From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Was the term "Islamophobia" invented by the Mullahs of Iran or other Islamists?[edit]

I have on multiple occasion heard that the term "Islamophobia" was invented by either Ayatollah Khomeini or "the Mullahs" of Iran or "Islamists" in general to silence criticism of their antiques. Is that accurate? Does anybody know more about this? And no, I don't have sources, that's why I ask... Evil Zionist (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That Trump quote[edit]

I think Islam hates us.
—Donald Trump

The exact quote doesn't encapsulate Islamophobia, so it shouldn't be a the top or in the article at all. If the quote is there to take jabs at Trump, put it in his article, not here, where it belongs.—チーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 04:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems pretty damn Islamophobic to me, and he's effectively the president of the free world (the horror), and so it is valid to have it there - to show that the rot quite literally starts at the top. While there are some Islamic countries like Iran that are well-known for having a long enmity with America (Iran is famous for the slogan "Death to America!!!"), it is not true that the entire religion of Islam "hates America", and Trump was blatantly shit-stirring once again with that comment.--Greenrd (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

From outside the West[edit]

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: / 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

File:Gathering of eagles.jpg

Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 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)