Talk:Criticism of Muhammad

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)

The statement in question, serves to contextualize the marriage based on the information provided in the cited source. Historical accounts often involve interpretation and analysis

"Why I do not redeem it a fact is the fact that it is unknowable because we cannot look into Mohammed's head" Based on this overthinking, we might just start marking each and everything as quotation not only in this article but in every other articles that deals with religious beliefs which will set a bootless precedent. The content as it is WP:NPOV. StarkReport (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

age of Aisha defence

Can it be mentioned that, in defense of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, in 1275, the marriageable age was 12 in England (ref. Marriageable age#cite note-Stephen Robertson, University of Sydney, Australia-22). Having s** with a girl was 10+. Until 1875, that was the case. Then it became 13 (ref. Marriageable age#cite note-26). So, as recently as 1875, the marriageable age was set pretty low! So, if you look at Muhammad's time, it's no surprise that marriage ages were as low as they were. watermelon66 (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

If what you are suggesting is mentioned in reliable and independent sources, then you can include it. But this is not the place for original work or conjecture. FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Does the Quran directly state that Muhammad had 11 wives?

One source in this article cites Quran 33:50 as saying that Muhammad had 11 wives. However, I have checked multiple translations of this verse and I have seen nothing to this effect. Perhaps it is mentioned in a different section of the Quran, but I am not sure about that. Mayhair (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Removal of the Kenana section.

Hello @TrangaBellam, Just wanted to say that I don't disagree with your removal of the section, as I myself found the criticisms therein to be meager and limited in scope for this particular article. So, I thought of expanding it instead. StarkReport (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing and inconsistency Issues

The source provided for Dayanand Saraswati appears to be unreliable. The citation from Welch in the Encyclopedia of Islam should be removed, as a full citation has not been provided yet. Additionally, do we really need sources from apologists like Geisler and orientalists like Muir?

There is also an issue of inconsistency. In the section "Neglected Legacy," it states that Muhammad left the Muslim community leaderless and divided by failing to declare the individual, selection process, or institution that should succeed him. Then, in the section "Tribalism," it claims that Muhammad said Muslims should be perpetually ruled by a member of his own Quraysh tribe after him and introduced a hereditary elite topped by his own family and descendants. Is it just me, or is there indeed a discrepancy here?

There are also some areas where the content seems redundant, messy, or unnecessarily divided; it could be streamlined in a more orderly manner. StarkReport (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

While I am addressing the issues noted above in the article, there are a few additional concerns that need to be resolved:

1) I am unable to verify the ""In this reckoning, he introduced-----." content attributed to Christophe Jaffrelot in the "Tribalism" section. Can someone confirm the source? Nonetheless, I don't think it was a critique.

2) Could anyone provide the complete reference for Taha Hussein's "The Great Division" (1966) mentioned in the same section? I am unable to verify this source.

3) The critique by William St. Clair Tisdall in the "Personal Motivations" section is redundant, as it has already been covered in the "Zaynab" section.

4) The Bernard Lewis quote in the "Personal Motivations" section does not make any intelligible sense. It is to be removed. StarkReport (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

"Clarification Needed: Incorrect Attribution to Karen Armstrong, Book Cited Contradicts the Claim"

"I noticed that the article attributes a claim to Karen Armstrong that does not align with her actual views, as presented in her book [Book Name]. In the cited text, Armstrong presents a different perspective, which seems to contradict the claim being made here. I believe it’s important to correct this . I have found the corect version of that reference and want to replace it . I hope no one will ever object this . Army Burnhall (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. Upon reviewing Karen Armstrong's perspective on this matter, it appears to contradict the information presented here. It's important to correct any inaccuracies attributed to her, especially given the sensitivity of this topic. I will make the necessary adjustments to ensure accuracy. Khan Karim Khan (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Someone revered your edit because the references weren't strong enough I will revert it but please add the sources that are more reliable and accepted . Army Burnhall (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

What exactly is contradictory here? Provide a quotation from her book. StephenMacky1 (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Both the statements from Karen Armstrong are against what she wrote , her views on the Holy Prophet's (PBUH) marriage with Hazrat Zainab (May ALLAH be pleased with her ) that are present in her book are contradictory to what she mentioned .

Secondly their are quotations from Waqidi and Tabari are mentioned but their authenticity and reputation in the Islamic history aren't mentioned which are necessary to mention here according to Wikipedia's policy of neutrality , and I added that .

Hope you won't revert my edit If I add more reliable sources as you said that the sources aren't reliable .

Here is the exact quotation from her book

At Page 135 in Chapter of Hijrah she states

The Quran would give women the legal status that most western women wouldn't enjoy till the 19th century . The emancipation of women was a project dear to the Prophet's heart but it was resolutely opposed by many men in the ummah , Ina society of scarcity it took courage and compassion to take financial responsibility of 4 women and their children "Marry the spouseless among you, and your slaves and handmaidens that are righteous ; if they are poor GOD will enrich them of HIS bounty , GOD is is all embracing - All knowing .

Muhammad led the way , after the battle of Uhud he married Zainab .

She also described the reason for this that was to clarify that biological and adopted sons are different because Hazrat Zainab r.a was first married to the Holy Prophet's (pbuh) adopted son Hazrat Zaid r.a who was first know as Zaid the son of Muhammad but afterwards became to be known as Zaid ibn Harith (his real father) .

Please review all of this , I hope after this you wont object if I add the other half of the information in the article as it arises questions on Wikipedia's credibility .

Thanks Khan Karim Khan (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Unreliable sources (such as apologist sites, Reddit and etc) were inserted, but that is not the only reason I reverted. In the edit, unexplained changes and removals were also made. It appears that personal interpretations were also made regarding secondary sources, but every interpretation has to be made based on secondary source. We cannot criticize sources ourselves. I could not find anything about women's rights in Armstrong's book on that page number, nor anything else that you mentioned, or even the content that was introduced in the edit (except perhaps the divinely ordained part). In the source, on page 168, it is written: Muhammad was reassured on this point by a revelation that assured him that Allah himself desired the match and that it was not sinful to marry the spouse of an adopted child. However, apart from that, Armstrong did not go into detail about relationships, customs or norms, so the edit does not match the source. You are welcome to find sources, but I would advise you to propose the changes here first, so that they can be discussed point-by-point. Thank you. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello

I'll definitely find more reliable sources but this is written in the book that is on internet archive not on amazon or any other source .

Secondly other edits I made are meant to present the larger background of the incident for instance a very controversial story from the Islamic scholar Tabari and Al Waqidi was mentioned but it wasn't mentioned that these 2 scholars have a very poor reputation among Islamic scholars .

Also many counter arguments are needed in this article and I will definitely add them with reliable sources after finding them . Khan Karim Khan (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

A source on Amazon can be reliable, as long as it is not published by Amazon. Internet Archive does not publish books but makes them available. You can also look for books on Google Books, Google Scholar, JSTOR and etc. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

If you want to challenge the credentials of Tabari and Al Waqidi, you will need to find WP:RSs that do so. If not, you will have to let them stand while giving the (RS) alternative view (per WP:NPOV) and let readers decide. More work for you to do, sorry! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note that I've blocked Army Burnhall and Khan Karim Khan for  Confirmed socking.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)