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

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religion: Interfaith Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Islam: Islam and Controversy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force. Atheism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. For more information and how you can help, click the [Show] link opposite: If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page. Quick help Project's main talk page Article layout Links to atheism-related information · List of free online resources Writing about religion · Article development Citing sources · Verifying sources · About original research Assume good faith · Be civil Recent activity Core articles the "Atheism" article Articles recently added to Category:Atheism To do edit history watch purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold. Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members. Help with articles. See this month's adopt-an-article. Help out with this to-do list. Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles). Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box) Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it. Maintenance, etc. Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references). Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process). Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly. Always write for an encyclopedia. Articles to improve Agnosticism Create Articles on notable atheists Expand an atheism stub Immediate attention State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments. False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes. Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Ghazaalch OP community banned this morning. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@TylerJibwe Be WP:BOLD and make the edits waddie96 ★ (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In the section "Points of Criticism," subsection "Islam and Violence," the following sentence appears:

"In the European view, Islam lacked divine authority and regarded the sword as the route to heaven."

The citation for this sentence leads to an editor's footnote in David Hume's The natural History of Religion (1757), and it does not entirely support this statement. The endnote in question states, in part, "Hume is perhaps referring to the standard European view that Islam is a bloody, ruthless, vengeful, and intolerant religion..."

Given that David Hume wrote the text in question in the 1750s, and the footnote is a comment on either Hume's or the editor's view of standard European views at that time, it is misleading to use this note as the basis for a statement about the general European attitude toward Islam. The implication of the statement, as written, is that this is the current, widespread view, not the "standard view" as of 1757.

I am still learning how to edit pages according to Wikipedia standards, so any advice about how best to remedy this issue would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Alabaster111 (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, what did you write on Wikipedia that criticized Islam? You should fear the wrath of your God. I am worried that the punishment will be imposed on you soon or perhaps it will be postponed with a more painful punishment. ~2026-30770-63 (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]