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)