Category talk:Islamophobia

Invalid Category: Suggesting deletion

I'm just going to use that Sam Harris quote:

“”There is no such thing as Islamophobia. Bigotry and racism exist, of course-and they are evils that all well-intentioned people must oppose. And prejudice against Muslims or Arabs, purely because of the accident of their birth, is despicable. But like all religions, Islam is a system of ideas and practices. And it is not a form of bigotry or racism to observe that the specific tenets of the faith pose a special threat to civil society. Nor is it a sign of intolerance to notice when people are simply not being honest about what they and their co-religionists believe.

—Sam Harris (Source)

There are many other quotes that reject the term:

Kenan Malik, a British writer, has criticized the concept of Islamophobia, calling it a myth. He argues that the charge of Islamophobia is leveled against those who criticize Islam or Muslims in any way (even when those criticisms may be legitimate) to serve as a "chilling effect."

Rowan Atkinson, a British comic-actor has likewise stated that although criticizing another person based on their race is ridiculous and irrational, criticizing another's religion, which is a voluntary belief, is a right. He further stated that laws should not be created which protect certain types of ideas from criticism and not others.

So here are some questions for all the "rational" people here: Why is every criticism of Islam labelled as Islamophobia, but criticism of Christianity is not labelled Christianphobia? (2) If not every criticism is labelled as Islamophobia, how do you make the distinction? <--- Please respond to these questions if you are going to respond here. If you're opposed to deleting the category or renaming it to "Criticism of Islam" I will ask you to respond to these questions.

Its surprising that a "Rational Wiki" would accept such a category page. If some people believe in Ghosts and some don't, you don't go around creating a category "Places where the Ghost of Whitney Houston may be found".

The concept of Islamophobia is therefore invalid and the category should be deleted. The article itself of course can be kept. I will wait for serious attempts to directly answer questions 1 and 2 and if there are none, I will eventually remove the category from the pages it is attached to. --Arbuckle (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought this was supposed to be RATIONAL Wiki! -- Seth Peck (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

All of these articles share a common thread - what should we call it then? Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 04:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"Criticism of Islam", as it is on Wikipedia (which makes sense). They have gone through this process of what to call it. See deletion log on Wikipedia. Even "Anti-Islam sentiment" or "Anti-Muslim sentiment" were not accepted. I'm fine with renaming it to "Criticism of Islam". If there's anything wrong with it, its still much better and a lot more valid than than 'Islamophobia'. --Arbuckle (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh gimme a fucking break, bilge like Pamela Geller's conspiracy theories are not "criticism," they're the rantings of lunatic. After all, I'm not "anti-Catholic," I'm just criticizing the Catholic Church when I say they're in league with the New World Order to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids. Say, ever notice how the Jews own all the money, and the press, and... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As I already mentioned, if you're opposed to deleting the category "Islamophobia" (or renaming it to "Criticism of Islam"), then respond to the original 2 questions I asked. For example if there was an article on Ibn Warraq, you cant put the category on his page, can you? You picked a person who is not the most respect person for criticism of Islam (Geller). You also have to prove that she's a "lunatic". But in the light of what I said about Ibn Warraq, respond to Question #2: (2) If not every criticism is labelled as Islamophobia, how do you make the distinction? --Arbuckle (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I kinda got off track with the drinking joke. Note that Islamophobia is actually a sub-cat of the cat Religious Discrimination, which includes both anti-Catholic and anti-Semetic categories as well as Islamophobia. Many articles do not get cat'ed all the time, for better or for worse. If a cat is needed...well, this is a wiki, so act accordingly. -- Seth Peck (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I didnt see you make any joke about drinking (but thankyou for your good-naturedness). Ok. I would de-cat every page in the category and hence the reason why I created this discussion. My point is that Islamophobia is still an invalid category. The definition of the very word is rejected by very notable people and they give good reasons to do so. If/when this cat is renamed to "Criticism of Islam", we can remove it from Pamela Geller's page. She has done nothing to get a category like that (Ibn Warraq would). Geller has enough cats on her page and we can remove the Islamophobia (Criticism of Islam) cat from her page.

Again, if ANYONE responds to the points I have raised, please respond to questions 1 and 2 that I mentioned. People are avoiding getting to what the issue is about. Unfortunately I'm going to have to repeat things and keep people in line. I want to see proof that this really is the Rational wiki. We can joke all day long and make points that are totally unrelated to this discussion and I'll be happy to get people to respond to the questions I asked. There, I have bolded them above so people can see them. --Arbuckle (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Point 1 is stupid. Labels are effectively arbitrary except in cases of what connotations they imply. You may as well ask why the word "antisemitism" exists when we can call it "Criticism of Judaism". If, in general, we're given a set of actions and attitudes that are labeled "islamophobia", then that label will refer to those set of actions. The connotation implied, however, is that such criticisms can hardly be labeled as legit "criticisms" at all, but instead based on paranoia or conspiracy. E.g., the paranoia that legal precedent will be removed in a country in favour of sharia law - this is not based on fact. Neither is the assertion that all Muslims are terrorists (or even that all terrorists are Muslims). Noting that the Qu'ran contains passages requiring Muslims to kill non-believers or noting that Muhammad took a very much underage wife are based on fact. I believe this also provides a suitable distinction for Point 2. ^sshole 02:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

^Good Post^. and as for christians, I'm personally all for the term Christophobia. GodotGrow a vagina 03:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice that I got atleast one serious response. You missed my IF clause: "(1) Why is every criticism of Islam labelled as Islamophobia, but criticism of Christianity is not labelled Christianphobia? (2) If not every criticism is labelled as Islamophobia, how do you make the distinction?"

So I wanted you to answer the questions and you have, that yes, there's a difference between saying that (a) Muhammad took an underage wife (9 year old Aisha) and could hence qualify as a pedophile (b) Every Muslim in my area is plotting to bomb me and my neighbors and would strangle everyone in the city if given the chance.

Let me correct you this: "the paranoia that legal precedent will be removed in a country in favour of sharia law - this is not based on fact."

This is an actual concern and here are FACTS:

calling for a complete upheaval of the British legal system, its officials and ­legislation. Now Muslims demand full Sharia law; 44% think they should be free to develop along separate lines. [1] ; Christians Oppose Muslim Push for Sharia in Kenya

So anyone who thinks the Shariah threat for a country's legal system is not real needs to be educated. Its real and its a genuine concern which should not be brushed off --> Somali president bends to rebel demand for sharia law.

"Neither is the assertion that all Muslims are terrorists (or even that all terrorists are Muslims). " - anyone who makes either of those statements is an idiot, both of us agree on that. Peaceful Muslims do exist. However its not as simple as that. This is what you need to understand (just a sample):

in the U.K., 92 per cent of terrorist-related prisoners unsurprisingly describe themselves as Muslim, while five are Buddhist, one is a self-described Pagan, and none are Christian. [2]

These are the facts to consider and you can justify things in a 1001 ways (Muslims do that all the time).

Looking at a small number of anti-Islamic people who dont know much about Islam does not deserve any attention, and that should be used to silence genuine criticism of Muslims and Islam.

Coming back to the original topic: The category "Islamophobia" can only be applied to a page if the subjects meet that criteria (which is faulty in any case; the definition is flawed), but seeing that this site thinks Category:Batshit crazy is a valid category, it wont be taken seriously by any outsider and is only a social "hangout" for likeminded people. Uncyclopedia has crazy stuff too which is false and a distortion of reality but at least its funny. I do have hope for this site and I think it will (or should) prefer accurate sourced statements as compared to unsourced "rambling" when given a choice.

This site is polluted with pro-Islamic (anti "Islamophobic") opinions and if I had time I would fix them and inject some truth into the Islam related pages but it looks like they receive a small amount of traffic so its not worth my time right now but I might do small fixes where/when I can. --Arbuckle (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, so sharia law is coming any day now I guess? Also, that figure you cite, when in context, actually demonstrates, wait for it...Islamophobia:

“”Since 2001 there have been 1,834 terrorism-related arrests in Britain. Over threequarters of those arrested are released without charge and only 13 per cent have been convicted of any terrorism-related offences. In those areas where there were a significant number of arrests, awareness and knowledge of these were high and a cause of concern raised by Muslim focus group participants. Non-Muslim focus group participants from these same local areas tended to have less knowledge of the arrests, and did not feel that they had any impact on them. The fact that the majority of those who are arrested are innocent made many Muslims in this study feel that they too are vulnerable to being caught up in this way.

—Equality and Human Rights Commission Research Report

But please, oh Great Arbiter of Valid Categories, tell us you can spare the time to correct our irrational pro-Islam bias. After all, we are a low-traffic site and need your help to "inject truth" into our articles. Please help us to be taken seriously. Allah save us! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, things like sharia should be in the cat, as they are related to the concept rather than nessisarily being instances of Islamaphobia. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 07:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The point is well taken Arbunkle; most editors here understands that Islam, like most religions, tends to encourage an authoritarian, uncompromising and distorted view of the world. You might even find that people here agree with the assertion that Islam is a more violent religion in general than christianity, whose bloodthirsty urges are generally blunted by secular society. However, the bogeyman of Islam is often used to justify all kinds of human rights abuses and we often willingly hand over our hard fought freedoms to "protect" ourselves from the almost non-existent threat of a terrorist attack. You will also notice that this wiki is not an encyclopedia, and engages in something called snark. This means that sometimes an editor will pull the piss out of a topic to make a -sometimes esoteric- point using non-sequiters, sarcasm, batshittery or attempts at comedy. I imagine this category is an attempt to pull the piss out of the average Alex Jones listener who is deathly afraid of the United States Democratic Party's attempt to "impose teh Sharia laws!!!11". Tielec01 (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I see what you're saying. It does look like most people here understand the difference between valid criticism of Islam and the "doomsday is coming" kind. --Arbuckle (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Poll

Getting past the waffle, Arbuckle's basic point - that this category should be renamed "criticism of Islam" - is something I've considered bringing up for a while now. It boils down to this choice: do we,
a) Leave it as "Islamophobia" and include only the sillier criticism of Islam - Ann Coulter, Muslamic ray guns etc; or do we
b) Expand it to "criticism of Islam" and also include One Law for All, Richard Dawkins, Pat Condell and so forth.
As an aside, I've added a category description (pinched from the anti-Catholicism cat) clarifying that, in its current incarnation, it's specifically for the lunatic fringe. Balaam (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Or we can have both categories...--ZooGuard (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Both is fine. Critiquing Islam as a philosophical model is one thing, bigots shrieking about sharia law in America, or saying all muslims are terrorists, is quite another. Sophie^{because liberals} 12:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, (b) is fine. At a minimum, have both categories and put them into Criticism of Islam, or Islamophobia, depending on the situation. Criticism of Islam can be applied easily, (Islamophobia is a sub-set of CoI) but the application of "Islamophobia" has to be defended. For example it must be shown that the subject of the category shows "irrational" fear of Islam or it meets the Runnymede's definition of the term (which is controversial in any case). Putting anything remotely anti-Islamic into the "Islamophobia" category doesn't make sense.

Balaam, thanks for that to the phobia cat, that looks good. --Arbuckle (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Balaam, I've added the additional "Criticism of Islam" category now. Thanks for the poll and the initiative. --Arbuckle (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I would propose that -phobia be a subcat of criticism, being at the far end of the 'criticism' continuum. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 01:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense, I agree. --Arbuckle (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

"...for those who go well beyond legitimate and much-deserved criticism of Islam, into the realm of conspiracy theories and just plain wingnuttery." "Legitimate" and "much-deserved?" I never hear the same rhetoric thrown at Christianity for having identical problems. This is a rather oxymoronic sentence for a category aimed at highlighting islamophobia.-April ^Chat? 04:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)