Talk:Criticism of the Quran

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AAA765 (talk | contribs) at 06:03, 16 November 2006 (→"Background"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:03, 16 November 2006 by AAA765 (talk | contribs) (→"Background")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Something is wrong with this page

Something is wrong with this page, as it is not desplaying the entire article.--Sefringle 03:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved.--Sefringle 03:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is this disputed?

There doesn't seem to be discussion on this talk page? Yet the article is still tagged as disputed.Paulyche 20:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Where

Another example is verse 11 of Sura 35, which deals with the origin of mankind.

And Allah did create you from dust; then from a sperm-drop; then He made you in pairs. And no female conceives, or lays down (her load), but with His knowledge. Nor is a man long-lived granted length of days, nor is a part cut off from his life, but is in a Decree (ordained). All this is easy to Allah.

Critics claim that this verse contradicts the scientific notion that man descended from a common ancestor with apes.Muslims generally respond by stating that the verse is not referring to human evolution, but rather to the origin of life, similar to many other verses, for example:

Where exactlydoes this verse say that humans have not evolved from apes .

He it is created you from clay, and then decreed a stated term (for you). And there is in His presence another determined term; yet ye doubt within yourselves!

state that humans were created from clay (see clay theory of origin). Another verse also state that humans were created from mud molded into shape. 15:26 Also, the Qur'an also states that life originated in water. 21:30 24:45

When there is a scientific theory for both origin fro clay & water, how does this contradict science.

Another common rebuddle by muslims is the denial of evolution being a fact.

The article is about quran & science, not muslims & science.

A third claim that critics use is that the quran says the moon gives off light:

Blessed is He Who made constellations in the skies, and placed therein a Lamp and a Moon giving light

It is He Who made the sun to be a shining glory and the moon to be a light (of beauty), and measured out stages for her; that ye might know the number of years and the count (of time). Nowise did Allah create this but in truth and righteousness. (Thus) doth He explain His Signs in detail, for those who understand.

Critics interpret these verses to say that the moon shines light. Muslims interprit these verses to be saying the moon reflects light from the sun, and not that it produces its own light.

This is something amazing, noor has always meant reflected light , I never heard anybody say that moon gives off light . F.a.y. 21:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

11.35: "And Allah did create you from dust" means man was created from dust, and NOT through evolution. It contradicts science by saying that man was dircetly created, while evolution clearly states that man was not directly created from pure elements, but evolved from other organisms, which evolved from other organisms, etc., who were created from these elements.

In arabic, "noor" or "نور" means light, not reflecting light. --Sefringle 02:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

In arabic noor means light that is accidental, borrowed , not own , reflected , refracted etc . Unlike this, the word for personal light, essential, created by self is Dhia (ضياء). This is the word thats used for Sun in 10:5 . Its also important to mention that when both words are used, it is to differentiate, both kinds of light, otherwise noor means light only ( without describing which kind of light it is ) . For more see Science in the Qur'an, Shabir Ally

11:35 says man was created from clay. It just gives th first & last events of creation of man. With or wothout evolution, this is not mentioned in this verse. I dont think you are in a position to create meanings in verse out of your own understanding .

BTW try to keep articles scholarly, FFI & AI are Islamophobic sites. The article based on them/anybody that hides his face is WP:OR. F.a.y. 16:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well good. We seem to have come to some agreement on what noor means. It means light. The light in the verse would be refering to light produced by the moon. In other words, according to this verse, the only thing it is saying is the moon produces is light that is different than the light of the sun,, but it still produces light.

verse 35.11 does not give the first & last events of the creation of man. Man was not created from dust. The first organisms, which were Bacteria might have been, but man never was. Bacteria are not human. That is like saying dogs or trees are human. The verse clearly says Allah created man from dust, which is not true at all.

This article is entitled criticism of the quran. By definition, it is going to have sources by critics of Islam. Who else would critize the quran? Whether you think they are Islamophobic or not is your opinion. If you disagree with them, do so, but have a better reason than "they hide their face." These websites are only being used to provide us with a critics opinion/arguement. They are not being use as a source for factual data. --Sefringle 07:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually we dont . There is difference bw personal light & borrowed light. Regarding 35:11, as I said before, it never says anything about presence or absence of intermediate stages. So dont introduce your personal understanding into it . The criticism should be scholarly, we dont ask anybody on the street & write encyclopedia based on his views . Take a look at WP:RS. Find somebody that is authentic , dont make it a laundry list of claims . Sorry but if you arnt able to produce authentic sources , this article will get really small . F.a.y. 17:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

My interpritation of verse 35.11 is literal, meaning what it says is exactly what it means. The verse clearly states that man was created from dust. Your interpritation is not literal, it is subjective. By the literal interpritation, the verse is a scientific contradiction. By your subjective interpritation, it is not. You tell me not to introduce my personal understanding of the verse (which is shared with many critics of Islam as well as many muslims, whom all deny evolution), however aren't you introducing your personal understanding of the verse? How is your interpritation different from your personal understanding?

Ali Sina has created a website critical to islam that has recieved over 3 million visitors this year alone. I believe that qualifies him as a critic. If we have to dismiss his work as "islamophobic" and cannot include his opinion as a critic's opinion, than couldn't the same thing be said about any critic of Islam? I can say anyone is prejudice in order to attempt to disqualify their opinion. I can also say John Esposito is a muslim apologist to disqualify his opinion. How would you define a "scholarly" critic? One who agrees with your views? I would understand you saying his website isn't reliable for data on the life of mohammad or for things unknown about Islam, but for a critic's opinion/arguement, which is the context in which his sources are being used, Ali Sina is a reliable source. --Sefringle 06:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Semen from the loins

Someone please include S. 86:5-7. It reflects the premodern (Aristotelian?) belief that semen comes out of the lower back. Arrow740 21:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Translation of the arabic word "noor" (نور)

There apparently has been some misconseption about the translation of this arabic word, and its relation to whether or not the quran says the moon is its own light.(,and, ) to clarify it, see this article by wikipedia, as well as this website .--Sefringle 03:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Mountains don't prevent earthquakes, sorry

Someone removed the line "Further, it is not true that mountains render the earth's crust more stable." As I indicated this can be found on page 171 of Campbell's book, and it is a quote by a professor of geology. The exact quote is as follows:

"While it is true that many mountain ranges are composed of folded rocks (and the folds may be of large scale) it is not true that the folds render the crust stable. The very existence of the folds is evidence of instability in the crust."

In fact this part of the book goes on to prove that the formation of mountains (by either of the two processes by which mountains are formed; the creation of folds in the earth's crust or by volcanic activity) in fact causes earthquakes. So Muhammad couldn't have been more wrong. I'm being restrained in not putting all of this in; don't remove the one sentence about this. It would be vandalism and could eventually lead to a block. Arrow740 09:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed that line, because we already said it in a slightly different way, and mentioned revelent sources. It is just getting repreatitive to say it again.--Sefringle 01:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's fine now. Arrow740 10:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Funny criticism

"Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."

Notable critics claim that these verses are a scientific error since the sun does not actually set in a spring of murky water. Who claims it means that sun actually set in a spring of murky water. Please refer to one tafsir which support this claim. Do you read any literary text.--Sa.vakilian 02:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll give you a tafsir. "it set in a spring of murky water." Arrow740 09:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a metaphore.--Sa.vakilian 04:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to convince yourself of that, that's fine. If you want to get a source which says that it's a metaphor and cite it, that's fine too. You can't remove a sourced criticism just because you disagree with it. What we're doing here is reporting WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY. THIS IS NOT WP:OR. Read the rules of wikipedia before you start messing things up. Arrow740 10:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Muslim veiwpoint :The verse says, “he found it set in a spring of murky water” i.e., according to his vision and sight that’s why Allah does not say “it is setting”.

Imam Al-Baidawi notes,

He probably reached shore of the ocean and saw it like that because there was but water at the furthest of his sight that’s why He says “he found it set” and does not say “it sets”. (Al-Baidawi, Anwar-ut-Tanzil wa Asrar-ut-Taw’il, Volume 3, page 394. Published by Dar-ul-Ashraf, Cairo, Egypt)

Imam Al-Qurtubi states,Al-Qaffal said: It is not meant by reaching the rising or setting of the sun that he reached its body and touched it because it runs in the sky around the earth without touching it and it is too great to enter any spring on earth. It is so much larger than earth. But it is meant that he reached the end of populated land east and west, so he found it - according to his vision - setting in a spring of a murky water like we watch it in smooth land as if it enters inside the land. That is why He said, "he found it rising on a people for whom we had provided no covering protection against the sun." (Holy Qur'ân 18:90) and did not mean that it touches or adheres to them; but they are the first to rise on.
Al-Qutabiy said: Probably this spring is a part of the sea and the sun sets behind, with or at it, so the proposition takes the place of an adjective and Allah knows best.

(Al-Qurtubi, Al-Game’ le Ahkam-el-Qur’an, Volume 16, page 47. Published by Dar-ul-Hadith, Cairo, Egypt. ISBN 977-5227-44-5)

Imam Fakhr-ud-Deen Ar-Razi states,

When Zul-Qarnain reached the furthest west and no populated land was left, he found the sun as if it sets in a dark spring, but it is not in reality. The same when sea traveler sees the sun as if it sets in the sea if he cannot see the shore while in reality it sets behind the sea.

   (Ar-Razi, At-Tafsir-ul-Kabir, Volume 21, page 166)

Imam Ibn Kathir states,

“Until, when he reached the setting of the sun" means he followed a certain way till he reached the furthest land he could go from the west. As for reaching the setting of the sun in the sky, it is impossible. What narrators and story tellers say about that he walked for a period of time in earth while the sun was setting behind him is unreal, and most of it is from myths of People of the Book and inventions of their liars. "he found it set in a spring of murky water" means he saw the sun according to his vision setting in the ocean and this is the same with everyone ending to the shore seeing as if the sun sets inside it (i.e. the ocean). (Ibn Kathir, Tafsir-ul-Qur'ân Al-'Azim, Volume 5, page 120. Published by Maktabat-ul-Iman, Mansoura, Egypt) --Sa.vakilian 11:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

who exactly is "Syed Kamran Mirza"?

and why is he notable? that FFI article also seems to regurgitate "SKM"s polemic. can somebody please provide critique from somebody a bit more notable?

there are also problems with spamming of verses, and blatantly unencyclopaedic language. there may also be concerns regarding giving undue weight to critique. lastly, there are many weasely wordy statements, in the place of which we can have specific attributions as to who exactly claims what. ITAQALLAH 14:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of islam is largely internet based because islam gives license for muslims to kill critics of islam. As such SKM is a notable critic. Try using a search engine. Arrow740 22:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

with less than 800 hits to his name, as well as ourselves knowing totally nothing about his background or education, he seems to be an amateur dabbling in polemic. there are plenty of websites and noted personalities you can use, you have no need to rely on "SKM". ITAQALLAH 22:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

His writings are posted on websites that even you will admit are notable. As such his writings are notable. Arrow740 23:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

of course they aren't. such websites invite "community participation" and invite any one at all, regardless of their educational background or notability, to have their name up on the website with an article next to it. it does not make the critic notable. i wonder if you would argue for your own notability and inclusion on wikipedia were you to one day submit a few of your own personal analyses to a website like FFI. fact is, not everyone on the list is notable (some are just forum users trying to get into fictional writing, visibly), and some of the personalities are laughable. SKM isn't a notable critic, and we know next to nothing about him: why are you citing him as an authority in an encyclopedia? ITAQALLAH 23:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is called "Criticism of the Qur'an." Criticism of the Quran is a noteworthy thing. It takes place largely on the internet. The points we are attributing to him are a valid phenomenon to report on here. The messenger doesn't really matter, however this guy seems to be a pretty important internet critic of Islam. What's the big deal about his name? Arrow740 23:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

yes, criticism of the qur'an is notable. not everyone who engages in it however, is. therefore, we base the article upon those established critics. we do not include (essentially) phantom critics and name-drop as if they are important or notable, when they clearly are not. similarly, we don't include every and any criticism under the sun: we include only those critiques which are prevelant and notable (and if they are notable, they will surely have someone notable espousing it). ITAQALLAH 17:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want you can replace the links with your choice of these: , , or , and I'm sure I could find others if I spent more than a minute searching. Arrow740 22:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with including the name? It is only extra imformation about who the critic who said this imformation is.--Sefringle 07:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Itaqallah can prove to us why it is against wikipedia rules to include the name of the critic. Arrow740 09:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

if he was the only one presenting this criticism, the critique itself would have no place here. his work is more akin to juvenile gutter polemic with the habitual 'CAPS TO EMPHASISE THE POINT I'M MAKING'... there is no reason to embarass wikipedia by pretending that those with just-reached-puberty mentalities are 'notable critics' by citing their name (implying that they are notable), unless of course those are the best, most academic sources you have. this article itself currently makes a joke of wikipedia policy. ITAQALLAH 15:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the What Misplaced Pages is not article, it says "Less well-known people may be mentioned within other articles." I believe that line therefore allows Syed Kamran Mirza's name to be mentioned.--Sefringle 04:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

yes, "less well-known people", indicating at least some degree of notability which does not quite reach the level of that required for a bio article. to exploit such an ambiguity, claiming that it supports inclusion of people whom we know virtually nothing about and to name him as if he is a prominent critic clearly goes against the spirit of WP:RS and WP:V. ITAQALLAH 13:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no "as if." He is not referred to as "prominent" in the article. He is a notable critic of Islam, as his writings are prominently featured on websites which get millions of hits a year. Also, we are not including him, as you nonsensically suggested. We are including references to his writings, which are notable. We are not giving any biography of him. In naming a person whose material we use more than once we are only being informative. Arrow740 01:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Contradictions in the quran

I have added this section. For the purpose of NOPV, if the muslims have a rebuddle to any of the contradictions, please add it.--Sefringle 07:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Watt, Endress

of course, they are relevant. Watt is questioned about severe punishments and he makes that comment, actually starting with OT. Endress also mentions the reason for such punishments in early islam. --Aminz 09:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The Old Testament referrence is irrelevant. This is Criticism of the Qur'an. You seem obsessed with comparing Islam to other religions. If you want the real comparison, I would suggest that the proof is in the pudding, i.e. look at the ethics of Muslims vs. the ethics of Jews and Christians and you will see the difference between the religions. As regards the Endress thing, it was a non sequitur. If you want to include it make some connection between it and the criticism. Arrow740 09:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Watt was questioned:

Q."Many Westerners would question the value of dialogue with Islam because, for example, they see the Sharia as being cruel. Do you think this is true?"

A. "Well, similar punishments are found in the Old Testament - including, for example, the cutting off of women’s hands in Deuteronomy 25. In Islamic teaching, such penalties may have been suitable for the age in which Muhammad lived. However, as societies have since progressed and become more peaceful and ordered, they are not suitable any longer.

If we demonise one another we cannot even debate such things. Dialogue is therefore imperative. It helps us to discern not just the meaning of the Holy Scriptures, but also the relevance that God wants them to have in our times."

So, it is quite relevant. The Endress quote is explaining a functionality of these punishments in early Islam --> because it was necessary for the environment in which women had several husbands, men could get infinitely many wives. It is in fact very interesting. There was a kind of marriage in pre-Islamic arabia, in which ten men were sleeping with a woman immediately after each other.... Funny practices but these are all irrelevant. --Aminz 09:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you explain why this discussion of the Old Testament is relevant in this article, entitled Criticism of the Qur'an? I don't really know what your argument is. It will be easier to respond if you state it clearly. As regards the Endress thing, you can include it, just include it in a way that makes sense. And as regards irrelevant things, Christianity and Judaism had banned polygamy long before Islam did (hmmm...) Arrow740 09:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Judaism didn't ban polygomy. Jews living in Muslim lands were also practicing polygomy (I've read this in Lewis I believe). Christians probably had much more reasons to condemn polygomy. Anyways, the connection between punishments in OT and Qur'an gives one insight: The issue is more deep. Let's ask our Jew friends about it. I dunno. Watt says that. Muslims feel better to see they are not alone. It is not all reasoning. Anyways, --Aminz 10:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Itaqallah put it back in, perhaps without reading this section of the talk page. I'm asking for a reason why the reference to the Old Testament is relevant in this article. As regards the Endress quote, I'm not saying it can't be added in, just that the way it has been done makes no sense. Itaqallah claims that English is his first language so he should be able to insert it smoothly. Arrow740 22:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The OT one is stated by Watt. The Endress quote (though okay now) is better to be rephrased so that it focuses on strict punishment. i.e. a sentence like "Without strict punishment had the functionality that it was only through ...." something like that i dunno. --Aminz 01:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Why should we include the OT quote? Arrow740 02:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You are just finding quotes that are pro-Islam, or at least rationalize flaws in Islam, and place them in the article whether or not they make sense where you put them. Please give a reason why the Old Testament quote should be included. "Watt said it" isn't enough. You need to say, "Watt said this, and I want to include it for this reason..." As regards the Endress quote, please copy the entire paragraph where you found it in the book (and any other material needed to understand the context) here. Arrow740 09:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Here it is: "The social system ... build up a new system of marriage, family and inheritance; this system treated women as an individual too and guaranteed social security to her as well as to her children. Legally controlled polygamy was an important advance on the various loosely defined arrangements which had previously been both possible and current; it was only by this provision (backed up by severe punishment for adultery), that the family, the core of any sedentary society could be placed on a firm footing." Sorry for being late. --Aminz 03:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please quote more fully. It is not clear what "this provision" is. Arrow740 03:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Read it yourself here: http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0231126832&id=DzLZrLh07YwC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&vq=The+social+system&dq=Islam:+An+Introduction+to+Islam+gerhard&sig=S0yIM4nlFXSYzr4a6odwsyn0Ye8&hl=en

--Aminz 04:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It's still not clear, we might need more than that one page. Why don't you try telling me what the "provision" is. Arrow740 05:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The provision is Islam's social reforms. --Aminz 06:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the OT connection should be there for example because saying Qur'an prescribes severe punishment might make some think that Islam is cruel (and I think this is the point critics want to get at). --Aminz 03:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Remember to place criticism before response. Also note that Deuteronomy was written over a thousand years before the Quran. Arrow740 03:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Jews believe the Torah laws are eternal and Bible that we have today is the same as Moses's one. The Qur'an was also written 1400 years ago. --Aminz 06:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Faithfreedom, Spencer, and Seyed Kamran Mirza

Misplaced Pages should not use these sources (no scholarly encyclopedia does). If you would like to criticize, find an academic scholar who does so. --Aminz 01:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is called criticism of the Qur'an, an important subject. The people you listed are the prominent critics of Islam. If you want to argue that the entire article should be deleted, try to get it deleted. Otherwise it and the sources stay. Arrow740 02:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This sentence is quite unscholarly :"Some critics believe that it is not only extremist Islam that preaches violence but Islam itself, a violence implicit in the Qur'anic text." I MEAN such statement really needs to be attributed to an academic scholar. --Aminz 02:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be attributed to a notable critic of Islam, that's it. This isn't a history article. Arrow740 02:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

In any case Spencer is really great, and if you read one of his books you would agree. He uses even more quotes than you, and he actually uses them appropriately. It is not the case that everything in wikipedia needs to be attributed to a tenured professor. Arrow740 02:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Why doesn't he then publishes his book in an important press like "Oxford University Press"? I would then love to read that book. --Aminz 02:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's ask for an administrative comment. Do you agree? --Aminz 02:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Which of his publishers don't merit being called "important"? Arrow740 02:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Background"

This is not the proper article for your version of "background" on the issue of war and violence, Aminz. Put it in a new article. Arrow740 05:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

We should give a summary of scientific information and then you can go ahead and write whatever criticism you would like. There is no reason to hide the undisputed information. --Aminz 06:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)