Talk:Criticism of Muhammad/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Unnecessary edits

@Batreeq: You said you wanted to talk with me about your recent and persistent changes to lead. I reverted your disruptive edits for these reasons:

1. Grammar: Aisha ... when she six. When she what? Do you even read what you just typed, or you simply revert other people's edits without even checking out your own errors?
2. If you "feel the need" to have references for the phrase modern religious and secular criticism of Islam, check out the main page, there's plenty of it. That's why i said it was of no use to put them here.
3. If you really think this page needs so desperately counter-criticism on Muhammad, please write a section by yourself, instead of spamming that warning continuously. However, i personally think there's no need for that, since Muhammad's full biography on WP is entirely devoted to show what a great, wonderful and wise man he was, so what's the point to reiterate the same thing all over again here?--GenoV84 (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll also point out that the topic of this article is criticism of Muhammad. It isn't for presenting some sort of fictional debate between critics and Muslims. It doesn't need a point/counterpoint format. The topic is criticism worthy of note according to Wiki policies, therefore complaining that "this article may lend undue weight to criticism against Muhammad without sufficient Muslim responses" is meaningless. Responses to criticism aren't required, especially if such responses are grounded in primary sources (Quran and Hadith) that we cannot use, rather than scholarly reasoning. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Followup after Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive376#User:GenoV84_reported_by_User:Batreeq_(Result:_Blocked): Thank you for bringing this to the talk page. That way, we don't need to revert to discuss our edits via the edit summary.

• Grammar: The passage in question reads: and his [[Child marriage|marriage]] to [[Aisha]] when she was six years old, although most estimates say that it was consummated when she was nine. I have a few concerns with the wording of this:
  • The link to the word "marriage" should not be to Child marriage, rather, it should be to a more relevant topic such as Nikah or Aisha#Age_at_marriage. The editor who linked this word to that article violated WP:OR as it suggests that this is child marriage which is not explicitly stated by the sources. On the contrary, there are experts that have stated that she entered puberty and in Islam, puberty = adulthood. You can find the specifics here: Aisha § Age at marriage.
  • The use of the word "although" (listed to avoid usage of in WP:EDITORIALIZING) implies that the marriage is estimated to have been consumnated at six, which is not true (refer to link in prevous point).
• Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Per WP:WEASEL, examples of who is making the criticism should be provided.
• Since the article is a criticism, I am not wanting a 50-50 balance considering WP:FALSEBALANCE. However, I believe that it could be more beneficial if it contained referenced responses of experts. For example, the "Ownership of slaves" section does not sufficiently explain that the Islamic principles of slavery (e.g. kindness and limitations of enslavement). Other sections include "Religious syncretism and compromise" which claims that Islam is a combination of different religions, however, it does not mention that Islam recognizes the divinity yet corruption of previous religions (e.g. Majoos and the belief that monotheism and Hajj was established by Abraham but later corrupted with polytheism). Another highly biased section is "Treatment of enemies". I don't believe adding a {{undue}} notice is "spamming".

– Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 04:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• The link to Child marriage does not violate WP:OR, since the sections "Religion" and "Islam" on that page both refer explicitly to Islam too, in particular to Muhammad and Aisha, and is also stated by the sources, both in that page and this page.
• Nikah would be off topic here, because it refers to Muslim marriage between adults, more precisely to the wedding contract, not to the pratice of child marriage within Islam. It looks like you're proposing to whitewash a marriage between an adult man and a child (Muhammad and Aisha) with a marriage between consenting adults, which is not the case.
• By the word experts you mean Islamic scholars that rely on the Quran and the Hadith collections? As Anachronist said, they can't be used.
• Examples of who is making the criticism are already provided; this page is full of reliable sources, there's plenty of examples and sourced statements.
• The use of the word "although" does not imply that, as the quote doesn't state that; however, i've already reworded that sentence on your suggestion.
• As i said above, it really looks like you're trying to whitewash many controversial aspects of Muhammad and Islam (child marriage, slavery, violence towards enemies, etc.), and to implement apologetical statements about Islam from a Muslim point of view concurrently (kindness and limitations of enslavement, corruption of previous religions, monotheism and Hajj established by Abraham, later corrupted with polytheism), which is forbidden on Wikipedia.
• "Treatment of enemies" simply reports ancient records of his actions towards his enemies and the analysis of Academics, Historians, and Orientalists, like all other sections of this page. There's nothing biased about that, it's just the way sources are correctly used on Wikipedia.
• I don't believe adding a {{undue}} notice is "spamming": read what Anachronist said to you. There's no need for that.--GenoV84 (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@GenoV84: Please explain why:

You cited WP:NOR yet that means (quoted from the top of the policy page): "Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." You seem to be stating that secondary sources cannot be based on original research, but this is not true (per WP:SECONDARY and quote "Outside of Wikipedia, original research is a key part of scholarly work. However, Wikipedia editors must not base their contributions on their own original research. Wikipedia editors must base their contributions on reliable, published sources." I attributed all of my edits to reliable sources:

• "Islam emphasized the kind treatment of slaves and torturing or mistreating them was forbidden."
• I cited State University of New York at Oswego, which is a reliable source. Page: Islam and Slavery.
• "Islamic scholar Yasir Qadhi stated that while non-Muslims believe Muhammad "adopted certain things from paganism and then added his own two cents for us", he instead states that Muhammad resurrected the original teachings of the Islamic prophet Ibrahim, citing an Islamic narrative of a man named Amr Ibn Luhay who later introduced paganism in Arabia."
  • I cited Yasir Qadhi's speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey7UAi_Emgs&feature=youtu.be&t=4m55s), which is a reliable source as it is published under his verified YouTube channel and he is a scholar who has education from various universities and various degrees and is widely covered in the media (refer to Yasir Qadhi).
    • Additionally, WP:SELFSOURCE permits this as it reads: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". I am attributing a statement to him and describing his statements. Therefore, it is permitted.
  • "Muḥammad ibn ʻAbd Allāh Azraqī mentions the story his book titled Kitāb akhbār Makkah."
    • I cited Al-Azraqī: Akhbār Makkah. Vol.1, Pg. 100. How is this unreliable?

I added a wikilink to Abu Bakr.

• Why did you remove this?

In addition, you stated "no consensus on the talk page", however, that's no reason to revert according to WP:FIXED. Please explain as I am simply attempting WP:BRD. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Batreeq: you have to understand that this page is not the appropriate place for those informations, whether they are reliable or not. This page, as the title itself states, concerns "Criticism of Muhammad", not "let's try to soften/whitewash criticism of Muhammad", so its purpose is quite clear, and the same thing applies to all other pages on Wikipedia devoted to criticism of something or someone. Please move them somewhere else, perhaps Muhammad’s biography could be the right place for them. The subject of this article is about criticism of Muhammad, not Muslim apologetics.--GenoV84 (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@GenoV84: Thank you for your input. I understand that this is a criticism article. Therefore, as previously mentioned, I am not asking for a 50-50 balance between criticisms and responses as this violates WP:FALSEBALANCE. In fact, I only added three sentences around the entire article as well as a wikilink (here) and certainly did not violate the aforementioned policy. I am not attempting to "soften/whitewash" any criticisms, rather, improve overall understanding instead of giving readers a one-sided article. The following policies permit my edits:

• WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
• WP:BALANCE: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."

– Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Dante and Virgil Meet Muhammad and His Son-in-law, Ali in Hell.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

What is a primary source and how to tell we are forwarding original research

Anachronist, I invite you to read about primary sources used as citations without published scholarship explaining the primary source. By simply citing a primary source (in this case, Hadith) to support "it says...." as the support for a claim (Muhammad freed his slaves upon / prior to his death) is considered [original research]. Please restore the request for a second or third party citation about that particular Hadith, or provide the citation that talks about that particular Hadith (or the claim). -- HafizHanif (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The Hadith says (in English at least): "When Allah's Apostle died, he did not leave ... a slave or a slave woman or anything else except his white mule, his arms and a piece of land which he had given in charity." The sentence is abundantly clear, interpretation requires no scholarly sources, and it is not original research to paraphrase it. Wikipedia is not saying that Muhammad had no slaves when he died. It may be more appropriate to include the actual quotation rather than a paraphrase, but the fact remains that we not using Wikipedia's narrative voice to say that Muhammad had no slaves when he died, we are just pointing out that the Hadith says this. Therefore I will not restore the tag. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Very well, I appreciate that clarity. I'll keep this information in mind next time I find it important to quote Hadith in sharing specifics, thank you. -- HafizHanif (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about slavery vis-a-vis Muhammad, etc.

I'm just opening a discussion here because of recent edits and reverts regarding Muhammad and slavery, and would like to invite SharabSalam, Eperoton, Balolay and others to discuss here. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Laterthanyouthink. As I wrote in my edit summary, based on what I can see and recall of the cited sources, the proposed addition seems to be WP:SYN. If it's not, we would need a quotation or pointer to verify that it's not the case. Eperoton (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Eperoton. I will have to come back to the specifics later, but my first thoughts are, why is mention of slavery even in an article about criticism of Muhammad? Neither he nor the religion invented slavery - the Arabs had done it for years and many others for milennia before then. And given that there are no fewer than eight articles relating to Islam and slavery, and the fact that Muhammad preached good treatment of slaves, and he was a product of his time and part of that culture, why on earth would be a criticism specific to him as a person? Jesus didn't preach against slavery either, but I don't see any criticism directed against him. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

We have a section on that in the article because criticism of Muhammad in the context of slavery exists, and we report what the sources say. That said, the section spends a lot of words on how Muhammad advocated treating slaves kindly, and not many words at all about actual criticism. It could be trimmed down, in my opinion.

The part that Balolay added was pure synthesis, conflating the atrocities of Islam with what Muhammad actually did and said. It's like blaming Jesus for the Spanish Inquisition. It doesn't belong in the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Anachronist - I agree with you and Eperoton about the synthesis.

Looking at the whole section, what is worth keeping? I don't have access to the printed sources, but these seem to be the salient points: (a) Which sources actually criticise him for owning slaves or in any way affecting the practice of slavery and what do they say? (b) The fact its continuing existence in the Arab world at that time had nothing to do with Muhammad. (c) What did he do to affect the practice of slavery? Urge better treatment of slaves; change laws to allow men to marry their slaves; possibly fathered a daughter with a possible slave (is this even relevant?); had no slaves at the time of his death (? dead link to that hadith but found it here - is this relevant?); he may have freed some slaves. (d) Rodney Stark seems to be criticising later developments of Islamic views of slavery vs Christian views, although his reasoning seems pretty tortuous and the quote doesn't make his point crystal clear to me...

The last sentence is completely pointless and adds nothing to the actual topic. IMO the whole section could be significantly cut. I think that I am going to do a bit of rearrangement of the links to other articles (top of section) in the first instance - if you disagree, let me know. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Laterthanyouthink, You said "why is mention of slavery even in an article about criticism of Muhammad? Neither he nor the religion invented slavery", "Looking at the whole section, what is worth keeping? I don't have access to the printed sources, but these seem to be the salient points: (a) Which sources actually criticise him for owning slaves or in any way affecting the practice of slavery and what do they say? (b) The fact its continuing existence in the Arab world at that time had nothing to do with Muhammad."

The criticism of Muhammad regarding slavery exists because he was supposed to be the perfect example for his followers for all eternity according to the religion he invented. So even if slavery was entrenched in the Arabian culture before the arrival of Islam, the very fact that a "perfect" human preaching the "final" word of god which is supposed to be valid for all times, kept slaves, had sex with them & allowed his followers to keep war booty as sex slaves etc is a subject of criticism by ex-Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Therefore, a section about slavery is fully justified.

"Rodney Stark seems to be criticising later developments of Islamic views of slavery vs Christian views, although his reasoning seems pretty tortuous and the quote doesn't make his point crystal clear to me"

What Rodney stark is saying is that if Christians were to emulate only Jesus as an example, there wouldn't be any slavery. The same isn't the case with Islam. Which is valid criticism.

@Anachronist, Eperoton I too believe that my addition seems to be WP:SYN, therefore I stand by the decision made in the discussion. However, I still believe that the very fact Muhammad recognized slavery as institution later led to his followers inflicting massive suffering on millions of the people around the globe. Perhaps a simple reference to the 17 million figure is enough?! Balolay (talk) 07:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

If there's prominent criticism arguing that Muhammad bears responsibility for later evils of slavery, then we should mention it, whether we think it's fair or not. Conversely, if no sources explicitly connect Muhammad's example to the historical statistics for slavery, it would be improper synthesis to mention it even we were all of the opinion that it's relevant. Ideally, any WP article should be based mainly on WP:SECONDARY coverage of the article's topic (i.e., sources that discuss and analyze criticism of Muhammad and not sources that criticize him, which are WP:PRIMARY for our purposes), and secondary coverage of the criticism is also a good indication that the criticism is prominent. In practice, many editors misinterpret "Criticism of X" articles as meaning "Bad things about X" and contribute content based on sources that highlight bad things about X. Since this misinterpretation creates a WP:POVFORK, clearly violating NPOV, other editors attempt to remedy the situation by using sources that cover X from a less critical perspective. Secondary sources analyzing criticism are harder to find than primary, critical sources, but pitting primary sources against each other is not ideal from the standpoint of our WP:NOR policy. Eperoton (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks Eperoton for the comprehensive reply. Really appreciate it. Regards Balolay (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Balolay Just to firstly assure you that I did understand what Rodney Stark was getting at, but as the explanation and quote here currently stands, this is not made as clear as it should be from first reading. And I understand your justification for including a section, but, as Eperoton has pointed out above (thanks!), it needs to be stated from secondary sources, with citations. My point (a) still stands, and (b) needs to be disputed in the sources (and my other points addressed when deciding what is worth including here). The section as it stands does not describe criticism of Muhammad on slavery as per properly cited secondary sources. Most of it is not even criticism. (Writing in a rush - busy day - so hope this makes sense. Will have to return to this later.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Returning to your point above about primary and secondary sources, Eperoton, would you agree that according to this definition, Rodney Stark's criticism on that point is a primary source? I can't find anything online discussing or taking issue with this particular point. Mind you, skimming through the section immediately above, most of that is just a list of opinions by critics, with no secondary sources which analyse the criticism. So what do you think actually belongs in a section on slavery? As it stands, it doesn't really present anything very useful. Stark's is the only rationalised piece of criticism, so I'm happy to leave it in, but it needs to be properly framed and explained, at the least. And part of the framing is that slavery was an existing practice, and that the only explicit reference to slavery made by Muhammad was about improving their treatment and laws around slavery. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I've now had a go at removing what I see as irrelevant clutter in this section. Still no more to say about Stark, but as his is the major criticism, started the section with this. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Laterthanyouthink: Actually, I wouldn't characterize any author cited in this section as criticizing Muhammad, even as a primary source. I'm not aware of any secondary or prominent primary sources that we can use for criticism of Muhammad, i.e., views holding his attitude toward slavery to be blameworthy as opposed to problematic for Muslim abolitionists. However, I'm pretty sure that such criticism does exist. In The Lives of Muhammad Kecia Ali alludes to it in passing as a minor theme of 19th century polemics, though not clearly enough for our purposes. I think what we have is better than nothing, and your changes seem like an improvement. Clarence-Smith has quite a bit on how later Muslim theologians "worked their way" around Muhammad's acceptance of slavery in Islam and the Abolition of Slavery, but drawing on that here is too much SYNTH for my tastes. Eperoton (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Eperoton:. Yes, I get your point. But I thought I'd better leave Stark there. The second para. might be too long still, and the rest of the article leaves a lot to be desired (although very interesting in parts), but I have such a lot else to get back to that I'm happy to leave this as is for now. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Balolay, re your latest change: I deliberately left that out of my revised version, because not a single source supports the fact that Muhammad made such a decree. The reference to Bruschvig (with an error in your citation, btw) refers to Islam, not Muhammad. This article is specifically about Muhammad, and I could find no citation anywhere suggesting that he introduced this or changed anything with regard to this practice. Please either produce a clear citation from an RS or revert your edit. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I was giving Balolay a chance to respond, but it looks like they lost interest in this topic, so I'll remove the improperly sourced passage. Eperoton (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Eperoton thanks for your patience and sorry for my late reply. To be honest I had lost track of the notifications bar.

Regarding the topic here is the quote from a reputable source: The main reference cited is Chapter 23:1-6 in the Quran. It reads:

And successful are the believers who guard their chastity … except from their wives or those that their right hands possess.

The reference is about sexual relations, which are forbidden with any woman unless she is a spouse or ‘those their right hands possess’. To be clear, this means a concubine, bondmaid or a slave, but intercourse has to be consensual.

I think it validates the information I added to the article which was He also made it lawful for male masters to have sexual relations with female captives and slaves without marrying them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balolay (talk • contribs) 09:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Balolay, there's more than one problem with this suggestion. The source is an OpEd by someone with no apparent scholarly credentials or public notability, and one can't get from what it says to the phrasing that you propose without WP:SYNTH (also, I doubt one can find any historian using the anachronistic notion of a slave's "consent" in a pre-modern context, but that's beside the point). It wouldn't surprise me if some notable author, particularly from an older generation used phrasing like yours, but we would need to find an actual instance to put that into the article. Eperoton (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Re: "Unsupported Attribution" for Aisha's age

The source given for "An early 20th-century adherent of the Arya Samaj Hindu reform movement noted in Rangila Rasul that Aisha was about the same age as Muhammad's granddaughter.[who?][112]" (using the Archived PDF link because the original link is down), literally includes the words "मुहम्मद ने इस कम उमर की लड़की पर जो उमर में इसकी पोती के बराबर थी, अपनी निस्बत क्यों ठहराई?" (page 12 on the last paragraph of the right hand side page) which loosely translates to "Why did Muhammad betrothe a girl who was young enough to be his granddaughter?". I have reworded this part of the article to more accurately represent the wording in the source material (it does not specifically name any of Muhammad's grandchildren; just a general statement of "young enough to be his granddaughter"). GSMR (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Banu Qurayza.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Requesting help in article expansion

Hi,

Requesting you to have a look at

• Superstitions in Muslim societies and also Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies

Requesting article expansion help, if above topics interest you.

Thanks and regards Bookku (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• Hello. I like it. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2020

The wikilink of scholar Hubert Grimme is incorrect in section "20th-century", as it points to the German town Grimme. The enwiki does not contain a page for Hubert Grimme yet (there is a German article though). Werckm (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

​Done, thank you – Thjarkur (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Improving the Article

Hello @Sa.vakilian: and @Kamranazad: could you name some reliable sources, to help me improve this article? Ghazaalch (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nasr's article in Britannica can be a good source. --Seyyed(t-c) 13:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Responses to 'criticism'

I would like to add responses from an Islamic perspective (as conveyed in RS of course) to the criticisms on this page. any objections? And if we have this page why don't we also have "Praise of Muhammad" page? Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Cleopatran Apocalypse:. This article could also include responses which is kind of praises, i guess.Ghazaalch (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: Absolutely not. This article is about criticism, not apologetics. There is no need to have responses to critics. Including that would give the article a point-counterpoint quality, which would violate the WP:NPOV policy by giving the responses the last word. The most neutral article about criticism just presents the criticism without presenting judgments about the criticism. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Anachronist Why can't you have response to criticism? Where in the NPOV policy does it say that you cannot have counter points? Maplecreek1 (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Maplecreek1: Criticism is the subject of this article, not debates about criticism.

Perhaps you missed this part of the policy: WP:FALSEBALANCE. There is no requirement to give equal weight to counterpoints, particularly when the counterpoints themselves have WP:RS problems that prevent their inclusion.

Or maybe you missed the WP:RNPOV part of the policy, which states, "Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view can be mentioned if it can be documented by relevant, reliable sources...."

And therein lies the problem. Counterpoints to criticism typically quote primary sources (such as Quran or Hadith or somebody's blog), and these are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES that we avoid, particularly when those sources don't even address the critics. Instead, those primary sources are often presented as a "counterpoint" along with someone's personal non-scholarly interpretation, and we cannot include that because of the policy that prohibits WP:Original research.

I hope that's clear. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Anachronist: There are several reliable secondary sources that mention these criticisms and their responses. I don't understand why they can't be included here, when they do meet the standards you are referring to, and are definitely pertinent to this article. - Wakemeup38 (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Then by all means, make a proposal citing those sources. In the years this article has been in existence, people appear on this talk page with views based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and attempt to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE based on inclusion standards that don't exist. "Criticism" is nothing more than the passing of judgment about the merits of something. It doesn't need to be debated, just presented. WP:FRINGE also applies here; it is preferable for views about criticism to be cited or discussed in multiple other sources, not just one. The section Criticism of Muhammad#Age of 3rd wife Aisha is a good example, which presents not just the criticism but well-sourced scholarly views that provide proper context. If you want to do something similar elsewhere in the article, go right ahead. But one thing we want to avoid is a point/counterpoint style of prose, particularly if the counterpoints resort to quotations of religious texts. The original question in this section was about providing responses from an Islamic perspective, and that is still unacceptable. What a reader should find in this article is context about the criticism, not apologetics. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Praises of the Prophet Muhammad

There are several academics, Muslims and non Muslims, that have praised the Prophet Muhammad for various reasons. I don't see any reason why such an article should not exist alongside this article. - Wakemeup38 (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, we have a redirect title Praise of Muhammad in poetry but not an article about praise in general. Try writing the article and see how it goes. Citing multiple secular academics who provide significant praise, not just trivial mentions of it, would confer sufficient notability on the subject to merit inclusion. I suggest you work on it in draft space (e.g. Draft:Praise of Muhammad) to give you time to develop it without someone coming along and deleting while you get it ready for main space publication. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources don't have to be secular in order to be reliable! See WP:reliable sources. It says:

"Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

--A.889 (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Having two articles, one covering Muhammad with a positive POV and one with a negative POV would be a POV fork. It is better to have a single article called "Perception of Muhammad" or "Historical evaluation of Muhammad" that covers both praise and criticism and gives all views due weight.Bless (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Anachronist: and @Wakemeup38: for feedback.Bless (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree we should avoid a POV fork. However, I disagree that this criticism article isn't neutral. The point is to present each criticism in proper context, and that's what this article does. See the section on Martin Luther for the briefest example. I have no objection to anyone proposing a new draft, or specific changes that that cite reliable secondary sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Wikipedia:Content_forking#Point_of_view_(POV)_forks says that this article "must include suitably-weighted positive and 'negative opinions, and/or rebuttals (emphasis is not mine)". It also says 'if possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"'. So the specific change proposed is to move this article to "Perception of Muhammad" and to include both praises and criticism in proportion to their due weight.Bless (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

"Suitably-weighted" is the key here. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Bless, the article should be renamed into "Perception of Muhammad by non-Muslims", and expanded to include both positive and negative views.--A.889 (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requested moves and start a discussion. A decision like that should not be left to two or three editors. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Request Edit to Source Information for Thomas Aquinas (1.3.2.1)

The excerpt from Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles is sourced as Book I, Chapter 16, Art. 4, which is incorrect. The correct location is Book I, Chapter 6, Art. 4

Is there an online link to the text so that your edit can be verified?Bless (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=NkMFDgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP9&dq=summa+contra+gentiles&ots=hR8J4pK5-d&sig=quH3WEi54pvrhh8xZYjV5mlWWy8#v=onepage&q=summa%20contra%20gentiles&f=false

Here is a link to the book on Google Scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hceuler (talk • contribs) 17:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Use of primary sources

I notice a few sources, mainly YouTube videos but not all, where we are quoting critics directly, ie editors have picked out statements that they think useful, rather than found secondary sources discussing for instance what Sam Harris has to say. Doug Weller talk 12:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I went through and added publisher=YouTube to all the YouTube citations. I found four of them.

• #56: Geert Wilders is a well-known blowhard politician who is vocal about his disdain for Islam, and his fulminations have gotten a lot of press.
• #57: Debate with Sam Harris.
• #58: Lecture by Sam Harris.
• #158: Appears to have a secondary source citation along with it although I don't know what it says. The YouTube citation could probably be removed safely, depending on the context given in the secondary citation.

Regarding those first three, they seem to be there just to verify that the person actually said what is claimed. Removing the citation would violate WP:BLP; even though this isn't a biography, a controversial statement attributed to a living person does need a source.

I agree a secondary source would be better, particularly for Geert Wilders. I'm not so sure about the Sam Harris citations. He has a background in philosophy, and he is recognized as a notable critic of religion in general who has valid things to say, definitely not a crackpot. Quoting him might be similar to quoting criticisms directly from other notable critics who are long dead, as the article does with Saint John of Damascus, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and Voltaire. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Modern historians

I found the following a bit problematic:

“Modern secular historians […] acknowledge that the material came from "beyond his conscious mind."”

The reference is a book from 50 years ago.

This sounds like the article is claiming all modern scholars are of this opinion, which is doubtful (although I’ve not researched it). I’m not sure what ‘behind his conscious mind’ means, really, and I’m not sure readers will either — does the book expand on that?

Would there be a better way of wording this, or stating the claim made in the book? Or am I nit-picking? Peacefulsmile (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

To what are you objecting? An historical perspective from 50 years ago isn't "old" except to someone younger than a baby boomer, and scholarly views about ancient history don't generally flop around in that short of a time. It doesn't say "all" scholars have this opinion. The phrase has meaning when read in the full context of that section of the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

After reading above discussion I landed directly to the article section Criticism of Muhammad#Late 20th century I found following concerns specially relating to content referred to "The Cambridge History of Islam (1970), Cambridge University Press, p. 30" (As of now reference no. 183)

A) Volume No?: The Cambridge History of Islam has multiple volumes so it is difficult to verify or further read.

B) It's vague, can 'which ones' be clarified?: In the term 'Modern secular historians' words modern and secular are partially vague more over it does not answer 'which specific ones'

C) Some readers can miss the understanding of context: While discussion on 'consciousness of mind of the discussed persona is understandable to the readers who have detail exposure to such discussion; To the readers who are not pre exposed to such discussion, the section is not clear enough 'why consciousness of mind of a certain person' is being discussed at all and what all that discussion does mean.

D) Self contradiction: (calls in confirmation of what referred source is really saying) :The same ref is later quoted to say "..The further question, however, whether the messages came from Muhammad's unconscious, or the collective unconscious functioning in him, or from some divine source, is 'beyond the competence of the historian'.. but earlier quoted to say "..but they acknowledge that the material came from "beyond his conscious mind."

E) Unclear: If at all it is self declared certain topic beyond competence of historians why we are quoting historians? really whether domain of consciousness is not domain of psychology? at the most philosophers

F) Ambiguity: Even with rest of the context, the way part of sentence is formed: "..they acknowledge that the material came from "beyond his conscious mind.".. is used, it is likely to catering to more than one meaning even inherantly potent to contradict each other, it's like whoever likes whichever meaning take that one and be happy!

G) Strange compounding: Following part sentence "...the important point is that the message was not the product of Muhammad's conscious mind...." is compounded to earlier sentence in such a way that William Montgomery Watt is saying so, So is William Montgomery Watt saying so or is it a sentence from some other author?

I hope above helps brainstorming to improve the section. Thanks, Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist:

Thank you for your reply! I think the claim ‘behind his conscious mind’ is too vague and abstract to be understood by most readers, and easy to misinterpret as supernatural in nature, or pathological, or random, etc — which is it, or does the reference not expand on it. If it doesn’t, is it a helpful inclusion?

I also think it does imply that all modern secular historians hold that view, as if the debate is over; maybe other readers would make this same mistake, therefore could it be reworded for clarity?

If the reference specifies which historians are in agreement, or how the author arrived at that view, then that might be helpful, if it doesn’t, then maybe presenting it as a view of the author would work better?

I’m not familiar with Wikipedia’s guidance around this kind of thing: happy to take your lead. Peacefulsmile (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bookku: thank you for this much more detailed appraisal of the section!

The contradiction problem is a good point; I think it further reveals what a woolly area this whole “behind his conscious mind” concept is. It’s certainly not an area of expertise that I’d associate with historians: modern, secular or otherwise, and the author seems to acknowledge this, whilst offering his own view on that very topic regardless. Peacefulsmile (talk) 12:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

For such an important article, the citations are surprisingly sloppy. I've fixed the ones I could but others I just had to tag as {{incomplete citation}}.

Peacefulsmile, the rule around here seems to be this: if you want anything done properly, you have to do it yourself, so you will need to beg borrow or steal the source texts, find the answers to your questions, then update the article. [I have zero expertise in this topic, I just happened to have a watch on it because one of the 'citations' was an islamophobic hate site (removed)]. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Understood, thanks for your help! Peacefulsmile (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Ref

• Wood, P. (2021), Censorship in the Study of Early Islam. CyberOrient, 15: 78-99. https://doi.org/10.1002/cyo2.18

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Spencer

I intend to remove Spencer's sub-section entirely. Jihad Watch is listed as WP:DEPS by our project, and has no place in refs; Spencer himself is Islamophobe and our article is well refed in that regard, making his views irrelevant.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Robert B. Spencer is a notable critic. We have an article on him. An encyclopedic treatment of the subject of criticism of Muhammad should include views of notable critics, particularly those who are notable primarily because of their criticism. The fact that he isn't reliable doesn't matter, because the article is citing Spencer only for the purpose of quoting. Same is true for other critics mentioned in the article such as Geert Wilders; he spouts ignorance, but he's vocal and notable for it.

That said, I believe that the section on Robert Spencer is unduly long. It could be summarized in a few sentences, and be done with it. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Notable criticism is rational business, Spencer is a notable hate monger.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Request

Please make this page an extended confirm protection page like the Muhammad page. I've found instances over this page's history that people have vandalized it, overshadowing the shortcomings of Muhammad and Islam altogether.

Request approval for following addition on improper sexual conduct with minors in Islamic sources

My addition has been reverted multiple times without a serious justification. As you can see, it is fully sourced:

"====Sex with pre-pubescent girls and age of Muhammad's wife Aisha==== Critics have noted that the 4th verse of the 65th chapter of the Qur'an (Surah at-Talaq) seems to imply the permissibility of consummating marriages with girls who have not reached puberty. This criticism is significantly reinforced by classical Muslim commentaries on the verse, such as Tafsir al-Jalalayn and the tafsir of Maududi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankystein3 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• I remain opposed to this content. First, I think the sources are being misinterpreted, as neither Tafsir al-Jalalayn or Maududi are explicitly about pre-pubescent girls. Second, neither is about criticism of Muhammad, the topic of this article. There appears to be plenty of reliably sourced, on-topic content to summarize, so I'm not seeing a reason to pull in content that's not obviously about Muhammad. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. Nothing in either of the citations says that this was (1) the view of Mahommed or (2) that he has been critised for it (which is the topic of this article). It may have a place in Criticism of Islam provided that it is supported by a reliable source that say so, as I explained in my 16:58 message (below). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  In fact the topic is disussed extensively at Sexuality in Islam#Puberty and Islam and children#Marriage, so you may struggle to find anything new to say. The important point is that it is not for us as editors to criticise (or praise) but only to report honestly and fairly the consensus of expert sources. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  Excuse me, no it is not discussed extensively there. There are *ZERO* references there to the key verse and its overwhelming scholarly interpretations. Frankystein3 (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  I will concede that if you are unfamiliar with the topic and the way the Muslim scholars write commentaries on Quranic verses, Jalalayn's may seem obscure, BUT if you read MAUDUDI's section on the link, particularly this part: "Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible", and if you STILL don't want to see what's in front of your eyes, then I'm sorry, but this is plain dishonesty.

  Furthermore, if you think this has no link to Muhammad, you're wrong because of the already included sexual intercourse with Aisha, which was 9 years old by consensus at the time.

  Thirdly, even if you ignore this, a valid criticism would still be the VAGUENESS of his doctrine that inspired such mainstream posterior interpretations, at the very least. Frankystein3 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  I still don't see it, and I'm being honest. In context Maududi is talking about women who are divorced or widowed and who are not menstruating regularly due to pregnancy, onset of menopause, or other reasons. Onset of puberty is never mentioned. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Sura 33:49 in the Qur'an is related to Sura 65:4 in the sense that a waiting period (iddah) is only for women who have had sex with men. This is to prevent doubt about the fatherhood and problems arising with this. Now, with that being said, I'll post Maududi's commentary on this again with extra emphasis: "Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls **WHO HAVE NOT YET*** menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but ***it is also permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her***. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible". He even PREEMPTS criticism by essentially saying at the end: "If this disgusts you, tough luck! The Quran overrules your opinion!!" Frankystein3 (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  So essentially you are criticising Mahommmed because one Salafi scholar (who may have had his own motives) gave that interpretation of the Quran. Sorry, WP:Wikipedia is not a forum: nobody is interested in your opinion [or mine].

  Let me repeat: you must cite a reliable source which reports overwhelming consensus among scholars and – critically – that they criticised Mahammed for having written those verses, despite believing that he merely wrote down the words of Allah. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  I am writing an (increasingly, as sources become more widely available in English) common criticism of Muhammad. I have already said countless times that this isn't the fringe opinion of "one Salafi". This has been the mainstream opinion for centuries and centuries. I find it extremely arbitrary that I have to find a book by someone saying in more or less exact words that Muhammad's doctrines promote practice X, which large numbers of scholars have likewise interpreted to mean X". Furthermore, that Muhammad wrote only Allah's words is dogma, and would clear him of all responsibilities. Why allow pages of criticism in the Quran here if you can use that argument? Oh, verses A B and C in the Qur'an endorse violence under circumstances 1, 2 and 3? That's only Allah's words revealed to him, he just wrote it down, don't shoot the messenger. It's absurd. 2001:8A0:6800:AA01:985F:F2E:A641:754B (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  We still seem to be talking past each other. The sources you provide do indeed say or suggest that consumated marriage to a child is permitted (though other sources say that, although the marriage is permitted, consumation before Baligh is not). But all that analysis is irrelevant for this article because this article is what it says at the top: Criticism of Muhammed. That means criticism by notable people. The personal opinion, interpretation, synthesis, conclusions of Wikipedia editors like you and me cannot go into articles. See policies WP:No original research and WP:Synthesis.

  (I may have been responsible for the confusion. I don't for a moment consider "but it is the revealed Word of the Lord / Allah / Yahweh / [insert favourite imaginary friend here] " defence as justifying anything, especially not paedophilia. My focus was on the 'criticism of Mhuhammed', that you will not find criticism of him in the work of Islamic scholars.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Ok I got it. So I'd have to find some published book or article from someone that basically agrees with what I said, rather than me just saying that there "exist" critics without mentioning them, right? And what kind of person would that be? What are the necessary qualifications of that person? We have guys in these type of articles like Christopher Hitchens Ibn Warraq who, accurate and valuable though their inputs might be, have no formal degrees in their areas. So can I simply quote an author like these? And if not, how does this not limit pages of criticism in age where academia tends to avoid these polemics as much as possible, as opposed to the 19th or 20th centuries with people like William Muir, an academic who was also a polemicist? 2001:8A0:6800:AA01:985F:F2E:A641:754B (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Provided you are cautious about wp:cherrypicking, that's more or less correct. First, a good clue to whether someone is wp:NOTABLE enough is to see if they have their own Wikipedia article. (eg Christopher Hitchens Ibn Warraq does not but Christopher Hitchens does.) It is not essential that they do but it is a clue to how big a hill you have to climb to show that their opinion matters. If it is just one person, then you have to say who said it (e.g., "according to Karl Marx, religion is the opium of the people"). A statement in wp:Wikivoice like "it is generally believed that liquid water is prerequisite for life as we know it" would need the support of maybe two citations, each of which clearly shows that the authors have distilled the clear consensus of experts. Doing this for objective science is hard enough: doing it for religious beliefs is very hard indeed – especially if the religion in question has fragmented into multiple sects and multiple interpretations. And do it all while maintaining WP:neutral point of view. You are setting yourself probably one of the most difficult challenges on Wikipedia: I certainly would not attempt it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Ok appreciate it, glad we at least straigthened it out 2001:8A0:6800:AA01:985F:F2E:A641:754B (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for coming to the talk page to find how best to express this sensitive issue. It appears from your talk page that you don't understand why your first edit was reverted, so let me explain: you wrote the Quran is unanimously viewed in classical Muslim commentaries as allowing sexually active marriage (and concubinage) with pre-pubescent girls. So the citation would need to (a) say that the Quran is unanimously viewed in this way; (b) that it allows sexually active mariage with pre-pubescent girls. The citation you gave said neither of those things, which is why I reverted it. I would have done the same if the article was about the craters on the far side of the moon: the topic is irrelevant because it is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that citations are reported honestly and accurately. You did not do that, so I reverted your edit. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I am against this addition beacuse it is original research. It might be a valid point, but Wikipedia isn't for promoting ideas, but collecting ideas which got popular and noticable by scholars. This tafsir seems to be rather a new found source to undermine, that Islam has some issues with sexual relationships and authorized it. But there isnt a notable ongoing debate about these tafsirs.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• You think this qualifies as a source for public debate and criticism? https://books.google.pt/books?id=bzyCDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT60&dq=%22quran+prepubescent&hl=pt-PT&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwirsLT8w574AhWDQ_EDHWrYCTYQ6AF6BAgHEAI#v=onepage&q=%22quran%20prepubescent&f=false The author has a Wikipedia page: Waleed Al-Husseini Frankystein3 (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  How about this? https://books.google.pt/books?hl=pt-PT&id=VPdNAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22quran+prepubescent&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=egregious Author: Johann Hari Frankystein3 (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Unfortunately Google Books doesn't offer a preview of those pages. Are the authors criticising (a) Islam (b) the Quran (c) the interpretation of certain verses of the Quran by some scholars (d) Muhammed for having written those verses? It matters! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  There’s a big background to this which I think explains this editor’s presence. See the lead of

  Nupur Sharma (politician) which is all over the right wing news outlets. And the BBC just as an example.[1]. Doug Weller talk 20:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  There is indeed a large background to this - that's my whole point which I'm now being required to prove! - but I did not write this because of the recent polemic in India. I wrote edits on this months ago on Rationalwiki.org, for example. Frankystein3 (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'll quote the relevant parts of the first one (the second isn't very good) and you be the judge of where it would fit best:

  1 ) - " This parodied verse had been judged particularly outrageous by Muslims. "And wasn't it you also you who said 'Scandal, o Scandal. What shall be called a Scandal? That you should marry a dazed, nine-year-old girl named Aisha". This verse criticizing Muhammad's sexual licentiousness and marriage with the young Aisha (which I compared to an act of pedophilia) had been relayed around the world in every language vaia the internet. Islamic websites had denounced it (...) Their arguments were completely nonsensical and ignored the Quran's own teaching, which authorizes marriage with pre-pubescent girls, in the Surah on divorce [65:4 quote]. The verse clearly addresses the question of menopausal women, but since it also mentions prepubescent girls, it demonstrates that the Quran implicitly authorizes marriage with children. (...)" Frankystein3 (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  This was from Waleed al-Husseini's book mentioned earlier. Frankystein3 (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  You do realise that marriage of such young girls occurred in Europe also? Doug Weller talk 20:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  You again?? Who cares what did or did not happen in Europe? First of all, European people and kings of the past are not major - and allegedly perfect - religious figures. Second of all, even if it was Jesus himself who did it or preached it, then it would belong in BOTH "Criticism" articles, of Jesus/Christianity and Muhammad/Islam. Frankystein3 (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Incidentally, there are also two very separate components to this. One is marriage, and another is consummation. You seem to be assuming that marriage means consummation, and that was indeed the assumption in the BJP comments. You'll need a source for that. Secondly, Islamic tradition is generally pretty firm on pubescence coming before consummation, and girls can go through puberty at an age as early as eight years old, so the 'pre-pubescence' claim needs some extra specific sourcing. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  You're lying. Read the tafasir of Sura 65:4. That's my whole point, it's to take the focus AWAY from just Aisha and focus on the universality of the allowing of pre-pubescent consummation. Sura 65:4 is all about consummation because it mentions the Iddah (see Sura 33:49) which is only for consummated marriages. Puberty has moreover NEVER been a requirement for consummation in classical Islamic jurisprudence. The principle they took was being "physically ready", which did not necessarily entail puberty. Now that we dealt with the Quran and jurisprudence, I'll put the final nail in the coffin with a hadith with its most respected commentary in parenthesis: https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6130 Frankystein3 (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  I don't understand why you are indulging in apologia and questioning the validity of the criticism aimed at Muhammad. That's not our job as editors. If reliable sources state "Critics have often accused Muhammad of pedophilia" then we should be including it. It's not for us to critique the validity of the criticism they have meted out. That would be a violation of WP:OR. NebulaOblongata (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  This is a dead thread started by a blocked editor, and it isn't clear who you are responding to. Doug Weller talk 11:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  Though incidentally, I have yet to see that reliable source. The exact problem in this discussion and the next is all the hypotheticals. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

References

@Frankystein3: Uh huh, fascinating. And you know whether a girl in the 7th century had gone through puberty or not how? A verse about dolls? Stop wasting your breath. This whole pre-puberty nonsense is WP:OR of the most gratuitous kind, and clearly has far more to do with making a point that building an encyclopedia. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The point is not whether a particular girl in Arabia - including Aisha - had or had not gone through puberty at the time of consummation. Aisha is irrelevant here, I only posted it there to prove that it is ACCEPTED BY MAINSTREAM SCHOLARSHIP that she was pre-pubescent in her own marriage, contrary to your claims about the necessity of puberty. The point is that Sura 65:4 CONDONES this practice for all mankind and all time (according to universal consensus of Islamic theology). This is a perfectly legitimate criticism of Islam/Muhammad/the Qur'an and I will post it again as soon as I get input from guys like John Maynard here again. It seems to me that YOUR interest is not "building an encyclopedia", but rather protecting your own tribal interests at all costs (contributor to Palestine and Arab world, what a coincidence!), or in other words, good old apologetics. Frankystein3 (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Well then you're also barking up the wrong tree, the specifics of a case involving Aisha are not indicative of what mainstream scholarship believes; only a secondary source stating what mainstream scholarship believes is. Any given sura does absolutely nothing by itself, as it is a primary religious text; it only has any meaning through its secondary interpretation. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 Looks like his personal attacks got him blocked indefinitely. I warned him and mentioned the attacks to the Admin who had also warned him. Doug Weller talk 09:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, I pinged that Admin when I warned. Not direct contact. Doug Weller talk 09:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't really sure exactly what aspersion of tribal membership they were implying (tribe of editors, religion, tribe tribe?), and didn't want to ask. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Mention of accusations of pedophilia in lead

Regarding this edit: Source #1, the video is made private. Source #2 links to the Washington Post's homepage. Source #3 reports ECHR's comments. Source #4 reports Nupur Sharma's opinions. Sharma isn't a reliable critic of Islam, nor is she a scholar. The "pedophilia" in the lead is WP:UNDUE. Please cite any scholars that accuse Muhammad of pedophilia. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 23:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Several scholars acknowledge he's been accused of pedophilia. (references to follow) This isn't a debate about whether or not he was a pedophile. The article discusses what Muhammad's critics have accused him of. Accusations of pedophilia is the most common criticism for years. NebulaOblongata (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

No debate? Pedophilia is a psychiatric condition with a very much modern definition. It is not a catchall term that encompasses marriage at a young age in ancient cultures, where such practices were fairly common. The notion is a frankly silly proposition. And this encyclopedia is here for presenting facts, not inflammatory content. Please present your scholars. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's not for us to debate whether he was a pedophile or not. That's not the goal of this article. We should be stating what critics accuse him of. I am honestly surprised that you are in denial of such allegations. NebulaOblongata (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, sources, but yes, any critics covered in reliable, secondary sources can be placed, but only apportioned as much space as is due weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

... which, given that this is daft fringe, may not be a lot. But happy reliable source hunting, and good luck establishing due weight for the lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I am compiling reliable sources that discuss how critics/Islamophobes have time again accused the Prophet of pedophilia. NebulaOblongata (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@NebulaOblongata remember, it’s a psychological disorder, read our article. Doug Weller talk 12:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I know what pedophilia is. Thanks! NebulaOblongata (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I am currently reading "The Lives of Muhammad" by Kecia Ali and "Misquoting Muhammad" by Jonathan A. C. Brown. Both the books, especially Kecia's extensively cover the accusations of pedophilia by critics and provide refutations. "Accusations of pedophilia" is in fact a topic in the index. I shall make edits after having read these books. NebulaOblongata (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@NebulaOblongata: Please note that a reliable Islamic scholar should state that Muhammad is accused of pedophilia because of his marriage to Aisha when she was ..... You cannot source it from far-right politicians or pastors. Politicians, missionaries, racists, and Islamophobes would call people names for their agenda, but that is of zero significance to our article. Criticism of Islam cannot have points noting Trump's version of Islam, for example. As others mentioned, "pedophilia" is a psychiatric disorder, and merely marrying a 6-year-old and performing marital obligations is not a psychiatric disorder. (Because Aisha wasn't Muhammad's only wife; he also had other adult wives, which is a critical thing to be noted.)--WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 14:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Also important to note that her exact age, one way or another, in fact remains a total unknown, as do many of the other details spun for polemical reasons. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

If a scholar states that "Certain critics have accused Muhammad of pedophilia" then this fact should be included. Your views on what counts as pedophilia and whether Muhammad was a pedophile are irrelevant because WP:OR. NebulaOblongata (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@NebulaOblongata how is it OR? It’s not an interpretation of the word. That older or even current sources don’t use the modern definition isn’t our problem. It’s like a 19th century woman being labelled as having hysteria, then considered a physical illness. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It's OR because WikiLinuz isn't a reliable source. We aren't here to discuss whether Muhammad was X or not. We should be stating what reliable sources have stated. If a reliable source says "Muhammad has been accused of pedophilia" then it should be included. NebulaOblongata (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Even if the term is misused? “ Pedophilia (alternatively spelt paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.” How, even if you ignore the fact that it’s a psychiatric disorder, that doesnt seem backed by the facts about him. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not for you or me to decide any of this. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. We aren't stating "Muhammad was a pedophile," and that's valid because it is not a verifiable fact. We are stating "Muhammad has been accused of pedophilia by some critics" which is a verifiable fact. So, please stop arguing about pedophilia. NebulaOblongata (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

For heaven’s sake. I’ve got over 240,000 edits more than you do, do you really think you know more than I do? Verifiability is necessary but not sufficient. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for flashing your Wikipedia edit count at me. I am really impressed. Are you single? ;) NebulaOblongata (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Lol. But it does take quite a bit of experience to understand our policies and how they apply and interact with each other. Doug Weller talk 20:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, your experience is admirable. Also, it's nice to see that you have a funny bone! NebulaOblongata (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

You still haven't actually provided a source for that - we need some reliable sources linked to sufficiently notable critics to be worth the fuss. The best source we've got right now is a Vanity Fair review of a widely panned film, making us still quite long way off giving this particular accusatory category any sort of due weight time of day. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It's a work in progress. Like I mentioned above, I am reading a couple of books that cover the topic of "accusations of pedophilia". NebulaOblongata (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

We are borderlining WP:FORUM at this point. We can talk if you've got any scholar who reports in a scholarly journal or publication that "Muhammad was accused of pedophilia for XYZ." If you cannot show that, please work in silence until you're ready and don't display fuss. Thanks, --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 19:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Fair play. I will desist from any further comments on this topic till I am ready. NebulaOblongata (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Just remember pedophilis involves a sexual preference for young children.

Muhammad's wives suggests otherwise. And of course this seems to have been part of building his relationship with Abu Bakrvas Aisha was just one of his two daughters he married. Doug Weller talk 07:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

You and I are not here to determine or comment on Muhammad's sexuality. I can't recall Doug Weller being listed as a reliable source. NebulaOblongata (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Sarcasm will get you nowhere and is not conducive to collaborative discussion. It can also be a way of diverting discussion. Are you really arguing that we shouldn’t be discussing the issue of labelling him a pedophile, ie someone whose sexual preference is children? Doug Weller talk 19:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

People interpret Muhammad having consummated his marriage with a 9-year-old child (when he was ~56) as pedophilia, as I already stated: far-right politicians, missionaries, racists, and Islamophobes will call people names for their agenda. But that has zero relevance to our entry on Muhammad's criticism. Trump's version of Islam cannot be cited in this article. It must be sourced from a scholar, and I doubt any scholars would call him a pedophile; it'd rather be he [Muhammad] was criticized for his marriage to Aisha. And we still haven't progressed in this discussion. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 21:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not interested in discussing Wikipedian's thoughts/theories on Muhammad's sexuality. Thanks! NebulaOblongata (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Great. But User:WikiLinuz isn't doing that but is clearly discussing the content of the article. Doug Weller talk 11:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@NebulaOblongata: We agreed to work in silence until you've got a reliable source to discuss. People have this page on their watchlist, and it's disruptive to use talk pages as a discussion forum WP:NOTFORUM. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 21:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I was replying to a user who was indulging in WP:SYNTH. I am allowed to respond to texts here. NebulaOblongata (talk) 10:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

That applies to articles. Of course there are sources about his building his relationship through marriage. There's no SYNTH. This is just further evidence of your lack of good faith. Doug Weller talk 10:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't see you quoting sources - I might have missed that. They came across as your personal synthesis. NebulaOblongata (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

NebulaOblongata blocked

As NOTHERE, but is also apparently editing on behalf of Ex-Muslims of North America, ie COI/PAID. Doug Weller talk 15:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Pastelitodepapa (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Recent revert.

I included the Christianity part because, relating to a criticism from a particular side, we often when also mention about their practice related to it too.

Regarding the issue of concubinage, it is important to determine the source of this criticism before including it in the article. If a reliable source cannot be found to support this claim, it has to be removed.

Also, I thought that "the natural order of things" was unnecessary and a bit vague, but we can put that back in if you wish. However, most of the changes were reflecting the sources precisely. StarkReport (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

What if my edit remains, but the phrase 'Although slavery was a common practice among Christians' is removed per as your request, even though I think it is relevant and necessary. And, the para: According to Murray Gordon, Muhammad did improved the condition of slaves, and exhorted his followers to treat kindness and compassion, and encouraged freeing of slaves, he still did not completely abolish the practice, will be followed by "He "saw it as natural order of things""

As for the concubinage, is the exact source is found of the criticism, then we can let it be in the third paragraph where I made some additions. StarkReport (talk) 05:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Help in understanding sources

@ StarkReport your edit seem to make changes in sources.

• Removed : "Bilal b. Rabah, Encyclopedia of Islam "
• Added : Janeh, Sabarr. Learning from the Life of Prophet Muhammad (SAW): Peace and Blessing of God Be upon Him. Milton Keynes: AuthorHouse, 2010. Print. ISBN 1467899666 Pgs. 235-238

Can you help understand this change.

Bookku (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I did not find anything wrong with the source, there was a "" message ahead so I thought it would be better to replace it with a full and complete citation for the source in question. StarkReport (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)