Talk:Islamophobia

	This Islamophobia 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>, <2>

, (new)

From outside the West

This page is largely written from the perspective of westerners where Islam has historically been a non issue. I generally agree with the thesis that those living in North America have no reason to fear Islam to the extent that many anti-Islam critics would like them to fear. But for others this may not be the case. Just as a disclosure I am a Hindu (though currently living in the United States). From my perspective, fear of Islam is totally justified by history: According to K.S. Lal, between 60 million and 80 million Hindus where massacred by Islamic forces during the second millennium. And the only thing that prevented this number from being even higher was the military protection of the British Raj (One of the Few Positives of the Raj, which is itself also responsible for many massacres). From my perspective, my fear of Islam is equally justified as a Jew's fear of Nazism. Perhaps a separate section for political movements against Islam in countries that actually have a historical conflict with Islam would be appropriate. ^{— Unsigned, by: 75.102.129.37 / talk / contribs} 00:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

First off, please put new sections at the bottom of the page.

Second, please sign your posts using four tildes ~~~~.

I'm not sure that would be appropriate on this specific article. I think there might be another one you might want to try, something about legitimate criticism of Islam or something like that. Bring this suggestion up there. Make sure to back up your claims with sources, too. Thanks, RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Human Sacrifice

The Israelites began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab, joined with them in the worship of their gods, and learned the rituals of the Baal of Peor. Yahweh said to Moseh, “Take all the chiefs of the clans and hang them up in the sun before Yahweh, so that Yahweh’s fierce anger may be turned away from Israel.” Numbers 25:1-4 Wodenoz (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more clear about what point you are trying to make? Are you saying that some other religions also have blood-curdling things in their holy books, like Islam? Yes, that is undoubtedly true.--Greenrd (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Greenrd here, this is irrelevant asides from the fact of double standards. You should try being more explicit with your point, if double standards is indeed your point @Wodenoz. — Oxyaena ^Harass 09:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Regressive left view in article

This is given as an example of Islamophobia in the article, but I'm not sure this is necessarily Islamophobic if we are talking about Muslim women in, say, Saudi Arabia:

"Justifying Islamophobia by portraying Muslim women as voiceless and victimized, something that actual Muslim women dislike."

First of all, that's misleading, it's something that some Muslim women dislike. Some other Muslim and ex-Muslim women are doing the portraying!

If you read the sole linked reference - which is a student essay, by the way - it is quite clearly written in the same regressive leftist vein, basically assuming that because some Muslim women are OK with their second-class status - or at least, don't publicly admit to feeling otherwise - the views of other Muslim or non-Muslim women that it's wrong, don't count and are Islamophobic! It's quite subtle so it has crept in here, but I do not think most RationalWiki users would want to promote the regressive left view expressed here that feminism is only for white Western and far-Eastern women, and Muslim women living in Saudi Arabia should have just sucked up not being able to drive cars on their own and stuff. That is absurd because (a) it was Muslim women in Saudi Arabia themselves who fought for, and won, the right to drive cars on their own - a right that, subject to driving tests of course, every other woman in the world enjoys as a matter of course - and (b) many ex-Muslims (and not only wingnuts like Ayaan Hirsi Ali) are highly critical of Islam cultural and religious practices towards women. Are ex-Muslims by definition Islamophobic whenever they criticise Islam? Of course not. And again, I don't think we, an atheist and pro-feminist wiki, want to promote the view that even quite mild criticism of sexist practices in a religion is bigoted ("Islamophobic") just because some female adherents of that religion are brainwashed into believing that what is imposed on them, by men and women pretending to have the authority of some nonexistent god, is OK.--Greenrd (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't see what's so "regressive" about it, it's a poorly worded phrase that's all. — Oxyaena ^Harass 09:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

It's regressive because it gives cover to a medieval set of practices regarding women that Western feminists would be outraged about if it was imposed on them - double standards, or moral relativism. This is an argument that has been made very often on the internet - I'm not the first to make it. And it's not merely poorly-worded - the reference is explicitly endorsing unfreedom for women if they're Muslim. The intent is unambiguous, I'm afraid. If we're going to keep it, we should not only improve the wording somehow, but remove the reference to the student essay that is regressive leftist and is not in accordance with RationalWiki's general pro-feminist outlook. We wouldn't include a neoreactionary essay as a reference for a claim that some aspect of medieval life was awesome, I assume, because RationalWiki is not a pro-neoreactionary site.--Greenrd (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Title image borked

— Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 07:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

That is because it was an image from Wikimedia Commons that has been deleted there. Since this wiki is not part of the Wikimedia Foundation, there isn't a bot that automatically removes files from Wikimedia Commons whenever they get deleted. Unlike on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation wikis, we get left with a broken file link. That's one risk we run by using images from Wikimedia Commons. And the same is true for your Sociodem Wiki, raven. Spud (talk) 06:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

So - is Islam something political?

The first line of the article reads: ""Islamophobia" is a term used for the "Intense dislike or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force"."

The section "Characteristics of Islamophobia" point 5 reads: "Islam is seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.".

Is there a contradiction here or am I missing something?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I think religious groups can exert political force without inherently being themselves a political ideology. I would point to the Catholic Church as an example. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, but the Catholic Church uses (or certainly has used) its political force to advance its religious ideology. In the case of reproductive rights or gay rights for example. Isn't that what Islamophobes accuse Islam of?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the issue arises when people view Islamic movements as exclusively negative. Which I wish the article/definition would state. I agree with Ariel this article needs a lot of work. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking about the Catholic Church angle some more. In fact, the Catholic church is a far more monolithic institution than "Islam". For all the internal arguments it may have it at least has the capacity of speaking with one voice if it has too. "Islam" is an exceedingly diverse thing with a multitude of contradictory points of view and ways of expressing them.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the list of characteristics of Islamophobia should be taken seriously. They neatly cover every imaginable criticism of Islam. I have tried to construct a criticism of Islam that would not qualify as Islamophobic under one of the terms. So far, no dice.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. In all honesty I don't like the article very much.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I also dislike how the article is written and consider it such a mess and that it's too tone-deaf to adequately acknowledging that bigotry toward Muslims can be severe and not narrowly tailored toward say, fundamentalists, and that it merits a noun to describe it, just the same as homophobia or transphobia. I would prefer that most of it be rewritten from scratch because of the benefit of hindsight. Past editors probably weren't aware of the consequences of pretending like a specific form of bigotry didn't deserve a word, because violence toward Muslims in Europe and America hadn't reached a crescendo when the fascists latched onto it. But I think there has been more than ample stochastic terrorism on Muslim immigrants, their mosques, and on moderate Muslims just trying to live their lives in western countries to admit there is bigotry toward Islam that isn't even remotely applied to other extreme religions like Scientology, and that that bigotry has become an obvious obstacle to maintaining an upstanding and democratic society. The amount of scorn that has been heaped on Islam as the greatest possible evil and the worst possible religion in light of fairly recent history is nothing a form of special pleading that treats Islam as a bigger threat than it is while downplaying other religions. It requires a person to ignore periods when Islamic countries were more advanced than Christian ones, and it completely ignores how religions have and will continue to evolve for better or for worse due to circumstances.

I also think the article should try to address how bigots often use the motte and bailey tactic to switch from criticizing Islam to criticizing Muslims or "just asking questions" about the genes of the new immigrants. Sadly, it's difficult to do because of how haphazardly the article was written when nearly every section seems to be focused on downplaying the use of the term "Islamophobia."

LetsBeCarefulHere (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Uh, you do know Judaism is still a thing, right? A higher percentage of Jews are hit with hate crimes than Muslims. According to the FBI in the US, in 2019 (most recent data), 60% of all anti-religious hate crimes targeted Jews, compared to 13% targeting Muslims. CorSock (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

And your point is? There's already a well-worn word in English for that and it's "Antisemitism." LetsBeCarefulHere (talk) 07:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. It seems to be a typical not as bad as response. Now I think about it though, the term "Antisemitism" is a lot clearer than "Islamophobia" - though they are (or I think they should be) talking about the same set of attitudes and prejudices.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

"Theres bigotry toward Islam that isnt applied to other extreme religions such as..." He seems to be implying that Islam receives a unique "unearned" hatred that other religions dont get. I'm pointing out that's its not only not unique to Islam, but it's not even the worst example of excessive or unearned hatred. So yes it will be a Not As Bad As CorSock (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)