Talk:Islamophobia/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 6 May 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>

, (new)(back)

Resources, I guess?

When I argue with Islamophobes on the internet, I really like to refer to this DeviantArt user because he's done a good job of explaining aspects of Islam that non-Muslims often see misrepresented in the media. This is another comic he made.

Does he talk about the usual and proscribed penalty for apostasy? Does he address how he feels about blasphemy laws? Also, keep in mind that "Islam" is not some singular thing. There are plenty of Muslims out there who feel exactly as he/she does. However, there are plenty that don't. And I am not doing to sit here and argue over who has the "true" interpretation of a fiction book. Both are Islam to me. It's a curious thing - anything done in the name of religion is religion, by definition. However, merely doing something in the name of science does not make it science. Funny thing, that. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

How can one discribe "islamofobia" as a xenofobia while many immigrants are also anti islam?

So, "Islamophobia is a contraversial term used by persons who mention critism on the ideology of islam as a form of xenophobia, denying that many immigrants are also anti-islam." Dr. Dolittle 14:50, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Dude, read that sentence aloud - it barely makes sense. What are you trying to say? That some immigrants have a grudge against Islam? So what. I fail to see what you're getting at here. And for the umpteenth time, "Islam" takes a capital "I." PFoster 14:52, 28 December 2007 (EST)

You're being too Manichaean, Dr.; just because bigots who are members of 'our' society hate the 'other', doesn't mean that other people can't, even if we would consider those other people an 'other'.-- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

There is a large difference between those who are anti-Islam and those who have the visceral, gut level hatred of all things remotely Muslim (which is what xenophobia/Islamophobia are.) By the way, Hirsi Ali is not 100% anti-Islam, despite most of her public pronouncements. Many times she has had good things to say about it. Researcher 14:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I think this may be a language barrier issue. Dolittle believes that xenophobia means hatred of all foreigners and that is incompatible with Islamophobia because there are some foreigners who also hate Islam. I've tried to explain it as a subset on his talk page, but we'll see how he takes it. And, Researcher, I agree with you on Hirsi Ali. Again, it's on Dolittle's talk page. Stile4aly 15:00, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Racism category

Racism has been removed as a category by a recent user. Given that quite a lot of Islamophobia can be seen as old fears of brown folks, I think it's an appropriate categorization. Thoughts? The Wine of Tyrants^{Drunk with power again!} 21:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting question - I think the cat is useful, by tying together fairly similar concepts. That Islamophobia is not actually racism in and of itself isn't as important as its overlap with racism. ħuman 22:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've reverted the cat back. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Islamists try to stifle criticism of Islam by calling it racism. If the racism category is not removed from this page, we might as well put most pages on the Wiki in that category on account of their attacks on Christianity. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Listener. Take it out. Broccoli (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"Islamists try to stifle criticism of Islam by calling it racism" huh? And "most pages" here have attacks on Xtianity? What we need are more detailed criticisms of Islam and Wicca to balance things... ħuman 23:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That was how they shoved the new blasphemy laws through in the U.K. Here are some more overt examples: [1] [2] [3] [4]

There are attacks on Christianity on most pages on the Wiki, or at least most of those that mention religion. ListenerX^TalkerX 00:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So what? Many aspects of Christianity are irrational, after all. Like I said, what we need to do long term is tear the other silly religions some good holes, too. We're just less familiar with them. ħuman 00:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Back to the question: Why is hatred of a reglion racism? Broccoli (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

In the Jewish tradition: is the fear surrounding Islam due to religion or race in the Western world? The Wine of Tyrants^{Drunk with power again!} 01:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the simple solution is to create a "bigotry" category? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I like TheoryOfPractice's idea, here. Bigotry and racism are different, after all. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 01:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"...is the fear surrounding Islam due to religion or race in the Western world?" I would say that it is mostly religious (a fear of having a new religion imposed), but other motivations are more cultural than racial.

Human, I was not advocating removal of the attacks on Christianity; most of them are meritorious. I agree with TheoryOfPractice's suggestion for a "bigotry" category. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm on board with category:bigotry. Nice work, folks. Let's do it. ħuman 03:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

sorry, i dont know how to properly reply. i removed it because it is not racism. this is rational wiki, not stereotype wiki, where all christians are white, where all muslims are brown. i also agree with a bigotry category. again, sorry about not replying in the standard fashion.Logan (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As much as your point regarding stereotypes is true, I simply point that the irrational Islamophobia may come out of the fact that Westerners probably don't think of white Muslims, even though they do exist in great numbers. You have to bring stereotypes to the table when you're talking about ill-placed hate.

I'll also throw in some support for a Bigotry category. I believe there's a racial component, but I don't think it's purely racial.The Wine of Tyrants^{Drunk with power again!} 02:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that component could be addressed in text in the article rather than using the cat, perhaps? ħuman 03:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I added the article to the discrimination category since religion is unrelated to ethnicity, as stated on the Islam article. --GastonRabbit (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the part I was referring to:

The terms "racism" and "Islamophobia" have often been conflated in recent years. The fact that Islam is a religion and not a race seems to matter very little.

I think the bigotry category would be a good idea, though. --GastonRabbit (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If disliking Islam is racist then disliking Christianity is racist as both have their origins in the Middle-East. The term Islamophobia is a complete nonsense because the Oxford English Dictionary defines a "-phobia" as an irrational fear. Being wary of Islam is not necessarily a fear and it's certainly not irrational. Islam is not a race, it is an ideology, an ideology that calls for the enslavement of unbelievers, the stoning of adulteresses (pretty harsh on my mother as my parents are divorced and she's remarried - does this count as adultery?) and homosexuals, genital mutilation, polygamy and it condones wife-beating. And if you don't believe me, look in the Qu'ran. The earlier Haddiths are more moderate but there's a monopoly on this: the later sayings of Muhammad take precedence over the former and the latter are the extreme ones. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Minor quibble. Yes, the "-phobia" suffix may be incorrect ala etymology and common psychology conventions. However, this word has gained lots of traction in the public discourse, so I suggest you deal with it. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's hit this from a couple directions.

1) It is possible to have a phobia of something that others can also have reasons to be afraid of. If you are living in a predominantly Muslim country and you are an atheist, you probably have a real reason to have an extreme fear of Islam, a fear for your very life. If you are living in an overwhelmingly Christian neighborhood in Florida and you are scared of Sharia law entering your town and forcing you to pray to Allah, you are probably experiencing Islamophobia, because you have a completely irrational fear on every level. It's possible to have a justified fear of hornets if you are especially susceptible to their stings. That doesn't mean that everyone who is afraid of hornets, at any extreme, must have a totally rational fear. Also, on a more minor point: a phobia is an extreme or irrational fear, but I'm willing to work with the second one. Again, however: just because you can rationally fear something doesn't mean that every fear of that thing is rational.

2) Ideologies and religions don't exist in a vacuum, especially for people with irrational fears of that ideology. You are assuming that every single person is, when stirred up with some irrational fears, able to surgically separate their irrational fears from the issue that the majority of the people who they perceive as belonging to the religion they are afraid of are in fact people of color. If you really want to say that it's not possible for criticism of Islam and all the resulting fear of Islam (justified or not) can't possibly have resulted in or been made more serious by racism... you have quite a bit of work to do. You have to explain why Arab Americans in general, not just Muslims, experienced a stark increase in hate crimes directed at them after 9/11. Because, for the sociologist it is clear: there are a lot of people who are afraid of and angry towards their perception of what Islam is, and they are taking it out upon upon anyone they perceive as Muslims (which often includes anyone who they think appears Arabic).

--ShadowofLords (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Well I suppose it would be accurate to say that many racists are Islamophobic but it would be a non-sequitur to say that Islamophobia is itself racist. Sadly, because Islam is practiced predominantly by people of Middle-Eastern origin, many individuals hate it as a result of their xenophobia and racism, such as the English Defence League. However just as many people are opposed not to Muslims but to the Qu'ran and the ideas contained therein. There's certainly nothing irrational about that. Sadly, such people are all too frequently vilified as racists just because some scumbags like the EDL and the BNP also happen to be Islamophobic and racist. I'd be a fool to deny that there are many kind, intelligent, moderate Muslims and I've met many of them but Islamophobia is not anti-Muslim, it is anti-Islam. All religions are as mad as frogs as far as I'm concerned, Islam just happens to be the barmiest of the lot. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

This is getting confusing. If you are going to say that Islamophobia is complete nonsense, don't use it at the same time to also refer to reasonable critiques of Islam. Islamophobia, referring to the irrational fear of and hatred of Muslims, is intricately tied to racism and the fear of the "other". It's not as simple as saying some islamophobes and islamophobic groups happen to also be racist. Islamophobia itself is woven in with racism: the wholesale cultural distrust of people with dark skin feeds into the fear of Islam, and this loops back and feeds into more fear of people who appear arabic. It's even got some lingering ties to when Malcolm X and the "scarier" black groups had large cuslim ties. A comparison: it's not just that the people afraid of communists during the red scare coincidentally happened to be Xenophobic in general. It's that the red scare encouraged xenophobia and xenophobia encouraged Communism. And, while it would be possible to have had strong, rational, justified reasons to be against communism back then, that doesn't even begin to mean that most people who were against communism had such positions (the average person against communism probably couldn't begin to describe it in any meaning). So too we find ourselves with Islamophobia. While there can be strong, critical challenges to the dogma of Islam, they have to be made delicately because we are talking about a group of people that are discriminated against in many meaningful ways in Western societies. --ShadowofLords (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

so basically this went nowhere then? The racism category is still attached and not bigotry? I strongly disagree that most Islamophobia is a result of racism. Many many people are quite aware of many prominent white Muslims and their fear of Islam is a result of "valid criticisms of Islam and the culture that arises because of following Islam and Sharia law".--Barryjon (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I personally think it should have both Bigotry and Racism and categories. And I don't necessarily mean that most or all Islamophobia is a result of purely or chiefly racism. However, it is still intricately tied to racial perceptions of Muslims.

You've done something very strange. This article is clear to draw the distinction between Islamophobia and criticism of Islam, but you have blended the two into the term. Your have essentially said, "Many many people who might be called Islamophobes are not Islamophobes because they have legitimate reasons to be afraid of Islam." Bully for them. But I was specifically talking about Islamophobia, which is the irrational fear of Islam, which categorically does not include the individuals you are talking about after all (if they do in fact have rational reasons to be afraid of Islam). But, for the individuals who are irrationally afraid of Islam, I argue that race does play an important role in their irrational fear.

Also, I dub thee a necromancer. Shadow of Lords ^talk 21:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the distinction is real, which is why I stumbled over it here. I describe myself as quite literally Islamophobic; I have a real fear of Islam, I fear its potentially damaging effects on 'western' values of tolerance and pluralism and I fear for its potential impact on my freedom and safety as a gay man. I am aware that this is irrational to some extent but it's honest and it's real and it is NOT racist. If we are so insistent on not conflating attacks on Christianity with racism, why do we allow Islamophobia to be so conflated? Is there any evidence that the two are linked? What benefit does linking the two provide in the article? I think linking the two offers fuel to those who accuse those who attack Islam as being racist and I don't see any reason why this Wiki should do that. I am way too new here to be able to push my view above all others, but there it looks to me as though there are enough others on here who disagree with the racism category. In fact, it seems the consensus was to remove it in favour of bigotry. I think it's worth following through on that.--Barryjon (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I think this is worth considering in the argument. Polling shows many people in Britain have fears of Islam but are not racist and would not wish to be associated with a racist organisation--Barryjon (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

That article reminds me of the people who thought the KKK was too low-brow for them so they joined the White Citizens' Councils instead. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I once worked for a Syrian born Arabic man who was a member of the Syrian Orthodox Christian Church... his view of Muslims was, quite literally, "all Muslims are terrorists." Given that his entire family is Syrian, I sincerely doubt his view of Islam was racially informed. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"Examples of Islamophobia" section

This whole section seems a little... odd to me. Right now it's got quotations from three right-wing pundits, a description of a parody of right-wing pundits, and an account of a murder. I'm trying to think of better ways to format it; the three commentators could go in a section called "notable Islamophobes", for example, and there could be another section on crimes that have been attributed to Islamophobia. Any thoughts? Baljit (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The current last sentence in the article could be improved

Can someone more gifted in prose help improve the "Of course, in full irony meter, Harris has gone on to call for the racial profiling of Muslims. Thanks, Sam! " with a bit about racial profiling being utterly ineffective against a faith that includes ALL races in its membership?Wzrd1 (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Am I an "Islamophobic"?

Let's go over the checklist from the main page.

• Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change. - Well, it's definitely not monolithic, just like christianity is not a single homogenous block, but it is static and unresponsive to change to a similar degree as christianity.
• [Islam] does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them. - Perhaps for some/most sects, but again I could say the same thing of a lot of christian sects.
• Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive, and sexist. - I don't know what exactly that means. What I can say is that muslim dominated countries tend to be much behind in some academic disciplines (e.g. most of them). Their human rights vs "religion" tends to be far worse than modern christian countries. I'm going to say that living in a theocracy is bad, and living in a secular democractic public is good, and this is objectively and demonstrably true, if you're willing to grant the values of humanism.
• Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, and engaged in a Clash of Civilizations. - Well, the practitioners are more often those things than compared to modern christians, but of course not necessarily all muslims, or most muslims, but still decidedly a higher proportion than christians. I believe like christianity, it's a phase, and hopefully they'll grow out of it. They just need their enlightenment.
• Islam is seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage. - Well, it is a political ideology under a loose definition of "political", again just like christianity. I don't know what the whole "for political or military advantage" nonsense is talking about.
• Criticisms made of 'the West' by Islam are rejected out of hand. - Yay, one criterion that I don't match! I listen to criticism from any source, more or less.
• Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society. - And another criterion I don't fit.
• Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural and normal. - I don't know if as a matter of facts it's seen as natural and normal, but I want it to be that way. I also want the norm to be that christianity is treated with hostility and contempt. Both religions have these rather pernicious beliefs about justice which hurt everyone, and this should be pointed out regularly. It's kind of like Nazis or the KKK. We tolerate their presence because of free speech et al, but we also point out their idiocy and evilness every chance we get.

So, do I pass? EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

"But of course not necessarily all Muslims, or most Muslims." You answered your own question. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

And those Nazi/KKK comparisons. Real classy. Straight to Godwin. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and? I think their views are about as heinous in principle. They think that as an atheist, I deserve eternal torment. That is a large portion of christians and muslims. The only difference is that they won't inflict the torture themselves, but they're more than happy for someone else to do it for them. I fail to see any substantial difference why I should cut them any slack. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Correction: Far worse than the KKK. AFAIK, the KKK do not seek the eternal torment of blacks, just that they be moved to ghettos, out of country, or otherwise "out of sight". In that regard, I'd rather be a black under hypothetical unchallengeable KKK than be an atheist under the purported unchallengeable christian god or muslim god. This is despicable, and I will not give them a pass on it. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

So why bother working through a checklist of mealy mouthed vacillations when you could just cut to the chase? Next time you find yourself wondering "am I xxxxx-phobic?", about any subject, just ask yourself "would I compare xxxxx to the Nazis or claim xxxxx is worse than the KKK?". If the answer to question 2 is yes, the answer to question 1 is also yes. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

As the mainspace article says though, "islamaphobia" is defined as "unjustified" or "unreasonable" (or some such) criticism. You need to start being a decent human being by recognizing that 1- I do not deserve to be tortured forever, 2- a central element of christianity and islam, believed by a lot / most believers is that I do deserve to be tortured forever, and 3- even KKK members don't believe that blacks should be tortured forever just for being black. I'm sorry to burst your little bubble, but you need to drop this kid-gloves crap. If they believe what they say they believe, then the average christian or muslim is more despicable than the KKK. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

After reading the Quran by myself, after informing about the various human rights abuses in the Islamic world, after stuying the Sharia, after learning about the history of Islam and Muhammad, after ... well, after considering Islam for a decade, I am proud to be islamophob.--31.17.153.69 (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

racial profiling

He is very specifically calling for profiling of people who "look like" Muslim extremists. In essence, this will quickly devolve into racial stereotyping. I'm all on board. However, the main page article is still nonsensical when it says "Harris has gone on to call for the racial profiling of Muslims". You cannot racially profile a diverse religious group. You can "in principle" profile a diverse religious group, but such profiling is not racial on its face. It can and will quickly devolve into that, and we should explain that, but it's nonsensical to identify Muslims as a racial group as the main page does. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The lines around what constitutes a "race" are not clear-cut. The Nazis saw the Jews as a "race," not simply a religious group like, say, the Catholics. Up until the sixties, it was common for people in Canada to refer to the country's two "races" -- the French and the English. When my Coptic Egyptian friend gets brought to the special room at the airport, that's entirely because he's being racially profiled. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 22:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but... Everyone could be a Muslim without a single change in appearance. Thus, are you trying to say that everyone on the planet is a member of the "Muslim" "race"? Or are you allowing race to include mere mental states? Again, I think as written the article is flatly wrong, and it does a disservice by conflating race with religion w.r.t Islam. For comparison, Jewishness is both a race and a religion, and that's how it's commonly understood. No one understands "Muslimness" as both a "racial" heritage, something that you inherit like you can inherit being "Jewish". EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that "Jewishness is both a race and a religion" says nothing about Jewishness--it says that we've designated a members of a particular group as sharing characteristics that make them a "race." If a Falasha from Ethiopia, a Hasidim, and Adam Sandler are all members of the "Jewish race," then why can't a Bosnian Muslim an Arab, an Indonesian and a guy from Senegal not be members of the "Muslim race"? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 23:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe that you are being honest if you say that people regularly recognize a native European guy, a Japanese guy, a native African guy, a native American guy, and so on, as all belonging to the same race. Again, I understand that race is largely a social construct based on arbitrary criteria, and so if you don't like the "race" word that's fine. Are you fighting to say that Muslims are a racial group, and we should use that terminology? That seems to be an inconsistent position: on one hand to say that the race word lacks meaning and can mean anything, and on the other to be adamant that we use that word when it's meaningless. IMHO, we should not identify Muslims as a racial group in the mainspace article, because that elevates them in common discourse and "grants them" additional protections which I do not think they should be afforded. I think it would be heinous to say that we should attempt to destroy all people with black skin, and I think it's the only moral option to say that we need to destroy or fundamentally alter Muslim religion (and the Christian religion, and the orthodox Jewish religion, and the rest of the harmful ones). Calling Muslims a race implicitly grants Muslims additional unwarranted protections in the usual liberal discourse. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not fighting to say that Muslims should be put together as a racial group; what I'm saying is that it makes exactly as much sense to do so as it is to consider Jews, French-Canadians, or people with dark skin and tightly-curled hair as belonging to a particular "race," all of which has happened -- the racial profiling of Muslims fits into that historical arc. As for your argument that Islam, Christianity oand Orthodox Judaism needs to be destroyed, or that Muslims are at risk of being granted "additional unwarranted protections", well, I'm not touching those claims with a ten-foot pole. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 23:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's take a simpler question. Do you think it's acceptable, or even morally (weakly) required that we should try to rid the world of people who think the Earth is flat through education and dialog? Suppose we denied jobs in education to those who thought the world was flat. Would this be racial discrimination? Would you have a problem with someone who tried to phrase it in those terms? I do. Islam - and the other religions - are belief systems just like any other belief system, and religions deserve just as much respect as any other belief system - in other words none unless and until they can demonstrate truth and utility. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the equivalence you're making between flat-Earthism and religion, at least in terms of my own religious practice, i.e. what I learn from and gain from reading religious texts and going to religious services on a regular basis, so I'm not sure how to answer this. And like I said before, if a consensus emerged that an adherence to a belief system constituted a "race," then it would make about as much sense as any other attempt to classify people as such. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 23:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Why the comparison? Because by and large religious beliefs are about as wrong and deluded as flat Earth belief, and comparatively harmful. And surely you agree that it is right to discriminate against flat Earthers in many areas where it would be considered wrong to discriminate against blacks. If someone tells me that they're a practicing literalist pentecostal, that's good reason right there to deny them any job in education in history and science, and especially ancient history and astronomy and biology, because their beliefs matter. Calling it racial discrimination, or racial profiling, carries a connotation that it's bad, when in this case it is not. Some of the Islamophobists (?) have a good point here, that Islam is not a race, and we should not grant it the protections that we grant someone for being black, or for having Jewish ancestry, and I think that even acknowledging it as a race without the heavy disclaimers that you have put forth communicates to the average person that they are a race deserving of the same protections as blacks and Jews-by-ancestry. Sadly, we seem to be getting nowhere, and worse you happen to be religious which I'm sure greatly hampers my point. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

When Harris advocates profiling "anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim", that sounds a lot like racial profiling to me. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I said as much 2 "posts" up, and I agree we should mention this clearly, and make fun of Sam Harris for it too. I thought my edit to the mainspace article did exactly that, and humorously - the edit which was just reverted. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit. Your edit claimed that "Harris has gone on to call for the racial profiling of Arabs" while citing an article that didn't use the term Arab at all but did explicitly call for profiling of Muslims, something you crossed out. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

How about the following? Of course, in full irony meter, Sam Harris has gone on to call for the "non-racial" profiling of Muslims,[12] which in practice is functionally identical to racial profiling. Thanks, Sam! EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

How about no. You're still putting words in his mouth. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Or this? Of course, in full irony meter, Sam Harris has gone on to call for the "non-racial" profiling of anyone who looks like they might be a Muslim extremist,[12] which amounts to racial profiling for the rest of us in the real world. Thanks, Sam! EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

How about no. You're still putting words in his mouth. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean I'm putting words in his mouth? I haven't followed your exact link, but I have read both his initial appeal for profiling of Muslims and his later defense of that position against detractors. He is quite clear that his position is that he does not want racial profiling per se, but wants to include anyone who "looks like" they might be an extremist, and includes himself in the profile (a white guy). Of course, suggesting that we adopt a profile like this and have it not be a racial profile is a ridiculous position, and it's a ridiculous position for other reasons, and all of this is quite well explained by the security expert who was writing with him. Thus, I'm very lost. What words am I putting into his mouth? What positions do you think I am falsely attributing to Sam Harris? EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You keep saying he calls for "non-racial" profiling, in emphatic quotes, when the article doesn't use the term "non-racial" at all and on the contrary does advocate profiling based on ethnicity among other factors. And he doesn't call for profiling of people who look like they might be an extremist as you say; he calls explicitly for profiling "anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim". Any Muslim. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how he can be advocating racial profiling when he includes every conventional race in the profile. You would have to twist the word "race" to something other than common usage, as PowderSmokeAndLeather is trying to do up-page. ... And sure, maybe he's advocating profiling for all Muslims. I haven't read the thing in a while. Sorry for my impreciseness / incorrectness. However, it's also not relevant to our discussion. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Here, olive branch. I think there is some merit to what you say. Quoting Sam [5]:

• When I speak of profiling “Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim,” I am not narrowly focused on people with dark skin. In fact, I included myself in the description of the type of person I think should be profiled (twice). To say that ethnicity, gender, age, nationality, dress, traveling companions, behavior in the terminal, and other outward appearances offer no indication of a person’s beliefs or terrorist potential is either quite crazy or totally dishonest. It is the charm of political correctness that it blends these sins against reasonableness so seamlessly. We are paying a very high price for this obscurantism—and the price could grow much higher in an instant. We have limited resources, and every moment spent searching a woman like the one pictured above, or the children seen in the linked videos, is a moment in which someone or something else goes unobserved.

He out and out explicitly states that this is not profiling just based on if someone has dark skin. However, several sentences later he leaves open the possibility of using ethnicity. Frankly, I think his position is utter crap, and inconsistent. However, I do not understand how you can read that and miss the big parts where he explicitly states he is not for merely racial profiling, or IMHO racial profiling in anything resembling the common usage of the word. He is imagining creating a complex profile which may include race to help determine who might be a Muslim, and he would include members of every conventional ethnicity in that profile. Again, of course this is crap, because such a thing is basically unspecifiable, and worse even if some really educated guys could make an accurate profile, there's no way barely trained security guards could properly implement it. Again, all points which were clearly spelled out by the security expert who wrote a part of the first blog post with Harris. But it is rank dishonesty to say that Sam Harris nakedly advocated racial profiling. And frankly, this is all a giant non-sequitir to the discussion at hand, which is whether we should refer to members of the Muslim faith as a "race". EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Since when is that the discussion at hand? It's certain not the discussion I've been involved with on this page.

"I do not understand how you can read that and miss the big parts where he explicitly states he is not for merely racial profiling". I didn't miss it; I just don't buy into the notion that saying "I am not a racist" exempts somebody from actually being a bit racist. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Sam Harris is a racist. Whatever. Can we change the main page to not refer to Muslims as a race? EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this? Sam Harris calls for the racial profiling of anyone who "looks Muslim". EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That's basically what it already says. Why are you so desperate to reword it? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I've explained in great detail above. Again, refers to Muslims as a race in general discourse invokes several liberal values, such as the value that it deserves protection against any discrimination, on a level equal protections against racial discrimination against blacks. You should be able to legally discriminate when hiring someone based on their (pertinent) religious beliefs, and you should not be able to legally discriminate when hiring someone based on their skin color. Muslims do not constitute a race under any conventional understanding of the term, and to use that term does play into one of the valid points of the "islamophobics" that Islamophobia is starting to take on most of the same connotations of actual racism, such as racism against blacks. Someone who thinks that blacks are stupider is just wrong on the evidence. Someone who thinks that we're morally obliged to discriminate against blacks, or that it's morally permissible, is just wrong. However, Muslims are deluded, and we should be able to legally discriminate against Muslims who take the Koran literally in a variety of ways, including employment the beliefs are relevant. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Why am I "desperate"? 1- The above point, and 2- Because as written it's not correct or honest. As loose as the "race" word is, it still has a meaning. Blacks are a race. People who are Jewish by ancestry are a race. People of a particular belief system do not constitute a race. It is absurd to call US Democrats a race, and it is just as absurd to call Muslims a race. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

FFS I haven't said anything about Muslims being a "race" and neither does the article. Muslims of various ethnicities are, however, a frequent target of racism and racial profiling, as Sam Harris is advocating. As for employers being able to discriminate against Muslims, most of the developed world's employment laws would disagree with you, and rightly so. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The main article identifies Muslims as a race. I tried to fix it, and you reverted that change. ... The fact that profiling of Muslims frequently devolves down to racial profiling I fully agree with, but that still is no excuse as identifying Muslims as a race. ... You are wrong about the employment issue. For example, I remember this one young Earth creationist who got a PhD in biology from a respected university in the US, got a job in the US, and refused to do any work on evolutionary theory because he didn't believe in it. He got his ass fired. He tried to countersue by saying he was fired for his religious beliefs. He lost in court. And guess what, he's factually right. He got his ass fired for his religious beliefs. If you are hiring someone to do research in evolution, and the person in question does not believe in evolution, then that's a perfectly good and legal (in the US) reason to discriminate against that person in hiring. (I'll dig up a link on request, but I hope that's not necessary.) I suggest you actually research case law before you speak out of your ass. I also suggest you read what I say, because I used nearly this exact example up-thread, so don't you even dare suggest that I was saying something different. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

New to this conversation, but I've been quite involved before in ones like it on Sam Harris and this particular topic. I think it may be best to clarify that, while Sam Harris is not directly putting forward a position that we should be performing racial profiling, he is stating that we shouldn't be eliminating any factors from our profiling that could affect it. It is more accurate to say that he proposes "efficient" profiling (insofar as it is possible) that includes whatever factors, including race, are best suited for identifying Muslims, to the extent that they are a factor.

This is one of the (admittedly few) issues I have a strong disagreement with Harris on. It's not that I am against using race as a category of profiling, but it comes from an understanding that we already do unconsciously use race to profile, and we use it heavily. If we add it to the list of things we consciously search out, we are going to be doubling down ona single critereon and actually end up hurting ourselves in the long run. I think my worries that we will end up using race (and indeed religion itself) as too strong of a factor. The goal should not be "find the Muslims, using race as a factor", but rather "find the terrorists, using all known data as factors", with religion being but another trait that goes into the process.

With all this, I think it therefore makes sense to say, "Harris calls for the profiling of anyone who appears to be Muslim, explicitly stating that [[Racial profiling|race]] should be used as a factor to the extent it is useful in identifying Muslims. Sam leaves up to the imagination exactly how this process is supposed to be fair and bypass already existing human biases." Thoughts, opposition, etc.? --ShadowofLords (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys - I'm new to this. So my apologies if I have made technical mistakes in getting to this page. I was reading Rational Wiki's article on Islamaphobia and found quite a loaded sentence (and maybe a grammatical slip?!) in reference to Sam Harris's views on profiling: "Of course, in full irony, Harris has gone on to call for the profiling of Muslims and "anybody who looks like they could conceivably be Muslim" in security contexts.[11] What does a Muslim look like, Sam? We thought Islam was not a race, nor an ethnicity..." While I agree that the guy is probably wrong about it (although it seems he has a good point in the debate with Schneier, about it being only a disagreement over efficiency, and the comments on Israeli techniques are interesting) I think it's pretty amazing that Rational Wiki has such a loaded and frankly inaccurate reference to Harris's support for profiling. It seems slightly odd that it should be labelled racial profiling when the guy is asking for himself to be checked - basically, it seems a tad unfair to explicitly state that he supports racial profiling, when he has repeatedly said he does not.^{— Unsigned, by: Contrapunctus / talk / contribs}

His claims that it wouldn't be racial profiling seem rather flimsy & contradictory. He also seems to think airport security is all about screening for terrorists, & doesn't say anything about drug trafficking, firearms or anything else the TSA staff could be checking for. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Rollback of agreed changes without discussion

Hey, Osaka, we appear to have come to a conclusion in the talk page here, and you rather than stating disagreement with changes made a month ago (with two users agreeing they should be made and no one disagreeing) you just roll them back with no discussion. Any justification for going behind our backs and reverting the changes rather than having said something here first and continuing the conversation? Thanks. --ShadowofLords (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Two users isn't much of a consensus.
2. Your edit took out the citation where Harris talks about profiling. Way to improve content by removing references!
3. Harris advocates for racial profiling of anyone who looks like they could be Muslim. Let's not pretend this isn't racial profiling.
4. No, Harris doesn't leave us to imagine how his proposal would bypass existing human biases: his whole proposal is built on a set of biases. If not, concepts like "anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim" would be meaningless.

I support the reverted version. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Harris is many good things. He is also a racist and anti-Islamist. I agree the way it is now, is the way it should be. Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 18:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

1. I agree two users isn't much, but the original change was actively discussed followed by a solution that had no disagreement, but then the solution was rolled back with zero discussion, with someone a month later apparently deciding on their own "No, this is the correct way".
2. References can be added back in.
3. Not pretending that. I think it would be pretty clear reading what I wrote that it's a system that at a minimum is ripe for racial profiling, though perhaps it could have been made more clear it was built upon it.
4. Harris does leave it to the imagination, though. The system he proposes clearly would be racially biased, he just claims that it isn't a problem so long as race is actually a determining factor in finding Muslims.

No argument against Harris being a racist from me (in the more sociological sense: advocating policies that would needlessly and negatively affect racial minorities). However, that section of the article in particular is pretty poor. We appear to be readily hanging a straw man of Harris as attempting to create a system were we look at people and, solely based on their perceived race, identify Muslims. As far as I am aware this has not been his position. His position is that, if somebody is going to hijack or otherwise destroy a plane in flight, they will probably be a Muslim, and therefore we should apply additional scrutiny to Muslims at the airport (and we obviously would have to use visual cues to do so, perhaps dress and actions and, as Harris explicitly includes, race).

So, we can easily show why this is a stupid way to go about identifying likely terrorists at the airport, and why we shouldn't use this system to let every grandma just walk through with minimal inspection. But, by reducing his position to "racially profile people to find Muslims", we hurt our credibility. We can go into how you might develop a decision making algorithm to detect terrorists, and why you would still want to randomly select some people who score low, especially when dealing with a system in which conscious creatures are attempting to stay hidden.

My point, which is now much longer than I intended is that we are taking the easy road of attacking a position he doesn't really have rather than talking about why his logic is flawed. --ShadowofLords (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Terrorist Sympathizers

“”Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

—Winston Churchill

I'm assuming because this is a site dedicated to debunking religious views, crankery, pseudoscience and the like, that most of us here are atheists. Islam hates atheists, period. They hate atheists probably as much as they hate Jews. Christians also hate atheists, but they won't cut your head off for it, and, it only depends on where you live whether they'll try to enslave you for it. Islam holds the position that Muhammad was God's prophet issuing the final address from God to man for all time. Because Muhammad is said to have channeled God directly, all human beings must be subservient to him, because he came from God. Whereas Christianity and other religions often have edicts declaring they are not to associate with atheists, Islam is fine with association in the sense that they are commanded to fight and kill them. Islam does not and will not tolerate atheists in even the slightest way. Trying to sit around and figure out how to be friends with them is like trying to figure out how to make creationism real so we don't offend creationists by denying it. Islam is not like other religions in the sense that they are directly commanded to conquer the world and bring it into alignment with Sharia. Islam is the western world's 1500 year old enemy - Islamic religious violence is nothing new and they have been killing and enslaving westerners for centuries. Don't believe me? Pick up Chaucer - read "The Man of Law's Tale." It is a story about a Muslim man who is going to convert to Christianity to marry a Christian woman. His mother is incensed that he will convert from Islam, so she pretends to be ok with it, organizes a banquet, and has her son and the entire party's attendees put to death. There are centuries of literature affirming the perpetual violence of Islam against westerners. They view liberals as weak because liberals naturally tend to prefer peace, but Islam is not a religion that wants peace. It wants what the word Islam means: submission. It's nice to think you can get along with anyone in this world, but there are many who are not amenable to reason or ovations of peace. For atheists to engage in Islamic apologetics is a truly disturbing presentation. I don't know what teachers taught you that Islam is something that is highly ecumenical and amenable to a pluralistic society, but they shouldn't be qualified to teach.

Get your head straight and stop pillaging rationalwiki's pages with apologetic for Islamic supremacists. I'm a big peace fan, lay down in the grass and sing hippie songs kind of person, but unless you've been a zealous religious fundamentalist at some point in your life, you really don't understand the kind of mentality you're making apologies for. I was the kind of Christian as a young teen who read Left Behind and lusted for the death and punishment of the non-believers - though would not have taken such an action upon myself. If you don't know what it's like to want someone else dead for not believing in your religion, then you are completely out of line making apologetics for Islam - not to mention stupid. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This will be a discussion about extent, I assume. My experience is opposed to yours (me only having met and made friends with moderate Muslims all my life, and my non-Muslim friends who have a great time working in Muslim countries), but I don't doubt that there are such extremists in abundance if I just go to the right place. Nullahnung (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It's nice to think you can get along with anyone in this world, but there are many who are not amenable to reason or ovations of peace. - and, by the sound of your rant, you're one of them. Innocent Bystander (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I worked for a Pakistani Muslim for many years, he was a very nice man. That doesn't mean that Islam is friendly towards the west - it is not - it is and has been an enemy of the west for many many centuries and they're not going to be disposing of their views on that any time soon. To support Islam is to support the absolute worst abuser of human rights in the entire world - and that's really saying something. Islamic countries have spent nearly no time in their countries trying to adapt the views from Sharia and the fundamental core of Islam is supremacy. Please find me some Islamic scholars that say that Islam does not believe atheists should be either killed or enslaved - I would love to see one. Ovations of peace from Islam are like pedophiles with candy and kids - it looks and tastes sweet - but you're an idiot to climb in that van. Rational people are afraid of animals that want to kill them: http://iheu.org/story/you-can-be-put-death-atheism-13-countries-around-world http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/01/blasphemyLaws_05.png

All I'm saying is don't drink the politically correct liberal cyanide. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget, they eat babies!!!! Innocent Bystander (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

No they don't, but they do murder apostates and blasphemers - quite openly with government approval from their member states. But, sure, in the name of tolerance, as rationalists, we should openly endorse the murder of atheists and rationalists. I think that's a wise course of action. Charles Manson was just a few centuries too late or he could have been Muhammad and raised armies to conquer 35% of the world - we should tolerate people who ruthlessly kill others in the name of religion. I'm sympathetic towards most liberal values, but as someone who was raised dominionist and turned atheist there's still a part of my psyche that says: "New York totally deserved 9/11 and more." If you don't know what it's like to think like that - then you have no idea how insane it is to talk about Islam the way a good number of the left does - with this peacenik hold-over from the flower children naivete. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You might want to actually read some of our articles such as Islamic Awakening, Muslim Patrol and Taliban amongst many others. Other articles on, for example, Blasphemy will be of interest well.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 15:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Tolerance of Islam is not the same as the tolerance of the terrible practices of radical Islamists. The excuses the radical Islamic nations use for their various crimes are the same kinds of scripture that are found in the Christian and Jewish holy texts. Just because religion has inspired these people to kill and destroy doesn't mean we should prohibit the peaceful practice of it by much more moderate worshipers.

The Western world being tolerant of Islam does not mean they would tolerate stoning atheists. It means they're not going to tear down a mosque just because radical Islamists in another country a thousand miles away are stoning atheists.

Islamophobia is when some nut goes off his rocker ranting about putting a mosque near Ground Zero because he doesn't know the difference between al-Qaeda and moderate Muslims. Being outraged by the death and destruction caused by radical Islamists is not Islamophobia. Frederick^♠♣♥♦ 02:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

So if I complain that Christians are being persecuted by Islamic terrorists or an "atheist" totalitarian regime or Jewish nationalists in Israel or the West Bank, I take you are going to yell at me and call me a "Crusader Sympathizer." Rand0 (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably not since you're complaining about a real issue. "Crusader symphathizer" would only be appropriate if you advocated outright religious warfare.-- 194.81.33.118 (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Ding, ding ding! That's why calling editors of this article "terrorist sympathizers" is not appropriate. Rand0 (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Irrational fear?

Is Islamophobia only the irrational fear of Islam? As in, is it not possible to be rationally afraid of Islam? Is there a separate word for rational fear of Islam (or other religions?) ^{— Unsigned, by: 212.219.66.211 / talk / contribs}

Yes. It is called "Rational fear of <insert-religion-here>". For instance, any non-muslims currently in ISIS-controlled territory could be said to have a rational fear of Islam or Muslims. Hertzy (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Considering that Daesh executes virtually all Shia and any Sunnis suspected of not being rabidly anti-Shia, I'd say ALL Muslims in that area would have a rational fear of Islam of Muslims. CorruptUser (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

"Islamophobia versus criticism of Islam"

This section doesn't seem to address it's headline and I'm not sure I'm going to do well rewriting it, but here's a try to look over:

Islamophobia is more of a fear of culture based around a religion, calling for profiling, discrimination and in some cases extermination of Muslims as a people. This is not to say that criticism of the religion is a irrational fear. Hate the religion, love the religious if you will. Complaining about what the religion is killing people for is warranted while calling for the practitioners to be put to death is not.

Thoughts? Zero (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a strawman. Who are these people who advocate extermination of Muslims? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'm still not getting the point of this section (or the article, I guess) then since it seems to not be in line with anything said. Zero (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The point of section seems to be that Islamophobic comments are OK when they come from New Atheist celebrities. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it highlights the issue with the murkiness of separating unreasonable and reasonable criticisms of Islam into separate buckets, because there's often a lot of entangled things going on. We do, however, find ourselves in an awkward situation, for every time there is some screwball saying, "Criticizing Islam is Islamophobia" there are another dozen nutjobs saying, "There's no such thing as Islamophobia." There are reasons to dislike Islam, even to be intensely fearful of Islam. However, there's a sizeable number of people who dislike and/or are intensely fearful of Islam without any reasonable cause. You even get people like Sam Harris who have some reasonable, well-thought-out critiques of Islam broken up by islands of cruelty and hypocrisy. Shadow of Lords ^talk 19:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Is Islam a race?

Islam is the majority religion in countries like Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan and Somalia, even though racially and ethnically the populations of these countries are very different. There are also converts to Islam from just about every racial and ethnic group on the planet. In Canada alone we had two WASPs convert to Islam and try to copycat the Boston Bombers, except these 2 losers a) targeted the B.C. legislature and b) got caught before their bombs detonated. Canada was also home to a kid of Korean descent who went to North Africa to join Al-Qaeda. There were also that white (ginger) loser who was trying to enforce Sharia law in London. Not to mention apostates like Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali didn't change their race when they renounced Islam. People do sometimes equate "brown people" with "Muslim", but brown people would also include Sikhs and Hindus, so it's not like Islam has a monopoly on being "brown". Point being, people who call criticism of Islam (a set of beliefs) racism are either clueless as to what race is or they're resorting to what Greta Christina refers to as "shut up, that's why" forms of argument. ^{— Unsigned, by: Milesmcstylez / talk / contribs}

[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.]

I don't see where the article says Islamophobia is racism. It says it is akin to racism.

While I am here typing, let me say that the thing about religion being a choice is a separate topic, and a murky one. The Jesuits are famous for saying something like "Give me a child until he is seven, and he will be mine for life." 72.70.55.24 (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Akin to racism is not the same as racism. Hipo^crite 21:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Akin probably isn't the best phrase to use anyway. The point is that Islamophobia often goes hand in hand with (explicit or implicit) racism. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It's both Akin, in that people are highly unlikely to change their grandfathered religion, and nearly universally adjacent, in that almost all islamophobes are also racists with respect to people that "look" muslim. Hipo^crite 22:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said in an edit summary a while back: Judaism is no less a "race" than Islam, but the fact that a Jew converted to Christianity made zero difference to the Nazis. To them, Judaism was a question of racial identity, not of shared belief. In a similar, though far less onerous manner, Islam has been racilized. Ask any Sikh or Hindu going through airport security about this. Their ethnic/racial look means thay are far more likely to be targeted for anti-Muslim bullshit than, say, my white Bosnian Muslim friend. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

(EC, adding my voice to what's already been said). OP is bullshit. Racism is hatred, fear or distrust of people based on their ethnicity and/or culture, not some strict biological thing. This includes Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, Sinophobia, Indophobia, hatred of Native Americans, etc. etc. What with open racism being out of style, people often pass off their racism (even to themselves) as being not really racist. That doesn't give them a free pass when they're promoting hostility toward the "other". Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I think "Islamophobia is often motivated by racism" is more accurate than "Islamophobia is akin to racism". I'm not denying the Ann Coulters of the world think "Muslim" "Brown person" and "Terrorist" are all interchangeable terms. I'm also not denying the widespread prejudice faced by "anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim" to quote Sam Harris. However, I think comparisons of Islam to Christianity are more apt than comparisons to Judaism. Christianity and Islam are both much larger, much more racially diverse, and both put a great deal of emphasis on converting people (of all races) where Judaism does not. Saying vehement criticism of Islam is akin to racism, but equally harsh criticism of Christianity is not, strikes me as a massive double standard. I'm also reminded of how many of Israel's most rabid supporters reflexively label any and all criticism of Israeli policy as Anti-Semitism, as a way of silencing their critics rather than addressing them. Islamophobia and Anti-Semitism are both used far too often to equate valid and legitimate criticisms with racism. Rather than calling out such disingenuous tactics, this article seems to embrace them.--Milesmcstylez (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The second half of the article is all about differentiating legitimate criticism of beliefs from racist Islamophobia. Read it. The changes you were making to the lead section appeared to suggest that there is no such thing as Islamophobia and that all criticism of Muslims is fair game since they're technically not a "race". That's where the disingenuous tactics come in. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I saw the second half, but the introduction makes absolutely no attempt to differentiate legitimate criticism of Islam from bigotry against Muslims. If anything, it equates the two. --Milesmcstylez (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that it equates the two. How about something more like this? "Islam is a religion; a collection of ideas and beliefs, and like all religions, can be disliked and criticized. When that dislike turns to mindless hatred, on the same level as racism, that's called Islamophobia". Hmmph (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Valid criticisms of Islam

I think the article needs to flesh out what does not constitute Islamophobia, though is often labelled as such.

A few things include:

-Pointing out specific passages in the Qur'an or hadith that conflict with Enlightment values such as womens rights, LGBTQ rights, tolerance of religious minorities, free speech, etc.

-Citing opinion polls or other data that suggest a sizable portion of the world's Muslims support undemocratic doctrines such as the death penalty for apostasy and violent actions taken against blasphemers.

-Making valid though unflattering comparisons between Islam and other major religions such as Christianity.

-General criticisms that would be deemed socially acceptable (or at least not racist) if they were leveled at a different religion. --Milesmcstylez (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

A few quotes that might also be apppropriate

"Needless to say, there are people who hate Arabs, Somalis, and other immigrants from predominantly Muslim societies for racist reasons. But if you can't distinguish that sort of blind bigotry from a hatred and concern for dangerous, divisive, and irrational ideas -- like a belief in martyrdom, or a notion of male 'honor' that entails the virtual enslavement of women and girls -- you are doing real harm to our public conversation. Everything I have ever said about Islam refers to the content and consequences of its doctrine. And, again, I have always emphasized that its primary victims are innocent Muslims -- especially women and girls. There is no such thing as 'Islamophobia.' This is a term of propaganda designed to protect Islam from the forces of secularism by conflating all criticism of it with racism and xenophobia. And it is doing its job, because people like you have been taken in by it." -- Sam Harris http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/dear-fellow-liberal2

"As a brown-skinned person with a Muslim name, I can get away with a lot more than you'd think. I can publicly parade my wife or daughters around in head-to-toe burqas and be excused out of "respect" for my culture and/or religion, thanks to the racism of lowered expectations. I can re-define 'racism' as something non-whites can never harbor against whites, and cite colonialism and imperialism as justification for my prejudice. And in an increasingly effective move that's fast become something of an epidemic, I can shame you into silence for criticizing my ideas simply by calling you bigoted or Islamophobic. For decades, Muslims around the world have rightly complained about the Israeli government labeling even legitimate criticism of its policies 'anti-Semitic,' effectively shielding itself from accountability. Today, Muslim organizations like CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) have borrowed a page from their playbook with the 'Islamophobia' label -- and taken it even further. In addition to calling out prejudice against Muslims (a people), the term 'Islamophobia' seeks to shield Islam itself (an ideology) from criticism. It's as if every time you said smoking was a filthy habit, you were perceived to be calling all smokers filthy people. Human beings have rights and are entitled to respect. But when did we start extending those rights to ideas, books, and beliefs? You'd think the difference would be clear, but it isn't. The ploy has worked over and over again, and now everyone seems petrified of being tagged with this label. The phobia of being called 'Islamophobic' is on the rise -- and it's becoming much more rampant, powerful, and dangerous than Islamophobia itself." -- Ali A. Rizvi http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/the-phobia-of-being-calle_b_5215218.html?utm_hp_ref=tw --Milesmcstylez (talk) 01:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that Sam Harris has made statements in defense of profiling against Muslim-looking people in airports, right? Why should we be putting his excuses for why he's not a racist on this page? Frederick^♠♣♥♦ 00:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The map is wrong

The map lists Laos as an Islamic country where Atheist rights have been restricted. Laos is a Buddhist country run by Marxist-leninists(aka atheists). Also Eritrea has more Christians than Muslims according to Wikipedia so probably not a good example either. Not sure where you got it from, but it looks like you need a new map. 198.102.219.143 (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

No, the map lists Eritrea as a country where atheists can be imprisoned under law, and Laos as a country where atheists have reduced rights under law. It doesn't identify either as Islamic. I can't find what the specific legal restrictions on atheism are in Laos, but a few searches on Google & Wikipedia show that atheists are actually a very small minority there, and various religious minorities are persecuted despite nominal freedom of religion. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

From the summary: "Countries which kill or imprison atheists (that they're all Islamic is probably coincidence and has nothing to do with Islam). But yes, technically you're correct. The map is not so much wrong as misleading. It's the map's summary that is wrong. " 198.102.219.143 (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Gone. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Why Vilify Legitimate Opposition to Islam?

How come any opposition to Islam is considered "Islamaphobia"? In the Richard Dawkins article, you talk all about his anti-religion positions, then when he says bad things about Muslims, it suddenly becomes a "legitimate criticism" of Richard Dawkins. It is the same thing on the Sam Harris page. Is this an atheist site or a pro-Islam site? Dawkins and Harris have just as much right to make fun of, and oppose, Islam as they do any other religion.^{— Unsigned, by: 128.118.244.23 / talk / contribs} 21:48, 10 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Do you have any specific complaints about this article, or?--ZooGuard (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I screwed up

I was trying to see changes and I think instead I undid some edits I didn't mean to undo. My apologies, and altho someone has already explained this to me somewhere , I didn't quite grok it: How does one add explanatory text to changes reflected in the Fossil Record?---Mona- (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want to compare a revision to the current revision, you can click the cur link. If you want to compare a revision to the previous revision to see exactly what an editer did in that particular edit, you can click the prev link. The big link with the time and date will show you what the page looked like at that time and date without making comparisons. Only use the undo link if you plan to undo someone's edit. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:21, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

I guess this teh fault of da evul zionist juice, amirite? 194.95.142.180 (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course... Если в кране нет воды, значит выпили жыды...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

So that's settled. Care to look through the edits for anti-Zionist or otherm types of non-rational bias inserted by our resident Jew hater critc of "teh occupation"? 194.95.142.180 (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Yawn, yawn and an ever larger fucking yawn. Grow up children.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Nooooooo, I don't wanna grow up, I'd loose my super-powers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111 Disregard that, it was caused by an Charlotte-overdose.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

He's probably a Zionist too... And just masquerading as a friend of Mona to stab her in the back, just like the Zionists Jews did to the German military in the first world war.... 194.95.142.180 (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I do smell a false-flag-troll here.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Who trolls whom? 194.95.142.180 (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said, I may be wrong on that one.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It was a false flag! Roosevelt bombed his own Pearl Harbor to justify the Iraq War, even though it had nothing to do with the Gulf of Tonkin 11111!!!!!!! Wake up sheeple! The Zionists control teh media and all teh politics! Ron Paul 2008! Ron Paul 2008! - see, now that was false flag trolling ;-) Or... was it? 194.95.142.180 (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd say, that was overt sarcasm...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought sarcasm does not work on the tubes of the internets? 194.95.142.180 (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks 142.124.55.236 for the explanation of features in the Fossil Record. The only thing I still don't get is how some people are adding explanations in the Fossil Rcord itself where their edit is reflected.---Mona- (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, when you're editing you can add something in the summary box. That summary will then be reflected on the fossil record. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:31, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Thank you so much. Trying to figure out how to do that has been driving me batshit.---Mona- (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh FFS

This -Arisboch person and a few others are obsessed with my views on Israel and Zionism, about which I know a great deal, and in the header-section above Footnotes have speculated that I am a "false flag." I don't care about anonymity: my name is Mona Holland. I'm 59 years old, a retired lawyer (early due to health), and a former law partner of Glenn Greenwald's (he and I agree 85% of the time). James Randi is a demi-god to me, and I've been using RW for quite a few years now and when looking for an entry here on "Targeted individuals" I was surprised not to find one. That's a bit of current and growing woo I will eventually turn attention to. (I posted in the Forum asking if anyone had any knowledge or sources on this topic.) I am also a very political person and read a very great deal on those issues that inflame me. One of those issues is the obscene treatment of Palestinians by a West guilty about Jews after WWII and giving to Zionists (or acquiescing to Zionist taking) what was not the West's to give. I document my claims, which many Zionists find deeply unpleasant and they are upset at my plans to work on the Zionism entry. Apparently, they plan to trail me around to every talk page and behave like, well, one can see how they behave. How impressive, and makes your cause seem oh-so good and true.---Mona- (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the false-flag quip was in reference to someone else, and it was clearly just a joke either way. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:28, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Quite right, they didn't mean me. That's what I get for publicly saying boo on insufficient caffeine. But the rest is still applicable. ---Mona- (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Should the discussion of Zionism (or your views of it) really be had here on this talk page? It appears to be creeping into areas where it doesn't belong and as I know from bitter experience, the issue of Israel is apt to divide political movements who agree about (almost) anything else and makes for strange bedfellows indeed more times than not. Be it communist secularists marching with Hamas apologists (or being Hamas apologists themselves) and Muslim extremists or be it Trotskyists and anarchic communists marching with mainline christian democrats and other conservatives. I might just as well one day actually write the essay that is brewing in may head on the subject... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I think no is the answer to your question. Given the obvious trolling above after Mona's simple request for some help, that question should be probably be asked of Arisboch and whoever is masquerading as 194.95.142.180. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Could you at least tag Arisboch if you're writing stuff like that? And you might also consider tagging the BoN... But that seems to be uncommon over here. The amount of lack of courtesy extended to BoNs is... horrendous. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The Rizvi quote

The problem with making grand statements about liberals and Muslims without providing examples or quotes of liberals or Muslims engaging in the activities you're condemning is that if you're not arguing against any actual statements, you're making a strawman argument. I don't see why Rizvi's quote should be left unaddressed on the page. Either his use of a strawman argument should be addressed, or the quote should be removed. Frederick^♠♣♥♦ 05:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

If you feel that there is need for a list of liberals making excuses for Islam, we can re-insert the paragraph in question immediately followed by people who for example said (in so many words) "Rushdie must have known what he was getting into when he wrote this book" or "Well 9/11 was the result of legitimate grievances in the Muslim world" Or (though this has been said thankfully few times) "Isis is only the way of the people of Iraq to fight the occupation". The first two things were said quite often; especially by left wing people and liberals of the kind who make excuses for Muslim extremism... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't feel that we're the ones who need to give examples. I feel that Rizvi was the one that needed to give examples before making his argument. I feel that if we're going to provide a quote in defense of criticism of Islam, we need one that isn't based on a strawman argument against liberals. I have no problem with criticizing Islam or terrorist activities or any "liberals" who defend terrorist activities, but it needs to be based on the words or actions of actual people, and not generalized to simply "liberals" or "Muslims". Frederick^♠♣♥♦ 16:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The whole "leftie Liberals can't deal with radical Islam" trope is an assertion made regularly by the distinctly non-leftie (but nominally liberal), Maajid Nawaz. He rarely seems to name the supposed offenders though. I think a list of (notable) names would be helpful. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Well for example the reaction of people like Jimmy Carter (or are you gonna say he is neither left nor liberal?) when the whole Satanic Verses snafu happened saying (in essence) "well the fatwa is bad and all, but Rushdie shoulda known what he was getting into 'offending' Muslims". Or people left and right who say that Jyllands Posten should not have published these "provocative" caricatures. You know, this kind of classic victim blaming caving to religious nutcases when they get violent and sometimes even before that. To be honest, the same thing has happened and still happens with Christianity as well, but in recent years it has happened a lot more with Islam. Yes "the last temptation of Christ" or "The live of Brian" caused minor stirs in the fundamentalist mindset and there were demonstrations and calls for boycott, but nobody was killed and nobody had to earnestly fear for their lives. Still even when Christianity is "offended" some people rush to "defend" it, as if over a billion people who are still culturally dominant in more countries than you could count need to be "defended". Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing against criticizing victim-blaming or Jimmy Carter. My problem is that Rizvi's argument is a terrible argument, plain and simple. Not only is it a strawman argument, he's really just whining about people calling him a racist, saying it's "just like in Pakistan where they use blasphemy laws to shut you up". He's literally comparing people calling him names to government censorship. I don't see any good reason why the quote should be on the page unless we're making fun of it. Frederick^♠♣♥♦ 02:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Overlap between "halal" and "kosher"

Halal for food (it is a much broader term thaen kosher in that it means "allowed" in general and can even mean "touchable" as in "you are allowed to take this") means:

1. no pork (go tell that to Congress, scnr)
2. no blood (i.e. slaughtering by cutting the throat = same as in Judaism)
3. No animals that died on their own accord (the Q'uran goes into ridiculous detail on that one.

A later Verse of the Q'uran even explicitly says that meat slaughtered by other "people of the book" is halal. Kosher meat has to be

1. one of several animals excluding (among others) pork
2. slaughtered by cutting the throat
3. the same restrictions as to animals that died on their own also apply (though they are irrelevant nowadays anyway)

In addition to that kosher meat mustn't

1. be mixed with milk (for very observant Jews that means two kitchens and two sets of cutlery)
2. contain any trace amount of blood (that's what "kosher salt" is for; it draws out the blood)

As "kosher" is obviously the more restrictive term and quite a few foods are halal but not kosher, most Muslims would do nothing wrong according to their religion if they stick to kosher food. However, in recent times some extremist imams have tried to split hairs and outlawed kosher food for Muslims for reasons about as stupid as the halal soup controversy. As a kosher (or halal) certificate usually isn't free and may include a possibility to upmarket ones produce, there might be some monetary interest to this. Or it is plain Antisemitism. Take your pick Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

How about no. That isn't what this article's about. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The thing is: If you are eating kosher food, you have been eating halal food for all this time without knowing it! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Most Muslims would disagree with you. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I am sure you have a citation to back this up? Or have made a impromptu poll among the Muslims or even the Imams you know? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Second surah of the Quran forbids animals blessed in the name of any god but Allah. I don't have my Quran on me, but seriously, just start at the start and read for 5 mins, you'll see it there. It also states that if you eat haraam food by accident or necessity (if no halal food is avalable) that you're totally okay. Fuck the Imams, just read the book. Surat al Baqarah I think. ^{— Unsigned, by: 81.145.153.190 / talk / contribs}

But aren't Allah and the God of Abraham one and the same? The Qu'ran certainly seems to suggest as much. 194.78.87.50 (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Convenient informative link. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:36, 2 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

If you read that carefully, the only thing Islam explicitly forbids that Judaism allows is alcohol. Other thaen that, Islam explicitly allows meat slaughtered by "people of the book" and kosher slaughter differs from halal slaughter only in the trivial respect in how often "god" is said. If you are Muslim and your Imam says kosher food is haram, you should change Imam... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If you are Jewish and your rabbi says you need two sets of cutlery, you should change rabbi. Why are Muslims who take a hardline approach to their dietary requirements "extremist" while Jews who take a hardline approach to their dietary requirements merely "very observant"? I'm really tempted to add this to the examples section of the article. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Because an Imam who says kosher food is no no not only goes against the explicit letter of the Q'uran, but also against literally centuries of tradition. On the other hand, while having two kitchens is an "extreme" position on the face of it, it is well within established Jewish tradition (though probably a thing a minority of Jews, even observant Jews actually do). As a further aside, many moderately observant Jews eat halal meat if they are in places where it is easier to get thaen kosher meat (most of Europe) or kosher food is not available at all (basically all of the world except for Israel, the US, some major cities in Europe and some enclaves here and there). Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

European migrant crisis

Someone with the knowledge and expertise on this subject should make an article about what has been called the European "migrant crisis." I myself don't really know much about it, but I'd like to see RW's perspective on the matter, especially considering it seems to be referenced throughout this article a few times. Kvltcat (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Unless your name is Abraham (just kidding!) or Jephthah (for realz)

God no requested Jephtah to sacrifice her daughter, this was his decision to doing it. When christians claim old testament personages was christians, this is antisemitism and christians are attacked because it, when atheist experts on islam (?)from Rational wiki uses Abraham and Jephtah to criticize christianity, it is o.k. and just fine. 186.91.98.65 (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Taharrush gamea

I'd like to present this for debate: Is the western media's decision to use the Arabic term "Taharrush gamea" for collective harassment committed by refugees a case of islamophobia? On one hand, the culprits that get the most screen-time are refugees, but on the other hand it looks like they just slapped the Arabic term "collective harassment" on it to make it sound more like a heathen brown person thing than a douchebag thing to do. Hertzy (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Islamophobia and Sikhs

Current article states the Sikhs are common victims of "Islamaphobes" who mistake them for Muslims. What a laughably ignorant and euro-centric viewpoint. While it is true that Sikhs are sometimes targeted by profoundly dumb individuals who have indeed mistaken them for Muslims, this article fails to mention that Sikhs themselves have faced hundreds of years of vicious persecution and violence at the hands of the Muslims, and are among the most ardent "Islamophobes" in the world (and with good reason!). I guess they are "racist" too. What a horribly ignorant article. Islam is a cancer on this planet, and harms both Muslim and non-Muslims.^{— Unsigned, by: 104.37.61.189 / talk / contribs}

Shut up.-DiamondDisc1|1csiDdnomaiD (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

FOAD, BoN.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 01:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 01:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

^^ Look at the superb counter-arguments made by these intellectual titans. I can see why this is the Rational Wiki.

BON, you're correct. Feel free to add that to the article. Also: "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!

Diamond and Kugel: seriously? At least respond, THEN insult. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 01:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm with Fuzzy here. A worthwhile point on Sikhs from BoN, even if presented as if by a whiny baby. And like we'd stop you for improving the article, BoN? Like Nike says, "Just do it!". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

"Islamophobia is a cancer on this planet, and harms both Muslim and non-Muslims." ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 10:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggested edits

In my view this entry needs som editing. Looking, for instance, at the 8-point list of Islamophobia characteristics I do agree with 1, 3, 6, 7, 8. As for 2 I would assert that there certainly are elements of Islamic culture that are very different from Western values, for instance as regards women's rights, crime and punishment and other issues. As for 4, it's difficult to deny that elements of Islam are very violent and supportive of terrorism, and that these groups base this in an interpretation of religion. The standard reply to this is that Christian sects can also be violent and aggressive. Yes, this is correct, but in Christianity this is a very minor fringe element, while there appears to be a fairly large number of Muslims who support or condone aggressive or terrorist acts. As for 5, it's true that Islam in some interpretations that have fairly wide acceptance within the Islamic community is seen as a political ideology and a plan for how society should be organised. It appears to me that Christianity historically has had similar aspirations, but that this religion now has renounced most of its claims to how society should be organised. Can Islam in a similar vein grow out of being a political ideology (which it is today over much of the MENA area)? I don't know!

Anyway, in my view the entry should be edited to make a clear distinction between criticism of Islam (legitimate) and irrational Islamophobia (not legitimate).

The 8 points you refer to are a list published by a respected think-tank, it's not just something the writers of the article pulled out of their asses: definitions of Islamophobia vary, but it's still useful to have a definition with some authority behind it.

As for saying that many Christians don't want to impose (their own idea of) Christian rule, look at the pro-Christian religious right in the Republican Party in the USA from Reagan to Rick Santorum and Ted Cruz. (Although ironically with Trump they're becoming more nakedly Islamophobic than any pretence at Christian values.) In both Islam and Christianity there are sizeable groups who want to impose religious morality via the law, just as there are large numbers of secularists who don't. Annquin (talk) 12:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

What's with the apologetics for Christianity among atheists/secularists all of a sudden? Are we forgetting that Bush/Tony Blair themselves said they launched the disastrous war on Iraq because "God" told them too (if we take jihadists at their word, we should take Bush/Blair's word as well). And that's not forgetting the Orthodox Serbs' ethnic cleansing and massacre of Muslims in Yugoslavia. ChrisAmiss (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

They really both said that? Seems more like one of these rumors or a bad speech writer to me to me or one of them not being aware of the connotations some wordds have in certain parts of the world (or at least not aware how people in some worlds take advantage of certain gaffes).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC) 15:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Islamophobia and what Europe fails to understand

I'm sorry to break it to you guys, but Islamophbia is only a term created by Muslims to deflect any criticism or claims to faith, inclusing regular beliefs as "Radical". In laymans terms, these radical terms are, in fact, according to this Islamic scholar at a peace conference in Norway are what Normal Muslims think. In fact, I understand Youtube is not the best source, so I give you this to back it up. Same conference in Oslo Norway. I will end my case wiht a couple of quotes:

"The fact that the majority of smokers do not develop lung cancer does not negate the fact that smoking is the main cause of lung cancer; likewise, the fact that the majority of Muslims do not develop terrorism does not negate the fact that Islamic ideology is the main cause of terrorism.

– Tawfik Hamid (aka Tarek Abdelhamid) Egyptian author and former member of the militant al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya."

Europe will soon go under because of its former liberalism that has proved childish and suicidal. Europe has produced Hitler, and after Hitler the continent stands there with no arguments: the doors are wide open for Islam, they no longer dare talk about race and religion while Islam only knows the language of hatred against alien races and religions.

I should say a few words about politics too … Then I would talk about how Muslims are flooding, occupying, in clear verbs, destroying Europe, and how Europe relates to this, the suicidal liberalism and the stupid democracy … It always ends the same way: civilization reaches a certain stage of maturation where it is not only able to defend itself, but where it is in a seemingly incomprehensible worship of their own enemy. . Imre Kertész Hungarian author, Holocaust concentration camp survivor, and recipient of the 2002 Nobel Prize in Literature

"Quran… an accursed book…. So long as there is this book there will be no peace in the world.

– William Ewart Gladstone Prime Minister of the United Kingdom four times between 1868 and 1894 (1809–1898)."

"If the people of this religion are asked about the proof for the soundness of their religion, they flare up, get angry and spill the blood of whomever confronts them with this question. They forbid rational speculation, and strive to kill their adversaries. This is why truth became thorough silenced and concealed.

– Zakariya Razi (Rhazes) Persian chemist, philosopher and physician, 865 – 925AD."

"Asked whether suicide bombing can be justified as a measure to defend Islam, 26 percent of American Muslims age eighteen to twenty-nine said yes. That is one quarter of the adult American Muslims under the age of thirty, and no matter how you count the number of Muslims in America (estimates vary from 2 million to 8 million), that is a lot of people.

– Ayaan Hirsi Ali Somali-born American (formerly Dutch) activist, writer, and politician."

"During the thousand years that included the careers of the Frankish soldier and the Polish king, the Christians of Asia and Africa proved unable to wage successful war with the Moslem conquerors; and in consequence Christianity practically vanished from the two continents; and today nobody can find in them any “social values” whatever, in the sense in which we use the words, so far as the sphere of Mohammedan influence. There are such “social values” today in Europe, America, and Australia only because during those thousand years the Christians of Europe possessed the warlike power to do what the Christians of Asia and Africa had failed to do – that is, to beat back the Moslem invader.

– Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt 26th President of the United States"

"ISLAM

Muhammad was once a refugee taken in by the Jewish City of Medina. Within 5 yrs, he had driven out, executed, or enslaved every jew there. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, " I have been made victorious with terror." -- Sahih al-Bukhari 2977, (on Jihaad), Book 56, Hadith 186 QUOTE OF REASON

“I came to the absolute conviction that it is impossible…impossible…for any human being to read the biography of Mohammed and believe in it, and then emerge a psychologically and mentally healthy person.”

- Syrian Psychiatrist Dr. Wafa Sultan"

Apologies for all the quotes, but I feel this must be emphasized, the poison Islam creates is _not moderate_^{— Unsigned, by: ‎TASOfficial / talk / contribs}

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 indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you.--JorisEnter (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Did you find those quotes yourself in your careful reading of the sources, in which case you'll know Gladstone praised the Muslims of India and Syria and merely hated Turks?[6] Or did you just cut and paste them without any attempt to understand them or appreciate the context and authorial intent? The last sentence of the Kertesz quote doesn't actually make sense as stated, so it seems even cut-and-paste skills are lacking. Annquin (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The last to quotes can be found all over the internet.[7][8] I didn't bother to check the rest of them, but I'm pretty sure that the same goes for all of those.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

No matter how much certain New Atheists whine, "Islamophobia" will continue to be used

It's used by governments, by the media, by academics, by laypeople. Adding some video of a New Atheists commanding us to stop using the term and claiming that this video is our article "in a nutshell" is incredibly dishonest. He's not an authoritative voice on any of this, and most people don't even know who he is. I don't see any reason why his views should be so prominent in this article instead of the views of actual academics or politicians.

Bottom line, stop trying to hijack this article to advertise some New Atheist's Youtube channel. Typhoon (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The term is established and will continue to be used. And it should continue to be used, too, denoting actual Islamophobia (which is obviously a very real problem, see first half of the article). The article also has a section on the criticisms against the term itself (crank) and against the snarl misapplication of the term (valid). The video you complain about is placed under the criticism section, and is a nutshell of that. And if he is a New Atheist (which I don't know that he is), all the more relevant for that section. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: the quotes from Mehta belong in the article (under the criticism sections only!), but based on the links Castaigbe gave below, I don't support embedding his videos anymore. The video is not in the article anymore and based on this I won't reinsert it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record: Long after I started this talk section, Percy moved to block me, and only AFTER that did he finally bothered to respond to me in this section, knowing well that I can't unblock myself and thus I couldn't respond to him for one hour. Percy them moved on from edit warring with me to edit warring with Castaigne2, only to later realize that I was right to remove the embeded video. Nevertheless, he didn't bother to remove my block, as he's hellbent on chasing me away from this wiki with his abuse. Typhoon (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You were blocked for one of the official block reasons: boring repetitive reversions. Not to any talk page, to a mainspace article. Hint: don't edit war and you'll be fine. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

As my unblocking reason said: it takes two to edit war. You also erased my additions in your rush to revert all of my edits; which I've now restored. You wield your blocks as a weapon to push your edits, as could be seen here when you refused to talk to me until you blocked me, and thus prevented me from responding to you. Typhoon (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Aside the fact that the above is incorrect, and that Conscience also said "Sorry, I don't care what you believe" before bringing up the conceptual solution of the mods simply topic banning you... The point of the mob desysoping someone is so they can't unblock themselves when blocked - and thus have to take it, if they've earned it, which you had. It's not like the rules state that we may only block people who can unblock themselves, even if they've earned it. We block people who earn being blocked by causing trouble, just as we only desysop troublemakers in order to enhance the effect of blocks they earn in the future. You've already gotten yourself desysoped by the mob. The solution to all of this is migthy simple: don't cause (more) trouble. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hemant Mehta & Sam Harris

Can someone explain to me why we are using the opinions of Sam Harris and Hemant Mehta when it comes to criticism of the term Islamophobia?
I mean, Hemant Mehta supports the Slymepit, the Amazing Atheist, Michael Nugent, and Chris Stedman. He hangs out with the same crew that Sam Harris does. Sam Harris is one of the "Every brown is a SECRET MUSLOID TERROR AGENT." ala Hitchens who wants to bomb all Islamic countries back to the Stone Age.
To say that thse people are severely biased against the term Islamophobia is putting it mildly. To them, any hate against Islam is a GOOD thing. We're ripping veils off women's faces without consent? All good. We're telling schoolchildren that they're parents are secret terrorist bombers who will strap suicide jackets to them? All good. We put a bullet through the face of every "burkha babe" that refuses to disrobe? All good.
Put frankly, Hemant Mehta and Sam Harris don't want the term Islamophobia to exist, because then they can do whatever they want to Muslims, no matter how horrific, and say "Well, we don't hate them. Islamohpobia doesn't exist. It's just an SJW term." to cover their actions. They're the type of people who are severely comfortable with Vox Day and the Vienna Gates crowd.
So I have to ask, is their criticism of the term actually valid? Your thoughts? --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Give me sources that he supports the things you name. Afaik, he doesn't. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Ever talk with Harris? Or watch him talk about Muslims? He goes OFF. I mean he's talking like people in the 1920s used to talk about the Evil Yellow Peril. To quote a certain Guardian article with many links on the subject, "The key point is that Harris does far, far more than voice criticisms of Islam as part of a general critique of religion. He has repeatedly made clear that he thinks Islam is uniquely threatening: "While the other major world religions have been fertile sources of intolerance, it is clear that the doctrine of Islam poses unique problems for the emergence of a global civilization." He has insisted that there are unique dangers from Muslims possessing nuclear weapons, as opposed to nice western Christians (the only ones to ever use them) or those kind Israeli Jews: "It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of devout Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence." In his 2005 "End of Faith", he claimed that "Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death." This is not a critique of religion generally; it is a relentless effort to depict Islam as the supreme threat. Based on that view, Harris, while depicting the Iraq war as a humanitarian endeavor, has proclaimed that "we are not at war with terrorism. We are at war with Islam." --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I already know Harris is a crank. Where's the specific sources that Hemant Mehta supports Slymepit and the three people you name? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Harris is a crank, but you added Harris' quotes back?

If "criticism" means we accept the quotes of cranks, then there should be no objection to me adding criticism by, say, Ken Ham to creationism articles. Just saying.

As for Mehta, promoting the Slymepit, the Amazing Atheist, Michael Nugent, and Stedman is publicly well-known. You do keep up with him, I assume? --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Holy crap, thank you Castaigne! So he's officially a crank asshat, then. Suggestion: time to update our page om Mehta. In it, he's described as a pleasant option to TAA. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

sigh Wrong, RBP. You're supposed to reject anything I post, declare that I'm trying to ruin RW along with Typhoon, that any objections I make are irrelevant, and then uphold your preferred version.

Please stick with that so I don't have to make the edits you're supposed to make for you. You already know how these discussions are supposed to run. Don't go off-script. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I've agreed several times with Typhoon today. And now you. Because I listen to arguments, not people. *gasp* Could it be that I'm actually here to learn?! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. As per the coop case on the subject, I am officially wrong, all my substantial edits are specifically wrong, and I'm one of the "regressive left" that's ruining RationalWiki. Check with Carpetsmoker or Paravant or FCP or whoever. Stick. To. The. Narrative. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Disregard that, he still whines about a lost Coop Case and tries to be edgy.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 19:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC) 19:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

He shouldn't disregard that. All edits will conform to the decisions made there. That's not "edgy"; that's being obedient to the rules. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that some extreme strawmanning of them.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 16:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC) 16:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Really?

In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe.- Sam Harris

I mean, if you believe Sam Harris doesn't actually believe what he says, well, you might want to edit the Islamophobia section on his entry. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I already know Harris is a crank. Where's the specific sources that Hemant Mehta supports Slymepit and the three people you name? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

That was rather skillfully quotemined.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 16:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC) 16:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that the full quote changes his meaning. As said in this post, But does Harris actually recommend such an attack? Does he, as it were, articulate the threat of first strike by the U.S. in the case of Iran developing long-range nuclear weapons. I really think he does. While he says it would be unconscionable and unthinkable (morally and intellectually beyond the pale, we might say) he describes it as, nonetheless, necessary: "In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own." --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm adding this source on Mehta here too: [9]. Typhoon (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Why bother? We both know it's a lost cause. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

In which way is what a "lost cause"? I think that source should be used in our article on Hermant. Good addition, Typhoon. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I repeat - Doesn't matter. As per the coop case on the subject, I am officially wrong, all my substantial edits are specifically wrong, and I'm one of the "regressive left" that's ruining RationalWiki. Check with Carpetsmoker or Paravant or FCP or whoever. Stick. To. The. Narrative.

I don't think there's all that much wrong with Sam Harris or the new atheists. It saddens me to see so much infighting amongst the left on such issues as this one. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I would probably like them better if they shut their gob about the Great Brown Islamic Peril. If I want perils, I'll read Buck Rogers in the original. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do Westerners think Muslims are 'brown?' Come and see the racism against Desis in the Gulf states, hehe Lord Aeonian (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It's because most Muslims are brown. There are hundreds of millions of Arabs, almost all of which are Muslim. Arabs are browner in the Arabian Peninsula than in Sham (Levant) and Maghrib (North Africa), but they're still darker-skinned than Europeans. The way Americans classify race is stupid anyway, but that's another conversation.

I do think the doctrine of Islam represents a threat to Western civilization, as equally as Judaism. Islam is far more dangerous to the West than Hinduism and Buddhism. To deny that the doctrine of Islam and the acts of violence it causes or helps today are not as "perilous" or equally perilous as other religions is an ignorant view. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Who says its not equally dangerous? But isn't it not because of the Quran itself, which takes much after abrahamitic laws, but because, for many political reasons, including, among many, the western wars, more people are radical following it? Do you believe muslims saying they are not against lgbt, etc. (many in the comments) are all practicing the taquia and lying and deceiving? I know some do, but that would start to amount to a crank bigot conspiracy theory, which puts any muslim in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.--78.15.246.30 (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Slang term

I prefer the term "greenbaiting" myself, akin to the "redbaiting" of the Cold War that had ROOKSIES hiding under every rock and behind every curtain waiting to spring out and destroy America.Pere Ubu (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

That's great, except greenbaiting is already a term denoting something else. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Outdated References

Reference 49 links to Stephen Fry's Tumblr, except it doesn't exist anymore. It instead redirects you to a funny, albeit very inappropriate, tumblr page on "how to make your dick bigger naturally". Should the reference just be removed, or is there a need to change the text of the article as well?

Here's an alternate source discussing the event link. We could just replace the ref, maybe? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Islamophobia and Pseudoscience

According the the DSM-5 Islamophobia is not a mental disorder as the term is popularly used in public discourse, e.g., the Sam Harris article in this wiki. The following excerpt shows why: Diagnostic Criteria Based on criteria from the Fifth Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) 1) A persistent fear that is excessive or unreasonable, that occurs by the presence or anticipation of a specific object or situation (e.g., flying, heights, animals, receiving an injection, seeing blood). 2 Exposure to the feared item or situation almost always leads to an immediate anxiety response, which may take the form of a panic attack. In children, the anxiety may be expressed by crying, tantrums, freezing, or clinging. 3) The person recognizes that the fear is excessive or out of proportion to the actual threat posed. In children, this feature may be absent. 4)The phobic situation(s) is avoided or else is endured with intense anxiety or distress. 5) The avoidance, anxious anticipation, or distress during the feared situation(s) interferes significantly with the person's normal routine, work (or school) functioning, or social activities or relationships, or there is marked distress about having the phobia. 6) The fear is persistent, typically lasting for at least six months. 7) The anxiety, panic attacks, or avoidance associated with the specific object or situation are not better accounted for by another mental disorder, such as Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Separation Anxiety Disorder (e.g., avoidance of school), Social Phobia, Panic Disorder, etc.

The British Social Justice NGO, Runnymeade Trust sponsored a commission to define British Islamophobia and it produced a list of eight criteria, and it appears to be a list of everything one could reasonably think of that might reflect poorly on Muslims and Islam. It even includes criteria that could reasonably be judged as not only rational, but true, namely 3) "Islamic Ideology is seen as inferior to the west, etc." and 5) "Islam is seen as a political Ideology, etc." The truth of 3) is at least a matter of rational opinion and 5) is clearly true by ordinary standards of interpretation, as every state religion is ideological. My personal favorite characteristic is 6) "Criticisms made of the west by Islam are rejected out of hand." I love the testicular fortitude.

Islamophobia is provably not a mental disorder by the Runnymeade criteria, and because it is clear that the definition of Islamophobia in Britain is a catch-all word for anyone with a harsh word for Muslims or Islam in general, we should recognize the term for what it is, a pejorative like "wanker", "tosser", or the like. It is possible that a kind of psychiatric disorder specific to the fear of Muslims actually exists and is distinct from xenophobia, yet it cannot be called common. Although the vulgar meaning of the word Islamophobia cannot be expunged from the English language, its pseudo-scientific nature and the tendency for cranks to use it should be kept in mind.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

"Testicular fortitude"? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@RBP, another paradigm, would be "Senhor Testiculo" which I will not link here because of the children, but it is worth a google if you don't know it already.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey, a Mexican Krotchy! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Sigh... damage already done

Washington Post: German police say major newspaper’s story about a rampaging Arab ‘sex mob’ was wrong Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Irrational Fear?

Given that less than 1% of the US population (that would be Muslims) is responsible for around 6% of all domestic terror attacks... I wouldn't exactly call it "irrational" to fear Muslisms. And technically that figure is like... more than a half decade off (it's even higher now). The Muslim religion is not really something you can easily cherry pick positives from because of abrogation. It's like the Bible but in reverse. With the Bible the New Bushwa effectively overwrites the Old Bushwa, that's good because the New Bushwa is MUCH more positive than the old/horrible parts. But with the Qur'an it's backwards... the nice/happy parts are like the Old Bushwa and the horrible/disturbing parts are like the New Bushwa.

Granted if you want to argue semantics you could certainly say it would make a lot more sense to fear dying of a heart attack or a car accident, but that doesn't negate the fact that there is a VERY obvious problem with the Muslim religion and simply ignoring it is not going to make it magically go away. Just a little food for thought. --Onideus (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You're missing the point, I think. You have to understand that we don't mean to conflate the term "Islamophobia" with "criticism of Islam". What we're trying to say is that there are people who fear or hate Islam for terribly poor (or, really, no coherently citable) reasons. Imagine this. If you hold a position, say, that the Earth rotates around the sun — making you a heliocentrist — you wouldn't feel that someone who walked up to you all chummy and went "Heeey, you're a heliocentrist too? I'm with you on this; Hitler's ghost visited me and he's proven that heliocentrism is actually our best weapon against satanic jewry! Hey everybody, I just found my intellectual soulmate!" was actually sharing your view at all. People who share a conclusion with you for patently shitty reasons, and who genuniely think you're now on the same page as them, should not be seen as your allies in opinion. That's what Islamophobia is about. As an unapologetic critic of Islam, I can't do enough to take space from people who would love to hand me a mic and hear me chant against Islam just because they "don't like sand people" or whatever. That has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm about. For this reason, as a critic of Islam, actual Islamophobia cannot be highlighted enough. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay but you get that on every end of the spectrum. I mean that's like all the dozens upon dozens of hilarious examples of news reporters asking anti-Trump protestors and rioters what their motivation is and what specific policies of Trump they find so terrible and they largely just stutter along incoherently for lack of a real/substantial argument.

The point is your intended purpose, what are you trying to do with such an article. I assume you're not striving to be Encyclopedia Dramatica, so the apparent point is a bit confusing. If your general intention is to create strife, conflict and do all the things that allowed Trump to become president in the first place... this sort of article is a shining beacon of inspiration.

I understand that it can be a good way to blow off steam and all, especially when dealing with irrational little rocks, but... I mean... running around calling somebody an "Islamaphobe" is not inherently helpful to any purpose other than making them even more entrenched into their irrational beliefs.

The primary problem with a lot of the articles on this Wiki is that they suffer from the inherent flaw of the Double Slit Experiment... that is, they don't bother to take THEMSELVES into consideration as far as the potential impact they might have.

Here's a TL:DR version of that...

https://www.facebook.com/OnideusIdeas/photos/a.1654529898193233.1073741827.1654525018193721/1675743126071910/?type=3&permPage=1

--Onideus (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

No offense, but that's hardly a reply to the suggestion that any responsible thinker would do well to actively distance themselves from insufferable morons who — literally via misunderstanding your position — hail you as their long-lost intellectual twin. They're not. There are utterly disgusting and incoherent ways to reach any conclusion that could be reached in an ethical and logical manner (though the opposite isn't true), and there's no to me conceivable reason not to actively disinvite a strawman of one's own position. You seem to be under the impression that the whole concept of Islamophobia is some kind of invented straw man. If so, that is thankfully incorrect — Islamophobia is the irrational fear or hatred of Islam, and you better believe that that exists. In fact, if you claimed that the irrational criticism of Islam was not a fundamentally separate entity from the rational criticism of Islam, you would claim that there was no rational criticism of Islam, as it'd be inseparable from the irrational criticism of Islam — they would then, according to you, be one and the same. So please, as a critic of Islam, let's not confuse what we do with genuinely xenophobic and moronical hate-mongering. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It's only a "strawman" in the sense that you never even considered it as a possibility of your actions, even though it most certainly is. Again, I can use Trump becoming president as a direct citation of that fact. You're generally operating on the presumption that most humans think the way you do... they do not. Humans are not intelligent beings, they're EMOTIONALLY intelligent beings. As such you can certainly use various forms of emotional instability infliction in order to forcibly burn information and experiences directly into a person's long term memory engrams... which is fine if you're a malevolent bastard who runs around under the metaphorical pretext of being the living God of humanity's demons (talking about me here), but otherwise... not really the best idea/form to use.

Islamaphobia might be "real", but that doesn't mean you should carelessly throw that word around to the point where it will be picked up by lesser intellects and used as a "talking point" of sorts. It's usually better to try and come up with a NEW NAME for such things, so that you can directly separate yourselves from the usual/common form usage... which is an ATTACK. You get that... right? You get that 99.99% of the time a stupid little rock uses the word "Islamaphobe" they're directly using it as a VERBAL ATTACK on someone... and MOST of the time it's NOT justified in the context to which they're using it. --Onideus (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You're really all over the place here. I don't know if you think that I'm representing some kind of organization other than myself, or if you think that "we" (RationalWiki?) affected the outcome of the recent US election or something (?). Regardless, aside from the fact that I have a life outside of RationalWiki, never mind outside of the Internet, never mind outside of politics, I'm also not even American, but a Swede. So I don't really know what you're driving at here with that word salad. It would appear to me that you're doing all you can to shoehorn together a plausible case for the claim that "nobody deserves to be called an islamophobe" or something. Which is, of course, ridiculous — Islamophobes deserve to be called Islamophobes. I mean, it's tautologically true to point out that Islamophobes are indeeds Islamophobic. The question then becomes, what constitutes Islamophobia? Again — the irrational fear or hatred of Islam (without a demarcation to which, there could be no rational criticism of Islam). The irrational fear or hatred of Islam is — another deductively true statement — irrational, see? And whatever philosophical position I'm critical of Islam from, it's clearly not irrationalism. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hrmmm... okay let me try something else here...

'I mean, it's tautologically true to point out that Retards are indeed Retarded. The question then becomes, what constitutes Retardation?'

You see what I did there? Yes, the term "retardation" is medically/factually/scientifically accurate to describe those with mental defects... however 99.99% of the time a person uses the word "retarded" they're using it in a NEGATIVE/ATTACKFUL context. Because you're overly analytical you're fixated in the denotation of words and you're completely ignoring connotation.

Just because the denotation of the word "retarded" means mentally disabled doesn't negate the SLANG usage of the word or the CONNOTATION, which is very, VERY negative/attackful.

Verbally attacking people does not generally get them to change their position... it gets them to DOUBLE DOWN in their positions. --Onideus (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of connotation — you seem to forget that nobody self-identifies as a retard, while there are those who self-identify as islamophobic. While it is true that your example is also a tautology, please do not forget that two different tautologies cannot be equal to each other. If they were, they'd simply be the exact same tautology. Regarding what effect something has on people's minds — while irrelevant to the propositional logic itself — the fact is that opinions develop based on prior views, not new evidence. Though, while I personally demand courteousness from myself, I don't support the general tone argument you seem to be making. RationalWiki is not any type of safe space, and logical arguments cannot be met with reference to "being triggered" or anything of the sort. Though I will agree with you that calling people names is not helpful — this is why I support the term "Islamophobia". If it didn't exist to separate valid criticisms of Islam from invalid criticisms, critics of islam could be unfairly strawmanned as Islamophobes. Thankfully, as the term "Islamophobia" is established, we now know it means something different from criticism of Islam. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

"critics of islam could be unfairly strawmanned as Islamophobes"

Um... they are. That was like.. one of the main points I was making. Another is that articles like this help contribute to the proliferation of such fallacies/attacks... even if that's not your directed intention, that is a SIDE EFFECT. It's like trying to measure the air pressure of your tires... you can't do so without letting OUT some of the pressure... that may not be your directed intent, but you are CAUSING that outcome to happen nonetheless.

If you want you could call such an effect the Double Slit Experiment Fallacy.

In your attempts to try and create the most "rational wiki" you are inherently causing and contributing to a lot of IRRATIONAL side effects. Yin and Yang and all like that fun stuff. --Onideus (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Assuming you aren't a proponent of prosecuting thoughtcrime, there's nothing you could do to stop people from making straw men of your positions. The first lesson of psychology is that you can't necessarily affect how others function; you can only adjust how you function in relation to them. And aside from "could be done", there's nothing that should be done either — a straw man is fallacious, thus, when your opponent uses one, he debases his own argument. In fact — from a purely game theorist angle — you ought to celebrate when your opponent is using fallacious debating tactics against you. The fallacy fallacy notwithstanding, him doing so means he's disqualified himself. Because, why — if his arguments were logically sound (instead of fallacious), you'd have to (and want to) accept his conclusions, lest you'd be the one falling prey to fallacy! Furthermore, I fail to see the logic in your analogy to checking tire pressure — are you implying that we ought not to check our tire pressure? Also, I don't particularly recognize your homegrown "Double Slit Experiment" fallacy, though not because you've decided to title it after an experiment on diffraction, despite the fact that it actually seems to be deriving its point from the observer effect. The main reason is instead that what you describe is already known. The contention that this article "contributes to" "attacks" is both unlikely and irrelevant — as said articles exist in order to establish the very existence of valid criticisms of Islam — via the law of noncontradiction. Not separating Islamophobia from valid criticisms of Islam would instead invoke the law of identity, and that is only done by those who actively posit one of two things — either that all criticism of Islam is valid — no matter how irrational or hate-based — or that no criticism of Islam is valid — no matter how sound and reasonable. Talk about a straw man! So to try to construe the basic, necessary practice of separating Islamophobia (which deserves scorn) from the valid criticism of Islam (which deserves praise) into some kind of proven moral hazard based on the outcome of the process or on how some people abuse or react to it, never mind to suggest that "we" are now "part of the problem", comes across as rather nonsensical. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Men commit 90% of all crimes. Is it rational to fear men 9x as much as women? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 16:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is and that's what people experience as well.145.64.134.242 (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Lol! You really think men are feared 9 times women? If it were ever very unlikely true, that would be the proof of the dreaded white male default of extreme Sjw theories, my dear :D. As you can see such statistics only start to become a social problem if compared to the non muslim white statistics. If it were true that men commit 90% of crimes (though it probably includes women mandated ones and those with women accomplices, I hypothize, and with equality I think they'll become closer), the profiling of men is not proportioned to that (I might be wrong about this, though) and the justification of bigotry against them because of such statistics, comes pretty much only from very fringey radfems, shunned by pretty much anyone, including feminists and non fringey radfem. That's the only group which advocates a bigotry proportional to that, but much less widespread. Although it has to be said a part of moderate feminism (don't take my word for it, I'm going approximately about groups, knowing they are very varied) supports the "shroedinger rapist" theory, which is problematic if taken literally, but they don't think men are inherently violent and criminal biologically speaking, they recognize when they don't and appreciate that. About Islam, though I got this from an old conversation in the Saloon about demographic tendencies https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Saloon_bar&oldid=1823263 "You call Muslims "quite conservative", but I think most Muslim immigrants are actually rather moderate relative to the societies they are coming from (even if what is moderate in those societies sometimes seems rather conservative or even extreme by Western standards), and their moderation suggests their descendants are unlikely to resist the allure of secularisation/liberalisation/assimilation/intermarriage. " you can find it in the "Rip feminists" thread? What to say, it turns out that to him Muslims will also decrease in fertility because of this reason and turns out the biggest demographic "threat" are in theory orthodox sects on most religions, expecially jews and Amish. But I think at one point they would have to stop and share resources, giving it a break because of the unsustainability of such fertility trend. ^{— Unsigned, by: 78.15.214.119 / talk / contribs} 19:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Onideus the projectionist

Sorry for the late reply, I forgot you existed. Your point about psychology applies only to academic/medical level pursuits. There are actually OTHER branches of psychology that exist outside the realm of traditional academia, primarily as far as SE Hacking or social engineering, con artistry, subliminal hacking, thought manipulation, emotional instability infliction, etc, etc. And in those fields, yes, you can directly manipulate and control others, largely by exploiting common cognitive biases and patterns of behavior. As I said, you're doing it in this article to a certain extent, you're just not actively aware of the fact that you are. Your ignorance of the potential impact that your words have and the fact that you so callously disregard the stated point that you are in control of how others perceive your writing (to a certain degree) only serves to show that you are very lacking in emotional intelligence. I'm guessing your likely autistic to some degree, which is why you're seemingly incapable of understanding the potential emotional impact of the words you choose. Instead you choose your wording based on purely analytical denotations, taking a "stereo instructions manual" style approach while completely ignoring any connotations and social/emotional perspectives. In short, you are a very poor writer, at least for the masses. You'd probably do well in the legal profession though. --Onideus (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

If the fear of a belief system that explicitley advocates the murder of those who don't share it or abandon it (apostates) is "irrational", then I guess the author believes it's Islam what's rational, right? This website is a magnet for progressive cucks subscribing any self-hating ideology.145.64.134.242 (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Worth noting, perhaps

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/violence-more-common-in-bible-than-quran-text-analysis-reveals-a6863381.html Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)