Talk:Waḥy

POV tag

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)

Medical reasons for Muhammad's seizures

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)

What are the medical reasons of Torah revelation to Moses, Jesus's conception and ascension? Jesus was also accused of madness to the point that his family were seeking to take charge of him.[1] --Wadq (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The scholarly views section isn't so scholarly

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)

Not anymore. I took care of it! --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure your addition is relevant. Whether or not the Quran draws upon older sources (which it certainly does) has little bearing on whether Muhammad believed he had revelations (wahy, the topic of the article). Or whether Muslims believe that prophets (e.g.,Moses, Jesus, etc) have revelations. There seem to be two topics for this article and the chief is how Muslims' considered wahy and how the doctrine was developed (I can imagine that different groups have different views including whether . The more minor is whether Muhammad sincerely believed he was inspired which probably belongs more in an article about Muhammad or at least completely distinguished in this article from the doctrine. I would be inclined to move stuff on Muhammad's own views elsewhere. We should probably check this article against Biblical inspiration (the Christian counterpart to wahy) which doesn't seem to consider whether the various writers of the Bible believed they were inspired or not. --Erp (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, critics have used that evidence for it. Norman Geisler, Richard Carrier, Robert Spencer, CARM etc. It needs to be here to balance the article. SleeplessNight12 (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

What is "it" in this case? This article is not about the history of the Quran but rather about a particular doctrine, wahy or revelation. Academic scholars should describe what Muslims believe it is, describe how different groups within Islam view it, could comment on whether Muhammad himself believed he was receiving revelations. They (and this article) can note as a quote by Watt in this article has

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.

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)

Once again, the pre-existing sources are INDISPUTABLE. The fact that well-known people have used this fact to argue against the doctrine of Wahy, is noteworthy, it also restores the balance to the article. SleeplessNight12 (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

SleeplessNight12, I think you're missing Erp's point. This article is about a religious concept, not the supposed historical event it refers to. I just checked the Wahy article in Encyclopedia of Islam 2nd edition, and it's consistent with that view of the article's scope. However, by the same line of reasoning, the discussion of Muhammad's sincerity is out of scope as well. Similarly, our article on the Immaculate Conception doesn't discuss what modern physiologists think of this doctrine.

For the same addition in the context of History of the Quran, this new subsection is redundant with the following section, Origin according to academic historians. Any prominent views that aren't already reflected there should be reflected, as per WP:NPOV. Also, please be sure to provide all the necessarily details in the citation as described in WP:CITEHOW. Finally, I note that one of the sources you used has an access date tag of 2016. If you're copying content from Wikipedia, it needs to be attributed in the edit summary as per WP:COPYWITHIN, and if the content comes from elsewhere, it needs to be adapted to avoid WP:COPYVIO, citing the source you used and not the sources cited there. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like the content was adapted from Criticism of the Quran. I share Erp's concerns about these sources. These are prominent themes of criticism, and so the content seems appropriate in that article, but the article History of the Quran should reflect the views of modern historians specializing in this topic, and the article currently does. If we're missing some other prominent views of this kind, they should be added, but views of authors who specialize in a different field or aren't scholars at all are WP:UNDUE. Eperoton (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, History of the Quran omits the well known fact that Quran relies on pre-existing sources, which need to be cited. Perhaps you can do it better? SleeplessNight12 (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, I corrected it --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

In regards to @Eperoton:, I'm inclined to remove the whole section on Mohammad's sincerity from this article since it does not belong here. Thoughts? --Erp (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I would support removing this section from this article. Is there another article dealing with this topic where it would be more appropriate, perhaps in a condensed form? Criticism of Muhammad? Muhammad in Mecca? Eperoton (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Some of it already seems to be present in the Muhammad article (search for Modern Historians). --Erp (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)