Talk:Criticism of Muhammad

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)

Edit warring on Aisha Section Edits.

It seems that Jeremy Stangroom and Ophelia Benson lack recognition or notable accomplishments in the relevant field, and thus may not meet the standard for reliable sources. Additionally, the information provided appears to lean more towards an opinion piece rather than actual criticism. See WP:OR and WP:RS

The inclusion of the line about Aisha's behavior with dolls, stating that she was "childish enough to play with dolls along with her young girlfriends," seems unnecessary in light of the well-established information provided in the first line. The first line, supported by numerous credible sources, establishes the background regarding Aisha's age at betrothal and consummation. The subsequent line is just hinting at a variance from a minority perspective. The details you seek to add are thoroughly and comprehensively covered in the dedicated Aisha article. Therefore, it is advisable to prioritize the conciseness, relevance, and accuracy of the Criticism of Muhammad section.

Lastly, the the unwarranted line "It seems to me that your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire" completely fails WP:Neutral. It is recommended to focus on comprehensive criticism while avoiding potentially misleading or cherry-picked quotes. StarkReport (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

First, Afzal-ur-Rahman piece is not a criticism. Therefore, claiming it as such in the line "Critics note that even Aisha" is false.

Second, I did not imply an exact verbatim mention of your line in the dedicated Aisha article. I meant that the argument about to her being young is exhaustively examined in its Age at the time of marriage section. The central purpose of this article is to contain valid criticisms.

Overall, your edits are contrary to WP:Relevance, WP:NPOV and WP:Original StarkReport (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@ StarkReport: you lie several times 1) Jeremy Stangroom and Ophelia Benson are notable enough to have their own wikipedia pages 2) the dolls addition stresses her immaturity and is a counter to those who claim that even at 6-9 yrs of age when married, aisha was somehow uniquely mature. My sentence presents original, relevant critiques to the article. 3) Aisha saying God hastens to fulfill Muhammad's desire is evidence from within Islam that critics have used to criticize Muhammad's polygamy. I don't see how this is irrelevant or lacks notability. 4) where exactly are my arguments mentioned in other articles? Your attacks are hollow are read like someone trying to minimize damage to Muhammad's image. --Appleweb (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

A simple response to all of the above is that Wikipedia is written in summary style, so it shouldn't generally be going into the minutiae of anything, just summing it up, and here particularly, there's already another page mentioning much of this. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: wikipedia is written in summary style? this is news to me! Can you show me where this Wiki policy exists? Judging by countless Wiki articles, it goes into great subject detail. --Appleweb (talk) 05:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY Iskandar323 (talk) 05:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

yes i read it and i couldn't conclude that my edits are beyond its scope. Quite a subjective measure that opens the door to abuse — especially when it's only very few editors who object to content.--Appleweb (talk) 03:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The broader point is that the subject here is the criticisms themselves, not the supposed evidential support or backing for said criticisms - information that should rightly sit at more relevant pages, not sit idly here. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

My edit on consent is a criticism in of itself. I can agree that the dolls edit can be classed as "evidential support", as can the quote from Aisha about God satisfying Muhammad's desire. --Appleweb (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The latter is extremely circumstantial and primary, not least ironic - does that really sound like something that an individual imagined to be an immature child would say? What child even talks of 'desire'? If anything, it might prove quite the opposite point. But it in fact does neither, as it is little more than a primary source curiosity. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Appleweb existence of an individual's Wikipedia page does not automatically render their opinion as universally notable and applicable in all contexts. Neither of the individuals are recognized historians or scholars in the relevant field. Although, Ophelia's viewpoints may hold value in the context of critiquing women's issues in Islamist regimes.

Also again carefully read my above reply where I explicitly stated, "I did not imply an exact verbatim mention of your line in the dedicated Aisha article. I meant that the argument about to her being young is exhaustively examined in its Age at the time of marriage section. "

Meanwhile, also bear in mind the importance of WP:GOODFAITH. StarkReport (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Some people are solely notable for their bad scholarship or conspiratorial thinking. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Help in understanding

@ StarkReport, Making separate sub-section, since I am not involved in above said edit war ( and as of now no plans to edit this article). I am just trying to facilitate discussion and better conceptualization. Please help in understanding following aspects.

1) Criticism by 'then' contemporary people does constitute criticism or not? I have not gone through this article minutely but I am not sure this article covers Criticism by 'then' contemporary people. Can it be covered if a supported by WP:RS?

2) Help understand this intriguing proposition

.. The central purpose of this article is to contain valid criticisms. ..

and does not risk cherry picking?

2a. Who decides which criticism is valid? what are the criteria of deciding validity? and under which Wikipedia policies?

2b. Suppose a consensus WP:RS is available for valid criticism and also another consensus WP:RS is available for counter argument. If some individual editors decide counter arguments have more weight, so weight for criticism becomes less so invalid for the article. Would not that lead to compromising on WP:BALANCE?

Bookku (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello Bookku. Regarding your first question, criticism by "then" contemporary people holds validity if it is in accordance with the guidelines set forth in WP:RS. In the case of this specific article, it does cover the criticism expressed by individuals during the time of Muhammad.

As for the second point, Appleweb is looking to to expand even more on the background details concerning the Age at the time of marriage. However, these details are not within the main focus of this article and deviate from its intended objective, steer in another direction and does not adhere to WP:Relevance. Whereas, the primary focus of this article lies in the inclusion of valid criticisms. While it is essential to include criticisms, it is equally important to maintain neutrality and provide a balanced view of the subject matter. By focusing on comprehensive criticism, we ensure that the article reflects a fair representation of various perspectives and avoids the perception of a selective or biased presentation.

The determination of valid criticism is based on objective criteria outlined in Wikipedia policies such as verifiability (WP:V) and neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). Factors like source credibility, contextual relevance, and consensus within relevant communities are considered.

If counter arguments appear to hold greater weight than the primary criticisms, and if a individual editor wishes to delve into the counter arguments in more detail, it would be advisable to create a separate article, or section such as "Responses to the criticism." StarkReport (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Reverting recent additions.

Ali Sina is an activist without qualifications in Islamic studies. His works lack peer-reviewed sources and are self-published, lacking the rigorous scrutiny required for reliable academic research.

Similarly, the IslamQA website relies on original research, lacks editorial oversight, and has a non-neutral viewpoint, making it an unsatisfactory source according to Wikipedia.

Furthermore, it is important to note that the information provided in the section about Aisha's age is redundant. The first part of the section has already presented the established background concerning Aisha's age at betrothal and consummation. The subsequent line merely alludes to a differing viewpoint from a minority perspective. Hence, this sentence is considered unnecessary repetition. StarkReport (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Btw: it is near-universally accepted that she was 6 (possibly 7) at marriage and nine at consummation. The website is simply a source of a prominent scholar's viewpoint. Indeed, this article has nothing to due with Islamic studies. It has to do with critics and criticism of Islam--not historical facts. I will not change your edits now, however. Chamaemelum (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Chamaemelum. It is indeed accepted by most about the notion regarding Aisha's age. While criticism is a valuable aspect of any discourse, it is crucial to present information in a structured manner that upholds scholarly standards. This entails considering the qualifications and recognition of critics within the relevant field, as well as ensuring the information is presented in a logical and coherent order, rather than as a series of counterclaims. StarkReport (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not contesting your edits; I'm just informing you of the scholarly consensus and historical fact of her age. Chamaemelum (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

criticism of Mohammed with the divorced wife

Sounds like the Wikipedia-article is taking Islamic belief as fact. I tried to change that to bring critical distance into the mix. That was reverted - why? @user:StarkReport -- Leo Navis (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean this "The Qur'an, however, confirmed that this marriage was valid. Thus Muhammad, confident of his faith in the Qur'an, proceeded to reject the existing Arabic norms." does not sound neutral; it sounds like what Muslims believe. For all we know, it's a book that may or may not be "revealed by God and presented by Mohammed", it might or might not as well just be written by Mohammed. To write in this style (He was "confident of his faith in the Qu'ran", how would we even know that?) in an encyclopedia is way off. So I do really believe it should be changed. If you have another idea how to make it sound neutral, please change it yourself. --Leo Navis (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

"I mean this "The Qur'an, however, confirmed that this marriage was valid. Thus Muhammad, confident of his faith in the Qur'an, proceeded to reject the existing Arabic norms." does not sound neutral" No it does not in any way goes against WP:Neutrality. It merely conveys what the authoritative WP:RS sources say. StarkReport (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright, an argumentum ad verecundiam is not a logical one, but you're the boss and I don't care enough. Have a nice day. --Leo Navis (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Leo Navis: It isn't an argument from authority. This is simply how Wikipedia works. The whole point is to document what has been published about a topic in sources deemed reliable, giving due weight to various claims as they are found in the sources, and we have policies and guideline to determine this quality of "reliability". If something comes across as sounding non-neutral in tone, then you can propose rephrasing. One way would be include in the prose an attribution to the cited source in addition to citing it, if it's just a single source saying it. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Only that it isn't marked as a quotation. It is stated as a fact: "Thus Muhammad, confident of his faith in the Qur'an, proceeded to reject the existing Arabic norms." Why I do not redeem it a fact is the fact that it is unknowable because we cannot look into Mohammed's head. Not only because he's long dead. To give a questionable motivation to someone in an encyclopedia is highly questionable itself, is it not? If that must stand there, at least mark it as a quote. So my argument is one of logic: We state something unknowable as a fact here. The reaction: It aligns with some guideline so it's all fine. That's an argument from authority to me. At least mark it as a quotation, for heaven's sake. --Leo Navis (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)