This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Waḥy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Waḥy. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Waḥy at the Reference desk. |
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
We have already discussed this Arrow on Talk:Islam. There are at least 7 academics who agree with what is written. --02:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
This is definitely not presenting both sides of the argument. Very one-sided section. -- Jibran1 16:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Some sources cite Muhammad as being a possible epileptic. Perhaps someone ought to insert a section on theories of medical causes of Muhammad's seizures. Darth Anne Jaclyn Sincoff ( talk) 23:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The section reads like a CAIR pamphlet. There is literally only one sentence disputing it. 72.93.214.15 ( talk) 18:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Note also the use of 'believe' in the article. Legitimate criticism would be disputes over what a particular Muslim group said about revelation or whether (on the minor topic) Muhammad was sincere (note a longstanding popular criticism was that Muhammad was a deliberate liar though I'm not sure if any modern academic scholar of the subject thinks that now). None of stuff under the Criticism section seems to address those issues. Note Geisler, Carrier, and Spencer are hardly academic scholars of Islamic doctrine or the history of early Islam (Geisler is a Christian theologian, Carrier has a PhD in ancient history [and in particular Roman] but no known expertise in Islamic history and Spencer a masters in religious studies [specializing in Catholicism]); none as far as I know have published on the history of Islam in peer reviewed journals. I would be wary of using any of them even in an article on the history of the Quran, where their criticism that you added to this article would be relevant, since it would not be authoritative. I think Spencer might have seriously questioned the Historicity of Muhammad which would make the question of Muhammad's sincerity moot. Mentioning that in this article might be relevant (though not authoritative) but it is well outside what qualified scholars think (though there are a few who are more qualified than Spencer who have espoused it). -- Erp ( talk) 20:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)To say that Muhammad was sincere does not imply that he was correct in his beliefs. A man maybe sincere but mistaken. The modern Westerner has not difficulty in showing how Muhammad may have been mistaken.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Waḥy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Waḥy. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Waḥy at the Reference desk. |
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
We have already discussed this Arrow on Talk:Islam. There are at least 7 academics who agree with what is written. --02:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
This is definitely not presenting both sides of the argument. Very one-sided section. -- Jibran1 16:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Some sources cite Muhammad as being a possible epileptic. Perhaps someone ought to insert a section on theories of medical causes of Muhammad's seizures. Darth Anne Jaclyn Sincoff ( talk) 23:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The section reads like a CAIR pamphlet. There is literally only one sentence disputing it. 72.93.214.15 ( talk) 18:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Note also the use of 'believe' in the article. Legitimate criticism would be disputes over what a particular Muslim group said about revelation or whether (on the minor topic) Muhammad was sincere (note a longstanding popular criticism was that Muhammad was a deliberate liar though I'm not sure if any modern academic scholar of the subject thinks that now). None of stuff under the Criticism section seems to address those issues. Note Geisler, Carrier, and Spencer are hardly academic scholars of Islamic doctrine or the history of early Islam (Geisler is a Christian theologian, Carrier has a PhD in ancient history [and in particular Roman] but no known expertise in Islamic history and Spencer a masters in religious studies [specializing in Catholicism]); none as far as I know have published on the history of Islam in peer reviewed journals. I would be wary of using any of them even in an article on the history of the Quran, where their criticism that you added to this article would be relevant, since it would not be authoritative. I think Spencer might have seriously questioned the Historicity of Muhammad which would make the question of Muhammad's sincerity moot. Mentioning that in this article might be relevant (though not authoritative) but it is well outside what qualified scholars think (though there are a few who are more qualified than Spencer who have espoused it). -- Erp ( talk) 20:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)To say that Muhammad was sincere does not imply that he was correct in his beliefs. A man maybe sincere but mistaken. The modern Westerner has not difficulty in showing how Muhammad may have been mistaken.