Talk:Islamic attitudes towards science

This article confuses Muslims and Islam

If any claims is to be made about Islam, it must be only with citations from Quran and authentic Hadith narrated to Mohammad. But simply citing opinions or statements of scholars, by itself, is not Islam's view, but rather their view as Muslims. While this standard is satisfied with some claims, it is not satisfied with some others.

This Article would make an interesting read to survey Muslims ' view on the subject, and how Muslims ' view has evolved of time. However, it is a bad one for Islam 's view as it fails to substantiate its claim because of the fact that it fails to mention Quran and authentic Hadith for every claim.

Islam is closer to Sola Scriptura (scriptura being Quran for God's literal words, and authentic Hadith for Mohammad's literal words — according to Islam's view). One cannot claim a thing is Islam's opinion unless he/she presents citations from Quran and authentic Hadith. In many cases, he may also need to present citations from Arabic dictionaries, or language scholars. But simply listing opinions of scholars (some Muslims) without citing Quran or authentic Hadith is meaningless for the purpose of discussion Islam 's view (but meaningful for Muslim 's view). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.107.184.220 (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. Claims made about Islam are best made by scholars, and it is Wikipedia's job to report those claims, weighted appropriately. Wikipedia absolutely cannot offer interpretations of the Quran and hadith in Wikipedia's narrative voice, and simply parroting what the Quran and Hadith say is not encyclopedic.

I have no objection to renaming this article to Muslim attitudes toward science if there's a consensus that the article is more reflective of Muslim views than Islamic views, but insofar as the article reports the views of scholars in the context of Islam and not Muslim culture, the article seems titled properly now. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jwhitchc, Hannahvotsmier.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Guau1998.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

introduction citing

Citation 9: "see also: Ruthven, Malise. A Fury For God. London; New York: Granta (2002), p. 126." is not valid. 76.64.69.88 (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Gibberish

To be clear, the gibberish part was the part I removed. It wasn't English. How much clearer do I have to be, I dont have a metaphorical crowbar of understanding with which to insert this knowledge into your head. It has been removed again by another editor, so I just wanted to comment here, rather than the page history. - Roxy the dog 08:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

As noted in my edit comment here, I have taken it a step further and removed the entire portion of material connected to the research of 'Mustansir Mir' - aside from the relative gibberish of the particular section most recently removed by other editors, none of this material is particularly substantive when speaking at an encyclopedic summary level about criticisms directed towards Islamic approaches to modern science. The views of 'Mustansir Mir' are not very important/due; what the article needs at this stage are sources summarizing the prevalent criticisms in the whole body of scholarship, not isolated academic opinions from individuals (- which would be far more due, in this instance, on a biographical article about Mustansir Mir, something that does not exist yet). Iskandar323 (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

This article relies too much upon blogs

As the heading suggests. Much of what is said here is either original research, synthesis, or citing of self-published sources. I don't know which sources should be removed, as it seems like some of them are by reputable academics, but I think a great deal of them should be scrutinised. Does anyone know the policy regarding SPS by academics? Dawkin Verbier (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)