Template talk:Criticism of Islam sidebar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Good additions to the new menu

Thanks to whoever made the editions to this Menu for the Criticism topics. Thats what we need - a menu thats suited to the Criticism articles. Please keep improving. --JohnsAr 16:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

lol... --Striver 20:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

pov

Gus, this template needs to be NPOV, remember that when adding links. Right now, it is far from NPOV. --Striver 03:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the Qur'an

Criticism of the Qur'an should be added to this template.--Sefringle 03:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Guantánamo vs Guantanamo?

Two links — Guantanamo Bay detention camp and List of Guantánamo Bay detainees use different accent marking for á after t in Guantánamo. I personally prefer accented á, but then it would look like this in current code: [[Guantanamo Bay detention camp|Guántanamo Bay detention camp]] and then it would appear as superfluous to me, unless the original article name were changed and then a redirect added.

The box seems to support both namings, but is this a matter of preference or because the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base (from which the camp name is derived) does not have the accented á in its official name? -Mardus 02:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The Beslan school hostage crisis was committed by a fringe rebel group bearing little significance in the Muslim world. It also doesn't evoke any strong feelings or emotion about Islam amongst westerners, or about the west amongst Muslims. Placing this event alongside 9/11 is really an exaggeration.Bless sins 17:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I believe it represents the essence of Islam in todays world.Prester John 19:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism vs. Examination, Critics vs. Experts

In the interests of avoiding a potential revert war, let's hash out here the question of whether the wording in the template should be "Criticism of Islam" or "Examination of Islam", and whether it should be "Critics of Islam" or "Notable Experts". To me, it seems clear that the former wording is preferable in each case. In the first case, the wording makes up a link to the Criticism of Islam page, which, upon reading it, seems aptly titled. "Examination" is a much vaguer term. In the second case, all of the people listed are clearly critics of Islam. If the section was to be titled "Notable Experts", there are any number of Islamic clerics who it would be appropriate to include. However, including them would seem to shift the focus of the template away from "Muslims and controversies" to the much more general "Islam".

That being said, I'm quite prepared to listen to User:Ultrabias's rationale in favour of the alternate wording. Sarcasticidealist 01:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Every article under the 'Examination' subheading relates to examination of Islam under the broader heading of "Muslims and controversies". Every article under the 'Experts' subheading relates to notable experts on the subject of "Muslims and controversies".

It is clear that, just for example, being fair to Ayaan Hirsi Ali is acknowledging her status as an expert author (on the particular subject of muslims and controversy) and parliamentarian (in the Netherlands). Being fair to Daniel Pipes is acknowledging his status as a public intellectual, columnist, expert author (again, on the same particular subject of muslims and controversy), and academic.

It is also clear that, for example, being fair to Islam and slavery is not boxing it as just 'criticism'. Being fair rather is acknowledging it as examination of Islam that reveals why, in the minds of muslims, it is OK for their co-religionists to be owning, buying and selling enslaved people in Africa today. After all, Muhammad and Ibrahim openly and quite brazenly owned other people .. that's more than criticism, that's just examination and revelation of the criminality that their names (Peace Be Withheld From Them) are bywords for.

The way you would have it is to narrow the perception of certain people and subjects in an anti-NPOV way such as to say that all they are about is being 'critics' (ie. destructive, obsessed with negativities, dumping on others) or that all that some subject is is 'criticism' (ie. bagging or dumping on someone or something). We as a community in Wikipedia will NOT accept that because you are violating our policies (particularly see WP:NPOV). Ultrabias 02:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I certainly take some of the points you're making (although I'd respectfully point out that it remains to be seen what the Wikipedia community, of which I am also a member, will accept).

As far as I can tell, you're proposing to broaden slightly the categories in this template. For example, all of the people currently listed under critics/experts/scholars/whatever are undeniably critics of Islam (and I think criticism goes well beyond just "bagging or dumping on someone or something", and doesn't necessarily have the negative connotation that I think you may be ascribing to it), in that their view of the religion is over all negative. If we change the heading to something along the lines of "Experts in the area of Islam and controversy", I think we'd need to include notable people who devote their efforts to refuting the claims made by the people currently in that category. Such people aren't there now, because they certainly aren't critics of Islam, but should be included under a heading "Experts in the area of Islam and controversy". Part of my problem with the heading you propose as it now exists is that it would suddenly give the impression that all "experts in the area of Islam and controversy" have a negative view of Islam.

Possible compromise: would you be open to having an "Experts in the area of Islam and controversy" with two sub-categories, say "Critics of Islam" and "Defenders of Islam"? This would give people like Ali and Pipes their due - I certainly agree that they qualify as experts in the area of Islam and controversy - without creating the impression to which I alluded in the last paragraph.

As for the other debate, I certainly prefer "Appraisal" to "Examination", and I thank you for your attempt to try something other than what has been rejected by other users. My major problem with "Appraisal" is that the category currently includes three articles: Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Muhammad, and Criticism of the Qur'an. It seems to me that if you want to argue that boxing the contents of these articles in as "criticism" is unfair, the place to start is by changing the names of those articles (I take no position on such name changes at the moment, because I haven't examined those articles sufficiently in depth to have one). As long as every article in the section is called "Criticism of X", calling the section anything other than "Criticism" seems silly to me. Sarcasticidealist 22:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

i think that labelling people of a certain group (i.e. critics) as "experts" is one-sided and subjective. there is no reason to believe that the critics (nor even many of the defenders) weild any authoritative, academic expertise in the field (this goes for Hirsi Ali, Spencer, Ibn Warraq, and so on). you don't become an expert simply by having your opinion aired by a media outlet. intellectuals is a bit better, though we still need to balance it with individuals involved in apologetics. ITAQALLAH 23:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's the critical reception of their published work on the subject of their expertise (ie. Islam and controversy, or alternatively 'Muslims and controversy'), accepted by reputable publishing houses, that founds their status as experts and intellectuals. That should be the end of the matter.Ultrabias 03:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Going by factual accuracies, if is probably best to use the origional titles. Reguardless of what you think of the scholarship of the critics, they are still critics of Islam. Besides, when people see these headings, they will just get confused.--Sefringle^Talk 04:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I suspect User:Ultrabias is a sock of community banned User:DavidYork71. My apologies in advance if I am wrong but I think I am not. --Merbabu 04:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Two weeks protection while you sort it out. If you come to a consensus let me know. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

"Muslims"

There are many, many controversial Muslim figures. Starting from the west, to Islamic parties throught the Muslim world are headed by such men (and women). Should we list all of them. Or is there some criteria for listing such figures.Vice regent 20:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

i agree that there needs to be some sort of criteria for inclusion. unfortunately, "controversy" itself is extremely vague. another problem with the template is that the criticism section includes links to articles which mention not a single word of criticism, and appears to be a selection one may personally consider to be examples of criticism (as opposed to verified examples). ITAQALLAH 15:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This tab is a mess, and it appears to me to be partly due to the belief by some editors that it should consist primarily of contemporary Western critics of Islam, rather than criticism made by Muslims of Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemiljan (talk • contribs) 03:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Critics

I don't know some of these names (Afshin Ellian and Ahmad Kasravi). I think a secondary source is required in which these people are singled out as most notable critics; are Afshin Ellian and Ahmad Kasravi even critics of Islam? --Be happy!! (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Why my inclusion of Geert Wilders was reverted from the template? 79.183.138.147 (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding Afshin Ellian back in, he's clearly a notable critic, did you read the article about him? JACOPLANE • 2008-03-15 21:04

I'm adding Kasravi back. He was clearly a critical figure from within Islamic culture. Anyone who has studied Modern Iran knows of him.Jemiljan (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• I am not sure why Ataturk is included in the list. He was not precisely a notable critic of Islam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.143.159.19 (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Atatürk

Would he really be considered a critic of Islam? As far as I'm aware all he did was implement the separation of mosque and state in Turkey, along with many other westernisation reforms, in order to just get rid of Islam's interference in government. Did he really criticise Islam? 82.45.234.136 (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes he did, and it was in the context of his extensive Westernization programs that completely and forcibly reformed centuries of established Islamic traditions. These criticisms range from changing dominant social paradigms such as banning men wearing beards and women from wearing the veil, to script reforms (eliminating Arabic script and replacing it with Latin characters, as well as eliminating Arabic words), to religious reforms, such as notoriously enforcing a Turkish version of the call to prayer that invoked the Ancient Turkic sky god Tengrı in place of the name of Allah. Why do you think that these actions aren't somehow critical of Islamic traditions when they in fact were? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemiljan (talk • contribs) 02:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

One can consider his reforms as un-Islamic in nature (even though this is disputable from a moderate and modern Islamic perspective). Nevertheless, it is important to note that Ataturk did not criticize Islam. On the contrary, there are various reports of him praising Islam, having khutbas given in his name, and referring to Islam as "our religion."

"The depth of Atatürk's religious conviction is still unclear; what is certain is that his drive toward secularism (called lâyiklik or lâiklik, a Turkish adaptation of the French word laïcisme) in Turkey was not conceived as an attack on Islam, which he considered the most rational, natural, and therefore final religion." http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t236/e0083

I will remove Ataturk from this list again, unless you provide solid evidence showing Ataturk's criticism of Islam.

BTW, Turkish version of the call to prayer did not invoke Tengri, bur rather praised Tanri (Turkish word for "God"). http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrk%C3%A7e_ezan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKlRtcFv3Qc

Thanks... So cool (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

He is not a critic of Islam. He is a critic of some Islamic ideologies, which is why he is in the template. He is related to a controversy- that is, the controversy about the place of Islam in Turkish government. The Squicks (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The title of the section reads "Notable modern critics." And the list consists of critics of Islam such as Geert Wilders. I don't think Ataturk fits in that context... So cool (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So Coool, Are you saying that Atatüurk isn't "modern"? He never criticized Islam, even though he is very much on record as criticizing Islamic PRACTICES?!?!?!? Just because the article you cited notes that he didn't "attack" Islam, doesn't mean that he never criticized it. Or do you think that this a tab for "Modern critics who ATTACK Islam"? Tanrı (who is the exact same deity as Tangri- it's just spelled differently, but you would have seen that had you read the link I supplied) is just "a Turkish word for god", and so no Turkish religious figure ever chafed at being forced to recite it? I beg to differ:

"In 1930, President Ataturk and Minister of Education Rashid Ghalib appointed nine muezzins to deliver Adhan in Turkish, disregarding the violent popular opposition. Ataturk even enjoined the police to supervise the delivery of Adhan in Turkish and to punish the dissenters."

"Until 1941, according to Provision no. 526/Code of Punishments, the judiciary and police authorities inflicted the punishment of three-month imprisonment and fine, on whoever delivered the Adhan in Arabic. After 1941, Sheik Kamal Bilau Ughlo, head of the Tigani Sufi Order, and his successor, Abdul-Rahman Balgi were the leaders of the campaign to deliver Adhan in Arabic. Many muezzins delivering the Arabic Adhan had already been imprisoned, paid fines and/or were hospitalized in lunatic asylums."

http://www.islamonline.net/english/ArtCulture/2004/01/article01.shtml

I beg to differ on all of your points for the reasons outlined. Rather, I think you need to show some proof for your assertions that Atatürk doesn't qualify as a modern critic of Islam- meaning that he criticized Islamic religious practices and traditions- when he very clearly was.

Jemiljan (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Note Irshad Manji is a Muslim who is also a feminist and a lesbian. She is on the template because she is a critic of some interpretations of Islamic tradition. But she is still 100% Muslim- she has commented about the beauty of her faith often.

As stated before, someone can be a critic of parts of Islam today while still being Muslim. The Squicks (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Irshad Manji is a reformist Muslim. She can criticize parts of Islam. Her book was title "The problem with Islam," for instance. But, Ataturk did not criticize any part of Islam; he praised it as a whole. (Also, Ataturk was not a reformist from a religious point of view. His reforms were all political and secular, not religious.)

Putting Ataturk in this template is like putting "Stephen Jay Gould" under "Notable critics of Evolution]." Yes, Gould did not conform to "gradualism" which was adapted by mainstream evolutionists. So, he might have criticized gradualists. But, he never criticized evolution!

End of story (for me).

Best wishes to both of you...

So cool (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ataturk was a religious reformer. Sharia said (and, according to conservative scholars, it still says) that Muslims have an obligation to live under a theocratic government where violations of social morals are punished by the state.

Ataturk fought that view and the religious figures behind that view when he turned a rump Muslim theocracy into a secular nation-state. The Squicks (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I really don't want to continue with this discussion any more. But, I will try yet again and hope that I make my point clear this time: You are confusing Islamism with Sharia. Sharia is a relative term. (My understanding of "Islamic Law" can be very different from yours.) Islamism, on the other hand, is the ideology that says Muslims should be governed by a theocracy under Sharia. Ataturk fought against Islamism -not Sharia. Going back to my analogy, Islamism and Islam are like gradualism and evolution. One who criticizes or bashes Islamism, does not necessarily criticize (or reform) Islam no matter how mainstream Islamism is within the Muslim world at the time. (I know you will say, "No, he does because Islamism is part of Islam" And I shall respond: that's the conservative or Islamist point of view, but not a fact.) Please read this twice before writing back :) Thanks! And peace... So cool (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is=

a) Conservative, traditional, orthodox and/or fundamentalist interpretations of Islam (which view Sharia in certain ways) is not true Islam, it is merely a false Islam. Their point of view, I know, is false and is a distortion of Islam. The true Muslims are the progressive, liberal, and more mystical interpretation.

b) Therefore, since Ataturk only criticizes these false Muslims and defended true Islam- he cannot be listed on the template.

My response to your line of arguement is that Islam is a mosaic, not a monolith or an easily generalized group. You can't simply wave your hand and claim that a significant minority (in many places and times, the majority) of Muslims are simply wrong and are thus not a true part of Islam. The Squicks (talk) 05:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

In terms of sources, see this: He believed a complete separation of religion from political life was crucial for Turkey's future., the most radical secular program ever carried out in an Islamic society, Turkish secularism is often viewed in the Middle East as anti-Islamic., there is strong opposition to what many Arab nations say is Turkey's complete rejection of religion from public life. The Squicks (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times says The model for a new Turkish state, Ataturk believed, was to be found in the nations of Europe and the West, where modern thought and reason had made the societies rich. Religion, he concluded, was a major hindrance to becoming modern., and Changing the alphabet, replacing Shariah with the Swiss civil code, criminalizing the wearing of the fez and traditional dress, and discouraging the veil were intended to protect the state from religion, not just separate the two., and Andrew Mango, author of “Ataturk: The Biography of the Founder of Modern Turkey,” said that Ataturk “accepted religion as a social fact, but he had no time for it.”

All of this is what you would expect for someone who is critical of major sections of thought within Islam. The Squicks (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why even Taha Hussein is listed there. I'll do a clean up later. A critic of Islam can be listed if they have really been active in criticizing Islam. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Not necessary

I don't think this template is necessery for anything else thane propaganda purposes. We do not have similar templates on other religions. It is better and more NPOV to include criticism of Islam in "Part of series on Islam". The template should be deleted.--Walk&Talk (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• I completely agree. If this was about Judaism and Jews people would be screaming "antisemitism". The template is unacceptable. ^Izzedine 23:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

There are analogous categories like Category:Jews and Judaism-related controversies and Category:Christianity-related controversies. I don't know of a good way for searching onsite for templates that are similar, but Google can to some degree. All I came up with quickly was Template:Early Lutheran Controversies and the TfD mentioned Template:Antisemitism. Given that most of the controversies are categorized, and also listed at Controversies related to Islam and Muslims, what does the template have to offer that is unique? Among all the controversies, what process should determine which ones deserve more (what else to call it?) publicity, since it can't list all the ones found in the category or on the list? Шизомби (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The best thing would be to have the Islam template and not Islam and controversies since it is difficult to determine which topics deserves to me included. The template can be abused and I have the impression after seeing who is editing that this is the case. It is being used as advertising space where topics are included without any criteria. The basic fact is that we don't have any such template on the other religions, this should be reason enough to not have this template. I believe Antisemitism template could be compared with a Islamophobia template, but not with this one. In the Islam template can we have a topic called criticism of Islam.--Walk&Talk (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I still stand by what I wrote back in Descember and the template the way it is now should be deleted.--Walk&Talk (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I found this template a pure joke and with good propaganda value. Without noticing this ongoing section, I have posted my comments in another section below Zencv ^Whisper 22:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"Extremist related events since 2001"

The inclusion of the Flying Imams controversy under that header (if not potentially the header itself per WP:CONTROVERSY and especially WP:EXTREMIST) strikes me as questionable. What's the evidence they were Islamic "extremists"? The "relation" in the case seems to be just the suspicion or concern of passengers that they were, which is possible, but individually or collectively their actions are just that, suspicions. They weren't legally charged with anything and their own suit was settled, not lost or thrown out. Шизомби (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Logically incoherent groupings

I couldn't help, but ask, why there is a "template" needed connecting highly disparate, often politically motivated and controversial topics under a single template labelled "Muslims_and_controversies"? Islam is a common denominator, but that doesn't mean Islam caused all these controversies. Much of the components of the template are too different to be called a logically coherent grouping. I do not find any template named "Christianity and controversies" with Crusades, Christian Paedophilia, Blackwater Worldwide, Iraq War, Christian Zionism and Christian terrorism in one template, but may be then we would come across all screaming NPOV. Zencv ^Whisper 22:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_5#Template:Muslims_and_controversies. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A vote, dominated by the likes of Ibn Kaafir and Pickbothmanlol?. My original question was why there exist no such templates on Christianity based on the issues that I have highlighted.(Or can you say if I create such a template on Christianity or Judaism, such a template would survive more than a week?). I thought the processes here are not democratic, rather objective. Zencv ^Whisper 09:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ofcourse it will survive, if it groups articles together meaningfully. That poll wasnt "dominated", it was a uninimous keep by all the 20 or so people who took part in it. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Some issues

Once again, this template is being pushed and squeezed into something invisible (all the sections have to be made visible), and the Islam template is on the top. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed it a bit but it still needs work such as "Activities" is not the best title for what is listed there, but it will do for now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Activities, Issues and Events and all that stuff needs to be sorted. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposing deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_3#Template:Muslims_and_controversies. NickCT (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

See related "Deletion" discussion

See discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_27#Template:Criticism_of_Christianity_sidebar. -Noleander (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted entries

I deleted the following entries that do not fit to the topic the template:

• Namus: The concept predates Islam.
• Honor killing: A cultural practice not supported by an interpretation of Islam, and neither do perpetrators of such acts claim to have been motivated by Islam, also it predates Islam.
• Eurabia: Political theory on Muslim birth dates, not related to Islam, the ideology.
• Pan-Islamism, Qutbism all fall under Criticism of Islamism already linked in the template. Should be separated from "Criticism of Islamism" only when there are specific articles dedicated to the criticism of "Pan-Islamism" or criticism of Qutbism.

Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Modern critics

I see several Dutch critics, I think Pim Fortuyn should be in here as well. He was the one who paved the way for the other Dutch critics. What do you think? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move

This tab formerly contained references to Muslim reformers, who have since been deleted. There was discussion on the other tab about how the separate tab for reformers is a form of POV content forking. The inherent problem with this tab lies in the definition of "critic", as well as "Islam". There are certainly non-Muslim critics and ex-Muslim critics, but also Muslim critics of Islam as the faith is practiced and interpreted. Criticism of Islam can include criticism by Muslims of what constitutes Islam, such as internal sectarian controversies, as well as modern reformists. With just about every "Muslim controversy", whether it be Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa against Salman Rushdie, or the stoning of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, Muslims have publicly criticized such incidents. Hence, the template should be revamped with relevant sections to reflect this. Alternatively, you could simply remane the current list as "Non-Muslim critics of Islam", as if you remove Irshad Manji, that is what is left. Yet I would advocate that if sections for "Non-Muslims", "Muslims" and "Former Muslims" be designated, it would be far more NPOV. although the article itself should also updated to reflect this. "Muslim Reformists" could also be changed to "Muslim Critics and Reformists". The resulting tab would be more inclusive and less NPOV.Jemiljan (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

New addition to 'Modern critics of the Islam'

It should be noted that Pim Fortuyn was a noted critic of the Islam. Should he be added to the list? Not only does his wiki page have an own section on his islam criticism, he has also been refered to as the starter of the Dutch Islam debate. Geert Wilders has often commented on how Pim Fortuyn 'loosened' the subject from the taboo corner. Thanks to Pim Fortuyn the debate started in Netherlands, and certainly after his death, spread to other parts of Europe (Germany, Belgium). Furthermore, most of his voters in 2002 chose to follow Geert Wilders in 2006, and even more in 2010. In short, Pim Fortuyn should also be put on this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.163.242.11 (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Ephraim Karsh, Bernard Lewis

I suggest adding the names Ephraim Karsh and Bernard Lewis to the Template.—Biosketch (talk) 03:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

POV title

The current title of this template ("Criticism of Islam") is POV and Islamophobic. Do we have a template called "Criticism of Judaism"? No, we have Template:Antisemitism. The contents of this template include Islamophobic conspiracy theories such as "Eurabia" and writers who are widely considered Islamophobes by reliable sources. Describing Islamophobic writers and Islamophobic racist conspiracy theories merely as "Criticism of Islam" is Islamophobic and extremist. JonFlaune (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The articles on the templates have little to do with "Islamophobia", itself a disputed term. "Criticism of Islam" is in fact the more neutral term, despite what you may think. Most/all of the "issues" are reasons why Islam has been criticised; not many consider those issues as part of Islamophobia. If you want, you can create a separate template called "Islamophobia" and put those people on it. Also, you can't add a POV tag to a template because it makes it appear in all the articles the template appears in. Christopher Connor (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What is precisely meant by "Criticism of Islam"? The concept is very much undefined, and while the title may not be POV, the content assuredly is an example of POV content forking. Criticism Islam can originate from within Islamic culture, especially among Islamic reformers, while most of the people featured on this sidebar are not members of the faith. Over the course of the history of this sidebar (when it was named 'Islam and Controversies'), it has featured controversial incidents along with non-Muslims critics of Islam, predominantly Christian and Western anti-Islamic polemicists who have a very negative view of Islam.

The sidebar has been endlessly changed, names arbitrarily added and removed, and all at the whim of whichever editor. Previous criticism of the sidebar is found above, dating back several years. Admittedly, it concerns the previous name, but some of it can still be applicable to its current state. For these reasons, I think that this needs to be overhauled, and merged with the List of Muslim reformers, and contain sections for Muslims, non-Muslims, and "former" Muslims as well, so as to be more inclusive and NPOV. See my notes above in the requested move above (to which no one ever replied). At that time, Irshad Manji was the only Muslim listed on the tab. Now her name has been removed, even though the sidebar is still found on the entry devoted to her. Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im is perhaps the sole exception currently on the tab who is a reformer.Jemiljan (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Antisemitism is a racial term that cannot be compared with "Islamophobia" because Islam is not a race; in fact, most modern Muslims are not even Arabs. Moreover I simply do not accept the term Islamophobia as meaningful at all. Christianity is ruthlessly criticized without its opponents being labeled 'phobes', and not only is the criticism more vociferous, but it is clearly less justified when one looks at each religions' texts, Islam's being, objectively, more bellicose. Please reflect on this asymmetry for a moment, and consider whether "Islamophobia" might have more to do with propaganda than fighting prejudice. Logos384 (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Logos384, There is an article on Islamophobia, and while I agree that naming the sidebar using that rubric wouldn't be appropriate, I do think that it would be a good addition to a better-developed, comprehensive, NPOV sidebar. While 'antisemitism' may be a racial term, clearly a form of bigotry that is expressed against Islam does exist, that primarily employs alarmist appeals to fear along very much sectarian lines, hence the advent and use of the term "Islamophobia". Whether or not the term is "fair", is a discussion as contentious as it is enduring. Also, whether or not such as a term is used for another faith such as Christianity is entirely moot, for while Christianity may be criticized, the fact is that appeals to fear are not the primary mode of criticism of that faith. As far as whether Islam's text is "more bellicose", have you read Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Judges? You might do well to heed your own advice and "...reflect on this asymmetry for a moment...", and consider whether your response "...might have more to do with propaganda..." than NPOV expected of WP. Jemiljan (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Extremely disturbing, POV

With the rising of Islamophobia across western Europe and, albeit at a much slower pace, in America, I believe that reason, information, and the information age are great fighters of irrational hatred. However, this template ("criticism of Islam") perpetuates the cult of irrationality against Muslims, and very unfairly so. It perpetuates it by legitimizing it. It counts, among others, Fjordman as a critic of Islam. It counts Robert Spencer as a Spinoza, it counts Pamella Geller as anything but a insane right-winger, and it counts Ayaan Ali-Hirsi as anything but a deeply self hating person.

If you truly want this here, and claim to be anything but a right wing proselytizer of 21st century McCarthyism, then I ask for a "Criticism of Judaism" template; perhaps even a "Criticism of Black People" template. In fact, let us legitimize all hatred, instead of to tacitly disarm it with knowledge, by calling it "Criticism".

Let's get rid of this right-wing hate. --66.233.55.145 (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's role to "disarm" what you perceive as hatred (criticism does not equate hatred, by the way, much less does a list of those who have been noted to criticize Islam in reliable publications). Should we also delete individual articles on those most notorious for criticizing Islam? Is there criticism of Islam? Yes there is. Is it valid? It's not our place to judge its rationality or irrationality. Surely the notable vectors and instigators of that criticism (the ones you refer to as "insane right-wingers") can be grouped together in a template for navigation purposes. I don't see a problem with a template on criticism of Judaism or other religions either. I make no comment on the actual contents and potential bias within the existing template though, but I believe it's been covered above. — CharlieEchoTango — 04:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

But how are they even critics? They're Eurabian conspiracy theorists, they're Brevik inspiring polemicists without even a pretension to reason or honesty; the majority of people on this list don't care to criticize Islam the same way atheists criticize Christianity or Hinduism, they care to criticize Arab culture, under the veneer of atheistic scholary-ness. The reason why this template is bad is because it makes it seems as though they're considered legitimate, when they're nonsense is only legitimate to, quite literally, only racist Islamophobes.

Doesn't the miracle of chile article tell you in the first paragraph that its a bullshit term created by some Reaganite? Doesn't the race and intelligence article tacitly explain that hereditarianism is stupid (although not fucking well enough in my opinion)? Are you saying that these article's are illegitimate because they show you the facts and give you an opinion based on those facts? Isn't antisemitism, racism, racialism, and hate of all kinds considered stupid because it's illogical? Isn't the only reason criticism of islam template is considered here for a template because islamophobia is popular now?

The question: Does Wikipedia have a right to nanny people towards what is actually right? It already does, as do all serious repositories of knowledge, why stop now? Authoritarianism and reason are practically the same thing. Should we give all racists equal parity on Wikipedia, say that they're concerns are somehow valid? Should we put holocaust denial content in our holocaust article to ensure wikipedia gives all opinions equal parity? Should we remove "pseudo-science" from the orgone energy article to make it more "democratic"? I want to disarm irrational, unfounded hatred. I would be for this if it were even true that one could criticize an ethnic group within society (Islamophobia stopped being about a religion a long time ago.--66.233.55.145 (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)