| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hans Jansen 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 article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Opening article claim edit
The article opens with "Johannes "Hans" J. G. Jansen (born 17 November 1942, Amsterdam) is the leading scholar of contemporary Islam in the Netherlands.", which to my knowledge is a incorrect claim. I have added "one of" to the opening line.
Hans Jansen is an Arabist, and Islam-critic turned anti-Islamist who has many appearances in Dutch Media. He is also a well-known bistander to Geert Wilders, who also claims to be an expert of contemporary Islam. Hans Jansen is one of the crown witnesses in the Trial against Geert Wilders and himself highly controversial. Hans Jansen claims that Christianity is more advanced and superior to Islam.
The expert on Islam and the Qu'ran in the Netherlands is Arabist dr. Fred Leemhuis, who wrote the official Dutch translation of the Qu'ran. Prof.dr.mr. Ruud Peters is the expert on Islamic law.
In other words, there is nothing like "the leading scholar". Wvdc (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Hans Jansen is in fact not even 'one of the leading scholars'. He has been publishing nothing but popular books for years and as a result has played no actual role in the academic study of Islam. Colleagues like Dick Douwes hardly take him serious as a scholar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.50.3.16 (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- True, Hans Jansen is not a "leading" scholar, yet he is a scholar, and a respected one. Especially his book on the historical Mohammed attracted attention. It is a quite nice compilation of all (or most of) the known reasons why the Islamic traditional texts are not credible. --IbnTufail (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Research section edit
The Research section sorely needs citations for the long summary it contains. Also, it frequently uses the abbreviation 'resp.'. For the life of me, I cannot figure out what this is supposed to mean. Can anyone help? Ashmoo (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)