|This article was preserved after a vote for its deletion.
See its archived VfD entry for details.
--Poetlister 18:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- 1 Be neutral
- 2 From a non-Muslim
- 3 Rephrase 'Islam is not a new religion, but the same truth that God revealed through all His prophets to every people.'
- 4 Systematic Vilifying of the Holy Scripture
- 5 racism
- 6 More then racism
- 7 Something must be done
- 8 Hello!!
- 9 Dis-believers
- 10 Quotes
- 11 Merge from Moderate Islam
- 12 How is it possible?
- 13 Agree with above
- 14 NPOV
- 15 incorrectly described as destruction
- 16 John Quincy Adams
The page is full of anti-islamism, you should think again when you put a christian and a jewish scholars only, What I mean you should put arab people and muslim people in this page too BE fair!!
From a non-MuslimEdit
The collection of quotes here is abominable, especially those describing Islam, many of which are outright racism and barbarism. That doesn't mean they should be removed, but they need to be supplemented by more favourable quotes. Please, ANYONE who has access to good translations, expand this page.
Rephrase 'Islam is not a new religion, but the same truth that God revealed through all His prophets to every people.'Edit
Please rephrase 'Islam is not a new religion, but the same truth that God revealed through all His prophets to every people.' Stilted. 220.127.116.11 11:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Systematic Vilifying of the Holy ScriptureEdit
Obviously, there are two things terribly wrong with this page:
1. The translations are completely preposterous, in fact they don't even match with their references linked to M.M. Pickthall's English translation.
2. Only those verses have been taken from the Holy Quran which highlight the Wrath of Allah, and as I said before... WITH WRONG TRANSLATIONS. There is no mention of the verses which exemplify the Mercies of Allah, as far as I can remember there are more verses of Allah's Mercy in the Holy Quran than His Wrath. This has to be balanced otherwise it is an obliviously wrongly biased page, and should be wiped off accordingly.
- Please cite a single example with the "WRONG TRANSLATION." In fact, all translations on this page accurately convey the meaning of the originals, although they are often abridged. For example, Sura 2:17–18 is translated as
Allah has blinded the disbelievers.
… Allah taketh away their light and leaveth them in darkness, where they cannot see,
Deaf, dumb and blind; and they return not.
مَثَلُهُمْ كَمَثَلِ الَّذِي اسْتَوْقَدَ نَاراً فَلَمَّا أَضَاءتْ مَا حَوْلَهُذَهَبَ اللّهُ بِنُورِهِمْ وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي ظُلُمَاتٍ لاَّ يُبْصِرُونَ
صُمٌّبُكْمٌ عُمْيٌ فَهُمْ لاَ يَرْجِعُونَ
3. There is one interesting quote from Mahatma Gandhi that I think is relevant to this article:
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi
Both parties can find themselves here :)
first of all, we all know that Islam today is not the most popular and liked religion, and in America it is hated. when people think of Islam or a Muslim, the first thing that comes to mind is terrorist and this is as sad as it gets. you wikipedia people call yourself neutral but you dare destroy the meaning of Islam by totally disfiguring the original meaning of these quotes from Allah. you do realise that your website is very popular, so please, do everyone a favor and help show the real message of Islam as opposed to trying to bring it down some more. YOU ALL SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES seriously!!!! if you knew a thing or two about Islam, you would know that THE MEANING OF THESE QUOTES HAS BEEN LOST THROUGH THE TRANSLATION FROM ARABIC TO ENGLISH! you should change this quote page now! i don't have a source for this, just truth! —This unsigned comment is by Joey (talk • contribs) .
- I'm sorry to see you embarrassed, but Wikiquote is a collection of quotation, not the place for discussion. Regretfully I don't find no particular argument on this article. Please try to discuss more specific things rather than your general opinion about the subject. Thanks. --Aphaia 22:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
More then racismEdit
These so called quotes fro Quran not only misinterprets the text, they are biased and in-comprehensive. There is much more to Quran than fire, hell, nonbelievers, and burning. Quraan is full of mercy, wisdom, and love.—This unsigned comment is by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) .
- Hi, we invite anyone to edit our website, including you! Please add appropriate quotes from good translation, and don't forget the book and verse. Thanks. --Aphaia 22:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Something must be doneEdit
With all due respect, this page is impossibly insulting. Please get someone to do something about it!
most of what is written down here is not true and very offensive. i believe this page should be deleted completely and if not so, someone educated should edit it. —This unsigned comment is by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) .
Wow. This page has obviously been hijacked by anti-Islam propagandists. There's hardly any quote from a respected, modern scholar of Islam, only the opinions of medieval or renaissance Western supremacists and Christian fanatics, which almost all modern shcolars consider garbage. To be fair, the flood of partisan, unsourced quotes should be greatly reduced and replaced with relevant ones. Wikipedia is not supposed to promote the agendas of hate groups.
The quotes that commence the text seem rather harsh, and their meanings distorted in some. I feel this is an erroneous technique because somebody outside the religion coming to the page would surely be devastated and overwhelmed by the quotes, even though some are misinterpreted. I believe a more unbiased and balanced approach to the web page regarding the subject would be better. Thanks!
Apparently no one what we do, people keep sticking the Quranic verses on dis-believers back in this article. Those verses of part of the Quran on infidels article.--Inesculent 06:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Merge from Moderate IslamEdit
I support the merge. This is scarcely worth a separate page on WQ.--Cato 21:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
How is it possible?Edit
How is it possible that the editors that review this site fail to see the inherent bias in the quotes provided? How about starting with primary sources, from an Islamic perspective (as opposed to an evangelical one)?
Agree with aboveEdit
I agree with the immediately preceding statement. This page has obviously been dominated by special interests and cannot be claimed to be neutral. Some editors should be stepping in on this immediately, and if not, I question their impartiality as well.
Wikiquote policy here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Neutral_point_of_view "Wikiquote has a strict neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, which basically states that its mission is best served not by advancing or detracting particular points of view on any given subject, but by trying to present a fair, neutral description of the facts, among which are the facts that various interpretations and points of view exist." Other commentators have already expressed numerous times that this page fails in that regard miserably. Why is this issue being ignored?
- Maybe because you and your other two possible sockpuppets all posted within 10 minutes of one another? Do you expect instantaneous response to everything you post? I say possible sockpuppets because I find it more than fishy that three anonymous IPs post on the same thing supporting one another in such a short time frame while having no other history on WQ. -- Greyed 18:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
There is always going to be an inherent bias with most editors of most subjects; ideally a fair balance can be attained, but with over 14,000 pages the few regular editors here, cannot be expected to insure that there is, especially when pages dealing with political, religious or other ideologies are often edited by people who have some narrow and specific agenda. Mass removal of quotes and replacement of them with a new mass of poorly formatted (and to a great extent only loosely relevant material) is certainly not the proper way to go about editing a page.
The above portion of this comment was the response I had made to the first of several anonymous comments above, when I noted there was an edit conflict. I also have been a bit frustrated with some recent editors (and possibly mere trolls) making new section headings when a discussion is obviously a continuation of the previous brief subject and section. Please simply edit sections and don't create new ones when you are dealing with the same subject. ~ Kalki 18:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
incorrectly described as destructionEdit
John Quincy AdamsEdit
See subpage for unsourced quotes (if you can source them, add them, they're still, as a whole, quite POV though) Talk:Islam/Unsourced Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 03:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- The quotes by John Quincy Adams are likely completely fabricated. The only "source" I can find them attributed to is The American Annual Register, Chapters X-XIV [pp. 267-402], 1827-28-29. New York, 1830. Thing is, you can check it out on google books (Volume 4) and there are only 234 pages. —This unsigned comment is by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) .
- seems legit:
- The Annual Register, Part 1, 1827-8-9 (excerpt at books.google.com) G. & C. Carvill, 1835 (according too books.google.com) / William Jackson, and E. & G. W. Blunt, 1835 (according to its title)
- The United States Magazine and Democratic Review, Volume 36 (excerpt at books.google.com), Langtree and O'Sullivan, 1855
- According to the National Center for Constitutional Studies it’s a part of “John Quincy Adams’ 136-page series of essays on Islam”. ...there is, however, noted scholar 188.8.131.52 with a dissenting view. --tickle me 09:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- The truth, as ever, lies between the two foregoing positions. The text is genuine; but it was not written by John Quincy Adams. It was written by Joseph Blunt, editor of the American Annual Register for 1827-9. You can confirm this for yourself here: http://www.archive.org/stream/p1americanannual29blunuoft#page/274/mode/1up . Look through the front material of that volume, and through the chapter in which that quote appears; nowhere is JQA cited as an author of anything.
- Your secondary sources, namely the NCCS and the The United States Magazine and Democratic Review, are faulty. The NCCS simply repeats the source without investigating it, and the USM&DR doesn't even give a source. The latter has simply copied the text from the original without even a gesture towards attribution.