Talk:Criticism of Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Many false statements are there.

For example it was written that prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) was the founder of Islam, which is 100% wrong, he is not a founder of Islam instead he is the last and final prophet of Islam. Adam (p.b.u.h) was the founder of Islam. Corednyion (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Seem apocryphal and impossible since Islam didn't exist until Muhammad invented it. Adam isn't even the founder of Judaism. Please leave your religious POV out of Wikipedia, this is for factual information, not promoting religious beliefs. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Mohamet IS the founder of Islam, just like Jesus of Nazareth IS the founder of Christianity. ALL claims of divinity of someone or something are absolutely UNPROVABLE. Salam. MagnusRegnumAntichristiAdvenit (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
This is equally as opinionated as the person you replied to. Take your religion, even if it is avowed atheism, out of this. 172.59.191.255 (talk) 02:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

What is this longevity?

My native language is not English nor is it any Germanic language and I am having trouble to find myself in this extremely long article. The Table of Contents doesn't really help me in this case.

I humbly suggest splitting this article to several different articles by context.

Thanks. 2A10:8012:17:CDC6:CCEC:CD14:2D36:C718 (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I tag the profiles of users active in editing the article in the last five years (as apparent from the revision history).
User:Extorc, User:MrOllie, User:LizardJr8, User:FyzixFighter, User:Atheist kerala, User:Anachronist, User:LuK3, User:Drmies, User:Donner60, User:Mojo Hand, User:Capsulecap, User:Icelandt, User:Arinaco, User:Averroes 22, User:Bookku, User:Epelerenon, User:Materialscientist, User:Bingobro, User:Balolay, User:El C, User:Begoon, User:Aminiani, User:Dimadick, User:Shellwood, User:Srich32977, User:Foggas, User:LakesideMiners , User:LW001, User:Samf4u, User:Oshwah, User:Excirial. Thanks for giving your opinion on this matter. 2A10:8012:17:CDC6:C0EE:F28C:FE0:91FA (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Running this article through prosesize tells us that this has a prose of 11k words and 69 kb size that puts it into "Probably should be divided, although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." category per WP:TOOBIG >>> Extorc.talk 14:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
I understand that by "prosesize" you meant the Wikipedia:Prosesize tool. Anyway, more opinions are welcome. 2A10:8012:17:CDC6:D4BE:6846:F946:C85A (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
What are the specific proposals? Bookku (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Agree, let's see what OP thinks the article should be broken out into. It is pretty long. The plethora of quotes in the modern era subsection for example stands out.
Part of the problem here is someone volunteering to write summary sections for each of the sections that would be broken out into a new article. When I separated Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II development I found this to be a considerable task just for one section. What I've also found is that other editors over time have been determined to expand the pruned section far beyond what I think it should be. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
I the OP have no opinion about how to split the article, primarily because I haven't read the article, it's too long, dense and general for me to read, at least from a screen and not printed. I ask if people who read the article have any suggestion. No one should wait for my own suggestion. 2A10:8012:17:CDC6:D4BE:6846:F946:C85A (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 Not done: In that case I don't think this is going anywhere. As I said, just doing one section on another article took me quite some time to make sure the summary of what I was removing was correct, and people just added back to that section. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I'd be glad for more opinions. 2A10:8012:17:CDC6:D4BE:6846:F946:C85A (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
My only involvement with this article was to revert some unexplained content removal a few years ago. I have no opinion on splitting the article. I have not reviewed the article and have no time to spend on it. It is not on the topics I have worked on or am working on. Donner60 (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
There are some parts that shouldn't be part of this article anyway. Like Criticism of Muslim Immigration. Completely out of scope for this article. @Bookku, what do you think? >>> Extorc.talk 06:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I spotted that. A lot of that material is just about anti-Muslim sentiment, not criticism of the religion per se. Some of it could probably just be moved to Islamophobia, and the remainder reworked. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
This reminds me, on some talk pages previously I discussed importance of avoiding common mistake of presenting Muslims as Islam and vice versa. That said.
IMO section Criticism of Muslim immigrants and immigration
  • Section heading seems problematic and would need to be changed if first paragraph of section to be retained.
  • Table about Unfavorable views and other paragraphs after first paragraph after the table, certainly belong to the article Opposition to immigration, (I have not checked WP:Due and sourcing for that article) .
  • First paragraph after the table seem to have some relevance.
Bookku (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I've copied the sourced material to Islamophobia now, so we can trim here. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. This looks a bit better. >>> Extorc.talk 09:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Islamophobia article?

Both this article and the Islamophobia article are extremely long to the level that I can't read them, let along edit them and I am sure I am not the only one, this will become worse for people who's native language isn't English nor any Germanic language. 2A10:8012:17:CDC6:11B3:E598:39EB:6625 (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
There are much, much longer articles than those. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
My apologies if this sounds rude but, if you are not fluent in English, then why would you be editing the English version of Wikipedia? I can read and write French and Spanish, but nowhere near fluently enough to be able to improve articles written in those languages.TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I didn't say that I don't speak English fluently. Believe it or not, I speak it near-natively (near-fluently) and have edited in English Wikipedia from time time for many years now. But, as a near-native speaker of English, not a native speaker, I am more prone to cognitive biases when reading such a long text in English from a computer screen. Please go look for some other English near-native speaker with enough knowledge of the mechanics of Wikipedia that would gladly humiliate herself/himself as I am doing here at the moment, to tell you that this longevity is a problem. This article is not a printed book numbered by pages were the reader can comfortably mark continuation with a continuation sticker, this is a "cluster****" if I may be rude as well. 2A10:8012:17:CDC6:257E:5EEC:D909:7D20 (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
@ OP-IP I have already already requested @TechBear to WP:REFACTOR and any further personalizing discussion related to same should go to User talk:TechBear or WP:ANI and should not continue on this talk page. Said that.
Agreed that very long texts may make navigation difficult for persons of any linguistic background. We also have Simple English Wikipedia available for non-native speakers. To say non-native readers having reasonably good understanding of English would have additional cognitive biases does not sound convincing; but any way that does not matter when users here are ready to consider proposals to address article length issue. What is important next is well meaning concrete suggestions. Bookku (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The very creation of "Simple English" Wikipedia was in my opinion, a dire mistake. All you English Wikipedia members needed and need to do is to just split and split and more split and of course, more accessibility, the message is screaming to be heard. 2A10:8012:17:CDC6:4494:C93D:FF9C:7893 (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
My apologies, I misunderstood "this will become worse for people who's native language isn't English nor any Germanic language" in your comment. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
@ OP-IP 2A10:8012:17:CDC6:11B3:E598:39EB:6625 I do not have issue about WP community considering to find solution for managing article length.
Same time pl. help us understand; What is the relation between Wikipedia article length of any article and native language of any reader or an editor? Usually connecting unrelated things sounds fallacious, unless you can give sound reason. If any such explanation exists then help us understand. Bookku (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello Bookku, please read my reply just above your reply. Thanks. 2A10:8012:17:CDC6:257E:5EEC:D909:7D20 (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
This article is a collection of quotes from various people, most of whom are not experts in Islam. Sadegh Hedayat, for example was a despairing storyteller who ended up committing suicide and it is natural for him to see nothing bright in this world, and it is natural to speak ill of everything, including Islam. Sadiq Hedayat is just an example of those who are not experts but said things about Islam. Many of the quotations in this article, in my opinion, should go to wikiquote if they are so important, but a wikipedia article should be written based on the reliable sources by subject-matter experts.If so, this article would become much shorter.Ghazaalch (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
@Ghazaalch There would be no second opinion that we all can work towards managing length of the article to an optimum. Also no issues in revisiting quotes to find their relevance and conciseness on quote by quote basis.
In my honest opinion what is supposed to matter is existence of present or past criticism in reliable sources. And if criticism is from any notable figures then that should find space according to relevance. Some critic is expert or not, it is not for us but for other reliable source to say so and any such criticism be better addressed through responses to criticism supported by reliable sources.
More information It's better to avoid Red herring ...
Close
Pl let come point by point suggestions to address length issue. Wish you happy editing.
Bookku (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Agree. So the first step for us might be to find out which sources would better help us rewrite this article. Cplakidas might have some suggestions. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Oh, unfortunately Ghazaalch I cannot be of much help here, this is not a topic I am terribly familiar with (I rather tend to avoid it, as most times I stumble upon it it is by people who are ideologically motivated). I really don't know what to suggest for improving the present article, let alone a bibliography for it. My two cents would be to reduce the reliance on isolated quotes by famous figures, and focus more on specific topics/points of criticism. Constantine ✍ 18:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Cplakidas, could you name someone who could help us with this? Ghazaalch (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
@Ghazaalch: As I am writing mostly on early Islamic history, the editors I have interacted with are also more involved with that topic, so I don't know whether they are familiar with these issues or want to work on this topic. Of this group, AhmadLX has very extensive and thorough grasp of the theological and historiographical topics, and the scholarly literature, on early Islam. I would definitely recommend to seek his input, at least as a reviewer. Srnec is another editor who was extensive knowledge on medieval theology and historiography, both on the Christian and the Islamic side. Otherwise, I am drawing a blank; at least I would try to contact some of the more active members of WP:ISLAM and WP:RELIGION for help and input. Constantine ✍ 06:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
@Constantine: Thank you for the encouraging words :) I have neither knowledge nor interest in this area though. And currently not much time either to study a whole new subject. I think Eperoton and Louis P. Boog might be of some help. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Ghazaalch, I agree with you (and Cplakidas) that there are way too many quotes in the article. Even more concerning is that they are mostly non-expert views. Surely many "ideologically motivated" Christians, ex-Muslims, atheists, etc. wouldn't have anything nice to say about Islam. Should we collect them all in one place and call that an encyclopedia article? Being famous doesn't necessarily qualify someone as an authority in inter-faith studies. It's their opinion that the encyclopedia article should reflect. For the same reason, I suspect that some sources of the present article would not qualify as reliable upon closer inspection. For example, is William Heard Kilpatrick really an authority to be quoted here? A sensitive topic like this should only be approached with the highest quality of preferably academic sources.
At the same time, it seems that a good place to start might be some of the sources already cited in this article. It's very likely that those also offer counter-views that would balance the article, i.e., it's likely that some of these sources also provide Muslims' responses to these criticisms. Albertatiran (talk) 08:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you all. I'm trying to start working on the article and I'll get more help from you in the meantime. For the time being I am focusing on summarizing the article. After that we could include counter-views, and delete weak-sourced content, etc.Ghazaalch (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
While summarizing the article I noticed that some subjects are discussed in two or three different sections, once in the "History" section as an isolated assertion, next in their related sections (Views on slavery section or Islam and Violence section for example) and then in Responses to criticism section. I think merging these three groups of information would make the article much shorter. To do this, and as suggested by Constantine above, I am trying to focus on specific topics/points of criticism.Ghazaalch (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello Chamaemelum, I was summarizing the article but you restored some quotation again, and then you summarized them in your own way. In order not to interrupt each other, would you like to continue the summarizing? And when you finished, I would try to add some counterviews. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Winston Churchill view

Chamaemelum, as we cannot reach consensus on how to summarize churchill view I restore the version before I started summarization. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch I don't think I disagreed with you on Churchill. Reverting to the old version worsens the article. Feel free to put your preferred version of Churchill's view. I will undo the revert and restore your Churchill version. Chamaemelum (talk) 07:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't able to restore your exact Churchill version now, sorry. I will do it later today. Feel free to restore the Churchill section yourself. Chamaemelum (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
@Ghazaalch OP community banned this morning. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

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 "issue":

  • From Women in Islam: Nomani, Asra Q. (October 22, 2006). "Clothes Aren't the Issue". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2018-09-22.
  • From Islam and violence: Nomani, Asra Q. (22 October 2006). "Clothes Aren't the Issue". Washington Post.

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. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Restored. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Other Islam branches section.

Do note that I have removed this section in the recent changes. Although the section addressed the persecution of Muslims that was covered by the sources, it did not however, cover criticisms of Islam.

Additionally, the sections 'Historical Background' and 'Other Religions' Views' have similar and repeated critiques, so it is best to combine them and trim the redundant information. I'll work on this. Furthermore, since this article focuses on criticism of Islam as a religion, including its laws and ethics, critiques related to Muhammad and Hadiths, which have dedicated articles, should be summarized concisely. StarkReport (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

"Islamic imperialism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Islamic imperialism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 16 § Islamic imperialism until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 09:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

This article seems to have been written by muslim apologetics

Is the article the work of a muslim apologetic ? It is written from the pov of a someone trying to justify his faith to a western audience. Or maybe the left leaning bias of wikipedia is the problem ? 154.70.91.168 (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Are you going to bother to indicate anything specific you're taking issue with? This is a page to discuss improvements to the article, not merely complaining about it. Remsense 🌈 论 00:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Are you going to bother being polite? Like the rules of Wikipedia editing require? 2603:9000:7005:2EA0:E942:956B:3193:F837 (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
You're not going to have anyone else who bothers to reply to this at all if you can't do the bare minimum to clarify what you're even talking about. Remsense 🌈 论 18:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
I’d also like to raise a concern about this article, in particular the “Women in Islam” section, which currently frames valid criticism of systemic gender inequality through the lens of cultural relativism and whataboutism.
The paragraph in question contrasts the Western “belief” that Muslim women are oppressed with the idea that “many Muslims” view Islam as fair to women, and that conservative Muslims see Western women as commodified or exploited. While this may reflect certain perspectives, the framing feels unbalanced for a section on criticism of Islam, particularly since it makes no mention of the many well-documented legal and social inequalities faced by women in some Muslim-majority countries.
There is no reference to the Hijab or dress code enforcement by state actors (Iran and Afghanistan), guardianship laws that limit women's mobility or legal rights, honor killings or the lack of prosecution in places like Pakistan, or child marriage and FGM in parts of Africa and the Middle East
These are critical aspects of mainstream criticism of how Islamic law or cultural interpretations of it restrict women’s rights — and omitting them really does give the impression of apologia.
Additionally, comparing these issues to Western gender dynamics (like sexualization in media) minimizes the severity of legally sanctioned oppression. A more balanced rewrite might say:
"While many Muslims believe Islam offers women a dignified and protected role in society, critics argue that in practice, religious laws and cultural norms in many Muslim-majority countries severely restrict women’s freedom, autonomy, and legal equality. These restrictions are often justified using religious texts or interpretations - though reformist and feminist Muslims actively contest those views. Critics argue that drawing comparisons to Western gender issues may obscure the unique and systemic challenges faced by women under some Islamic legal frameworks."
Etc. etc. sources included. TylerJibwe (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
@TylerJibwe Be WP:BOLD and make the edits waddie96 ★ (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
I agree Tyler. There is no mention of homosexual and trans people's treatment in islamic societies either. Seems POV Simogne (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

"Criticism of Islam/Sub article: Alleged intolerance of Islam to criticism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Criticism of Islam/Sub article: Alleged intolerance of Islam to criticism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 16 § Criticism of Islam/Sub article: Alleged intolerance of Islam to criticism until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Homophobia

The article does not mention homophobia or the hardships LGBTQ people face in Muslim-majority countries. I also believe the article has several other shortcomings, and it gives the impression of having been written from an apologetic perspective toward Islam. The article Criticism of Christianity is far better. ~2025-40804-61 (talk) 07:31, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI