Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Muhammad

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Muhammad

Criticism of Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

'This article is riddled with explicit violations of nearly all the critical guidelines of Wikipedia and must be removed immediately. Its continued presence on Wikipedia raises serious concerns about the platform's transparency and the proper implementation of its policies. Below is a comprehensive outline of each policy violation, which highlights the urgency of removing this article and ending this problematic discussion once and for all. The article’s existence undermines the integrity of Wikipedia's standards and is an unacceptable representation of the platform’s commitment to neutrality, verifiability, and respectful discourse.'

The article presents a biased, one-sided portrayal of Muhammad, using derogatory phrases like "tricked by Satan" and quotes from figures like Martin Luther calling him “a devil.” It focuses on negative medieval and early modern critiques, neglecting counterarguments or historical context, and disregards the views of Muslims who revere Muhammad, violating NPOV. The article emphasizes discredited views without considering modern perspectives, making it misleading. Additionally, it presents speculative medical diagnoses, such as Muhammad having epilepsy, using outdated theories and giving undue weight to non-experts like Dostoyevsky and Macdonald. The inflammatory language further skews the portrayal, violating NPOV.

The article risks reinforcing harmful stereotypes about Islam and Muhammad by emphasizing derogatory medieval views and Jewish criticisms, such as labeling Muhammad “a devil” or “a deceiver,” without offering rebuttal or positive representations. This promotes religious intolerance and presents biased historical views as fact, potentially perpetuating negative perceptions of Islam. Additionally, associating epilepsy with spiritual impurity reinforces harmful stereotypes about both Muhammad and people with epilepsy, fueling misunderstanding and religious tension. Wikipedia should aim to foster understanding and avoid presenting unbalanced, inflammatory views.

The article presents views from figures like Martin Luther, Voltaire, and Christian missionaries without sufficient context, such as Luther's quote calling Muhammad “a devil.” It lacks explanation of Luther’s theological position or historical context, leading to misleading portrayals. Additionally, speculative medical theories, like comparing Dostoyevsky's epilepsy to Muhammad’s “fits,” lack scholarly consensus and go beyond established research. These unsupported theories and the synthesis of unrelated historical criticisms violate Wikipedia’s original research policy and create a biased narrative.

The article has significant verifiability issues, with claims about Martin Luther, Voltaire, and scholars like Gabriel Oussani lacking proper citations or reliable sources, making them hard to verify. This lack of sources, especially regarding Voltaire’s later positive view of Muhammad, leads to incomplete and misleading information. Additionally, the article relies on outdated and discredited sources, such as 19th-century Orientalists Margoliouth and Prideaux, while undervaluing modern scholars like William Montgomery Watt and Maxime Rodinson. Speculative medical diagnoses from non-experts further undermine the article’s reliability. The article makes sweeping generalizations about figures like Voltaire and Luther, presenting their critiques of Muhammad without necessary context. For example, Voltaire’s criticism was focused on religious fanaticism, not just Muhammad’s character, and he later recognized some positive aspects of Muhammad’s civil laws. By isolating these views and lacking context, the article oversimplifies historical complexities, violating Wikipedia’s policy of presenting historical topics accurately and with depth.'

The article uses disrespectful language, such as calling Muhammad the "devil" and "false prophet," without context or clarification, violating Wikipedia's standards for respectful discourse. Given Muhammad’s significance to millions, these derogatory terms, without neutral viewpoints, make the article problematic. Additionally, framing Muhammad's seizures as medical conditions, without strong counterarguments from mainstream scholars, can be seen as disrespectful. For Muslims, such suggestions are offensive, and the lack of balanced representation risks portraying Muhammad negatively, which could fuel religious conflict and exacerbate stereotypes, especially in sensitive interfaith relations.

AFTER THIS PROVEN VIOLATION OF THESE BASIC POLICIES THE DELETION OF THIS ARTICLE IS A LOGICAL NECASITY THAT SHOULD BE ENSURED BY WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATORS AND IT SHOULD NOT BE DECIDED ACCORDING TGO THE CONSENSUS (Which will again be mere views)AS THERE IS NO CAPACITY FOR DISCUSSING IT BEAUSE IT'S NOT A ROUTINE MATTER BUT A DIRECT AFFRONT WITH 1.8 BILLION MUSLIMS WHO LOVE PROPHET MUHAMMAD TO DEATH AND REVERE HIM THE MOST AND ABOVE ALL HUMANS . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fati 2006 10 05 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an attack page - biographical material which is entirely negative in tone. A one-sided presentation of a topic is contrary to our basic policy of neutrality. Note that the page Praise and veneration of Muhammad has just been deleted on similar grounds and so balance requires us to delete this one too. Andrew D. (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is not really a personal attack on him, it seems to be more of a documentation of criticism he received, which I see know problem with. And the attack policy page talks about being unsourced but this has plenty of sources and overall is a decent quality article. Also, the fact that this has existed since 2006 and has never been suggested for deletion should give you a pretty good idea of why it should stay. In the first place, Muhammad has been dead for a really long time and attack policies seem mainly for living people. So, no!--Awesomewiki64 (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As indicated in the nomination, this is related to the recent deletion of a similar page which focussed on praise of Muhammed. The close of that discussion said, "if Criticism of Muhammad is deemed problematic (possibly for some of the same reasons as this one; and there are valid arguments to be made that all "Criticism of ..." articles are inherently non-neutral), then that would have to be discussed in a deletion discussion about that article." The core policy WP:NPOV confirms that such "Criticism of" articles are unacceptable. WP:POVNAMING states "Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of X" might be better renamed "Societal views on X"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." So, all these one-side pages should indeed be deleted but a group nomination would be unwieldy and so this is best done one at a time. Andrew D. (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment:. While praise articles are rare, if not non-existent, on Wikipedia (try searching for "Praise of"... All these articles are only about works/things titled or named as such; nothing in the sense of anti-criticism), there are numerous criticism articles. I think community-wide consensus is needed about the WP:POVFORKiness of these "Criticism of..." articles, before they can be deleted. IMO all criticism articles are unnecessary POV-forks and against WP not being an opinion piece.
Having said that, Criticism of Muhammad seems to be a WP:SYNTHESIS of everything negative that people have historically said about Muhammad. Most of the stuff there should be relocated to the subjects that are criticised, such as all the main articles mentioned in Criticism of Muhammad#Points of contention. - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The argument for deletion is that the article is an essay, that is, a piece of original research trying to make a point, and that it is a content fork of material already covered elsewhere, as well as an aggregation of quotations with little in the way of context. Mkkamran (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is definitely staying. There needs to be a 2 sided perspective on the 2nd most popular religious figure in the world. Every other major religion can handle criticism and so must Islam. Thesqueegeeman (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the argument for deleting "Criticism of" and "Veneration and praise of" forks based on WP:NPOV is misplaced. The subject of these articles is the criticism, veneration and praise, not the person or organization being criticized. In this case policy dictates that the discussion of the criticism should be balanced per WP:NPOV (including criticism of the criticism), based on non-primary sources and not degenerate into a quote farm, which is what tends to happen in practice. The deletion of "Veneration and praise" counterpart (with which I disagree) was based not so much on NPOV grounds, as on WP:OR and WP:QUOTEFARM. Eperoton (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Eperoton that these point-of-view articles should discuss the point of views, instead of merely stating the points of view. Criticism of Muhammad has a couple of discussions, but there's also plenty of "bare criticism", such as Modern critics have criticized Muhammad for preaching beliefs that are incompatible with democracy; Somali-Dutch feminist writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali has called him a "tyrant"[29] and a "pervert".[30] The Dutch Party for Freedom leader Geert Wilders calls Muhammad a "mass murderer and a pedophile".[31] The article could use a good cleanup to remove passages like these, or at least expand them to include an analysis of said criticism. If not, we're essentially dealing with WP:NOTREPOSITORY in this case. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also note the following comment from the deletion review for the veneration and praise article ([1]: "No prejudice against recreation of a policy-compliant article under this or a similar title." Eperoton (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To my way of thinking, and given my own religious background, there is a significant difference between "praise" and "veneration". "Praise" is ordinary, human, pedestrian. In Catholicism, "veneration" is something closer to the worship of the sacred -- which Christians cannot call "worship" because that would put a saint on the same level as the deity (and that would be sacrilegious in Christian doctrine). Theologically, Mohammed has a similar status to Mary and Catholic saints: venerated, but not divine. I note that we have article titled "Veneration" and "Veneration of Mary in Roman Catholicism," which discuss the doctrine underlying the veneration of saints and the various rites involved; those are notable and encyclopedic topics and the articles seem to me to strike the right balance. A similar article, written in a neutral tone and discussing the related rites and underlying Islamic doctrine regarding the veneration of Mohammed would be an appropriate stand-alone article, with an emphasis on scholarly commentary on the primary religious texts, doctrine and rites found in secondary sources. What is not appropriate is an article whose text is based mostly on extended passages from the Koran and Hadith, sourced solely or primarily on the Koran and Hadith; the article should be written in a neutral tone and should be largely descriptive, not as a religious text. If we can strike that balance, I would support a stand-alone "Veneration of Mohammed in Islam" article, but I also recognize that many of our self-selected contributors do not (and will not) be able to strike that balance and there is not easy solution to that challenge. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - While it is indeed a content fork (which is understandable given the length of the parent article), it seems rather absurd that such a well-sourced and long-established article would be nominated for deletion. It's certainly not an attack page, given the notability and currency of such criticism (including within multiple fields of academia). The argument for deletion seems to misinterpret core policy (as The Rambling Man pointed out), and dare I say it: be somewhat disingenuous. I won't visit the intentions of the nominator, but per their own comments, this AfD nom seems to be related to the deletion of the aforementioned 'praise' article which apparently "failed key policies so badly as to be unsalvageable". If the nominator disagrees with having articles of this ilk on Wikipedia (though they apparently only nominated this one), that's fine; but that would require sweeping changes across the project with the deletion of literally dozens of articles. And this isn't the way to do it. Take this discussion to the appropriate forum; AfD shouldn't be used to make a point, engage in apologetics, or provide "balance" for other articles. I'm honestly a bit surprised an administrator hasn't closed this discussion already.Quinto Simmaco (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that this and other criticism pages have to be kept. Criticism of a religion/person/ideology are a distinct subject than the ideology itself, and I think that the existence of such pages is legitimate. Flauius Claudius Iulianus (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Muhammad&oldid=1277269646"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Muhammad, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.