Talk:Islam/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 4 April 2015. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)

Contents

[edit] Why is mentioning that islam means "submission" a problem"?

The word "Islam" means "submission" in Arabic and not "peace" like many followers claim. Any problem ? Dr. Dolittle 14:40, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Yup. Problem having to do with root words, the closeness of the concepts and etymologies of of "Islam" and "Salaam," and the difficulties of making direct translations from arabic to English. PFoster 14:42, 27 December 2007 (EST).

And for that reason you deletted mine contribution at the article? Dr. Dolittle 16:39, 27 December 2007 (EST)
Uh-huh. 'Cause your contributions relied on strict literal translations which don't account for the way that Arabic works. In other words, your contributions were pretty much wrong, and were also, I believe, done in a spirit to make Islam look like something that it is not. PFoster 16:43, 27 December 2007 (EST)
Other wiki's also mention that "islam" is arabic for "submission". So I put it back Dr. Dolittle 12:20, 28 December 2007 (EST)

[edit] Do write rationals write ramadan, sharia ect with capitals

Dr. Dolittle 07:44, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Ramadan, yes, because that's the name of a month, just like 'July'. Sharia, no, because that's a common noun. As to what I assume is the reason behind your question, using capitals is a question of proper grammar, not of showing respect towards the concept or not, and should under no circumstances be politicised. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 07:51, 29 December 2007 (EST)
Just like when we aren't being totally snarky, the atheists among us capitalize the Name of Jesus, the only Son of God, as appropriate. Same with Allah, not with llama, but with the Dalai Lama. And the Dolly Goat. humanUser talk:Human 17:31, 29 December 2007 (EST)
Dolly was a sheep, dude. --Kels 17:32, 29 December 2007 (EST)
That's deceit, Kels - cite your sources that prove Dolly was not a goat. And I don't want your liberally biased msm sources, either. Godspeed! -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
Msm? Maastricht School of Management? >_> --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 17:50, 29 December 2007 (EST)

[edit] Sorry...

Apparently i unlocked it as someone else did the same--made it re-lock. My bad...PFoster 22:21, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

Huh? ħumanUser talk:Human 22:41, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
It was locked. I clicked on release, wrote some snark in the box, clicked to submit. in the meanwhile, somebody else unlocked the article. When I entered my release, the articlre re-locked...PFoster 22:51, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
Ah, I see. No blood, no foul, eh? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:12, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

[edit] this article has no balls.

summary of article:islam is so much better than christianity, because sure, islam is more rational. YEAH, LIKE ABOUT 1200 YEARS AGO IT WAS! Only about 1 out of 200 clerics don't oppose evolution, and in in Christainity, even the pope doesn't directly oppose the theory. Why are we such liberal stereotypes? Stop being a self hating kind of person. Since when is modern day islam rational??? Oh, that woman was raped, so we'll kill her for honor instead of trying the rapist. REALL FUCKING RATIONAL! Oh, jews took our land, so we'll bomb innocent civilians, including our own, to oppose zionism. REAL RATIONAL, HUH? Now some are rational, like the normal citizens who try to get by, but islam in it's present form is worse than modern day christianity, and should be ridiculed. — Unsigned, by: 173.48.208.204 / talk / contribs

This is a wiki. You are free to improve the article. Note that improve does not equal blank. -- Nx talk 08:18, 15 February 2009 (EST)
The article doesn't say or imply anywhere that Islam is better or more rational than Christianity. Why not stop strawmanning & be more specific about what don't like about the article (in terms of what it actually says rather than things you are you imagining). ωεαşεζόίďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:57, 15 February 2009 (EST)

[edit] i added a new section

it's crap, but it's better than deleting the entire thing.— Unsigned, by: 173.48.208.204 / talk 13:39, 15 February 2009‎ (UTC)

[edit] Taking out taqqiya

...sorry, my bad. TheoryOfPractice 09:03, 15 February 2009 (EST)

It's OK. I put it back. ωεαşεζόίďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:12, 15 February 2009 (EST)

[edit] Are we giving Islam a free pass?

I like lampooning Christianity as much as the next guy, but we don't seem to have quite the same nerve when it comes to Islam. I'm going to add a section, maybe titled 'critique', examining some of the extreme aspects of the religion. Would anyone object? Moiph 13:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem with this is that if snark is added at any one point, it becomes very uneven in tone. It'd basically have to be rewritten entirely to get the snarky feeling. WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 14:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've tried my best to find the right tone. Some snark I fear may have crept in as I got pissed off trying to find all my books, webpages and other things. Feel free to delete whatever doesn't suit the tone. Moiph 14:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The main reason is that most of us are much more familiar with Xtianity. We simply don't have a head full of all the silly things about Islam. So anyone who can add more along those lines is more than welcome to do it. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, cool. Have expanded on this idea of media bias we're hearing so much about, hopefully it comes off as actually pro-Muslim/anti-extremist/anti-bias. Moiph 19:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
All those Beeb quotes could use a reference or two... ħumanUser talk:Human 23:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Done and done. And I mean done! Moiph 01:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
It's pretty much all about familiarity, I consider myself relatively knowledgable about the religion (as most people would describe their knowledge as "fuck all") but I'm not familiar with it. You don't get muslim holidays cropping up on the calendar to the same magnitude as Easter or Christmas, for example. Dawkins explains that this is why he doesn't go after Islam with specifics in the God Delusion, although he refers to it. If there's someone with a good deal of familiarity of Islam on RW- say, an actual muslim or a ex-muslim- that knows about it, they'd be more than welcome to contribute. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 00:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that we should give Islam a quite a bit of a harder time; radical Muslims are known to cry "persecution" in much the same way as their Christian counterparts, and the religion has given us Harun Yahya. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 00:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Well I wouldn't dare claim to be an expert but I've been fortunate enough to grow up in a very multicultural area, so have a good working knowledge of Islam, it's beliefs, etc. Have studied and been taught a lot on the subject of religions too so will chip in here and there when I can. Moiph 01:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, cool. Please do. :D Scarlet A.pngnarchist 01:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the way this is going, but I think some more work should be done to make this article as critical as Christianity. I'm thinking the first section should make more mention of the attempts by certain Muslims to violently suppress criticism of their faith, like the Danish cartoon thing, or Theo van Gogh's murder. JS Leitch 21:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking we can do better than that. Yes, our PC-sensibilities keep us from pouncing on Islam the way we pounce on Christianity. Agreed. However, taking the Islam-Terror-Violence-They're-Oversensitive-to-Depictions route is old, tired and not really productive. Let's bring something fresh to the table. RaoulDuke 21:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
But is it really that tired? I mean, the Muslim world really does seem more insular and oversensitive than the Christian world. The George Tiller murder was roundly condemned by (most) Christians, but Geert Wilders is banned from Britain because the government is afraid that many Muslims will react violently to his presence. While Christianity is certainly the cause of much harm and irrationality, it has been more apt than Islam to allow inquiry and criticism of itself. Since the cartoon thing has, indeed, been worn out, does anybody know any good, more recent examples we could include? JS Leitch 01:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's really that tired. Instead of good, recent examples, which are easy to find and being written about all the time, why not look at good, historical examples? Why not do something that nobody else is really doing? RaoulDuke 04:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, the rest of the article seems good. I just think the opening should be a bit more critical. If people are looking for straight information, they can go to Wikipedia. Isn't RW supposed to be about fundamentalism and authoritarianism? JS Leitch 04:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I like your last edit. Moar, please. RaoulDuke 04:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Media Bias

This section seems to be more opinion than fact (including that whole thing about the First Crusade being a reaction to Islamic expansion... if they were fighting that, why didn't they start in Spain, which was much easier to get to? And the fact remains that the Christians were much nastier to the people they conquered than the Muslims). Should it be here, or should it be a shorter section something like "There have been allegations of media bias in favour of Islam" with a link to what's written as an essay? WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 04:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It had already started in Spain, that is why. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
So why didn't the Crusaders help there, instead of sailing all the way across the Med to a part of the world that hadn't been under European hegemony for four hundred years? WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 05:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The Byzantines, who kicked off the Crusades by calling for help, were not in Spain. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Why not in Anatolia then, like the Emperor asked? WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 05:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
If you read the background on the first crusade you will see that Spain was involved in the thinking.--Bobbing up 08:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I quite like the "media bias" section, though it does read a bit like an opinion piece. On the other hand our articles, in the purest form, are meant to be like collaborative essays. I do agree though that the crusades might have had causes in addition to Islamic expansion.--Bobbing up 09:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I've included relevant links to that claim, I knew it'd get some flak. Britannica and Wikipedia both say it began in response to Muslim aggression. That link about the Sikhs and the Hindus should take you to the Telegraph's website with the story there. If not, I've botched the linkage process somehow. I'll find the story on the BBC's own website. No doubt the Crusades had additonal causes, but essentially the initial "pilgrimage" was made when the Orthodox Byzantines asked for Pope Urban's help because Muslim Turks had began expanding the Islamic empire. Byzantines were expecting a couple hundred elite fighting squads. Urban sent almost 60,000 men, many of them mere religious fanatics with no training in warfare or awareness of the discipline one was expected to behave with. Old Testament poundin' vigilantes, if you will. Other elements, such as the quest for riches, raping and pillaging, etc, came from this. Basically, they were bloodthirsty savages fighting for Jesus. <<< I'll add this to provide some balance/comic relief (delete as appropriate!) replete with sources. Moiph 18:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the link is to the Independant and is a news article, as opposed to opinion piece. I will provide more sources, however. Moiph 18:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, the BBC spent £200000 in legal fees to suppress a report which contained allegations it was pro-Palestine and anti-Israel. I don't know if this belongs here, however. While faith is a motivating factor in the Israel/Palestine conflict, there are also territorial, social, cultural and economic factors in play. What do you guys think? Here are the links:

Moiph 18:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC) That bit about the crusades should be cut as it is entirely off topic & ridiculous when posited as an example of pro-Islamic media bias. The BBC article doesn't mention Islamic expansion prior to the crusades because it's not an article about Islam or about the crusades! It's an article about Christian ethics which happens to mention the crusades in passing as an example of violence within Christian history. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Touche, will remove them, but in that section's defense the BBC articles do provide a launching pad, a context, for what follows. That is to say, the BBC demonstrate each faith's view of war, but while one contains quotes from the source text (the Qur'an) the other (Christianty's) does not. While the BBC article on Christianity does give us quotes from denominational sources within Christianity, we never read what, say, the New Testament teaches about violence or war. Contrarily, we're left in no doubt what the Qur'an says about conflict, but still don't know what Sunni or Shia views of conflict are. Considering Sunni and Shia Islam are at war because they can't decide on who is the rightful heir to Mohammed, and considering further that this particular conflict is not technically permitted under Islamic rules of engagement, it's odd that it has been omitted. The BBC is a media organization, there is a clear bias in these two articles, therefore the media source is bias. Moiph 18:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ALLAH ACKBAR

Allah Ackbar.jpg

Convert now and receive a free Magic bullet alongside a whip for when your wife is naughty and a FREE copy of the Qu'ran!Waronstupidity (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

...For a guy whose handle is "Waronstupidity"... P-Foster (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Is Islam the fastest growing religion?

Claims to be the fastest-growing religion. Maybe 2 doublings per century? I'd say that Mormonism is faster, and Church of Scientology and Raëlism are likely faster still.Civic Cat (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Guess it depends how you measure "fastest growing". If you measure purely in congregation/membership numbers, that's going to be closely tied to birth rate demographics (at least for religions such as Islam, Christianity & Buddhism which are pervasive in some countries & cultures) - so it might only demonstrate population growth while the religion's status remains relatively stagnant. If you try to measure growth in the global influence of a religion, there's not really a good metric to use. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Conversion rates, I assume. If that can be found anywhere it'll probably be adherents.com. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 21:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
And the say it's impossible to say. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 21:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


I put this in the Wikpedia article's talk page.  :-D  
fun (maybe with purpose) with numbers

religion approximate time it began current numbers doublings per century
Christianity 33 AD 2 billion 1.55
    Eastern Orthodoxy 1000 AD 300 million 2.8
    Protestantism 1500 AD 650 million 3.8
    Roman Catholicism 1000 AD 1.14 billion 3
    Mormonism 1820 nearly 14 million 5.8
    Mormons (FDLS) 10 000 1932 10
Islam 622 1.65 billion 2.3
    Nation of Islam 1930 minimally 20 000 11.875
Raëlianism 1973 55 000 37.5
Scientology 1952 8 million 38.3

Civic Cat (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


[edit] Importance of the Sunnah

Consider Christian positions on things like abortion, drinking, going to the Saturday dances, smoking, petting, driving Hummers, using technology, or bathing. There are or have been varying groups within Christianity who have disagreed, and there is/was no Christian consensus on these issues as the Bible says nothing, is vague, and/or contradictory. I'm sure Muslims faced similar problems with the Qur'an (or for that matter, Mormons in regards to the Book of Mormon). All Muslims, presumably, must obey the Qur'an, but can they differ on the Sunnah? I understand Shiites don't, while Sunnis do. Hence for the latter, the Sunnah might be as important as the Quran, and certainly indispensible to the faith (much like the Doctrine and Covenants is with Mormons  ;-)  . Are there any other books or "hadiths"?Civic Cat (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "any other books"? The Sunnah is a collection of books, which are collections of hadiths. It is mainly on jurisprudence alone, for the "Sunnah" of the Prophet(s.a.w.s.) means the "methodology" of the Prophet(s.a.w.s.). Also, the Shia' do not follow the Sunnah, they follow Al-Kafi (which is actually the name of the guy who collected the Shia' hadiths - much like Al-Bukhari for the Sunnis, who collected the hadiths in order to make the Sunnah). Furthermore, all Muslims MUST obey the Qur'an AND the Sunnah, you're right when you say that. And Muslims do not usually differ on the Sunnah, but there are exceptions. There's a whole science we call the science of the hadith, which involves specific manners of investigation of the hadiths in question to verify their authenticity. By that I mean, for example, that there is a hadith on say the colour of the shoes you must wear on a said day (this is purely out of my imagination). How we verify the authenticity of a hadith like that one is we look at who and how many said to have witnessed it (being said by the Prophet(s.a.w.s.) or being done by him, etc). If there are 5 or more people to acknowledge it - we take it as authentic and you cannot dispute it at all. If there are 3 to 4, it's still authentic but we investigate further into it to make sure there's no contradiction. When there's only 1 or 2 people - then, you can differ on the hadith in question.

By the way, the Shia' do the same thing to verify their books of Al-Kafi (which are 3). My sources come from my knowledge being myself a convert to Sunni Islam not so long ago. If you got any other questions please ask, I'll answer as best I can or atleast I could perhaps refer you to a more detailed source of information. Dim (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Civic Cat, to try to answer your question as best as I can — Sunnah is based on hadith, and a hadith is (1) a story about something that the Prophet Muhammad (or one of his early followers) said or did (2) a chain of narrators (isnad) from whom the story is derived. There are countless hadiths, many of which say completely contradictory things from each other. In an attempt to sort out the mess, Muslims have developed the science of hadith, which seeks to determine which hadith are correct and which are doubtful or forged. It is based on several criteria, including compatibility of the hadith with other hadiths and with the Quran, which narrators are reliable, etc. Different Muslims have different opinions on those criteria, of which Sunni-Shi'a differences are just one example; and as a result, different Muslim groups end up accepting different hadith as authentic. Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 13:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos to the writers

Excellent. The Media Bias section was fucking heart wrenching, and I applaud everyone who contributed to it. Colour me educated, I've got a new interest in the relationship between Islam and government and people abusing the fuck out of it. 99.192.91.187 (talk) 08:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Media bias article

Looking at it, I'm wondering if the media bias section might be long enough to warrent being given its own article. Anyone else think so? Baljit (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the media bias section should be placed into essay space if anything. It seems less an article and more a screaming rant. Not that it doesn't raise good points, but it's so filled with malice that I find it hard to read. - Gameboy (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The sentences 'Many Muslims, ... irrational reactions.' criticised in the 'media bias' section no longer appears to be part of the BBC article cited as the source. Nyrb (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

If that section doesn't get deleted entirely, it should probably be rewritten focus on something that is still true, although even if the line still existed in the BBC article I think it was giving it much too much weight. I agree with Gameboy about the 'screaming rant' judgement. Nyrb (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Way of life

Can we incorporate "Because of the wideness of Islam's influence on Muslim's life, question arises if we can call Islam an actual religion or a seperate way of life." somehow? -- DasRationalpersone Socks cat 1.JPG (Annoy me!) 14:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I do really understand what you are asking about. For most people around the world (including the west with Xianity, even if you are not xian) your religion is "part of your world". so why do you think this is a "separate way of life?" Because you are born into a western society, what we do here, which is directly related to traditional xianity, seems normal, and you don't see that we have a "way of life" built into our world from xian heritage. (see foucault on it's impact on our views of punishment, our views of sex and sexuality, our views on women and women's rights and women's place in society, our views on property and property ownership, our views on government, morality, ethics; our views punishment of children and how we raise them; who in the family is the primary care giver, etc. That's all entangled with our religion. many of us on this site, have long lost the religion or never had it, but you can't avoid it's impact on your life.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 14:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Islam is messianic

Article said:

Unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam claims not to be messianic. However, the Twelver sect of Shia Islam is waiting for the Imam Mahdi, who is in no way a messiah whatsoever. Nu-uh.

That is false. Muslims believe that Jesus is the Messiah. At Armageddon, Jesus will kill al-Dajjal (who is essentially the Antichrist). There is also a belief in Madhi (not just among Shia, but among Sunni too), who is also a messianic figure. So, it is fair to say that Islam has two messianic figures, Jesus and the Mahdi, who are believed to both be coming at the end of the world, and will work together to bring about the endtime, although Jesus only Jesus has the title of Messiah. So I removed this inaccuracy. Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 11:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] It should be greatly empathized that the average Muslim religiosity rate is one of the highest in the civilized world.

I'm personally atheist, and I'm fed up with people thinking that all religions are equally bad. This is bullshit. Just look at the mass-crimes which are directly caused by Islam, and then those by any other religion, be it Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or any other religion.

If you compare all the religions simply judging by their scriptures, then we see that probably most of them are violent and intolerant, but Islam would probably be one at the top. However, it seems like the rate of religiosity in Islam (that is, on average, how much the religion of Islam resists social progress) is far higher than that of the most prevalent religions in the civilized world (that is, the first and second world).

While the Islamic immigration to the US isn't significant at all, the Islamic immigration in Europe is enormous. And most of this immigration is from the countries which practice radical Islam and which have Sharia governments which oppress women, kill homosexuals and disbelievers, allow their husbands to hit women, ban free speech (which completely stagnates any social and scientific progress) and so on. Now, I support immigration, but I don't support irrational bronze-age-like superstitions neither. While most of the religions like Christianity or Judaism have pretty much became liberal, Islam hasn't. Islam doesn't fade, it doesn't integrate. It dominates. I personally think that anyone who doesn't hold violent, degrading, hazardous and outright idiotic religious moral codes should be allowed to enter any country freely.— Unsigned, by: 89.84.208.57 / talk / contribs

You shouldn't support immigration. Immigration is what might cause the fall of western civilization.— Unsigned, by: 91.44.31.232 / talk / contribs 04:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Islamic Fundamentalism

I came across this Cracked article that states that Islamic fundamentalism is a fairly recent (1950s) occurrence. http://www.cracked.com/article_18510_6-supposedly-ancient-traditions-that-totally-arent.html Is this true or this a case of cherry picking, and poor research?Ryantherebel (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's a rather well-known fact that "dark" age Islam was actually very progressive and basically invented science as we'd recognise today, or at least the Arab world was if you don't want to credit the religion. Whether Islamic fundamentalism only dates to the 50s is probably dependent on your interpretation of "fundamentalism". Islamic theocracy goes back a little further than that and may have contributed to the decline of the wp:Islamic Golden Age, but that's still in disagreement. ADK...I'll discalceate your disaster! 18:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry to disagree but this is simply not correct. As an atheist you should know that the origin of science as we know it today goes back to the greek philosophers. The Arabs assimilated a lot of this knowledge - together with knowledge from the Byzanthinians, Persians and Indians but they never „invented“ science. For a while the Arabs were hellenized so the credit would go to the Greeks anyway. The end of this period came when pure Islam started to dominate again.— Unsigned, by: 91.44.31.232 / talk / contribs 04:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Description of execution is innacurate

Hello, The execution would be different than described. The scene seems influenced by hollywood or depections of executions in european history. Let me imagine a situation closer to how it would actually go down in Saudi:

"Drugged, she is carried into the dusty public square. The courtyard is less populated that usual, because most of the people know an execution is something cannot be unseen. However, there is a small, silent crowd of men present for personal reasons or morbid curiosity. The woman is forced to kneel before the royal executioner, who is holding a freshly sharpened curved sword from his collection. The executioner jabs the woman in the small of her back, causing her to involuntarily jerk up, and then in a flash her head tumbles to the ground, and a geyser of blood erupts from her neck. A clean up crew is present to remove the blood soaked sand....

And then whatever you want. Of coarse, you can make it as accurate as you want.— Unsigned, by: 24.13.12.128 / talk / contribs

... Wow. -- DasRationalpersone Socks cat 1.JPG (Annoy me!) 13:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Islamophobia

"This is the most puzzling aspect of the situation: A good Muslim is taught, by the Qu'ran and community elders, that he or she must question everything, even their own religion — yet misinformed Westerners seem to believe otherwise. (This might be a result of fundamentalist sects of Christianity, the most widespread religion in the West, being against questioning their religion, with this resulting in Westerners assuming that Islam (or at least more conservative forms of it) has the same restriction.) And seem to go out of their way to tell moderate Muslims what is good for them. " Who the hell wrote this bullshit? I live in Saudi Arabia. The people here are blind sheeped trained from birth to not question anything. Even DISCUSSION of things like politics, religion, sex, women's rights, et cetera is considered to be adequate grounds for termination of expat western employees, or possibly incarceration of non-Westerners. MENTIONING Muhammad (to say nothing of QUESTIONING him), by a non-Muslim (or anyone, in the latter event), even in a POSITIVE or STRICTLY FACTUAL ACCORDING TO ISLAMIC TRADITION light, is extremely likely to provoke outrage. Criticism of Arabs or Saudi Arabia is ALMOST NEVER understood, jokes in the same vein are ALMOST NEVER considered funny. The newspaper is censored propagandistic bullshit. Islam teaches its followers to question things in the same way that Islam promotes women's rights, equality, pluralism, freedom, peace, respect, etc. In other words, it DOES NOT... but Islamic apologists often say that it does because they are either retarded or they understand these words have positive connotations in the west but don't really understand these words. One such apologist seems to have corrupted your article.

I've removed it. This article is sorely lacking in citations, so if you find anything else that rings false do let us know. Balaam (talk) 10:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Suggest we nuke the BoNs contribs and that s/he sign up to log-in securely - given that what the poster said abt. criticism in Saudi Arabia is pretty much the case. --TheEgyptiansig001.png 10:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Islamophobia is a buzzword created by Ayatollah Khomeini and now spread by the OIC (Organisation of Islamic States) to silence criticism of Islam in a similar way as the catholic inquisition in the middles ages.— Unsigned, by: 91.44.31.232 / talk / contribs 04:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism sections

The criticism, the "violence" and the media sections are all over the place, with no clear commentary to guide them, no point of view, no voice, and random fact that stand without any connection, or commentary. I've commented them out till we have someone who wants to put them into some kind of context that actually reads like a RW article, and not like a bad cut and paste job. Pink mowse.pngGodotoi, putain, genial, merci 01:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support