Information icon.svg Our policy on articles on living people is under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.

Talk:WikiIslam

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Apparantly, they want money to pay editors, but you can only do so through Paypal as they don't have an address.206.130.174.42 (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Should it be labeled Islamophobic? Please join discussion[edit]

Should RationalWiki call WikiIslam Islamophobic? If the majority of regular editors think it should then so be it. I won't have a problem with that. But I don't think it should. Personally I wouldn't associate or take part in a site if I thought it was bigoted. (I don't accept the labeling of things as Islamophobic, but I'm very aware that a lot of people use criticism of Islam as an easy alternative to being openly racist). It's a counter apologetics wiki, no different to a counter apologetics wiki covering Christianity (there's a lot of "Christianphobia" in the world, but that doesn't make those sites any more or any less bigoted).

The page is already tagged with the Islamophobia category and even links to the Islamophobia page in the introductory line. I think that's fine. People can make up their own minds. But Dheroth is insistent in outright calling the site Islamophobic in the first sentence, probably because he wants people to dismiss the site without ever viewing it.

I don't know what the policies are here, but over at Wikipedia they suggest multiple reliable references before thinking of calling someone or something Islamophobic. Dheroth provided two very poor references. One was a canvassed blog post that I responded to on my blog. We certainly can't use an insignificant blog post as a reference, especially when my infinitely more coherent response could be used to "prove" the exact opposite.

The other is a paper by Göran Larsson (I also cover that a little in another blog post). I'm guessing Dheroth has simply got that link either from MuslimWiki or from a forum post (it is being posted all over the place by Muslims as a blanket response to pretty much anything concerning the wiki). I doubt he has read it. But I have and it's not all he hopes it to be. First it was written only 3 months after the site went live. A lot has changed with its policies since then. And from what I can remember, the methodology used to decide if WikiIslam is Islamophobic totally sucked. Rather than judge it by its content and policies, he looked at this page (a page specifically meant to be a directory of sites critical of Islam), counted up the amount of links that had negative, positive or neutral views of Islam. The negatives outnumbered the positives, and hey presto! We he have irrefutable proof that WikiIslam is full of bigots. In the paper,the guy even endorses Islamophobia Watch as a good alternative. What does everyone think. Please leave your 2cents here. I've left a message for Dheroth on his talk page. IslamoCriticism (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muhammad_%28Primary_Sources%29 When you see that it becomes clear for some people that this deceptive wiki only wants to spread hate against a religion. However i will respect your request and not try anymore to put this label. --Dheroth (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your courteous reply and respecting my request. There is nothing hateful in those pages. It's no different to quoting the Bible and naming a page Moses the murder or Yahweh the murderer. There is also nothing deceptive about them. The titles on those pages pretty much shows that. IslamoCriticism (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose I don't think that is should be labelled that.--88.104.141.245 (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

where is the phobia?[edit]

I don't see any rational reason to label Wikiislam as Islamophobic, I'm myself an Ex-Muslim (Atheist) I don't see where is the hate in its articles, it might be hateful from an Islamic point of view, but this is rational Wiki, what they write there is facts not fiction stories in order to spread hate! — Unsigned, by: 41.250.107.132 / talk / contribs

But I thought this was Rationalwiki! Did he doubt/Or did he try? 04:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of the drinking game, BON makes the point as others have, where is the "phobia" ? Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
In common use, "phobia" doesn't just mean "fear of," it also means "hatred of" -- for example, homophobes are called that (on a political, not a clinical level) because they hate gays; we don't interrogate them about whether or not that hate is grounded in or accompanied by fear. So in that sense, the wiki in question says some pretty hateful things about Islam; its entire purpose seems not to be to "critique" anything, but to denigrate it. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 04:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I think it's pretty bloody obvious that this site has an agenda. They hide it fairly well, but tying all jihad "inherent problems within Islamic scripture" instead of relatively recent trends like wahhabism and just a general trend that seems to always take the Qur'an out of context to seek out the most damaging possible portrayal of the faith are all classic signs of a "neutral" source with a very strong agenda. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 04:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
How does their criticism of Islam differ from many of our own critical articles on religion? Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
In many ways it doesn't. But that doesn't make it any less Islamophobic. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 04:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Well rather than arguing the intricacies of definitions, I make two broad points, one that islamophobic is a "scare" word, and that RW has a specific POV and extremely strong criticism of Islam and any other religion is part of that POV. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
So in a discussion about whether or not to use a particular word, you'd rather not argue about defining the word, because of "intricacies"? Okay, then, do whatever you want. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 04:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Maybe it's splitting hairs, but RW is skeptical (and perhaps dismissive) of all religions. RW is clearly not neutral on the topic of irreligion, but I don't get the sense we deride Faith X more strongly that Faith Y. To single any particular one out smacks of some kind of phobia, particularly when criticising a specific tenet that may well exist in other religions (eg. jihad vs the "holy war" as defined in Christianity). VOXHUMANA 04:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

What I would want to see is specific links to articles that people here feel are islamophobic, abstract discussions have their place, but in this instance we are trying to decide if about the use of the term for this article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Ali Sina calling for nuke the muslim world if this is not hate what is ? Repolho (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Ali Sina says a lot of things. He's had nothing to do with the site since 2008, so what has that to do with WikiIslam? And if you really want to see a 'hate' site, the viciously antisemitic website you just linked to would be a good start. IslamoCriticism (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You think it is for what reason that Ali Sina helped to launch Wikiislam ? If i put this link is to show that the most influent people of Wikiislam share the same ideology and agenda with the founder of FFI. And about the term "Islamophobia" we dont need it is just the same neological bullshit like "Antisemitism". Repolho (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Guilt by association, anyone? It makes no difference why he helped launch WikiIslam. It has been five years since the site was moved off the FFI server. Your link has not shown anything other than the fact Ali Sina holds some disgusting views. Those views have nothing to do with WikiIslam. He is not even allowed to be referenced as a source.IslamoCriticism (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
If the site were called "SalafistWiki" or "WahabiWiki" or "FundamentalisIslamWiki" and carried much of the content that it does, I would be more inclined to think its of value. But the fact that after a long period of clicking through pages and I cannot find a single positive reference to Islam or Muslims, not a word about how millions upon millions of Muslims use their faith to get through life and who don't stone women or blow things up, makes me think the point of the wiki isn't to "criticize", but to "denigrate." The two terms are not interchangeable. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 14:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Why would being called "SalafistWiki" or "WahabiWiki" or "FundamentalisIslamWiki" be preferable to being called WikiIslam? The information there reflect what the religious sources say. Do Salafists use a different Qur’an, a different collection of hadith or a different set of sira to ‘regular’ Muslims? Would a comparable site about Christianity be required to be named “FundamentalistEvangelicalUSUgandaChristianityWiki” before it met with everones approval?
WikiIslam does not claim all Muslims go around stoning women or blowing things up, so why should it be pointed out not all Muslims “stone women or blow things up”? When criticizing Christianity, you use the Bible. Christians generally dont go around following OT laws. Does that invalidate the use of OT text when you criticize Christianity? If anything your concern should be aimed at critics who cite OT laws, because there are a hell of a lot more Muslims who follow their text to the letter.
You cannot find a single positive reference to Islam or Muslims? How about this[1], or this[2], or this[3] or this[4]?
den·i·grate To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame.[5]. So WikiIslam’s to blame for Islam’s representation of a less than savoury Muhammad or the less than savoury treatment of religious and sexual minorities in virtually every Islamic state or Muslim majority country? I love RW’s style so this isn’t a criticism. I’m pointing out double standards among some editors. What is more “denigrating”, this RW page on Christianity’s most important female figure[6] or this WI page on Islam’s most important female figure[7]?
WikiIslam is no different to a counter apologetics wiki debunking Christianity and Christian claims. To claim it is a hate site requires special pleading. So why all these arbitrary rules for Islam? This is the internet. Not America or Europe. I myself am Bangladeshi. The IP defending WikiIslam is from Morroco. Why should we skeptics have to follow these rules made up mainly by western critics of Christianity? Vox’s point makes no sense. If I were to be racist against blacks, being racist also against whites and browns doesn’t make it okay. You’d still be a racist. A much more bigoted one. But then I’m not the one who is trying to conflate the criticism of beliefs (something you choose) with presumably the criticism of sexuality, race or ethnic groups (something you do not choose). The idea that anyone criticizing Islam has to include a disclaimer on everything saying Christianity is just as bad, is pure arbitrary nonsense.IslamoCriticism (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 19:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Besides being applied to the obviously bigoted, "Islamophobia" is a word cultural relativists often use to shut down analysis of the evils inherently caused by following "Orthodox" Islamic Morality. The whole "not all Muslims follow their professed holy book to the letter" meme is just apologia for people who romanticize the exotic, as if the fact most Muslims are heretics means we can't criticize the central tenet, "peace by submission". Such a supposedly peaceful religion could never in actuality be as bad as it seems, the newer, softer-friendlier-theocracy is a lofty goal that deserves respect! It's a common misconception that terrorism is completely unjustified by scripture and is just a modern thing fabricated by self-important 'clerics' or whoever. It's incredibly easy to cherry pick sections, sure, but the Koran is a time-locked work that proudly displays an ancient tradition of war and subjugation, it is in fact easy to support a holy war using the entire book, peaceful aspects included. This collection of words will not evolve just because some Muslims are enlightened with liberal democracy instead of an authoritarian theocracy, the pernicious nature of Islamic "Orthodoxy" is a virus for which rationality (and actual ethical studies) is a cure. Calamondin (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

"Purports"??? Really!?![edit]

Amazing how this website has no problem making fun of easy targets, but any criticism that's too "sharp" of such an apparently complicated topic is simply labeled as false. Better be safe than sorry, eh? Keep being a bastion of pseudo-rationality, RW! Or I just you could change this single word and everything would then be fine? Meh. Calamondin (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

"WikiIslam"? Why not "wikiislam"?[edit]

"WikiIslam"? Why not "wikiislam"? --Islamaport (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

'Cause it sounds cool, maybe? No, siriusly seriously, Rationalwiki didn't came up with that capitalization, ask the guys from WikiIslam.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)