to say Islam is a religion of terrorism. However, this is disputed by many muslims, and the reason is that the qur'an is an interpritation, meaning different people have different views on its meaning. And yes, if there are quran references as a primary source in the People of the book article, secondary sources should be added, or the qur'an verses should be removed as origional research. That said, it looks like the entire article is just about origional research. That is probably why it is tagged with {{unreferenced}}.--Sefringle^Talk 13:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As an example of interpretation regarding the verses referencing people of the book: I've heard many a mufti explain to me that they thought those sections only referred to people of the book during the time of the revelation of that verse, not to ones today. Clearly alternative interpretations are possible. Gtadoc 17:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

216.99.52.170 20:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)== Maulana Muhammad Ali ==

Why is this person a reliable source for the material being attributed to him? Arrow740 06:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Spencer is anymore reliable than him. --Aminz 06:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

They are being used for different things. Arrow740 22:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Maulana Muhmmad Ali is well known translator and commentator of the Quran. His works have been endorsed by the Al Azhar University[4] and Pickthall [5].Sufaid 12:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

He is not being used as a source of responses to criticism. Arrow740 22:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes he is. Sufaid 06:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

How so?--Sefringle^Talk 06:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

How not so?Sufaid 12:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think to choose a person as a reliable source or not is very subjective. Wikipedia should not lose its spirit as neutral encyclopedia. We should not force somebody to be reliable or not (as we see Arrow740 doing). Everybody with established reputation and record can be used for reference and we should not force our POV on this collaborative work call wikipedia! ~atif - 03:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"We should not force somebody to be reliable or not (as we see Arrow740 doing)" - that's one of the nicest things anyone has said about me on wikipedia. Arrow740 01:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Your lame sarcasim won't help solve anything

Why is Harun Yahya an unreliable source?

pls tell me with convincing evidence else I will re-insert his source for Jews and christian section? ~atif - 09:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

He's a polemicist with no qualifications. We can't use him for religious scholarship. If he were explicitly responding to specific criticisms that might be something else. Arrow740 09:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• I will not call him a polemic as you can see almost all of the books he has written are NOT against other religion! Take a look at his site here and in fact you can find none here. He is against creationism, Darwinism. He is not like Ahmed Deedat who refute some of the contents of Bible.
• regarding your second point that he is not responding to specific criticisms, sorry you are again wrong. The site I am referring to (http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/people_of_the_book.php), its intro specifically says "However, nowadays certain circles are trying to give Islamic morality the wrong image. The religion of Islam commands people to create an "abode of peace and well-being" on the face of the Earth, but those circles try to show the opposite of this as if there was a conflict between followers of other religions and Muslims. ". So in the whole article he is specifically responding to the criticism we have on this article. Have you read the site? ~atif - 14:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740, be sincere and honest, do not make edits to fool others. You made edit here summarising that it is for Surah 9 section of the article, but quietly you reverted the Christians and Jews in the Qur'an section also. You were asked to give answers to the Talk page (Why is Harun Yahya an unreliable source?), but you did not any except your rhetorics without any basis. Do a favour of being honest, or I will take it to admins. ~atif - 02:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I will put it gently by observing that Adnan Oktar has no credentials in this field; the curious need only to visit his Wikipedia article to see just how wildly inappropriate it would be to treat his work as that of a respectable scholar.Proabivouac 02:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Is respectable scholar a requirment to be an RS? Sufaid 06:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac Adnan Oktar is no worse than Spencer or James Arlandson (this guy says "Islam codifies and legalizes rape") who are quoted so many times in this article. ~atif - 15:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

War and violence section

i noticed, going over this section, that it reads utterly like a devotional screed to the every pondering of Spencer. i have mentioned previously that this section needs a substantial rewrite to make it resemble something at least vaguely encyclopedic. we must also address the excessive usage of Spencer: he isn't a reliable source on Islam, yet demanding that responses be from high quality sources smacks of double standards. let's get one thing straight: there is no such thing as an unreliable polemic tract being a "reliable source for criticism" (the latter would, in fact, be a reliable source which documents criticism). we don't have one standard for criticism, and another standard for everything else. if we are resisting the insertion of individuals like Yahya et al., as we rightly should, we must apply the same principles to all personalities employed here. ITAQALLAH 19:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the section does not devote much space to his pondering. If you can find people like Watt making his argument of moral relativism, that's one thing. If you can find polemicists making ad hominem attacks against critics, that's fine too. However, a propagandist spouting clearly nonsensical apologetics is another. Many of these "responses" do not belong here. They are either cobbled together from propaganda sources or original interpretations of reliable sources. Arrow740 01:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

actually, the number of times one sees "Spencer writes...", "Spencer notes...", and other such combinations, really makes the text quite irksome to read. i think both the criticism and responses sections need substantial trimming, as well as the removal of sources of dubious reliability- such as Spencer and Arlandson. ITAQALLAH 13:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

commentary on edits

i have been requested to comment on each of my edits "one-by-one", so here i am. the premise of all of these edits is that article content must be sourced to independent third party reliable sources (see WP:RS, WP:V). reliability is gauged by repute in academic/scholarly circles, quality of the publisher (i.e. university press or another well respected publisher), any relevant qualifications, and the nature of the material itself. while going through this writeup, i found myself repeating the fact that my edit summaries explained the policy/guideline based removal quite clearly. thus, in those instances where the edit summary is sufficient, i have written "RTES" (refer to edit summary):

• [6] -- tweaks with wording; removal of usc link to primary source
• [7] - RTES, source is unreliable and does not meet WP:RS. verse-spam is unencyclopedic.
• [8] - RTES, Arlandson (and likewise americanthinker.com) isn't a reliable source, as has been proven in previous discussions. his field is women in early Christianity, not Islam.
• [9] - RTES, the TOC looks extremely messy with so many needless and unencyclopedic subheadings. responses material trimmed to summarize main arguments.
• [10] - mukto-mona is an unreliable source, whitehouse.gov isn't a reliable source for what "Many Muslims and non-Muslims believe"
• [11] - RTES, nothing in terms of critique anyway.
• [12] - RTES, two sections on closely similar topics merged to improve TOC layout; reduction of convoluted discussion on both sides.
• [13] - copyedit, and addition of material from a reliable source offering alternative view on progression of verses. this has been opposed on OR grounds, so i will not reinstate this for now.
• [14] - RTES, again, trimming of apologetic, insertion of better sources.
• [15] RTES- exact same argument already given in previous paragraph;
• [16] - RTES, insertion of RS material about objections to the narrative.

as all have been explained (the edit summaries were more than sufficient), the productive edits (barring the Firestone material) will be reinstated. thanks. ITAQALLAH 23:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If you think that Spencer is not a reliable source for criticism of Islam then you're quite wrong. Arrow740 05:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

please explain how Spencer meets the WP:RS criteria. you have been avoiding this question for some time. it requires some extraordinary doublethink to be able to demand impeccably reliable sources on every other article, then miraculously forget those very standards on POV-magnet articles such as these. so, fire away. ITAQALLAH 15:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is about criticism of Islam. The critics are the best sources for this material. They are as regards criticism quite reliable. In articles which are not about criticism, we do not use them. Arrow740 18:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

don't you believe, that if the topic of criticism of Islam is so notable (and not merely an internet fad, or opportunistic sensationalism), that we should be able to document objectively where/how Islam has been criticised using independent reliable sources (i.e. academics who have discussed it). as in example, an article with the topic of 'Muhammad in Islamic piety' would only discuss the issue so far as what has been covered in academic sources - we wouldn't start using islam.com, Zakir Naik or other typically unreliable individuals. the use of non-Western Islamic scholars may be an issue, but that's pretty irrelevant to my example. that the title indicates a POV-fork (perhaps a better title is "Views on Islam"?)doesn't mean this article may become a cesspool for whatever critique can be synthesised. if you could explain how Spencer, or even Winn/FFI/Arlandson/Anonymous Arab Christian author, meet WP:RS, then we can discuss further. ITAQALLAH 18:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If you think you can succeed with an AfD, try it. Otherwise this article will contain more than rebuttals. I can compromise on Winn, and admit that FFI is not clear cut. But don't bring this Spencer canard again. Arrow740 18:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

why would you "compromise" on Winn and perhaps FFI, yet not so on Spencer? disposing of Winn isn't much of a compromise anyway, and he shouldn't be used as a bargaining chip so that other unreliable figures may be overlooked. i don't think an AfD is in order, i think a rename to a more neutral title is. at least then, the focus can be on those views that have been documented in reliable sources, not on having to promulgate fringe theories because their proponents are "critics". what do you think? ITAQALLAH 18:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot from submission

Use of the screenshot from submission has been limited to that article not this one. see Image talk:Submission screenshot.gif

What "criticism of the quran" is all about

Is the quran the "revelation of an angel"? Or was it made up by Muhammad himself?

Answering-Islam.org

I don't think that it is a reliable website. If anyone differes, feel free to point out why.Bless sins 17:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bless Sins...Like any website or person with a point of view on religion, the website is just arguing a point, and seems to do it fairly well (although i only spent a couple of minutes there). What do you find wrong with it? CWPappas 07:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

On wikipedia we can't just use "any website or person". On the contrary we are to use WP:Reliable sources. Please also refer to WP:V for more info.Bless sins 02:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I believe the following sources are unreliable as well. If you object, please explain why.Bless sins 02:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Faith freedom
2. Robert Spencer
3. Jihad watch

We have already been through this. See /Archive 1.--Sefringle^Talk 05:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, perhaps you could explain how the aforementioned hate websites are reliable. thanks in advance. ITAQALLAH 15:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't dismiss websites you don't agree with as "hate websites." That's hate speech, and it's wrong. Arrow740 18:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

would you prefer "crankish", or "Islamophobic"? let's return to the issue: how are they WP:RS compliant? ITAQALLAH 18:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This debate is quite rediculous. We have been over this already, and the "Islamophobic" (or similar) arguement is Ad hominem. --Sefringle^Talk 00:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

instead of dismissing the debate as ridiculous, why don't you demonstrate how these sources meet WP:RS? ITAQALLAH 01:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

None of them meet RS, anymore than do Islamic websites. They're partisan sources.Proabivouac 00:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I find what is said on Answering-Islam.org interesting even if someone deems it not to meet some Wiki acid test for reliability. I do have a print copy of the Koran, but I don't have easy access to it right now...does "Answering-Islam" misquote the Surah and, if not, then what other explaination is there for the contradictions contained therein? If the Surah are quoted correctly and the website-in-question is trying to refute the claim that the Koran is perfect, then why isn't their material admissible as valid criticism of the Koran? Please be specifiic... you asked me to "refer to WP:V for more info", but why don't you make your point directly instead of having me hunt elsewhere for something that supports your argument?

As I said on Tuesday, Aug. 21, I only took a quick look at the site but I didn't see anything that I would consider an example of islamophobia. I took another look tonight; "Answering-Islam" even has links to Islamic websites with opposing points of view. Simply being critical of some passages of the Koran, or even for the Islamic faith as a whole, does not constitute islamophobia (check the Wiki page on islamophobia for a definition). As for the issue of being unreliable, certainly if you are looking for examples of criticism of the Koran, you have to expect that those sources may not be altogether islamophilic.

In addition, after having read WP:V it occurred to me that Wikipedia itself possibly does not meet its own standard of reliability! It says, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Wikipedia doesn't do that! I've heard all kinds of criticism outside of Wikipedia about Wikipedia's lack of fact-checking and accuracy. Articles and edits go up without any filtration whatsoever and which editors have been asked for credentials? If someone put up an article on how Neil Armstrong found pigeons eating popcorn on the Moon during the Apollo 11 mission, how long would it take before someone took it down? How many people could read it and believe it to be fact in that time? Some responsible editors spend all their time doing nothing but reverting vandalism. CWPappas 07:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

sources used in any article should be reliable. just because a source makes a critique, and an editor finds that valid or invalid, doesn't make it noteworthy. articles, as WP:V/WP:RS specify, need to rely on third party reliable sources. there is general comunity consensus on this point. on this article, that translates to independent academic sources who have made note of the kinds of criticism directed against Islam/the Qur'an. this isn't really the place to debate whether what a particular source says is true or not. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source: you're right; that's why we don't self cite. Wikipedia is only as good as its weakest link, and the criticisms of Wikipedia you describe are precisely due to its failure to stick to conveying material from reliable sources. as it stands, the above websites are self-published and partisan (hence unreliable), and as with any other article, we should stick to reporting what reliable sources mention concerning this topic (as opposed to popularising those we feel are valid). ITAQALLAH 23:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

that translates to independent academic sources who have made note of the kinds of criticism directed against Islam/the Qur'an. Not quite. Reliable sources for criticim are those which state the views of the critics. On other Islam-related articles, you are right. But not on criticism articles. Criticism articles present notable views on topics which may or may not be from experts, yet there are thousands of articles on wikipedia where these views are represented. While your second arguement may have merit, that "criticism of..." articles may not belong, it is quite irrelevant as long as they exist. If you want to get rid of criticism of articles, that is a completely different issue, but so long as they do exist, these sources are reliable sources for criticism. That consensus has been established many times already.--Sefringle^Talk 21:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Reliable sources for criticim are those which state the views of the critics."-- "reliable source for criticism" is a misnomer, any source which makes criticism can be paraded as a reliable source under this faulty premise. partisan sources do not become reliable except on articles about themselves. see WP:V#Questionable_sources. furthermore, as these sources are forwarding the criticism themselves, they become primary sources on this article, making them even more unreliable.
• "On other Islam-related articles, you are right. But not on criticism articles." our policies and guidelines are applied uniformly throughout all articles- no double standards- don't you agree? these sources do not meet the standards listed in WP:RS. what is required here is discussion of the topic in secondary reliable sources (and i'm sure there is), that's how we know what's noteworthy; instead of forwarding material just because it's present on a crankish website. i refer to my previous example of an article like `Muhammad in Islamic piety` - where we would report the issue using academic reliable sources, and not what's found on Islamic websites. "That consensus has been established many times already." - actually, WP:V and WP:RS enjoy general consensus - and they both discourage the use of partisan sources. no such consensus exists to use partisan sources outside of articles on themselves. ITAQALLAH 23:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes what you said in the first bullet applies to questionable sources, not partisan sources. As for the second issue, primary sourcing alone doesn't equate to unreliability. You will have to explain this point better for me to more accurately respond to it.
• " our policies and guidelines are applied uniformly throughout all articles- no double standards-" You know as well as I do this is not the case on wikipedia. There are thousands of double standards on wikipedia. Besides "double standards" is a very subjective term, and to call this a double standard is an opinion. Attempts to change the double standards on wikipedia often fail, because what is a double standard to one party may not be to another. Partisan sources have gotten "no consensus," meaning no consensus for inclusion or removal. But as primary sources, I think they are acceptable. As secondary sources, no.--Sefringle^Talk 00:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sefringle, partisan sources which promote fringe material generally are questionable sources. ("Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight.") also see WP:RS: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." as you know, questionable sources may be used as primary sources, but only in articles about themselves.
• i'm not interested in digressing into the issue of double standards here, the point is that all sources used in this article - and every other article on Wikipedia for that matter - should conform to WP:RS and WP:V. Sefringle, i would invite you to please demonstrate how they meet the aforementioned content policy and guideline. ITAQALLAH 00:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Partisan sources promote a particular POV. That alone does not mean they have a "poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight." You will have to explain how each one of these sources you disagree with the inclusion of has no editorial oversight or a poor reputation for fact-checking. As for the second part, I agree there.--Sefringle^Talk 02:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, the websites aren't only partisan, they are crammed with fringe theories. if you disagree with that, can you provide reliable sources which document the critiques these sources make. if you can, why are we using the unreliable sources in the first place then? as for questionable sources having "poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight." - this is a notion that can only be disproven by providing evidence suggesting otherwise. we cannot assume they engage in academic peer reviews of the material they publish if there is no evidence of it. ITAQALLAH 02:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

False dilemma.--Sefringle^Talk 05:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, i agree that it would be a false dilemma if there were any other alternative answers available. either a self-published website (which these websites are) has a scholarly peer review in place to vet contributors' articles, or it doesn't. you need to show that they do, not me proving they don't. ITAQALLAH 17:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, there is nothing in the policies you showed me that says every opinion expressed on wikipedia has to be "scholarly peer reviewed" for inclusion. And second, you need to show me that the sources are questionable (by the definition provided on WP:V), since you are the one claiming they are. I never said a word about whether or not the sources were "scholarly peer reviewed". So the burden of proof is on you, not me. This is a criticism article, thus presenting the views of notable critics, whether scholarly or not. It isn't an article on the tenants of Islam.--Sefringle^Talk 02:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, per WP:V, "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Thus, you need to find reliable sources for all content you insert. Needless to say you need to prove their reliability if questioned.Bless sins 05:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Simply, Answering-Islam.org cites passages from the Qur'an and interprets what its authors see as contradictions as being illogical and, therefore, an imperfect book. It also points out passages that seem to contradict claims by others (theologians, etc.) concerning fundamental aspects of Islam. I can understand that any criticism of the Qur'an will be viewed as "fringe" by those who truly believe that it was devinely inspired, but criticism it is. What would make Answering-Islam.org unreliable would be if they either misquoted the Qur'an or if there was a flaw in the logic that lead them to their conclusions. As for the issue of self-publishing, WP uses a lot of sources that are self-published...any reference to a newspaper or television network included. Honestly, doesn't Answering-Islam address a lot of questions asked by a lot of people therefore making the criticism noteworthy and not fringe? Please, everyone, try to check you personal beliefs at the door and edit this article with detachment and neutrality. CWPappas 07:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Criticism of the Quran/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Some of the sections, particularly "Apostasy in Islam", should be either removed or lengthened. Badbilltucker 02:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 20:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)