A robbery is when you clearly win every or most rounds and still lose. Literally most non sherdoggers (who are all biased incels) in the mma world scored it for Islam. You don't have to agree with their opinion, but it's not a roberry. If 2 out of 3 rounds or 3 out of 5 are even remotely kind of close, or if each fighter has a clear round or two that they won, it's not a robbery, it's a close decision.
Remember when Shogun fought Machida? That was extremely controversial for great reasons, but still the fight wasn't one sided enough to be a robbery imo, regardless of how clear it was that Shogun SHOULD have probably won, because a couple rounds were close. Leonard Garcia vs KZ 1, that's a robbery. Sean sherk vs Dunham, that's a robbery. Bas Rutten vs Kevin Randleman, that's a robbery. Bisping vs Hammill too.
I feel like everyone started watching the sport last year or something and has no idea for historical context of robberies and what it actually means.