Talk:Islamophobia

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - RPM SP 2022 - MASY1-GC 1260 200 Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aashima99 (article contribs).

Article has lost its way

There is no single agreed detailed-definition of Islamophobia. [1] This is a fact, but more than that, it's a crucial backdrop against which anyone seeking greater understanding needs to view the subject. But would anyone reading this article be aware of this context? I doubt it. Many editors here seem to be pushing 'cast-iron' claims on the basis that they have citations. Verifiability is vital, of course, but where there are differing or conflicting citations, we don't just get to pick the one we prefer, nor do we get to combine them, pick-n-mix style, to come up with more comprehensive claims either. Take the opening sentence. It's presented to readers as some kind of agreed and indisputable fact, but it isn't. It's derived by combining 5 different definitions (incidentally, one is a college website and three are dictionaries, which are not ideal as citations). Most don't use the word irrational, which could be an indication that they don't consider it always to be so, yet there is is in the opening to this article. It's not helpful, and it isn't encyclopaedic either. Obscurasky (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a summary of various definitions. Typically, in social sciences, there will be various definitions, but they tend to agree on some factors. TFD (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, the "Christianophobia" page gives a "single agreed detailed-definition".

The tired-old narratives of Western right-wing commentators and political apologists actually have no place in the lede at all. They are only attempting to engage in anti-Muslim hatred through linguistic abuse and obfuscation of terminology. A phobia is by definition "irrational". One of the central claims of Islamophobes is that their fear of Islam is "rational". Only an Islamophobe would have a problem with the description of his paranoid hate as "irrational fear".

This is a page which focuses on explaining the hatred against Muslims and the persecution of Muslims by proponents of such vicious sentiments. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Shadowwarrior8 The problem is that words mean what they mean, you can't say that because a word has phobia in it than it must be a phobia. Another example is antisemitism. Your way of interpreting islamophobia would mean that antisemitism means being anti semitic speaking people. It doesn't, it's specifically about Jews. Doug Weller talk 08:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Several academic and encyclopaedic sources describe Islamophobia as an irrational fear directed against Muslims.

Also, one of the fundamental beliefs of Islamophobes is that "fear of Islam and Muslims" is "rational", and they then attempt to rationalise bigotry against Muslims in front of the wider society. This is a major part of their rhetoric and conspiracy theories.

If the key fact that their paranoia is irrational gets omitted, this would result in the dissemination of an Islamophobic POV. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Several do, but many seemingly disagree and we don't get to choose the sources we like. Obscurasky (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Obscurasky, I might be reading this wrong, but it seems like you're advocating for content that addresses “rational” hostility/critique/hate/distrust—whatever we call it—regarding Islam and Muslims. However, we already have dozens of articles that deal in this area such as: "Criticism of Islam," "Criticism of Islamism," "Islamic extremism," "Islamic fundamentalism," etc. Isn't the "Islamophobia" article specifically reserved for irrational hatred and bigotry rooted in disinformation and false stereotypes?

Omitting 'irrational' risks legitimizing biased perspectives, which contradicts the objective purpose of the article. StarkReport (talk) 09:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I am advocating an unbiased and encyclopaedic summary of the subject. If not all reliable sources agree on the use of the term 'irrational', it's wrong to present it as a universally agreed terminology. Secondly, I probably shouldn't have used that single example, as the point I was making was a wider one and the article includes many examples of editors pushing disputed claims as fact. My last edit was to remove a claim that Islamophobia is primarily a form of racial bigotry. Now, whether you agree with that or not, it's clear that there is no consensus for that statement, but my edit was reverted on the grounds that 'it had a citation' (fortunately that revert was also reverted by someone else). Obscurasky (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Obscurasky, "If not all reliable sources agree on the use of the term 'irrational'" maybe not every source may use this definition. From my impression, it appears that those polemical sources which challenge the term "Islamophobia" and argue that it is rational are often the same ones that claim the term is used to stifle criticism of Islam by blurring the line between racism and critique of religious beliefs. Since we've already addressed these views in the lead's third paragraph, it's clear that we've already informed readers at the outset that the definition of "Islamophobia" is not universally agreed, thereby adhering to encyclopedic balance. StarkReport (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

You said: "One of the central claims of Islamophobes is that their fear of Islam is "rational." - It has some truth, but I don't fully agree with that. Some people hate Muslims just because they are Muslims or simply because they belong to a different religion. Do you think the world is educated enough about Islam for everyone to develop rational opinions? Even more than half of the Muslim population is not properly educated on Islam, let alone the rest of the world. Most of Islamophobia stems from stereotypes, which are indeed irrational and sad. But I also agree with Doug that "words mean what they mean, you can't say that because a word has 'phobia' in it, it must be a phobia." What about those properly educated individuals who do develop (not all) rational reservations about Islam and, by default, practicing Muslims? Should they not be called Islamophobes? How will you differentiate between an irrational Islamophobe and a rational critique? The word is used for everyone who is against Islam. It has also taken on a racial meaning in modern times when Islam is not even a race (exceptional reasons for inclusion don't matter either). As per me, 'Irrational' should be omitted from the lede. DangalOh (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The etymology came up before. The term was copied from hydrophobia, which is an older name for rabies. Just as rabies makes one become irrational, so does Islamophobia, which is primarily a hatred of Muslims. TFD (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you implying that Islamophobia is akin to a disease like rabies, which renders people irrational? Do you have any medical sources to support this claim ? In contrast, Winston Churchill, in The River War (1899), likens Islam itself to rabies. But Churchill was also not a doctor, so let’s refrain from labeling what is and isn’t a disease. Additionally, it’s important to note that one can oppose or criticize Islam without targeting or hating Muslims, yet still be branded as an Islamophobe. Furthermore, if Islamophobia were racially motivated, ex-Muslims would still face Islamophobia, as one cannot change their race by leaving Islam. However, this is not typically the case. Actually, rather than omitting the term 'irrational,' it might be more constructive to present perspectives on how both rational and irrational fear may be classified as Islamophobia. You could also include a third perspective on race, although it's unclear which race. As of now, the article is trying to label any critique of Islam and muslims as irrational because, ultimately, all critiques are more or less labeled as Islamophobic by multiple sources. DangalOh (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

These are strawman allegations and un-civilized rhetoric which do not belong in the talk page. This page has nothing to do with "Criticism of Islam" and you have no reliable sources for any of your fringe, red flag claims. This page is focused on explaining hatred and violence directed against Muslims by various extremist forces such as Christian nationalists, neo-nazis, Hindutva fundamentalists, etc.

Winston Churchill himself was a racist, anti-semitic, anti-Muslim, British colonialist and mass-murderer. Quoting his bigoted statements tells volumes about yourself. On top of that, you are even attempting to push the anti-Muslim narrative that Islamophobic hatred is "rational"!

These type of hateful and unpleasant comments do not belong in the talk page. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

And now comes the personal attack on my character(as well as Churchill's) because I quoted Churchill in response to an original claim. Anyway, sorry. I didn't know this page was supposed to be a sanctuary for people persecuted or harassed by the above-mentioned groups and should not be meddled with. Okay, got it. I don't know why I even bother explaining anything to emotionally charged people. Do as you wish. Also, I never mentioned that Islamophobic hate is rational. But you do seem to suggest that even criticism of Islam is irrational. My point was that sources don’t differentiate, so we shouldn’t either. Or stop calling people who even questions islam as an Islamophobe. Stop throwimg around the word so casually. Maybe people will buy into your definition then. For now, I agree with Doug. Anyway, I am done here. You already did my character assassination. DangalOh (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment on content, not the contributor. I did not engage in any form of "character assassination".

Criticizing problematic comments and bad editorial conduct has nothing do with adhominem behaviour. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Technically what you engaged in was a form of character attack. You were indirectly calling the user a racist and a bigot for quoting Churchill. You could have indirectly stated that you considered Churchill invalid due to his character, but that would have been a weak argument.

Either way, Islamophobia is a much larger concept encompassing everything from outright racism (e.g. hatred of people from the Greater Middle East) to ethnic conflict (Muslims are often a special ethnoreligious or ethnolinguistic group) to philosophical differences (Muslims get discriminated due to their inability to wear certain clothing etc...). This article and much of the discourse in Islamophobia is written from a far-left perspective by people you tend to assume their are centrist because they are living in a echochamber/bubble, and it rarely presents a worldwide view of the topic. Gypsumdiamond (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Although I disagree with @DangalOh's "the article is trying to label any critique of Islam and muslims as irrational" as I can't see how that is the case in this article. On Wikipedia, we have many articles critiquing Islam and Muslims, and none of them contain anything about "Islamophobia." However, I don't see how their comments or intentions were bigoted or anything.

Now to answer @DangalOh question: "Are you implying that Islamophobia is akin to a disease like rabies, which renders people irrational?".

Based on my understanding, Islamophobia, like Antisemitism, is often referred to metaphorically as a 'social disease' due to its harmful impact on society, not as a medical condition.[2][3] This terminology highlights the irrational and pervasive nature of such prejudices. The comparison to rabies above is not about literal disease but rather a way to describe the spread of irrational fear and hatred. Similarly, antisemitism is frequently described as a 'virus' or 'disease,'[4][5][6][7] emphasizing its destructive and irrational nature across history.

Again, this is all just based on my understanding. StarkReport (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to decide on whether it wants to use technical definitions (an irrational fear of Islam) or a common usage definition (multiple viewpoints ranging from outright racism against those from the Greater Middle East, racism along ethnoreligious and ethnolingustic lines, etc...). The common use of the term basically covers "Muslimness" and "Islamness". Gypsumdiamond (talk) 09:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

DangalOh now indefinitely AE blocked.Doug Weller talk 09:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This was just reverted as not being in the three sources

[8]. User:Shadowwarrior8 this is your edit, are you claiming it is? Doug Weller talk 15:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. @Doug Weller

Also, I dont get the title. It was contents associated with one source (with wrong page number). I moved it to the 4th para and fixed the reference page. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

"It has been alleged, often by right-wing commentators, that the term is sometimes used to avoid criticism of Islam". Firstly, I don't think it's helpful to politicise the issue like this, particularly as Wikipedia is aimed at an international audience, not a British one. As for the claim specifically, I question that it's 'often right-wing' commentators making it (more than any other group) and would like to see evidence that this really is the case. Obscurasky (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Your removal of that clause was appropriate. I do not see that in either of the sources given. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that it was a British one though.

The international perspective is very different because Muslims are often an ethnoreligious group or ethnolingustirc group.

Islamophobia is a much larger concept encompassing everything from outright racism (e.g. hatred of people from the Greater Middle East) to ethnic conflict (Muslims are often a special ethnoreligious or ethnolinguistic group) to philosophical differences (Muslims get discriminated due to their inability to wear certain clothing etc...).

This article and much of the discourse in Islamophobia is written from a far-left perspective by people you tend to assume their are centrist because they are living in a echochamber/bubble, and it rarely presents a worldwide view of the topic.

I believe that the American liberal (or left wing) perspective is based on the idea that there is a religious conflict between Christian evangelists and devout theological Muslims, but this does not have any real meaning in much of the rest of the world. The closest equivalent that I can think of is the religious conflicts in the Middle East, which also often tend to fall into ethnoreligious lines. Gypsumdiamond (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gypsumdiamond You are a brand new editor with 2 edits, both to this page. I am skeptical about coincidences. What brought you here? Someone contact you? Your comment about far-left is nonsense, if only because the Far-left is to the left of Communism and even social democracy, relying mainly on violence. In addition, we are only interested in what reliable sources have to say, see WP:RS. Also, this is not a forum to discuss Islamophobia, only the article. Normally I'd remove your post as not appropriate, but I need an answer as to what brought you here. Doug Weller talk 08:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I was reading through this TalkPage and decided to comment because the narrative is getting out of hand.

A lot of left-wing activism these days is far-left. The "activist" part means they dominate a lot of left-wing activities they require "active effort" such as social science academia, journalism and of course social media. The average person (including highly educated) isn't a social justice warrior. For some reason the far-left community has a tendency to view themselves as centrist or mainstream, often on the basis that it's some sort of discrimination they are fighting, which might allude to there being some sort of echochamber or bubble on the far-left.

The definition of the term "Islamophobia" has always been very unusual. Even in Europe there is a ethnoreligious group that is called Muslims, and many similar groups are found across Asia and Africa. Furthermore Muslims as a label are sometimes used for an ethnolingustic group due to the linguistic influence of Arabic/Persian on the language. And this article does not touch on the idea of Islamophobia being used to refer to discrimination from people of the Greater Middle East (WP:COMMONUSAGE), and even in the Middle East, the conflicts are usually based along ethnoreligious lines based on Islamic sects - if you can have an ethnoreligious group based on a section of Islam, then you can have an ethnoreligious group based on the entirety of Islam. Gypsumdiamond (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

You might have come here from X, where this has been discussed recently. Or you could be evading a block. Whatever it is, I still don't accept coincidence. Doug Weller talk 12:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I think @Shadowwarrior8, adding of the "often by right-wing commentators" is a logical and sensible inclusion. Given that numerous reliable sources linking the spread of Islamophobia with right-wing commentators, it’s reasonable that those who would deny its meaning are probably the same right-wingers commentators. Removing the reference to right-wing commentators may oversimplify the context and fail to acknowledge the perspective of those who usually challenge the term's definition.

We have notable figures such as Douglas Murray, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ben Shapiro, Tommy Robinson, and Bill Maher, among others, who have criticized the term and are frequently described as right-wing commentators

I did came across a few sources Pg-604 that states

"The fact that both some right-wing groups and the New Atheists (the leading names are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett)33 target Islam more than Muslims in their discourses is in line with efforts to exclude Islam from the concept of Islamophobia and not evaluate it in the context of racism"

as well as another source [9] that states

"Criticizing that by referring to it as 'Islamophobic' was nonsense for them, too. They suggested that prejudice toward Muslims may exist in some spaces, but they dismissed the idea that it constituted a phenomenon worthy of a name, or one of great public concern. Maher noted that the late atheist author Christopher Hitchens, for whom Islam was a regular target, referred to Islamophobia as a term 'created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.' This axiom circulates widely today among the far right and New Atheists on social media."

There are likely more sources available on this matter. StarkReport (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, there are nunerous academic sources and news reports describing the central role of far-right parties and right-wing media activists in peddling narratives of Islamophobia denial. This theme is a central doctrine in their propaganda narratives. @StarkReport

Some non-rightist intellectuals get manipulated by their disinformation and end up repeating their talking points less forcefully. Other than that, it is clear (both from the sources and in the real world) that far-right are the primary proponents of Islamophobia denial.

What has been happening in this page so far has been a confirmation bias in favour of the organized media narratives prevelant amongst the Euro-centric right-wing crowd. Currently, the fringe views of Islamophobia denial peddled by right-wing is given undue weight in this page, without giving proper context of their bigotry.

Anyways, as per your recommendation, I shall add it back with the sources you provided. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 05:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty miffed that Shadowwarrior8 has taken it upon themselves to reinstate this qualifier and politicise this subject, despite there being no consensus for doing so, or even consensus on whether the claim is actually true! They say, above, "it is clear..... that [the] far-right are the primary proponents of Islamophobia denial", but the text in question has nothing to do with "Islamophobia denial". The text says "It has been alleged....... that the term is sometimes used to avoid criticism of Islam" It does not say that "the term is sometimes used to deny Islamophobia exists".

Some editors here may believe they're scoring some small victory in using Wikipedia to push their opinions as fact, but the ultimate result is an undermining of very principles upon which this institution is built. Obscurasky (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Stop making strawman assertions. My comment was a response to StarkReport. You are not even focused on the content of the page, but basically just attacking my personal views which was expressed in the talk page.

I never politicised the subject. Islamophobia itself has been politicized by opportunistic right-wing politicians who stoke hatred against Muslims, instead of unanimously condemning it. Literally every single academic book on this topic mentions in detail about the central role played by far-right movements and right-wing media networks in disseminating Islamophobic rhetoric. If you are saying that all this academic information should not be included in the page, what you are suggesting is a form of censorship.

In the academic book "Global Islamophobia and the Rise of Populism" (2024) published by Oxford University Press, the writers explain in detail how Western right-wing movements and governments are heavily involved in spreading Islamophobia globally.

Also, note that it is your version of that sentence which is controversial (since it literally has no attribution and terribly misinforms the readers as to who exactly are making such allegations) and doesnt have consensus here. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not attacking you, (and this isn't the place to make such accusations either) I'm questioning your edit. Please be professional, and please stick to the point.

It is possibly correct to say that the "far-right are the primary proponents of Islamophobia denial", that

"....the central role of far-right parties and right-wing media activists in peddling narratives of Islamophobia denial" and that "Islamophobic bigotry, which is denounced by the whole world, is the primary ideological fuel of the global far-right forces", but you are missing the point.

The text in question says "It has been alleged....... that the term is sometimes used to avoid criticism of Islam." It does not say that "the term is sometimes used to deny Islamophobia exists". Yet, in your revert description you attempted to conflate these two things by writing "only fringe extremists attempt to deny the existence of Islamophobia, and the readers must know this." Clearly then, you are indeed attempting to politicise this claim - or perhaps more likely(?), attempting to undermine it by dismissing it as part of a right right-wing plot.

I do not accept this 'particular' claim is alleged any more often by the far-right, than it is by anyone else, including famously left-leaning religious commentators like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens - or anyone else for that matter. As you have neither provided any citation to demonstrate that it is, nor gained consensus here for your edit, I will be reverting it soon. Obscurasky (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you to stop conflating edit summaries and comments of users; with the contents they edit in the page. My edit summaries or comments might have some of my POV, but I am not inserting those POVs into the page. In the page, I paraphrase contents which are sourced in the references.

The academic sources and in-line citations provided by StarkReport has demonstrated that it is the right-wing commentators who vigorously push the narrative that the term "Islamophobia" is used to avoid what they describe as "criticism of Islam". I will warn that it might be viewed as disruptive, edit-warring behavior on your part if you unilaterally revert this.

(Also, Christopher Hitchens is widely viewed as "right-wing" due to him becoming a neo-con mouthpiece of the Bush regime. As for Richard Dawkins, he currently describes himself as a "cultural Christian" who nowadays solely direct all his attacks against Islam. I havent read any source which describe him as "left-leaning". Infact, he is quite controversial amongst the leftists and atheists.) Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Obscurasky, I am skeptical about categorizing Hitchens as "left-leaning." His support for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, advocacy for gun rights, opposition to abortion rights, and designation of Islam as a principal threat to the West suggest something else entirely. He was also described as a neoconservative and pro gun and was also accused of Islamophobia himself.

Addressing your concern about the phrase, "It has been alleged, often by right-wing commentators, that the term is sometimes used to avoid criticism of Islam," it's worth noting that while the term has faced criticism from various perspectives, the word "often" emphasizes that this particular allegation is usually, made by right-wing commentators. It seems to me that we're not "politicizing the issue" so much as merely acknowledging the nuances involved. StarkReport (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Our own article on Dawkins says nothing about his politics, so I think trying to define them is wrong. As for Hitchens, his article does say "Beginning in the 1990s, and particularly after 9/11, his politics were widely viewed as drifting to the right, but Hitchens objected to being called conservative" And see Christopher Hitchens#Political views. I'm not sure how anyone is thinking of using Hitchens, but it might depend on when the source was written. Doug Weller talk 14:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this was the most recent discussion on the mention of "right-wing" in the lead. I continue to support inclusion, and it looks like this fell stale. Most of the last part was oddly focused on Hitchens. Is there disagreement with the sources cited? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers, Well, both @Shadowwarrior8 and I also thought that it's inclusion is due. However, it seems Obscurasky may see it as politicizing the matter and perceives Hitchens as left-leaning—concerns I've already addressed as well as provided the sources. I thought Obscurasky moved on, but seems they’re still stuck on it. StarkReport (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Using the rider "often by right-wing commentators" implies this specific claim (that the term is sometimes used to avoid criticism of Islam.....) is particularly associated with right-wing groups, or at least, more so than other groups. There is no evidence I have seen to support that view, it isn't mentioned in either of the two citations given to support it, and there certainly isn't consensus for it either. All of which causes me wonder why are some editors here so desperate to prevent such a minor edit? Obscurasky (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Obscurasky, I suggest you strike your last sentence. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Obscurasky "some editors here so desperate to prevent such a minor edit" I suggest you avoid casting aspersions. I have previously referenced several prominent right-wing commentators, including Douglas Murray, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ben Shapiro, Tommy Robinson, Christopher Hitchens, and Bill Maher, who have all argued that the term is often employed to deflect criticism of Islam. The sources cited above further substantiate that this practice is indeed prevalent among far-right or right-wing groups. This conclusion appears to be a matter of common sense. Also, read my response above "it's worth noting that while the term has faced criticism from various perspectives, the word "often" emphasizes that this particular allegation is usually, made by right-wing commentators. It seems to me that we're not "politicizing the issue" so much as merely acknowledging the nuances involved.".

In case you disagree, I would encourage you to provide a source that disputes this and backs up your argument. StarkReport (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

"All of which causes me wonder why are some editors here so desperate to prevent such a minor edit?" Thats on you not them... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2024

Change In 2008, a workshop on 'Thinking Thru Islamophobia' was held at the University of Leeds, organized by the Centre for Ethnicity and Racism Studies, the participants included S. Sayyid, Abdoolkarim Vakil, Liz Fekete, and Gabrielle Maranci among others. to In 2008, a workshop on 'Thinking Through Islamophobia' was held at the University of Leeds, organized by the Centre for Ethnicity and Racism Studies, the participants included S. Sayyid, Abdoolkarim Vakil, Liz Fekete, and Gabrielle Maranci among others.

This workshop was held at an English university and "through" should be spelt the English way, the citation spells it in English. 92.25.7.23 (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

 Already done The text cannot be found. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)