Talk:Islam

	This Islam related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Barelvi

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

About the criticism section

I found the criticism section to be a bit distasteful and potentially has some methodological errors. The parts I have problems with:

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

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

I'm clearly no expert on Islam and I did not go over every citation and source, nevertheless, I think the current criticism section reads a bit too like some YouTube New Atheist douchebag writing. A more level-headed style (maybe on par with the pages of other religions) and some fact-checking could really help the arguments go further. ----- 104.206.206.149 (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I went a bit over it via the ratwiki Discord and did small caption changes, but I'll like to go over it more thoroughly when I have the time. It'll be appreciated if anyone can pitch in too. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 22:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario I know this is old but I improved the criticism section. There are other sections to be improved in the criticism section, but I (or someone else) can go over those some other time. Vee (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

LeftyGreenMario, I bet you got a surprise by being pinged for something you wrote two and a half years ago. Spud (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you again for another constructive contribution Spud /s - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello two years ago. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 06:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Addressing hypocrisy in the article

The article claims that it is presenting a rational, unbiased portrait of Islam, as is this wiki's mission. And to its credit, it does make a distinction between "criticism of Islam" and Islamophobia. But it feels to me like the article spends too much time criticizing Islam and not enough time describing its tenets as a religion in an objective manner. As it currently stands, the article had a very anti-Muslim air about it, in a way that none of the wiki's other articles on major religions do. This needs to be addressed.^{— Unsigned, by: 68.71.166.188 / talk}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.

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

It’s also true that there is much more to criticize about modern Islam than other modern religions. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Unlike Christians, Muslims are a targeted minority so there has to be more tact when criticizing this subject so we don't punch down. Doesn't mean they are immune to criticism but aim your missiles correctly. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 02:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

That's going to depend on where in the world you live. They are hardly targeted minorities in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan for example.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Christians are targeted minorities in Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Eritrea, Nigeria and elsewhere. That point is dumb. Islam deserves to get it just as harshly as any other religion. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The wiki's readership is largely American so I think usually the content is going to build on the situation where Muslims are targeted minorities. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 04:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

That doesn’t even make sense. The article’s criticism focuses on regions where Muslims are in power. That’s true regardless of what happens in the west. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 04:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, then. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 04:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe the old "doctrine not the person" thing applies.-Flandres (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

"The article claims that it is presenting a rational, unbiased portrait of Islam, as is this wiki's mission." Actually, that's not the Wiki's mission. For that matter the article doesn't make that claim.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe that's true. But the fact remains that this article feels like an anti-Islam smear piece. Most of its length is spent talking about how terrible Islam is, and if a non-Muslim were to read it they would likely come away with the impression that Islam is some sort of inherently evil religion. Fully half of the article is taken up by the "criticism" section, and the heading statement at the very top of the article paints Islam in a very negative light. This article has an anti-Islam bias, plain and simple. This kind of prejudice cannot and should not be tolerated on the wiki. Our articles on the negative aspects of Christianity do not portray Christianity as a whole as evil, so why should Islam be any different? ^{— Unsigned, by: some IP sad that we mention that some crazy Muslims chop heads / talk / contribs}

What do you mean "Maybe that's true"? It's obviously true. You have misunderstood our mission from the outset and you are now trying to ignore that.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Methinks thou art being too sensitive to criticism. Again, there is much more to criticize from the Muslim world than other places. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not being "too sensitive". This is a legitimate problem with the article. Well-supported criticism of any institution, whether secular or religious, is something I fully stand behind. Nothing should be above criticism, Islam included. But since Islam is religion that is already feared and hated irrationally by a large percentage of non-Muslims, spending most of your article on it covering its negative aspects comes across as looking dangerously close to outright Islamophobia. RationalWiki emphatically does not endorse Islamophobia, and our coverage of Islam should not imply otherwise. ^{— Unsigned, by: 68.71.166.188 / talk / contribs}

You might want to compare it with out article on Church of Scientology for example. Islam gets a much easier ride.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I suggest one of two solutions:

1. Create a separate article for criticism of Islam, so that the main article is less negative-- and hence less implicitly anti-Islam-- in tone.

2. Add more material to the main article on aspects of Islam that have not yet been covered-- i.e. its pre-modern history, notable individuals, and its "golden age" between the 8th and 14th centuries.^{— Unsigned, by: 68.71.166.188 / talk / contribs}

That's stupid. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is it stupid? The article as it currently exists is borderline Islamophobic. There's no two ways about it.

I'm not getting into a long discussion here since it's late where I am. However, I took a look through the article to check your claims, and honestly, you're exaggerating quite a bit. As for whether the article should be harsh on Islam or not, the answer is yes it should. All articles on religion should be extremely critical of the subjects. Also, sign your damn posts, it's not hard, and the notice at the top of the page when you open the editer makes it fucking easy. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding more history would be a good idea, but changing the criticism, especially by hiding it all in a separate article is a very dumb and whitewashy idea. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 04:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Our unsigning editor needs to read: RationalWiki:Mission- Pretty much everything we write within that mission is going to be critical. I think the article already goes way beyond that into WP territory. It's not our job to give a full and complete history of Islam. It is our job to talk about extremism and fundamentalism in all religions.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Every religion is criticised. And yes, Islam is the only religion which hasn‘t progressed like other religions(Ofc there are countries like 🇦🇿, 🇹🇷 or 🇹🇳) Kevs ^Ping! 13:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Sufism

The rates of persecution of Sufis are not at all constant between regions. For example, most Muslims in Senegal belong to a Sufi school (in fact a non-violent resistance movement to French colonialism was spearheaded by Sufis). Carthage (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Quranists

You mention Quranists, but the wikipedia page mentions the most important thing: Hazrat Umar ibn Khittab, the Second Caliph and best friend of Muhammad Rasullullah burned all the hadiths stating "They werr written by the hands of men, not god" decrying them as fake, destroying all existing collections

They were commissioned by the first Caliph, Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq, and Hazrat Umar reversed the decision, making the name "Rashidun" meaning "rightfully guided" Ironic as they both contradicted in their guidance

So how do they eixst today? In 680, there was a Muslim Civil War where an uprising from Muawiyah and his son Yazid launched a sort of conservative movement saying that Muhammad's grandsons, at the time were not fit for Caliphate, which was then decided by a Democratic popular vote

As a result, they killed Rasullullah's grandsons, family, supporters, and all the original Muslims. Tok over the Caliphate, made it a hereditary momarchy, made dogs haram (for some reason), and added all this stuff

It was 680 and the literacy rate was not very good, only the massively rich, and as a result of him taking over the elite he is the one that can manage the only people who can write and record

Aisha was not 6, a lie made by Ibn Hisham, a hadith writer famous for lying so much that his teacher Ibn Ishaq called him out on it and other scholars berated him. He's source was "I have been told". That's it

Quranists allow drawings of Muhammad Rasullullah, Homosexuality, "Strictly against torture" wikipedia page says. The Punishment of stoning doesn't come from the Qur'an, it is however, in the Bible

This is not to excuse the majority Muslims for believing it. They are disgusting beliefs and should never be held. But if you feel the need to include it I reccomend at least pointing out the extreme dubiousness of the source, and if you should also add that the majority believe but it is very dubious

Regards Kanan

Also thanks for turning me into a leftist RationalWiki ^{— Unsigned, by: Kaneqost / talk / contribs}