Talk:Islam

Sufism
Sufism is not a separate denomination of Islam. It is a practice within Islam, and most Sufism throughout history has aligned with Sunni Islam. Mysticism is a practice and Sufism is literally just Islamic mysticism. Saying it's a denomination would be like saying all the legal schools of Sunni Islam are denominations too.
 * Right, the different legal schools of Sunni Islam are merely differences in jurisprudence. It would be like equivocating the differences between common law and as "merely" being two separate denominations of the same "religion" that is Western law, it's false equivalency. —  Oxyaena   Harass  02:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I dislike the current quote header
How come the page on islam starts with a quote AGAINST islam whereas the page on christianty starts with a neutral or loving quote about christianty? How do you guarentee impartialy and that christians do not become owners of the page and put a christian spin on a religion that does not belong to them?

Is this a reliable source for information or a youtube comment section? How come that much critics is placed under islam whereas christianty has little? Is this a political game thats being played here? Stop being dicks and impartial.
 * agreed the quote at the top shouldnt be where it is. It should be in a criticisms section LurkingGnome (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * @LurkingGnome, hello! I have just joined. When this is a Wiki for Rationalists, why should you agree to likely Islamists who don't sign in to put in their comments? Please make no mistakes! They lurk everywhere, drowning the gullible and the greedy with Petro Dollars (or should I say, Dirhams, Dinars, and what not!). If allowed equality with Rationalists, they will turn around, use the abrogation and Pretension surahs and kill rationalists when the time is right for them. I have a full compilation of the hostile, deceitful, vengeful and murderous verses of Quran. So I would know what they are up to. They treat non-muslims as Kafirs. Dar-Al-Kitab was a cunning pretence! You are a fellow Jesus loving Christian when things aren't right for them, non-believer when they are in power. Doesn't matter whether you are a Christian or an atheist.


 * Please ignore unsigned comments. Does Rational Wiki receive donations from Petro-extracting Islamic states? Please don't accept their donations unless unconditional. I thank you for putting the quote at the right place. Where it hurts.
 * Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay we don't really hate any religions here, despite making fun of them all, so honestly I would tone down the rhetoric a little. 12:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * @Dysklyver:
 * Yes, I understand the burden of rationalists. There is a subtle difference between hate and contempt. We should have contempt, not hate. But never to drop our guards. Physically, we can stir up far less aggression than the fanatics. Religions feed fanaticism. So we should always be careful, particularly about Islam. Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Unhealthy obsessions also feed fanaticism. 13:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Barelvi
I guess someone should have written about the bizarre beliefs of the Barelvi movement in Indian Subcontinent. For example, their belief that Muhammad existed before the creation of the Universe. --Teerthaloke101 (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

About the criticism section
I found the criticism section to be a bit distasteful and potentially has some methodological errors. The parts I have problems with:
 * 1) Citing IntrovertedSmiles' YouTube video as a source, and kinda just calling Islam feminists' view as "it clearly doesn't/bullshit".
 * 2) The statement "statistics show that American Muslim women experience domestic violence at a higher level than the general US population." I was curious so that I clicked the citation links. The 2011 domestic violence survey cited for Muslim Americans asked "Have you experienced family/relationship related violence ever in your lifetime? This could include emotional abuse, verbal abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, and financial abuse" and we had high numbers for both men (44%) and women (56%). This survey used a broad definition, i.e "include[ing] intimate partner violence, child abuse and elder abuse" and including non-physical abuse. The WaPo article is behind the paywall for me, so I found the closest thing I could. In this CDC report, on Page 43 under the title Physical Violence by an Intimate Partner, we have "Nearly 1 in 3 women (30.3%) in the United States has been slapped, pushed or shoved by an intimate partner at some point in her lifetime." This matches the 1/3 claim cited and was also done at around the same time as the Muslim American survey. On Page 45, the report states "Nearly half of all women in the United States (48.4% or approximately 57.6 million) have experienced at least one form of psychological aggression by an intimate partner during their lifetime." The numbers are already pretty close, and this CDC report only considered abuse by intimate partners. I don't think we can arrive at the conclusion stated above.
 * 3) Generalized statement about all Muslims such as "Muslims seem to have no problem with these verses" and some weird snarl.
 * 4) (This one is just personal opinion) The approach of citing some quotes from Qu'ran and arguing what Islam truly is just based on them. I think the criticism should focus more on what has been practiced instead. Unless we assume every Muslim is fundamentalist and adhere to every word of Qu'ran literately, we really aren't saying much (there is also the Qu'ran translation issue). We also don't do this kind of criticism for other religions; we criticize the Catholic Church for being homophobic because of their stance on the issue, but we don't criticize the Church for polygamy just because the Old Testament has polygamy in it. For example, the Islamic world used to be pretty tolerant of homosexuals (and this changed partly thanks to Western colonialism), despite what Qu'ran says about Lot. There are also lots of Muslims outside of MENA and Central Aisa, who have very different traditions.

Lastly, I also found the "which one is my wife" joke to be kinda misogynistic, and the usage of "religion of peace" in the other picture caption is, well, ironic considering how some bigots usually invoke this phrase. But, meh, that might just be me.

I'm clearly no expert on Islam and I did not go over every citation and source, nevertheless, I think the current criticism section reads a bit too like some YouTube New Atheist douchebag writing. A more level-headed style (maybe on par with the pages of other religions) and some fact-checking could really help the arguments go further. - 104.206.206.149 (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I went a bit over it via the ratwiki Discord and did small caption changes, but I'll like to go over it more thoroughly when I have the time. It'll be appreciated if anyone can pitch in too. 22:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I know this is old but I improved the criticism section. There are other sections to be improved in the criticism section, but I (or someone else) can go over those some other time. Vee (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * LeftyGreenMario, I bet you got a surprise by being pinged for something you wrote two and a half years ago. Spud (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for another constructive contribution Spud /s - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello two years ago. 06:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Addressing hypocrisy in the article
The article claims that it is presenting a rational, unbiased portrait of Islam, as is this wiki's mission. And to its credit, it does make a distinction between "criticism of Islam" and Islamophobia. But it feels to me like the article spends too much time criticizing Islam and not enough time describing its tenets as a religion in an objective manner. As it currently stands, the article had a very anti-Muslim air about it, in a way that none of the wiki's other articles on major religions do. This needs to be addressed.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 68.71.166.188 / talk
 * On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes ( ~ ) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.


 * The article does contain more criticism than articles on other religions, but we definitely have more criticism of Christianity than we do Islam overall, it’s just in different places. “Not enough time describing its tenets” is a fair point, “too much time criticizing” not so much. Christopher (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It’s also true that there is much more to criticize about modern Islam than other modern religions. 01:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Unlike Christians, Muslims are a targeted minority so there has to be more tact when criticizing this subject so we don't punch down. Doesn't mean they are immune to criticism but aim your missiles correctly. 02:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's going to depend on where in the world you live. They are hardly targeted minorities in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan for example.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Christians are targeted minorities in Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Eritrea, Nigeria and elsewhere. That point is dumb. Islam deserves to get it just as harshly as any other religion. 01:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The wiki's readership is largely American so I think usually the content is going to build on the situation where Muslims are targeted minorities. 04:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn’t even make sense. The article’s criticism focuses on regions where Muslims are in power. That’s true regardless of what happens in the west. 04:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, then. 04:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe the old "doctrine not the person" thing applies.-Flandres (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

"The article claims that it is presenting a rational, unbiased portrait of Islam, as is this wiki's mission." Actually, that's not the Wiki's mission. For that matter the article doesn't make that claim.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's true. But the fact remains that this article feels like an anti-Islam smear piece. Most of its length is spent talking about how terrible Islam is, and if a non-Muslim were to read it they would likely come away with the impression that Islam is some sort of inherently evil religion. Fully half of the article is taken up by the "criticism" section, and the heading statement at the very top of the article paints Islam in a very negative light. This article has an anti-Islam bias, plain and simple. This kind of prejudice cannot and should not be tolerated on the wiki. Our articles on the negative aspects of Christianity do not portray Christianity as a whole as evil, so why should Islam be any different?
 * What do you mean "Maybe that's true"? It's obviously true. You have misunderstood our mission from the outset and you are now trying to ignore that.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Methinks thou art being too sensitive to criticism. Again, there is much more to criticize from the Muslim world than other places. 01:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not being "too sensitive". This is a legitimate problem with the article. Well-supported criticism of any institution, whether secular or religious, is something I fully stand behind. Nothing should be above criticism, Islam included. But since Islam is religion that is already feared and hated irrationally by a large percentage of non-Muslims, spending most of your article on it covering its negative aspects comes across as looking dangerously close to outright Islamophobia. RationalWiki emphatically does not endorse Islamophobia, and our coverage of Islam should not imply otherwise.
 * You might want to compare it with out article on Church of Scientology for example. Islam gets a much easier ride.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest one of two solutions:
 * 1. Create a separate article for criticism of Islam, so that the main article is less negative-- and hence less implicitly anti-Islam-- in tone.
 * 2. Add more material to the main article on aspects of Islam that have not yet been covered-- i.e. its pre-modern history, notable individuals, and its "golden age" between the 8th and 14th centuries.
 * That's stupid. 04:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is it stupid? The article as it currently exists is borderline Islamophobic. There's no two ways about it.
 * I'm not getting into a long discussion here since it's late where I am. However, I took a look through the article to check your claims, and honestly, you're exaggerating quite a bit. As for whether the article should be harsh on Islam or not, the answer is yes it should. All articles on religion should be extremely critical of the subjects. Also, sign your damn posts, it's not hard, and the notice at the top of the page when you open the editer makes it fucking easy. 04:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding more history would be a good idea, but changing the criticism, especially by hiding it all in a separate article is a very dumb and whitewashy idea. 04:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Our unsigning editor needs to read: RationalWiki:Mission- Pretty much everything we write within that mission is going to be critical.  I think the article already goes way beyond that into WP territory.   It's not our job to give a full and complete history of Islam.  It is our job to talk about extremism and fundamentalism in all religions.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Every religion is criticised. And yes, Islam is the only religion which hasn‘t progressed like other religions(Ofc there are countries like 🇦🇿, 🇹🇷 or 🇹🇳) Kevs  Ping!  13:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)