Talk:Criticism of Islam

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criticism of Islam article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 30 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Criticism of Islam. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Criticism of Islam at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Religion: Interfaith C‑class Mid‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Philosophy: Religion C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of religion

Islam B‑class Mid‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Atheism C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

For more information and how you can help, click the [Show] link opposite:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page.

Quick help

Recent activity

To do

Join WikiProject atheism and be bold.

Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members.
Help with articles.
See this month's adopt-an-article.
Help out with this to-do list.

Be consistent

Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles).
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.

Maintenance, etc.

Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references).
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly.
Always write for an encyclopedia.

Articles to improve

Agnosticism

Create

Articles on notable atheists

Expand

an atheism stub

Immediate attention

State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here
Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes.
Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century.

The article Criticism of Islam is meant for addressing criticism that is specific to Islam. Criticism of religion in general, or criticism that applies to all monotheistic religions, such as arguments against the existence of God, should be dealt with elsewhere.

Orphaned references in Criticism of Islam

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Criticism of Islam's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceA":

From Antisemitism: The 2005 U.S. State Department Report on Global Antisemitism.
From Islamism: UMNO Online. UMNO's Constitution: Goal 3.3. From:http://umno-online.com/?page_id=2787
From Women's rights in Saudi Arabia: Christa Case Bryant (2013-05-05). "Saudi Arabia sanctions sports for girls for the first time". CSMonitor.com. Retrieved 2013-08-30.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous bot settings

I have set minimum threads to 8. Quite astonishingly minimum threads had been set to 1 which is utterly unacceptable.

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines provide much good information. for instance : When to condense pages says: It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections.

When I came to the page it contained 2.3KB and most of this would have been in the header.

How weak is the system if it seeks to stifle criticism?

Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How are the archive settings in any way related to stifling criticism? Minimum threads of 1 was fine when threads were much longer in the past, and more numerous. Now that the talk page is quieter, you changed it. No big deal. You may always move some threads back out of the archives if you want. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Focus, Criticism of Islam direction of this article

I am not an editor here, but saw someone dumping content in as many places as they could find. And the issue I raised on another article is this. Criticism of Islam is the title, and that means the article should focus on items which raise critique of Islam. Like Bernard Lewis being critical of Islam, like Rushdie being critical of Islam, Ayan Rand being critical of Islam, etc. so this page (while I do not agree with--or any page that just is twisted to focus on critique without balance) at least should focus on critique of Islam. What it seems to be becoming is a collection of negative acts people (editors) associate with Islam (the editors are the judges). So If marrying 4 women is a problem with an editor nothing is to stop them adding it here. I have no idea what ISIS and slavery is doing in this article, UNLESS, someone or some group identifies says "Look at what ISIS is doing in the name of Islam" Then you can add it. Just stating ISIS sells girls is not a critique of Islam, although it may fit in an article on ISIS or Slavery and ISIS. I hope I am clear, cuz I am typing fast. Without some structure it becomes a bigots paradise. Is it informative? As Informative as David Duke's Blog on Jews. --Inayity (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This article is about criticism levied at the religion of Islam. This article isn't about perceived crimes perpetrated in the name of Islam. Even if a notable critic uses those crimes as a basis for criticism, the article is still about the criticism and not the crimes. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple articles where Islamic views or practices regarding slavery are relevant. In this particular article, one of the topics is criticism of Islam on the basis that it codified and protected slavery. It specifically discusses the claim by critics that slavery still exists in places such as Sudan and Somalia, the "reopening" of the issue by certain conservative scholars, and quotes the views of Shaykh Fadhlalla Haeri and Dr. Abdul-Latif Mushtahari. The arguments expressed by ISIS in Dabiq are a natural extension of that discussion. They are at least as relevant as the views of Haeri and Mushtahari; I would argue that they are more relevant because they are actually being put into practice. For this article, though, all I've included is the argument, and not any information on scope of ISIS' activities in this area. EastTN (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of "Beheadings" section

An editor has added a "Beheadings" section. There is nothing particularly Islamic about beheadings. (Most European countries abolished capital punishment in the second half of the 20th Century; but when they had capital punishment some of them used beheading for some crimes.)-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your taqiyya is showing Mehmet. Find me one western country which sanctioned capital punishment for apostasy in the twentieth century. Find me one western country which sanctioned capital punishment for adultery in the twentieth century. Find me one western country which sanctioned capital punishment for insulting a particular 7th century paedophile (pissings be upon him.

Islams obsession with beheading is a very unique fetish, particular to muslims.

--47.55.193.179 (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Savage Slayer[reply]

Criticism of religion template

At the the criticism of religion template Vanamonde93 is excluding critics of Islam like Ibn Warraq from the template because they have only criticized specific religions and not religion in general. Yet the template still includes many persons who only criticized specific religions (one of which was added by Vanamonde93 to the template).

There seems to be no rationale why Ibn Warraq, Pat Condell, Oriana Fallaci or Geert Wilders are excluded, but BR Ambedkar, Robert Spencer and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are included in the list of critics. Could someone take a look. --188.29.165.175 (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Opposition to Islam redirect to Criticism of Islam?

@Jason from nyc: Opposition to Islam used to redirect to anti-Islam, which is a disambiguation page, but in 2014 you redirected it to Criticism of Islam. I think this redirect page should be restored to its original target, unless you think its current target is more reasonable. Jarble (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly I don't remember. I'm not at a computer but will try to review this and similar discussions on the naming of "opposition", "anti-", and "criticism" articles when I return from my trip. We should have some uniform convention and I remember discussions somewhere. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the articles that begin with "opposition," the word is usually to a specific act or policy. There is no Opposition to Christianity, Opposition to Judaism, Opposition to Hinduism but there is a Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses. The last redirects to Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. Opposition to a doctrine (like Islam) is different than hostility to a people (Muslims). In that case one usually uses "persecution" or "bigotry." We see no Opposition to Christians, or Opposition to Jews. Our articles on anti-Judaism make some distinctions on our usage of the word "opposition" and how it contrasts with other negative reactions.

A google search doesn't shine much light on the use of the phrase "opposition to islam" aside from wikipedia usage. I believe we should delete this redirect. However, a google search on "opposition to Muslim" gives a number of specifics like "opposition to Muslim headscarves," "opposition to Muslim immigration," "opposition to Muslims Brotherhood," etc. Once again, "opposition" is generally used in the context of opposition to specific policies. I believe it would much more useful if we delete the redirect so that the user is force to see a display of article "containing" "opposition to Islam" just as we do with "opposition to Christianity". The full list shows the possible ways of being in opposition to some aspect or policy of a religion. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic terrorisim.

This article should have a section regarding the repeated terrorist attacks committed by muslims.

118.149.180.69 (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should definitely point out that muslims commit crimes against humanity, including torture and mutilation. muslims have a lot to answer for - voodoo would appear to be a more reasonable religion by comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.131.189 (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Criticism of Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page promotes hatred about Islam.

Please delete this page. It's not authentic work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3reecycler (talk • contribs) 18:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It, however is still encyclopedic and notable, therefore it has the right to be on Wikipedia. Okamialvis (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@3reecycler: A cursory scan of the references shows over 100, may to scholarly sources. You'll need to explain further how you perceive these sources to not be reliable sources per Wikipedia standards. —C.Fred (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

quote farm

The article, although has some local violation of copy right, is full of quotes which has turned the whole article into a possible copy right violation. It's a real quote farm! Lstfllw203 (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]