Talk:Islamophobia/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

In the "Examples of Islamophobia" section of this article, you have Jerry Vines quoted saying "Christianity was founded by the virgin-born Jesus Christ. Islam was founded by Mohammed, a demon-possessed pedophile who had 12 wives, and his last one was a 9-year-old girl."

However, I belive this isn't Islamophobia - "fear or hatred of Muslims or Islamic culture." While Vines may in fact be Islamophobic, this quote isn't. It is merely anti the Islamic religion, not people or culture. These two things are distinct, and should not be confused. I however, will leave this alone and let everyone else do whatever they feel is nessecary. Yeah it is moron Thank you.


There are people who do genuinely fear Islam. (regardless of whether the fear is actually justified.) These people are usually non-muslims who perceives Islam or Islamic culture as a threat. Should do a list of exact fears. ie. Which part of Islam causes fear. Should do a list of source of fear (media?). --211.28.158.77

Some links that might be of interest to anyone wanting to improve this article are as follows:

-- Axon

I hope you don't mind but I moved some of your comments to a more appropriate place in the Talk page here, and edited the write-up of Islamaphobia to be more detailed. I'm unsure that islamophobia is derived from homophobia or that it is a relatively new terms, but I believe it may be true unless anyone has any evidence to the otherwise. -- Axon

In my opinion this sentence: "Ever since the Muslim expansion in the 8th century Islamophobia has been a part of European culture."

is NPOV and should be altered. --Dante Alighieri 19:17 21 May 2003 (UTC)

  1. Aside from dantes remark,
  2. I wonder why the 'phobia' is supposed to be based on the term 'homophobia'. Other fears like Claustrophobia sound more likely to me.
  3. Link to List of phobias

TeunSpaans 12:41 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Islamaphobia is a relatively new term, certainly the use of the term homophobia preceeds it. It not only refers to 'fear of Islam', but also prejudice against, and is a form of discrimination, akin to Racism of Anti-semitism. Part of the reason homophobia was used to describe anti-homosexual prejudice, is that homosexualism is already a word. Similarly, islamism is already a word, and thus cannot be used to describe anti-islamic sentiment. There are many similarities of use between homophobia and islamaphobia that the link cannot be ignored. --Axon

Rereading this article after a few weeks, I still dont get a NPOV / this article is balanced / this article is complete / feeling about this article.

My feelings may stem from the question if there are any legitimate reasons for fear of Islam. Of course, muslims will say and think there is no fear. But many other people in western societies may feel otherwise. This question is not addressed in the article, and I feel the article should make an attempt to differentiate between phobia and what by many people are considered legitimate concerns.

I have added some links to related concepts - I feel some of them may counterbalance the lack of equilibrium in this article. TeunSpaans 13:51 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think getting into a discussion of whether there are or are not 'legitimate reasons for fear of Islam' is missing the point, and threatens to turn this article into a see-saw between opposing views. The same thing happened on the homophobia page and turned it into a POV free for all. I think the article should avoid these topics. The term itself, though defining Islmaphobia as hatred of Islam in emotive terms, also describe it merely as a form prejudice,in the same manner as racism. The article only defines what Islamaphobia is. Perhaps attributing these definitions to certain groups would improve the NPOV somewhat, altho I think it won't help the clarity. Similar documents have been subject to this 'NPOV process' and been turned into a reptitious repeats 'they say X', 'they reply Y' and so forth.

From a personal perspective, much of the articles seems balanced to me. Many see the Muslim world as nothing but fanatics and intolerant zealots. However, the majority of Muslims come from the much more peacfeul Sufi movements, or are moderates. I have some Muslim friends and they seem a lot more tolerant and liberal than many of the Christians I know. Similarly, few would disgaree that Islamaphobia has increased after 9/11. --Axon

Actually, only about 10% of Muslims worldwide are Sufi. Sufi Muslims, sadly, are hatred by many Shiite and Sunni Muslims. In the USA, no organized Shiite or Sunni group has ever reached out for peaceful relations with the Jewish community; the only outreach has been from the Sufi community. RK 17:40 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
You're probably right, altho I'm not sure anyone can speak with authority and claim 'no organized Shiite or Sunni group has ever reached out for peaceful relations with the Jewish community' - what, ever? For sure? Certainly, in the UK leaders from the various religions regularly meet, and did so in particular after the various wars and disasters in the last couple of years. Otherwise, your edits seem perfectly NPOV - no-one is denying that Islamism is not a part of the Muslim world (although it ought to be made clear that this depends on the part of the world you are in) --Axon
Islamaphobia has a number of causes. One of the current causes is the fear of the Islamist movement, a modern puritanical, fundamentalist form of Islam. Many people mistakenly believe that most Muslims are Islamist, when in fact the Islamist movement currently is a minority position. Many people in Western society, as well as many fundamentalist Muslims, see Islam as directly opposed to the enlightenment values, feminism, democracy and capitalism.

On second thoughts, this paragraph is highly POV: it seems to assert that Islamaphobia against all Muslims is somehow justified by the actions of a few members of that religion.

The Islamist movement includes millions of Muslims; fear of this movement is one of the big reasons why there has been an upswing of fear towards Muslims. Thus, this cause does need to be addressed in the article. Of course, precisely how this should be discussed is what we are working on. RK
Actually, I thought the main reason for the upswing in 'fear towards Muslims' has been the terrorist attacks of the last couple of years. In reality, people fear Muslim terrorism, and I think if you polled most people, 90% would cite this or Muslim fundamentalism, not this 'Islamism'. I don't think many people, particularly outside of America, have even heard of Islamism. Axon

First of all, despite the fact I live in a Western nation that has one of the West's largest Muslim populations, I've never heard of 'Islamism'. It saddens me that people, mainly it seems from America, feel the need to invent terms like 'Islamism' and chuck everyone they don't like into the same box. It's a particularly nasty and pejorative term, chosen, one assumes, for its similarities to Racism and Facism. Its almost as obviously invented as the term 'Islamaphobia' itself, which is, one assumes, why it has been added to this article in the first place, and repeated as much as possible. Why not simply use the term 'muslim fundamentalist'? I suppose Islamism denotes some sort of organisation and collective thinking, feeding nicely into people's prejudices and conspiratorial paranoia. It always seems to me that the fundamentalists are disparate groups that perhaps share common goals, but in truth rarely agree, even amongst themselves. Many are hardly what could be considered organised, or even a single 'movement'.

There is a huge difference between the Islamist movement and Islamic fundamentalism. Frankly, almost all practicing Muslims are fundamentalist. Since The Enlightenment, in Christianity there has been a remarkable flowering of religiously liberal (non-fundamentalist) Protestant groups; in Judaism there has been a similar flowering of religiously liberal (non-fundamentalist) denominations, to the point where most religious Jews are not fundamentalist. Yet no such mass religious movement has ever occured in Islam. However, Islamism refers to something quite distinct; Islamist is a political, puritanical, violent movement that also happens to be fundamentalist. Finally, Muslims themselves see a big difference between Islam and Islamism, and they use this terminology themselves. Not widely known, millions of Muslims actually believe in a conspiracy theory which claims that American (or "the West") created the Islamist movement as a way to hurt Islam! RK 00:20 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I think the statement that 'almost all practicing Muslims are fundamentalist' is betraying your own, obviously strong bias here. I've spent a lot of time with Muslims, grew up with them, work with them, friends with them. Most muslims are just normal people, who want out of life what the rest of us want, who work boring jobs, etc.. By simply writing all Muslims off as 'mostly fundamentalist' you are de-humanizing them. You're turning them into monsters of the imagination, a vast sea of people who cannot be trusted, should not be trusted. Sounds like a situation that mirrors exactly the Nazi's view of the Jews. For anyone who's actual spent any time with muslims you'd realise the truth is far more complicated. Axon
To then claim that Christianity and Judaism are somehow 'more liberal' seems absurd. How exactly do you measure that? Is there a liberal litmus test? You're quite obviously showing a neocon-like bias towards Judaism and strongly against Muslims. Axon
First off, that is not precisely what I said. Secondly, do you know what the word fundamentalism means? The word "fundamentalism" has a precise technical meaning, referring to a way that someone reads their Scriptures. It is not an insult nor an ad homenim attack. Frankly, your entire set of responses are mis-informed. You incorrectly assume that they mean something they do not, and they you launch rebuttals towards ideas I do not have. Please read our article on fundamentalism. RK 12:45 19 Jun 2003
Are we talking about describing fundamentalists as people who read and interpret the Scripture of their religion literally? If that's the case, then I think I can see where you're coming from. You're saying that most Muslims read and interpret the Qur'an literally, which is true. As a matter of fact, the literal translation of fundamentalist in Arab, Usulliyyah, describes most Muslims. The disagreement we're seeing here, on the other hand, is the fact that fundamentalism isn't often used to just describe a literal reading of the Scriptures. If I got the introductory paragraph of fundamentalism right (and what a mess that Wiki page is), fundamentalism is supposed to be more of a return to an idealized form of the religion itself, not merely just a technical term describing how fundamentalist adherents read their scripture.--T-Boy 17:20, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ah, the power of definitions and words. Get there first and the world's your oyster. Perhaps I could invent a term for fundamentalist Jewish opposition to Islam? 'Jewism' I suppose? It has an unpleasant ring, I'm sure it will be very popular. Or perhaps I don't want to descend into such a dirty game.

There is no fundamentalist Jewish opposition to Islam. I think you don't understand what we mean by the word fundamentalism; it has a very specific meaning, and is not an ad homenim attack. I a bit concerned about the way you suddenly are launching into a diatribe against the Jews, though. What is this anger towards Jews all about? RK
I really beg to differ here, I think there is fundamentalist Jewish opposition to Islam. Any belief that allows Israelis to kill Muslim civilians is fundamentalist in my view. Any belief that allows others to justify such actions is fundamentalism in my view. Any view of belief that allows people to justfy killing is fundamentalism, extremism. And the term fundamentalism is highly POV... I'm sure many people consider the West's adherence to capitalism to be 'fundamentalist'. The term itself has seen alteration and modification - there is no clear way of defining precisely who is and is not a fundamentalist (as is evident from our own disagreement here) and, as a scientist, that makes the term less objective than subjective. Axon
Axon, everything you have written is in error; the problem isthat you are not aware of what the word fundamentalism] actually means. You keep mistakenly using the word "fundamentalism" as a hateful ad homenim attack. It means no such thing. It simply refers to a way that people read their religiou Scripture. Most fundamentalists are peace-loving people. By misusing it in this way, you are inadvertantly attacking fundamentalist Muslims, Jews and Chrisitans. We all must know what a word means before we use it in an encyclopedia. Accuracy is paramount. RK 12:45 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
True Jewish fundamentalists are known as Orthodox Jews. "Islamic fundamentalism" tends to be misused as a synonym for Islamism. I suspect the poster who enquired about "fundamentalist Jewish opposition to Islam", really meant violent, terroristic extreme Zionism, ie Kahanism.

Anyway, liberal angst and despaired monologue over with. That aside, what are 'enlightenment values'? That's a highly subjective term... I'm sure the 'Islamists' consider themselves to be 'enlightened' as well. Similarly, whilst fundamantalist muslims are generally opposed to capitilism, they are also quite strongly opposed to gay rights, socialism (also popular in many western societies) and communism. They're also commonly thought to be strong on family values, law and order and respecting your elders - aren't these considered by some to be traditional Western values as well? --Axon

Enlightenment values are most certainly not a highly subjective term. They are a very specific set of values that most people in Western society have adopted since the Enlightenment, that secular Arabs have adopted, but have not been adopted by most religious Muslims. RK

Some examples of enlightenment values are:

  • The belief that the nation exists to protect the rights of the individual, instead of the other way around.
  • The belief that each individual should be afforded dignity, and should be allowed to live one's life with the maximum amount of personal freedom.
  • The belief in democracy
  • The belief in the equality of all humanity, all races, ethnicities, nationalities and religions.
  • The belief that, in regards to the physical world in which we live. the scientific method is our only ally in helping us discern fact from fiction; further, the belief that science, properly used, is a positive force for the good of all humanity.
  • The belief that all people have a right to free speech and expression, the right to free association, the right to hold to any - or no - religion; the right to elect their own leaders
  • The belief that religious dogma and mystical experiences are inferior to logic and philosophy, and that in fact much classical religious dogma has been harmful to much of humanity.
I'm sure 'The Enlightenment' is an actual term that has a set meaning for some people (altho the definition still seems very subjective to me), 'enlightenenment values' perhaps also, but its actual use in this article and its precise context was highly POV, loaded and subjective. Certainly, 'the belief that all people have a right to free speech and expression, the right to free association, the right to hold to any - or no - religion; the right to elect their own leaders' sounds as tho it were taken directly from the American Constitution... odd that. As I stated before, what are actual 'enlightened values' change from individual to individual and many fundmentalists consider themselves to be 'enlightened'. By all means, we should list the commonly held view of Muslims, as opposed to tolerance, equality, democracy, etc, but I think for the sake of NPOV we should leave all talk of 'enlightenment' elsewhere.
The term is not loaded, nor is it subjective. You need to spend some time reading up on The Enlightenment. We share much more common ground than you realize. RK 12:45 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
That aside, I think we should leave all this discussion for another page. I can see that you've already been deep in an edit-war on this very topic in the Islamism page, so I'm sure we'd all prefer to keep all discussion of Islamism there and we'll all try to avoid such conflict here. Axon
There are many organizations working to end Anti-Muslim bias among Israelis, as well as to end hatred of Jews among Arabs. See the entry on projects working for peace among Israelis and Arabs.
See also: Anti-Islamism, Dhimmi, persecution of Christians, Islam and anti-Semitism

I'm noticing a theme here. Does the mere mention of discrimanation against Muslims elicit this kind of high-intensity linking to pages describing prejudice on the part of Muslims. Yes, I think the whole world knows that Muslims and Jews do not get on, but do we have to link to all these issues on a page that is supposed to be discussing Islamaphobia and what it means? One or two links is perhaps justified for balance, but this all seems a little excessive and smacks highly of someone, somewhere trying to prove a point. How many of these are actually relevant to the subject at hand? --Axon

Axon writes "I think the statement that 'almost all practicing Muslims are fundamentalist' is betraying your own, obviously strong bias here. I've spent a lot of time with Muslims, grew up with them, work with them, friends with them. Most muslims are just normal people, who want out of life what the rest of us want, who work boring jobs, etc.. By simply writing all Muslims off as 'mostly fundamentalist' you are de-humanizing them."

Again, this is a problem. The word fundamentalism is not a hateful attack, nor is it slander. It is a technical religious term which describes a way that people read their Scripture. The way I am using it is absolutely correct and polite, and it is used this way by Muslim religious scholars themselves. Please read the aricle on the subject, Ok? You are continually rebutting beliefs that I do not have. RK 12:45 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)Like Christianity, fundamentalism is not a word with an owner and it means different things to different people. "Catholic fundamentalist" for example is sometimes used concern approach to church doctrine (ex cathedra papal statements or whatever) not to scripture. Personally I agree with the earlier comments that by the time someone is fundamentalist it makes little different what the religion is. BozMo(talk) 2100 5 April BST

I'll stick to talking here and not mess up your text but I think a working definition of a fundamentalist in comparative religion is someone who believes that it is POSSIBLE to state religious truth absolutely in words rather than someone who accepts that words are an iterative process at best converging toward truth. And I agree with the above that I lived for 3 years in an African Islamic country without ever meeting a fundamentalist: they are not paricularly commoner in Islam just in parts of it.BozMo(talk) 2115 5 April BST

To get back to the article, I've removed the statement about Islamophibia being derived from Homophobia. They almost certainly have the same root (i.e. anything suffixed with phobia) but lots of words predate homophobia, e.g. xenophobia. The smae with 'Islamophobe'. Someone with Xphobia can be called an Xphobe.

Sorry, forgot to sign. DJ Clayworth 20:51, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I might have missed discussion of this, but, isn't anything with a -phobia suffix supposed to be "irrational" or "debilitating" fear as opposed to "moral revulsion", "healthy caution", "historical enmity", "hatred for cause"? Is that made clear enough in the article? Mkmcconn 23:05, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

From the article on phobia:
In some cases, a fear or hatred is not considered a phobia in the clinical sense because it is believed to be only a symptom of other psychic problems, or the result of ignorance. These are phobias in a more general, popular sense of the word.
This includes the term 'xenophobia'. One might reasonablly use the term 'xenophabia' as the basis for contsructing 'Islamophobia'. -- Khym Chanur 07:10, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)
I'd disagree that any other xxxphobia was the basis for constructing 'Islamophobia', the word Islam and phobia, the Greek word for fear. Like Agrophobia, Claustrophobia, Arachnophobia.... There are hundreds of xxxphobias, they're not all constructed from each other, they're constructed from words describing the subject of the fear and the suffix phobia. McClade

Should the word "Islamophobia" really be capitalised when it is not at the beginning of a sentence? Is it a proper noun? There seem to be a lot of disjointed sentences in this entry - the result of constant editing. Someone should try and fix it up. M-Henry 09:26, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Isn't the comment about "disproportianate" coverage of "Islamic" terrorism rather un-NPOV? We've been having these attacks since the late 60s, after all. Other terrorist attacks tend not to be aimed at the "West" so it's not surprising they're not covered to the same extent by the WESTERN media. Exile

So, is anyone gonna create an article on Christophobia? *rolls eyes*