Talk:Islam

Muslim demographics section is problematic

You have to define precisely whom you count as a Muslim. For example a recent poll from Iran said that less than 40% of Iranians consider themselves Muslims today, and yet the maps and figures in this article claim that islam is the religion of more than 90% of Iranians. The same can be said about other countries. Muslim demographics also there are two denomanatians in islam 1.sunni 2. shia articles totally ignore the statistics about atheists, agnostics, apostates, converts to christianity and non-believers of all sorts. They simply count everyone born within a traditionnally Muslim society as Muslim. To be fair, this isn't the way christianity figures are constructed. The numbers estimated for christianity are those of the estimated actual believers, not people born in Christian cultures. How do you plan to correct this bias ? Yorik18 (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Greetings,

You have to define precisely whom you count as a Muslim

We cannot, but it would be great if such definitions would be clarified in such statistics. However, it is rarely done. We can only work with what sources provide us.

The numbers estimated for christianity are those of the estimated actual believers, not people born in Christian cultures

There is a difference between Christianity and Islam in regards of adherence. A Christian is made by baptism and every person is born "sinful" (this is also why a lot of babies were baptized when born and babies unbaptized led to the Catholic limbo-theory). In Islam, a child born from Muslim parents are consdiered Muslims. It does not have to be a conscious choice, you probably do not even have to believe in it. There are some opinions which constitute [[[Apostasy in Islam|Apostasy]], but they are not clearly defined. For some, missing a prayer can lead to Apostasy (I think some Hanbalites hold this position), while others even interprted angels as merely abstract intellects and are still highly esteemed scholars of Islam (such as ibn Sina). Because of these reasons, Muslim and Christian identity are hardly comparable. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad someone else raised this matter, as I've raised a similar issue before on another Islamic related article. For example, in Gambia and Senegal, the Muslim population is hyped up. There is no disagreement that most people in these countries are majority Muslim, but the figures do not tally and their statistical data in regards to Muslim populations is not even reliable. It is simply based on guess work especially Gambia. As such, many reliable sources cite these unreliable government figures. However, organisations and other RS who work and do research in these countries would tell you that almost 100% of the Muslim population syncretise with African religion.Tamsier (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I will profess I am not familiar with RSs on this topic. But it sounds like an issue in definition: those who practice Islam likely are a smaller subgroup within those traditionally considered "culturally" Muslim. Delineating between the two might be helpful. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It's true. The Ummuh, or collective of Muslims in the world, is greater than people we might consider as fully adderant Muslims. IE. attempting to perform all 5 pillars or 10 obligatory acts for most Shia groups.

nd then you have concepts of being born into a religious faith, those people would be included. The action of whether you are able to leave it. Similar to some Christian sects belief in Baptism being a permanent change that claims you to either their faith or Jesus Christ depict in that sects version of the bible.

There are multiple schools of Islam and cultures that have adopted Islam whether due to historical trade or conquest. It makes defining who and what is inside the group and outside the group difficult at times. RCSCott91 (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Preparing to prayer

Salah 2601:445:700:2710:E874:473A:B3F2:B6E3 (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This Article/Page is Discriminatory

This article does not respect the religion of Islam. It is discriminatory. Where is the respect for the Prophet Muhammad (SAW)? I see terrible remarks. Let a Muslim scholar or Group of educated Muslims make this page because it SUCKS! This is UNACCEPTABLE !!Jeepers12 (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Your suggestion is against WP:NPOV and WP:IMGCONTENT Vegan416 (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

And also against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Free_Encyclopedia Vegan416 (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism on line 27

I cannot correct it since the article is semi-protected, but right now the second paragraphs opens with the following text:

"78% muslim don't know Quran word meanings and don't speak arbi language .All muslim organisation is terrorist organisation .Muhammad was a writer and born as hindu and grow up mix hindu and jewish religion and made a false religion islam ,he killed his own uncle and own people whose expel him from own city mekka . invading none muslim land is proud in islam and making people forcefully muslim is legal and killing none muslim is legal , a false and saitanic religion created by false prophet Muhammad ."

This is obviously vandalism. Syollandre (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeed; it is recent vandalism and has been reverted by User:Nthep. --JBL (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Out of Scope last section.

Reading articles on religions and belief systems, such as Zoroastrianism, Atheism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Pandeism, Baháʼí Faith, all have their own criticism articles like Criticism of Zoroastrianism, Criticism of atheism, Criticism of Sikhism, Criticism of Hinduism, Criticism of pandeism, Criticism of the Baháʼí Faith respectively, and they do not contain a Criticism section, properly following WP:NOCRIT and their WP:Scope. So, for consistency purposes, it’s best to remove the meager Criticism section in this article. I am thinking of making this move.

If the question becomes, "Then how will the readers find critique articles?" we can simply relocate the links to the 'See also' section right below. Any readers can instantly click on it should they choose. StarkReport (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The argument that "other stuff does not exist" is not accurate when considering articles on religions and belief systems. Other of these articles, such as those on Christianity and Judaism, do include a "Criticism" section. I believe that having a "Criticism" section is relevant for articles on major religions like Islam and Christianity, given their significant impact on the world. Criticism of their influence or belief systems is both relevant and frequently discussed. Durziil89 (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Durziil89, The guideline advises against isolating the "Criticism" section in a separate section, regardless of the religion's size or impact, and a dedicated critique article already exists.

"given their significant impact on the world" Actually, no Hinduism has considerably more of a impact and influence both in ancient and modern world than those two. Zoroastrianism also holds its own in terms of far-reaching influence. And Atheism is as relevant as ever and its significance will keep growing.

"Christianity and Judaism, do include a "Criticism" section" These should also be revisited for consistency. If anyone starts a new discussion on those articles, regarding the removal of their sections, my approach will be the same. StarkReport (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I think there might be a misunderstanding. The criticism section should not be limited to just the Abrahamic religions. Other systems, such as atheism, Hinduism, and the Baha'i faith, also face criticism and have political and social impacts in various societies. There are numerous books, researchers, and viewpoints that address these criticisms. I suggest adding a paragraph that includes responses from Muslim scholars and researchers to these criticisms. Additionally, it could be valuable to include a paragraph on Islamophobia, as it has become a noticeable phenomenon in several societies recently. Durziil89 (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@StarkReport What guideline? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

StarkReport, So why don't you start the same discussion in the Judaism and Christianity talk pages? Vegan416 (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Doesn't WP:NOCRIT generally advise us against having a "Criticism" section?

"In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints."

As for belief systems:

"For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. "

Since we already have articles dedicated to critiques of religious and belief systems such as Islam, do we really need a skimpy section in their general articles? It seems incongruent and awkward.

"So why don't you start the same discussion in the Judaism and Christianity" @Vegan416, My dear, you are more than welcome to initiate those discussions, and I will support them. Simple. Editors are not idiots, thoughtlessly spamming the same argument across multiple articles simultaneously. Addressing this article now doesn’t preclude future actions elsewhere. One thing at a time. In my capacity, I did started a discussion on the Criticism of Christianity article for the removal of an out-of-scope section, and then removed it—same with an unnecessary section in the Criticism of the Bible. StarkReport (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I think it's appropriate to have that section here, the article(s) it summarizes are very substantial. One guideline (NOCRIT is an essay, but that doesn't make it useless) says "Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles, leaving summaries in their place." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

StarkReport, I won't to do that because I don't support that view. As Graa Sang said this "policy of NOCRIT" is actually not a binding policy but rather a non-binding recommendation, and personally I feel that the reason given there (that people might be confused and think that the criticism is part of the religion itself) is unconvincing. Having said that, I wouldn't object to that recommendation if it is applied consistently. Which is why I think that if you want to raise this issue, you should raise it simultaneously in all relevant articles. Vegan416 (talk) 07:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this a one-size-fits-all situation, but that's me. If such a discussion is to be had, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion might be the place for it, with WP:APPNOTEs in other places. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Flow of page and leaning

The page flow, on the English page, is disorganized at times and the word choices in English disrupt comprehension when there are perfectly Halal English alternatives that would allow for better flow.

My question is, Has that been addressed before but it is simply met with rejection?

Also, it's very obvious the page leans in its explanation of Islam from the Modern Sunni point of view, Was that on purpose or something that can't be undone without risking future vandalism?

I'm asking because I wanted to put the time in to make the page more approachable for English speakers while maintaining Halal word usage. I just don't want to throw my time away only to find out that the flow of words currently on the page is preferred. RCSCott91 (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

These questions are far too vague to admit meaningful answers. You are welcome (though not required) to propose concrete edits here before implementing them, to see how other editors feel about them; this is probably a good idea in the case of large-scale changes. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2024

"Islam has second-largest religious population after Christians" should be "Islam has *the* second-largest religious population after Christians". 2A02:1810:363D:6700:49EC:11AE:DFA:C30B (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

added definitive article *the* as described. RCSCott91 (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

discussion Al-Ghayb

The Islam page when referencing Allah's nature uses the below quoted sentence. Wiki has a page for Al-Ghayb describing the concept. Should we link that page in that sentence, include the proper word "Al Ghayb" thru some type of rewording or simply do nothing to give context to the sentence?

"God is seen as transcendent of creation and so is beyond comprehension."

RCSCott91 (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

It's Mohamedism not islam in English

islam came in 7th century so mohamedism will represant accurate as religion starting from political leader prophet muhammad and previous were messengers too but not muslims.Because with islam definition everybody would be follower of muslim they dont accept this so Mohamedism would be best. Aghvcgjmm (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Muslim is from an Arabic word meaning, "one who submits". The preferred term for Islam by both academia and by Muslims is the term Islam which comes from an Arabic word meaning "submission to God". That same root literally helps form the common greeting used by almost all Muslims regardless of language, "Salamalekum", meaning Peace be upon you.

"Mohamedism" although once common in English speaking countries, probably because of our tendency to put "ism" on any system or religion, has largely fallen out of favor and in many cases is considered offensive. It can still be used in some instances to refer to cultural systems of Muslims, but has no place in this page about Islam. Ultimately, I would stay away from the term as it is a exonym that is not embraced by the group is tried to describe.

All the above can be sourced from sources in the Islam page, oxford dictionary, and Online Etymology Dictionary.

If you disagree, please offer current sources that meet Wikipedia guidelines WP:RS with your rebuttal. RCSCott91 (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I knew there was a policy but couldn't remember the page name. Thank you. RCSCott91 (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm reminded of a discussion that wanted en-WP to spell Allah with 3 L. It didn't catch on: Talk:Islam/Archive_31#Allah's_(or_Alllah's)_L's. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2024

Hello Sir I wanna add a Phrase is "Islam" Religion Page Thay is " It's The Complete System Of A Life Which Gives Muslims a religious, social, aur legal guidelines" It is a complete system that encompasses spiritual, social and moral dimensions. It contains guidelines for every aspect of life, such as family, business, and governance. " 103.162.216.125 (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Article reliability

To the recent editor who just reverted, what makes you think that the article I cited was unreliable? It's only deemed as unreliable if I get a warning before I click publish. However, this wasn't the case when I added this article about birth rates of Muslims. ShawarmaFan07 (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jeppiz. I think he's tryna talk to you. Your welcome. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 22:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@ShawarmaFan07 You need to read WP:RS. Wikipedia has rather strict rules for reliable sources. Just finding an Internet page that says something is not enough. Before you continue Wikipedia, it would be good to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies. Jeppiz (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2024

For any image that depicts the prophet, angel and gods face should be removed because in islam it is very disrespectful to do so because it encourages idolatry, or the worship of physical objects. This is inconsistent with the Muslim faith's monotheism, which teaches that God alone should be worshipped.

whenever i see these i feel disrespected as i myself am muslim and a follower of islam i find it wrong to just see ancient paintings of something and immediatly think its right without background checking it with an actual muslim thank you for reading this and goodbye. Fnafkidfrom2014 (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is not censored. FifthFive (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)