Talk:Islam/Archive1

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)

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. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 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. 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? >_> -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 17:50, 29 December 2007 (EST)

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?  ħ uman  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?  ħ uman  23:12, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

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. &mdash; 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).   08:57, 15 February 2009 (EST)

i added a new section
it's crap, but it's better than deleting the entire thing.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 173.48.208.204 / talk 13:39, 15 February 2009‎ (UTC)

Taking out taqqiya
...sorry, my bad. TheoryOfPractice 09:03, 15 February 2009 (EST)
 * It's OK. I put it back.   09:12, 15 February 2009 (EST)

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.  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... 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. 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. 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 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)

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. 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. 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)
 * http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/bbc-fights-to-suppress-internal-report-into-allegations-of-bias-against-israel-442150.html
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Balen_Report
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6599927.stm

(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. 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)

ALLAH ACKBAR


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)

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.   21:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Conversion rates, I assume. If that can be found anywhere it'll probably be adherents.com. 21:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And the say it's impossible to say. 21:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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. 13:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 (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.--[[Image:sun mowse.png|25px]]En attendant Godot  14:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

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. 11:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

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.


 * You shouldn't support immigration. Immigration is what might cause the fall of western civilization. 04:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

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. 04:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

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.


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

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. --[[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] 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. 04:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

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. Godot   oi, putain, genial, merci 01:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

apparently Islam is a "rational" religion
It didn't quite defy my expectations to see not only the article itself free from critisism of Islam, but a goon squad of editors enforcing reverence for Islam on the talk page as well.

I'm afraid to look at the Wicka page. LOL! &mdash; Unsigned, by: 24.1.56.87 / talk / contribs
 * Ironically, if you had added any reasonably well-written critique of Islam (or its sects, or its fundamentalists), modern or historical, here or in the article, it would probably have survived. But all you did was make a mess. human  19:49, 23 February 2008 (EST)


 * Er, right. Like that snark-free article on christianity you've got up there. I think I'd rather work on the mote in your eye.20:00, 23 February 2008 (EST)
 * Actually, reading it (which I just did, thanks for asking, motivated by your very complaints), it seems to me that it's remarkably unsnarky. Pretty inaccurate in places, but that's mostly down to common misconceptions. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
 * I'll go add some snark, stat. PFoster 20:04, 23 February 2008 (EST)
 * Go forth with my approval, my dense friend. My point is that you're a hypocrite. 20:08, 23 February 2008 (EST)
 * Thanks for the approval and go ahead, bunchanumbers. We were vervous about snarking teh Islam until you clued us in.  Ever think that, for better or for worse, most of us are way more familiar with Christianity than with Islam? human 
 * I'm starting to wonder if this isn't Dr. Dolittle back again: similar pattern - axe to grind, pseudo-knowledge about Islam, atrocious grammar and spelling...PFoster 19:56, 23 February 2008 (EST)
 * Isn't this website an axe-grinding effort? I mean, you're just a troll from the other site. Are you going to be all huffy and officious now with a brother troll?20:04, 23 February 2008 (EST)
 * Constructive comments like that are what make our talk pages the awesomeness of teh innertubes!! human  22:17, 23 February 2008 (EST)

As a new editor here, perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but why is the Islam page so polite? Is Islam, founded by an illiterate dude who met God in a cave, that much more rational and worthy of our respect than Christ killing demons using pigs, or a Mormon's magic underwear? Or is it part of an anti-Western culture kind of thing?Morgan 18:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)
 * No, we just aren't as familiar with Islam as we are with Christianity. It's hard to make fun of the unknown.  But, this is a wiki, so if you feel the article avoids taking a critical tone, then change it.   03:11, 31 January 2009 (EST)
 * Not to be biased about anything, but a guy meeting his god in a cave while meditating and researching truth sounds better to me than someone who wacthes a burning bush talk to him.MCAsomm (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC) 08:34, 8 January 2015 (EST)
 * Slightly. 13:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

No such thing as 'extremist' Islam
Islam is extreme, it's unforgiving, you are either a full muslim or you aren't
 * Your claim contradicts observed reality.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As said, you are either a muslim or you aren't. The quran is very clear on the issue and says that anyone who leaves the religion should be murdered:http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm

Islam is extreme. In the West they dare not behave like they do in their own countries for fear of reprisals. Here is proof that islam is evil:http://www.thereligionofpeace.com(Kaneda (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC))


 * Interestingly there are fatwas ordering Muslims to talk about peace and tolerance as long as they are minorities but once demographics kick in sharia law is to be implemented. Several countries in Europe will have Muslim majorities within 20 or 30 years so a lot of us will see how this will turn out. Theocracy, here we go! 04:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Look, I'm an ex-muslim, and I can confirm it. Islam is the most extreme and barbaric religion on Earth. Muslim Theocracies are the living proof of it. And may I ask that you add a section called "Criticism of Muhammad"? Randomguy23

That is only because, they weren't around long enough to be a part of the Age of Enlightenment. Christianity was founded on bloodshed like Islam and has been around for 2000 years where Islam has existed for less then 1500. Its only been in the last several decades that the religion has left the Arab world.--167.30.56.14 (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Its only been in the last several decades that the religion has left the Arab world." Wow, you're an idiot. Tell that to the Bosnians, Indians, Pakistanis, Afghans, Persians, Chechens, Kurds, Uighurs, Nigerians, Malians, Malaysians, and Zanzibar. Not to mention enslaved Muslim Africans who crossed the Atlantic, the Muslims who were in Spain until the 15th century, and the ones who lost at the Battle of Tours. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I was just writing a few paragraphs elsewhere about how Islam arrived in Java in the 13th century and by the 16th had pushed out the previously hugely dominant Hindu and Buddhist kingdoms. Of course, Indonesia now has the largest muslim population on earth and that has nothing to do with anything that has happened in the past few decades! :)--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Since Rational Wiki is a feminist driven site, RationalWiki's justification of Islamophobia represents their hypocrisy.--106.69.219.127 (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Shut up BoN. The OP here is an asshole. Kaneda is an asshole and only has 2 edits on the site. Randomguy23 is an asshole and only has 9 edits across the site. The actual regular members of this website have shut down their idiotic claims just like I have been doing for months now on the other page you decided to grace your shitty presence on. RationalWiki does not condone Islamophobia in any way which is why the actual article on here does not address any of the claims made by the idiots who are Islamophobic.—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 21:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Confusion in regards to the split between Sunni and Shi'a
The section explaining the difference between Sunni and Shi'a skims over a few details. Most importantly, it says Ali was expected to become the first Caliph but was then assassinated, implying he never became Caliph, when in fact he was fourth and it is disagreement over whether this line of succession (the vailidity of the first four Caliphs) was right that predominately caused the split. I would edit this myself, but my phone's a bit tempermental right now and there's also the chance I'm completely wrong so I'm posting here just in case 49.176.36.36 (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"extremism"
Here's a good one that needs to be fit in somewhere: the word "extremism" is of Greek origin, hence an ungodly innovation imported from non-Islamic culture. Muslim scholars label an "extremist" one who prays 6 times a day, rather than the proscribed five. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 20:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim: Rob needs to learn the meaning of "proscribed" and hire a better proofreader. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * mmm maybe yes maybe no. The text I'm working from reads, " Muslims who pray more than the explicitly proscribed five times a day are likely motivated by love for God. They are, however, still engaged in innovation because they are inventing new practices to fulfill a human desire." Fulfilling human desires and innovations violate the text of the Qur'an. pg. 210.  nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 06:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So the source says it is explicitly forbidden to pray five times a day? So much for that source. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not the source, the Salafist view of a doctrine of enumerated powers. Anything that is not explicitly prescribed or proscribed in the Qu'ran is an innovation or human interpretation, and the Qu'ran is not subject to human interpretation. There is only one truth as spelled out in the Qu'ran. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 15:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Then in that case, is Islamophobia justified?--167.30.56.14 (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Regressive left SJWs
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/40phe5/rational_wiki_on_islam/ 12:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Islam is a political system
Islam is a political system as much as democracy or communism is. It is not just a religion. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the opening sentence or intro as well? nobsDump Trump 21:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing and details
It seems that there should be better sourcing in the article and for more in-depth details. You have things such as, "Islam is decidedly antifeminist, against all attempts to argue that it "supports" women.[14]Perhaps the most obvious point here is the forced wearing of the burqa and sister garments, which portray women as mere objects of male desire, who should change their behavior in order to fit what men want," with the only source being a stitched video. There are certainly horrifying things in the Quran and Hadith about women, so there should be specific references to that. In addition, there's always debate about differing interpretations of Quranic verses or Hadiths, as well as the varied attributions (some Hadiths are considered solid while others are weak), and so I don't know if the Hadith that the cleric in the video states is valid or brittle. Anyroad, insert some better sources. Also, there's a huge debate about face and head-coverings, and there's no reference or a mandate for women to wear burqas or to hide their faces, and some parts of some countries enforce that culturally or by de facto law. Meanwhile, coverings aren't universally perceived as turning women into "mere objects of male desire" and the whole paragraph just screams of hyperbole.--Nay1989 (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Some content from EvoWiki
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Islam 18:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, this article takes the Post Modernist "Liberal" approach of Muslims as the "De Facto" Rational one.
The article has a tone that Islam is "whatever" Muslims want it to be. This is somewhat true, but somewhat not. The flexibility in it's interpretation, when it necessarily contradictions what the text states, can not be held as "Legitimate", and therefore one must scrutinize and question the claims of Muslim apologists [like Manji] themselves who say "Islam is compatible with evolution and homosexuality", instead of simply letting the readers to believe that "it is". Also, I found that a lack of citation to Islamic sources is made when one view is forwarded. I am critical of Islam, and see no merit in "merely informing" people about "what it means" [That Wikiperdia can do], unless it critically examines the "Truth, Morality, and Practical Implications" of what it teaches. Others who see some additions I made to the article as "too critical" should contradict it within the article itself, citing Islamic sources where contradictory positions are legitimized, instead of simply arguing that some "Liberal Muslims" [Who basically claim words have no meaning, and it is all what you think it is] said so, hence it must be true. I believe this is the problem with regressive Left.
 * A framing question: do you think liberal Christians are also postmodernist? 12:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes.. reason being, I "do" think words have meaning. [Otherwise this conversation would be impossible]
 * First, sign your comments.
 * Second, "truth, morality, and practical implications" of any religion depend entirely on interpretation of the religion, whether one is literal or allegorical in that interpretation, the particular tradition of the denomination of the religion, and whether that tradition of the denomination has a mystical or doctrinal bent to it. Islam is actually no more different than my native Catholicism in the amount of interpretation, orthodoxy, heterodoxy, apostasy, heresy, and mysticism that has developed from it.
 * As for these conditions being postmodernist, that's absurd. It's like saying that the Catholic Church has been postmodernist for two thousand years and shows a complete misunderstanding of what postmodernism is, as well as confusing it with advanced theological thinking. Postmodernism has, and I quote, "a general distrust of grand theories and ideologies as well as a problematical relationship with any notion of “art.”" That has nothing to do with theological interpretations on what is and is not literal or allegorical, orthodox and heterodox, and so on.
 * And frankly, this applies to any religion. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * With Post Modernism, I am sure you "understood" what I meant [Since I stated exactly in what reference I said it - "Anything can mean anything"]. Thanks for the lesson anyways.
 * "religion depend entirely on interpretation of the religion, "whether one is literal or allegorical in that interpretation", "
 * This is exactly my point.
 * You are basically saying "It is all up to the interpret - er". Text has "no role" in the whole process, as text in itself is meaningless. And there is no "right or wrong" interpretation - all interpretations are equally right or wrong. If religion is "entirely based on interpretation", you can shuffle any religious book with each other, and it should not be a problem. Also, again, what does this argument exactly mean? Everything is based "entirely" on interpretation. How does that help "anyone" to separate right interpretation from wrong? - HoboSapien
 * "While encompassing a broad range of ideas and projects, postmodernism is typically defined by an attitude of skepticism or distrust toward grand narratives, ideologies, and various tenets of Enlightenment rationality, including the existence of objective reality and absolute truth, as well as notions of rationality, human nature, and progress" - Wiki. So yes, it is Post Modernist revisionism to claim there is no one objective meaning to text. It is mere revisionism. Also, Sunnis and Shia are about 97% Muslims. All of them "agree" in literal interpretation of Islam. If not complete post modernism, we can easily say that mainstream Muslims are inconsistent and simply cherry pick to revise religion to suit modern morality. Again, this is no reason to take the post modernist "belief" [text means whatever you want] as de - facto truth. Heck, even Wikipedia is more critical of Islam than "RationalWiki". - HoboSapien
 * Re: WP: They barely touch it in the main article -- and the Criticism of Islam and of Christianity articles are similarly long.
 * Re: "Literal is correct": This is difficult. Does one define religion as "followers of some sacred traditions or texts", and judge how religious they are on how well they follow said tradition/texts, or define religion as "what nominal followers of some sacred traditions or texts currently do", and judge how religious they are on how well they follow current traditions? The former doesn't interact well with reality -- since 99.9% of almost any religion's followers won't follow its every tenet, and maybe 50% won't even follow most of its tenets. And while the former makes it easier to gauge how "religious" someone is, that measurement is not nearly so useful as the latter -- because what people do surely outweighs what they say? 16:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the text is not meaningless and I did not say that. It's clear that you don't understand what "allegory", "parable", "symbolism", and "metaphor" are in literature. Yes, religious texts are a type of literature. Yes, these things did exist prior to the advent of post-modernism in the late 20th century.
 * Considering that there is no absolute right and wrong and that right/wrong are a function of subjective personal perception, that's a fair statement. It's why a Southern Baptist will say that dancing is wrong in accordance to the Bible and a Catholic will say that dancing is right in accordanc to the Bible.
 * Some people have done it. It's usually how new religions and denominations get created.
 * You're making a false assumption that there is One True Way to interpret things. That's the creation of a false dilemma.
 * No, it's no different from the way biblical literalism is treated. Christianity has never been able to determine the One True Objective Meaning of the Bible either; the Koran and its adjuncts are no different in this respect.
 * ...Sunnis and Shiites are 100% Muslim. Those are two Muslim denominations, the equivalent of Roman Catholics and Orthodox Catholics.
 * No, that's not true at all. In fact, that's really friggin' false. There are numerous verses in the Koran which show that strict literalism is contrary to Islamic understanding and scholarship. That caused the theology and law to be developed in the Hadith, and there are just about as many different denominations and schools of thought in Islam as there are in Christianity from that derivation.
 * Do you apply the same arguments that you're using with Islam to Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism, all of which have the exact same issue in regards to interpretation? And if you do, I'm curious about which Christian denomination/sect you believe to be the One True Interpetation. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's no different from the way biblical literalism is treated. Christianity has never been able to determine the One True Objective Meaning of the Bible either; the Koran and its adjuncts are no different in this respect.
 * ...Sunnis and Shiites are 100% Muslim. Those are two Muslim denominations, the equivalent of Roman Catholics and Orthodox Catholics.
 * No, that's not true at all. In fact, that's really friggin' false. There are numerous verses in the Koran which show that strict literalism is contrary to Islamic understanding and scholarship. That caused the theology and law to be developed in the Hadith, and there are just about as many different denominations and schools of thought in Islam as there are in Christianity from that derivation.
 * Do you apply the same arguments that you're using with Islam to Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism, all of which have the exact same issue in regards to interpretation? And if you do, I'm curious about which Christian denomination/sect you believe to be the One True Interpetation. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that's not true at all. In fact, that's really friggin' false. There are numerous verses in the Koran which show that strict literalism is contrary to Islamic understanding and scholarship. That caused the theology and law to be developed in the Hadith, and there are just about as many different denominations and schools of thought in Islam as there are in Christianity from that derivation.
 * Do you apply the same arguments that you're using with Islam to Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism, all of which have the exact same issue in regards to interpretation? And if you do, I'm curious about which Christian denomination/sect you believe to be the One True Interpetation. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you apply the same arguments that you're using with Islam to Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism, all of which have the exact same issue in regards to interpretation? And if you do, I'm curious about which Christian denomination/sect you believe to be the One True Interpetation. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "No, the text is not meaningless and I did not say that" - Then it is not "only up to the interpreter" to decide what it means. Some credit goes to the text as well.
 * "It's clear that you don't understand what "allegory", "parable", "symbolism", and "metaphor" are in literature.". Yeah, right. These books make simultaneous claims on absolute truth, absolute morality, absolute ordination. For instance, it is not a matter of "speculation" in any of these books if "God exists and created the universe". It is "Absolutely true" claim. That is not possible if "they can mean whatever". There can be parts which are "open to interpretations" or "poetic", and parts which are not. Koran 3:7 points it out "clearly" - “It is He Who has sent down to you (Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) the Book (this Qur’aan). In it are Verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the Book [and those are the Verses of Al-Ahkaam (commandments), Al-Faraa’id (obligatory duties) and Al-Hudood (laws for the punishment of thieves, adulterers)]; and others not entirely clear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the truth) they follow that which is not entirely clear thereof, seeking Al-Fitnah (polytheism and trials), and seeking for its hidden meanings, but none knows its hidden meanings save Allaah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: “We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord.” And none receive admonition except men of understanding” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:7]
 * "You're making a false assumption that there is One True Way to interpret things." - Urgh. No, there can be many ways. But not "all" interpretations can be "right", when the "thing" in question makes objective claims. Koran says it is the final book on absolute truth, and CLEARLY dictates that sects are illegitimate. Hadith CLEARLY says only 1 sect will go to heaven and all others to hell. It is not a pluralistic text. Pluralism among Muslims is a theological error, and not a feature.
 * "Some people have done it." Some people shuffled Bible and Koran with Harry Potter? Do that in "reality", then I would believe you.
 * "Sunnis and Shiites are 100% Muslim" - Urgh, no. Quranist are neither Sunnis or Shia. In any case, Sunnis and Shia, none of them "believe" that Koran can "mean anything". They are literalists - and hence have Hadiths and Tafsirs and Sirah to decide what a verse "actually means" when there is confusion.
 * "There are numerous verses in the Koran which show that strict literalism is contrary to Islamic understanding and scholarship." And there is 3:7 which :::::clear states that verses which are "clear" are not, say, unclear. All the "unclear verses" are not a reason to claim that verses that are clear are also unclear, or poetic, or non literal.
 * "Do you apply the same arguments that you're using with Islam to Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism, all of which have the exact same issue in regards to interpretation? And if you do, I'm curious about which Christian denomination/sect you believe to be the One True Interpetation. " Of course I do. I am not a christian. I am an atheist. Have read Koran, Hadiths, Sirah and Tafseers. Have argued with popular obfuscators like Kafhif Chaudry and his ilk on public internet forums and showed them that they are distorting. I am very well aware of how distortion is done by apologists. Heck, even Wikipedia is more critical of Koran than this raitonalwiki article. I think you take me for some right wing religious nut who holds double standards on Islam, while defending his own religion with "open to interpretation" postmodernism - HoboSapien


 * Let's not drag it. You are claiming it is a priori that religious books have no objective meaning. I say otherwise, as it is only a post modernist revisionism which is used to claim so. Historically, in Islam, Shia - Sunni rift was not because "What does it mean?" [They both have Hadiths to determine it], but simply because Koran and Muhammad, neither, have / gave instructions on how the Caliph would be appointed. This is not the same as "Well, no one could tell what Koran really means. In any case, 97% of Muslims who identify themselves as Shia and Sunni clearly have determined structure of interpretation - their Hadiths and Tafsirs. So neither any of the Shias or Sunnis claim that "all" Koran is "whatever you want it to mean". So for "practical purposes", one can claim that <90% of Muslims claim to be Shia - Sunni, but simply "leave out" the methodology of Shia - Sunni hermeneutics for modern moral convenience. Quran without Hadiths has no chronology and context, does not have instructions on how to pray, and does not even have the "five pillars" included. Without hadith support and constraint, Islam would be impossible to recognize. So what I am saying is this - as long as Muslims are "conveniently" applying inconsistent methodology, this can not be attributed to "allegory", "parable", "symbolism", and "metaphor".


 * Show me why this accusation of inconsistent methodology as per convenience is wrong. - HoboSapien


 * Although I admire your efforts, the article is already consumed by the alt-left, saying that only Islamic scholars can interpret Islam, and having a reverential treatment of Islam that is not found in any articles about any other religion. Its clear that those with knowledge and rationality are tip toeing on egg shells.

Article needs help
The article needs to rewritten by someone knowledgeable in Islam, especially how with regards to how issues of interpretation are settled. The reliance on ahadith, the Sunnah of the the prophet Muhammad, and scholarly consensus and tafsir is somewhat alien to Christianity and has no equivalents, especially in Protestant denominations. Islam is very academic; there are legitimate differences in opinion but the overall supported interpretations of Islam lean strongly in certain directions. With this and its implications being clarified, the article could also do with a more academic discussion of the history of Islam, especially regarding the evolution of theology and why Salafism gains traction (due to textual support). The current page was clearly written from a Western perspective. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not true at all, especially in Judaism and Catholic Christianity. But it's not even true in Protestant Christianity.
 * And that ignores the very large mystical part of Islam, just as most people ignore mystical Christianity.
 * Further, when you talk of interpretations leaning strongly in certain directions, are you referring to
 * a) the split between Sunni, Shiite, and Kharijites (not including the Sufi orders)?
 * b) the three different schools of jurisprudence?
 * c) the eight schools of theology?
 * d) the thirteen later branch-offs?
 * Which branch of Salafism? There are four. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I was not aware that the extra-Biblical life of Jesus was even recognized by Christians, much less relied upon to make theological decisions. Nor was I aware that the lives and actions of the Apostles were regarded as nearly infallible. This is the equivalent of the Sunnah and the hadith focus on the Sahaba. Second of all, the Sufis are considered kuffar by most Muslims, so yes I am "ignoring" that aspect of Islam, just as I am "ignoring" the Ahamdis because they are a minority and looked down upon by the vast majority.
 * Which branch of Salafism? There are four. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I was not aware that the extra-Biblical life of Jesus was even recognized by Christians, much less relied upon to make theological decisions. Nor was I aware that the lives and actions of the Apostles were regarded as nearly infallible. This is the equivalent of the Sunnah and the hadith focus on the Sahaba. Second of all, the Sufis are considered kuffar by most Muslims, so yes I am "ignoring" that aspect of Islam, just as I am "ignoring" the Ahamdis because they are a minority and looked down upon by the vast majority.
 * I was not aware that the extra-Biblical life of Jesus was even recognized by Christians, much less relied upon to make theological decisions. Nor was I aware that the lives and actions of the Apostles were regarded as nearly infallible. This is the equivalent of the Sunnah and the hadith focus on the Sahaba. Second of all, the Sufis are considered kuffar by most Muslims, so yes I am "ignoring" that aspect of Islam, just as I am "ignoring" the Ahamdis because they are a minority and looked down upon by the vast majority.


 * Next, I don't even know where to began here...it seems you don't know what you're talking about. First of all, which "Kharijites" do you refer to? The historical ones? The usage of the term to describe groups like ISIS?


 * Now, within the two major groups - Sunni and Shia - each have their own aspects.


 * There are not "three schools of jurisprudence;" there are four extant Madhhabs of fiqh within Sunni Islam and two within Shia Islam.


 * There are not "eight schools of theolgy;" there are three extant schools in Sunni Islam, Athari, Ashari, and Maturidi; and each division of Shia (Twelver, etc) has its own. What "thirteen later branch offs" do you refer to?


 * Four "branches" of Salafism??? Do you know what Salafism is? The concept of Salafism is simply following the way of the Salaf; the first three generations of Muslims. It's ultraconservative and so Salafis are usually Atharis and Hanbalis, but not always; it is not a school or denomination of Islam. What I meant earlier was that Salafism does have the most textual support. If Islam is the final revelation, shouldn't a Muslim want to be as close to it as possible? Surely the Sahaba of the Prophet and the Salaf were the most enlightened; as they had just received the revelation and learned directly from the Messenger of Allah. This is the reasoning which is behind the ulama's rejection of bid'ah from the time of revelation, and even the hostility to kalaam. It is the general opinion of Islamic scholarship even before it was named as such. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Aeonian, surely you'd be a prime candidate? 23:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. If Aeonian is knowledegable, go forth and edit! I will not be editing this article; my confidence in what I know is nowhere near as great and Aeonian may have a more "mainstream" view. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Catholic doctrine and theology. It's a mess.
 * I consider that rather like saying that Mormons should be ignored because most Christian denominations don't consider them to be Christian and that the snake-handlers should be ignored because they're a minority and looked down upon by the rest. Or in short, I disagree.
 * Their descendents, the Ibadi. No, not the reference granted to ISIS and others.
 * All of the fiqh can be grouped into three main sections - Sunni, Shiite, and Ibadi. There are six sub-schools in the Sunni and two in Shiite. But those differences in the sub-schools are nothing different from orthodox and allowed heterodox views in the Catholic Church. There are no sub-schools in the Ibadi.
 * When I am saying schools of theology, I am referring to Ash'ari, Athari, Kalām, Bāṭeniyyah, Jahmiyyah, Maturidi, Murji'ah, Mu'tazili, and Qadariyyah. Yes, some of those are ancient and not in current vogue, but the Catharist and Bogomil schools of thought are still relevant in Christianity today.
 * Fellows like Tolu-e-Islam, Zikri Mahdavis, and Moorish Science?
 * I would disagree. I would say there are four types of Salafists - generic Salafi, Ahl al-Hadith, Wahhabists, and modernist Salafists.
 * I would imagine so - just as a Christian would want to be close to whichever particular interpretation he holds dear.
 * That's what we Roman Catholics say about Jesus and the Church. Strangely, all sorts of other denominations disagree with us.
 * You get my meaning? --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, thank you for clarifying; it seems most of the disagreements were semantic. Regarding Mormons and such; I was referring specifically to the "mainstream" views of Islam. I'm fine with Sufis, Quranists, Ahmadis, etc being mentioned, but we must be aware of the balance fallacy here; I have seen regressive type Westerners appeal to this groups as evidence of progressive Islam without informing their audience that those groups are heavily marginalized. As for Salafis, the problems with making these distinctions is that they are arbitrarily and not really rooted in Islam; i.e. the groups themselves do not identify as such. Rather than characterizing groups per se, I would categorize ideologies, for instance, "Wahhabism is a Salafi revival movement popularized by Ibn Wahhab" rather than "Wahhabis are a branch of Salafis." The latter statement seems to imply there are defined branches and whatnot, when in reality anyone who tries to follow the way of the Sahaba and reject religious reformation could rightly be called a Salafi. There are Shia Salafis, even Sufi Salafis who hold a metaphysical view of Islam but still think everyone should behave as Muhammad & friends did. It's somewhat misleading to try to define Salafism as something specific. As with your example with the Church, that is the reasoning used used by the ulama throughout the centuries and is only now being called "Salafism." It's self-intuitive honestly; the fact of the matter is groups like ISIS (while still cherry picking) are following a more "correct" form of Islam than the a LGBT friendly pro-secularism Muslim. But I digress.
 * To answer you FCP, I can't because I'm lazy and busy. I still have to write the page dealing with the Qur'an's linguistic miracle... Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would disagree. I would say there are four types of Salafists - generic Salafi, Ahl al-Hadith, Wahhabists, and modernist Salafists.
 * I would imagine so - just as a Christian would want to be close to whichever particular interpretation he holds dear.
 * That's what we Roman Catholics say about Jesus and the Church. Strangely, all sorts of other denominations disagree with us.
 * You get my meaning? --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, thank you for clarifying; it seems most of the disagreements were semantic. Regarding Mormons and such; I was referring specifically to the "mainstream" views of Islam. I'm fine with Sufis, Quranists, Ahmadis, etc being mentioned, but we must be aware of the balance fallacy here; I have seen regressive type Westerners appeal to this groups as evidence of progressive Islam without informing their audience that those groups are heavily marginalized. As for Salafis, the problems with making these distinctions is that they are arbitrarily and not really rooted in Islam; i.e. the groups themselves do not identify as such. Rather than characterizing groups per se, I would categorize ideologies, for instance, "Wahhabism is a Salafi revival movement popularized by Ibn Wahhab" rather than "Wahhabis are a branch of Salafis." The latter statement seems to imply there are defined branches and whatnot, when in reality anyone who tries to follow the way of the Sahaba and reject religious reformation could rightly be called a Salafi. There are Shia Salafis, even Sufi Salafis who hold a metaphysical view of Islam but still think everyone should behave as Muhammad & friends did. It's somewhat misleading to try to define Salafism as something specific. As with your example with the Church, that is the reasoning used used by the ulama throughout the centuries and is only now being called "Salafism." It's self-intuitive honestly; the fact of the matter is groups like ISIS (while still cherry picking) are following a more "correct" form of Islam than the a LGBT friendly pro-secularism Muslim. But I digress.
 * To answer you FCP, I can't because I'm lazy and busy. I still have to write the page dealing with the Qur'an's linguistic miracle... Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You get my meaning? --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, thank you for clarifying; it seems most of the disagreements were semantic. Regarding Mormons and such; I was referring specifically to the "mainstream" views of Islam. I'm fine with Sufis, Quranists, Ahmadis, etc being mentioned, but we must be aware of the balance fallacy here; I have seen regressive type Westerners appeal to this groups as evidence of progressive Islam without informing their audience that those groups are heavily marginalized. As for Salafis, the problems with making these distinctions is that they are arbitrarily and not really rooted in Islam; i.e. the groups themselves do not identify as such. Rather than characterizing groups per se, I would categorize ideologies, for instance, "Wahhabism is a Salafi revival movement popularized by Ibn Wahhab" rather than "Wahhabis are a branch of Salafis." The latter statement seems to imply there are defined branches and whatnot, when in reality anyone who tries to follow the way of the Sahaba and reject religious reformation could rightly be called a Salafi. There are Shia Salafis, even Sufi Salafis who hold a metaphysical view of Islam but still think everyone should behave as Muhammad & friends did. It's somewhat misleading to try to define Salafism as something specific. As with your example with the Church, that is the reasoning used used by the ulama throughout the centuries and is only now being called "Salafism." It's self-intuitive honestly; the fact of the matter is groups like ISIS (while still cherry picking) are following a more "correct" form of Islam than the a LGBT friendly pro-secularism Muslim. But I digress.
 * To answer you FCP, I can't because I'm lazy and busy. I still have to write the page dealing with the Qur'an's linguistic miracle... Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It should not be forgotten that existence of mystical parts in Islam does not mean all Islam is mystical, or mean that personal mysticism is incompatible with political literalism. It is a false dichotomy propagated by regressives and Taqqya experts. Moreover, Sufism is not incompatible with Islamism. Islamic mysticism was followed even by the first Caliph - Abu Bakr. Al Gazhali, the most influential Muslim after Muhammad, "proved" that Sufism and Shariaism are compatible. Hassan Al Bana, the founder of Muslims brotherhood, was a Sufi.


 * Koran itself has a verse on those who use it's mystical verses to claim that "all" of it is mystical. “It is He Who has sent down to you (Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) the Book (this Qur’aan). In it are Verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the Book [and those are the Verses of Al-Ahkaam (commandments), Al-Faraa’id (obligatory duties) and Al-Hudood (laws for the punishment of thieves, adulterers)]; and others not entirely clear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the truth) they follow that which is not entirely clear thereof, seeking Al-Fitnah (polytheism and trials), and seeking for its hidden meanings, but none knows its hidden meanings save Allaah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: “We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord.” And none receive admonition except men of understanding” - [Aal ‘Imraan 3:7] - (HoboSapien)

I'd like to add changes to the article..
Peace, I think I've left enough critisism in my edits.

Surely a rational wiki should include them.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 81.105.193.224 / talk / contribs 01:12, 19 September 2015
 * I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki! Drink! -- Goatspeed. 23:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Has somebody been dicking around with this article?
Seriously, I think someone has been seriously dicking around with this article. It's nowhere near as good as it was when I was last active, all the snark is gone, it has numerous grammatical errors... like wtf? Formerly cohesive and salient paragraphs have been replaced with broken-up stand-alone sentences, most having little to nothing to do with the others. Seriously, guys, quit dicking around with the article. QuantumDudeI am beyond your understanding 10:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * User HoboSapien has added a lot of good stuff in a very poor way. Someone, perhaps me, needs to do a pass at the article and RWfy it once again, keeping the new content. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to at least edit through the doctrinal parts of this article as well as add to them. I can't talk much about the politics, but the doctrine I know quite a bit on. For instance, I can add parts about Tawhid and Shirk (and how if you affirm Tawhid you commit Shirk) and about the early history of Islam (as well as the historicity of Muhammad), but I can't talk as much about the current state of politics because I don't know much about it. Anim (Carfa) 13:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't shirk your duty, buddy. Jump in. nobs 01:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Responses to criticisms
I noticed that the article sends a rather negative view of Islam. I would like to send common retorts and see how you respond:

On antifeminism: Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand. (4:34)

This verse is probably one of the most misunderstood and misquoted verses of the Holy Quran. The Quran uses the Arabic word qawwamuna in the beginning of this verse, so it reads "Men are the qawwamuna of women." The word qawwamuna means to continuously stand over something (e.g. a guard or a caretaker) or to maintain something. The closest single word in English to qawwam is probably guardian. The grammatical form of qawwam combines the concepts of physical maintenance and protection as well as responsibility. The word denotes no superiority but responsibility. A correct translation of "qawwamuna a'ala aln-nisa" therefore would be "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women". To use "in charge" is quite a loose translation. This is a better translation:

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other..."

So a husband must be a protector and maintainer of his wife. It is important to note that the expression "men are qawwamuna over women" only describes the relationship between husband and wife within the family. The expression does not refer to the relationship between men and women in general. Now we can continue to look at the next part of the verse.

Why does God assign men the role to be the maintainer or guardian of the family? Men are financially responsible for the family because men and women both have different roles. It would be very difficult for a women to go through pregnancy and raise children at the same time as providing for the family. So men are to provide for the family. This does not mean that women cannot work, but due to the nature of women sometimes it can be difficult at times, so men are the maintainers, and are held financially responsible for the family.

Then the Quran says, "So the righteous are devoutly obedient, guarding in (the husbands) absence what Allah would have them guard." It seems as if the Quran is referring to those women who are obedient to their husbands, but the term is being used for those women who are devoutly obedient to GOD. When the husband is absent, a women is expected to guard her chastity. As for those women who cheat on their husbands and commit major sins, the Quran says how to deal with them. When a husband dislikes their wives, they are instructed: "Consort with them in a good manner for if you dislike them it be that you dislike something in which god places much goodness." (4:19)

In the verse 4:34 the Quran suggests three ways to stop family crisis. One, to remind them of God and his teachings, and to talk with them. The Quran uses the phrase izuhannawhich means to remind them of God's teachings. If that works then the matter is settled. If not, then the second step is to avoid sharing beds with such wives. The Quran says in Arabic "Wahjuruhunna fi'il madaiji" which means to leave them alone in bed or to not share their bed. Note, it is the man who is required to leave and not the women. The last option mentioned in the Quran in Arabic is wadribuhunna. The word Idrib is usually translated as "strike" or "hit". However, this does not mean physical abuse, in fact Islam condemns physical abuse against wife.

As one can see from the Prophet's statements: "It is strictly forbidden for a Muslim man to beat his wife violently, nor is he allowed to physically abuse her or strike her on the face for any reason. " Wadribuhunna is a way of stopping ones wife from doing evil, it is not to cause pain (this is why hitting on the face or any sensitive area is never allowed), it must not leave a bruise or a mark on the skin and it should not cause emotional problems. The Arabic phrase does not resembles violence or abuse.

If someone were to hit another person with a piece of string, it would still be called 'striking' but that does not mean it is physical abuse. In the same way when the Quran uses the word strike it does not mean physical abuse, as this is condemned by the prophet and the teachings of Islam. It is more of a gesture. You could also say that if someone physically stopped another person from doing something bad (within limits), is it considered abuse and violent? The Quran also tells us to imitate the prophet Muhammad (pbuh), and it is recorded in the hadiths that he never beat his wives. Anyone who uses this verse as an excuse for domestic violence is not following Islamic teaching. No Muslim wife-beater can possibly claim to imitate the Prophet.

The last part of this verse says:

"But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand."

The verse ends by saying, "If they obey you, seek no means against them" - obey at any stage - and "obey", coming in its place here, means "refrain" from the act which caused this problem. Thus "obedience" here does not mean being submissive to the husband, but refraining from a serious offence. To refrain in this way is an obligation on every person.

Abu Hurayra narrated that the Prophet said: "The most perfect of the believers in their belief are those with the best manners, and the best of you are those who are best with their wives." (Sahih Bukhari)

On Aisha: The Hadiths are the recollections of Muhammad’s Companions. Some are strong and well documented and supported.

Others are weak because they are not supported, not witnessed by others, and contradict others that are supported. The Hadiths that talk about Aisha being a child when married, all fall in this later category. These weak Hadiths all were eventually traced to one old senile man from Iraq, and even he contradicts himself. He mistakes when Aisha went away to school and when she went away to the Prophet's house. Yet he also says Aisha fought battles and when

Here’s how we know Aisha was much older when married:

Aisha was always referred to as bikr, which literally means “an adult unmarried woman who is a virgin.” She was never referred to as a jariyah, which is a “young girl.”

These weak Hadiths contradict the Quran:

“And make not over your property (property of the orphan), which Allah had made a (means of) support for you, to the weak of understanding, and maintain them out of it, clothe them and give them good education. And test them until they reach the age of marriage. Then if you find them maturity of intellect, make over them their property...” (Quran, 4:5-6).

No seven year old, nor nine year old is mature enough to handle her own finances and property, yet Aisha was given hers at marriage. (That's her money, not her husband's).

Aisha’s exact birthday is unknown, but she was born before 610 CE when Islam was revealed.

Aisha is recorded as accepting Islam shortly after it was revealed. She could not have done so as an infant or toddler. The youngest she could have accepted Islam would be 7 y/o, but that’s a guess.

She was married in 622 CE 12 years after she accepted Islam. (7 + 12 =19 years).

Further, Aisha fought in the Battles of Badr and Uhud (624/5 respectively). No one under 15 fought in those battles, let alone be a leader of them.

Also, Asma, Aisha’s eldest sister (by ten years) died at age 100, 72 years after Aisha’s marriage.

“The Quran states a woman's consent is essential, and the Sunnah confirms that both Aisha's betrothal and consummation occurred with Aisha's enthusiastic agreement. In fact, some even imply she went against the initial wishes of her Dad!”

These are uncontested facts, well-supported by strong Hadiths.

Therefore, by process of elimination and mathematics, Aisha could not have been married before she was 14 and the consummation before she was almost 20.

By mathematical reasoning: Year of marriage: 622 Years after the marriage that Asma died: 72 Age when Asma died: 100 622+ 72 = 694 -100= 594 is the year of Asma’s birth.

622-594= 28 yr of Asma at Aisha’s wedding Asma is recorded as ten years older than Aisha. Therefore: 28-10= 18 Aisha’s age at wedding.

Using mathematics and undisputed facts, we can prove Aisha was 18-19 at the time of her wedding.

On witnesses: "O you who believe! When you contract a debt for a fixed period, write it down. Let a scribe write it down in justice between you. Let not the scribe refuse to write as Allah has taught him," until it reaches " And get two witnesses out of your own men. And if there are not two men (available), then a man and two woman, so that if one of them (two women) errs, the other can remind her." (2:282)

This verse does not address the question of the status of the testimony. Rather it addresses the methods for verification and establishment of confidence about the transaction. If a contract is being made for a financial transaction, the Quran tells us to bring forth two men as witnesses, or one man and two women. This verse does not say that two women are equal to one man, or that the testimony of a woman is only worth half of a testimony of a man. The reason for having two female witnesses for this type of financial contract is given by the Quran.

"...and two woman, so that if one of them (two women) errs, the other can remind her."

If one of the women forgets something or makes a mistake, the other can correct her. This is because in pre-Islamic Arabia before the Quran was revealed, very few women took part in business or financial matters. So they would have had less knowledge about financial transactions, therefore they would be more likely to make an error. This may still be the case in some areas today. However, if the first women does not make any mistakes and does everything correctly, the second women is not needed, so the testimony of the first women alone is enough. So in the end only one woman testifies and only one man testifies. This verse does not have anything to do with gender equality.

It is also important to note that having two women and one man as witnesses is only the case in certain situations, such as this case about financial transactions. In some cases the same number of man and women are used, and in other cases the women's testimony is worth more than that of a man. It all depends on the situation.

Edit: I should note that these arguments do not belong to me, put are taken from several quora answers online


 * It is not clear what you hoped to accomplish by presenting religious extracts from Quran describing the correct organization of human culture, if it can be so simply described as such. Let us not dispute about the comparative virtues of Western and Islamic civilizations. It is important to recognize that the dominant moral structures in Western civilization are consequences of the struggles of western people against tyrannical authority, culminating in systems of secular law first derived from the Anglo-Saxon tradition and later elaborated by the French Enlightenment. These systems have developed over time contemporaneous with long sequences of civil stability. By their very character, they are incompatible with postulations such as you have presented here. Is it then surprising to find a desultory treatment of Islam, here, in a wiki dedicated to ideas that are a consequence of western philosophy?Ariel31459 (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia - which has a much stricter rules than we do - has Aisha's age at the consummation of her marriage as nine or ten. If all the Muslim apologists who have fought that battle over there have had no success then I rather doubt you'll get much traction here.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That is such a non argument. Just because wikipedia says its true, doesn't mean it is. That's an appeal to authority--Birdupptv (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What kind of argument would you expect? Appealing to religious texts for substantiation is an awesome appeal to authority. It's just not effective.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand my point. It's about the futility of making this argument here. If all the high-powered Muslim apologists cannot persuade the relentlessly even-handed editors at Wikipedia that Muhammad was not a peddophole - then a drive-by Quran poster is not going to persuade a wiki made up largely of atheists here.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)