talk:Islam

Those who claim so do not understand what Islam means - submission to the One and only God, preached by all prophets of God from Adam AS to Muhammad PBUH. 82.41.246.180 (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:Those who keep bringing this up haven’t read the many archived discussions on the same topic, and don’t understand WP’s requirements for reliable sources as spelled out at WP:RS. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

There has been much back and forth for the lead sentence and the current one reads a little awkward. Instead of editing it back and forth I thought of bringing it up here first. I would suggest keeping it succinct, as details are expanded on later in the lead. I am suggesting,

“Islam is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion articulated by the Quran and the teachings of Muhammad.”

I would use the word ‘articulated’ rather than ‘centered’ or ‘based’ because there would always be derived religions that would also use the Quran as a sacred scripture while the Quran would only claim to be articulating one religion. This was similar to the lead sentence for some years before. Sodicadl (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:"Articulated" seems too dicey to me. Can we definitively state that modern Muslims precisely practice what the Quran teaches? If so, why are there disagreements (e.g. Sunni and Shia)? "Based on" is more accurate for this reason - and has the benefit of following the wording used by many RSs. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::This is a good point. The Quran is a foundation, but the Quran is more of an abstract text-collection with various interpretations, authorized by the claim to have a supernatural origin/the highest supernatural origin. I would support "based" or "centred". VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:::That reasoning doesn't really check out but your point about the words 'based on' being closer to RSs is a fair point. Would this work?

:::"Islam in an Abrahamaic monotheistic religion based on the Quran and the teachings of Muhammad." Sodicadl (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I do not see a significant difference between the current and your proposed wording; either is fine with me (with your typo corrected of course). Yours may have the advantage of conciseness. Anyone else want to weigh in here?

::::Your comment about the reasoning “not really checking out,” without argument and with the only other respondent calling it a “good point”, is curious, but as it’s also moot, there’s no need to explain it here. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

:I disagree with the current introduction. The article on Christianity states what Christians believe ("professing that Jesus was raised from the dead and is the Son of God...") in the first sentence. Why should the article on Islam be any different? Zoozoor (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Cerium4B has added a source from Statista, which is presented as an image. When I attempted to download the PDF file, I received an image instead. According to the details provided by the website, the image is based on the following overview:

"Based on the 2010 Pew Research Center report, GCS data, and the selected metrics, an estimation of religions has been conducted for the period of 2011 to 2022. Approach - Over 200 countries from 6 different regions".

However, the source itself cites Pew Research Center, CIA, World Bank, Statista, and the Statista Survey without specifying any particular study or methodology for the figures and percentages presented. Upon reviewing Pew Research Center’s sources, the most recent study on religious distribution was published in 2017, providing figures for 2015 [https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2017/04/FULL-REPORT-WITH-APPENDIXES-A-AND-B-APRIL-3.pdf]. Additionally, any projections for 2020 are based on estimations. My search on the CIA and World Bank websites did not yield any relevant studies.

While I acknowledge that religious demographic figures generally require updates, they should be based on a well-defined study, such as those previously published by Pew Research Center. Such studies provide a clear methodology for each country, detailing the sources and statistical methods used. They also account for factors such as fertility rates, life expectancy, religious conversion, and projected scenarios.

The latest source from Statista lacks such a methodological framework. Given that the User:Cerium4B, claim that the PDF page includes this information, please share it here.Durziil89 (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

The term "founder" misrepresents Islamic belief. Muslims view Muhammad not as the founder of a new religion but as the final prophet who restored and completed the message of monotheism that had been revealed through earlier prophets. Islam is considered the continuation of the faith of Adam, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. Thus, calling Muhammad the "founder" is inaccurate. [https://misconceptions-about-islam.com/misconception.php?id=16 Refs of Quran] [https://www.khaleejtimes.com/opinion/muhammad-is-allahs-last-messenger-not-the-founder-of-islam] [https://thesunnahtimes.com/who-is-the-founder-of-islam-authentic-answer/] [https://www.ask-a-muslim.com/en/was-prophet-muhammad-the-founder-of-islam/]

RAIHAN ⚡ Got something to say? 18:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:Also Most of the reliable sources describe Muhammad as a prophet, not a founder (excluding some Islamophobic sources). RAIHAN ⚡ Got something to say? 20:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::Let us know when you have points or perspectives which have not already been discussed extensively in active discussions on this page and/or in archives. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::See, for a start, Talk:Muhammad/Archive 2#Founding Islam, Talk:Muhammad/Archive 5#Founder?, Talk:Muhammad/Archive 5#Founder ?, Talk:Muhammad/Archive 5#My edits to "Muhammad the founder of Islam?", Talk:Muhammad/Archive 5#More on "Founder", Talk:Muhammad/Archive 5#Pause for a Moment, Talk:Muhammad/Archive 5#Muhammad as Founder section, Talk:Muhammad/Archive 6#Founder (continued), Talk:Muhammad/Archive 6#Was Muhammad the founder of Islam? - update, Talk:Muhammad/Archive 6#Founder, yet again, Talk:Muhammad/Archive 6#"Founder" again, Talk:Muhammad/Archive 6#Reliable sources for "founder" debate, Talk:Islam/Archive 13#prophets, Talk:Islam/Archive 16#"founder" of Christianity?, Talk:Islam/Archive 25#ORIGINATOR OF ISLAM!! 6/14/2009, Talk:Islam/Archive 25#Edit Request: Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is not the founder of Islam but Islam's final messenger., Talk:Islam/Archive 30#Islam did not start from Muhammed,(peace be upon him) lack of Muslim viewpoint in this article and very one sided, Talk:Islam/Archive 31#founder of islam ... and then there are the two topics on this page where this was already brought up before you did a third time. All these points have been discussed ad nauseum, as have the reasons to use "founder". Bringing the same points up yet again is, as I stated previously, nonconstructive. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:*We follow reliable academic & reliable scholarly sources not religious tradition or theological beliefs. I will oppose any POV-pushing changes or attempts to insert religious narratives in place of established historical terminology. NXcrypto Message 04:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Ive Made an edit on islam's Adherents growing primarily due to Fertility rate while theres significant amount of People are converting to islam too in huge amounts . Ive submitted Reliable , credible sources , cited with proofs while still why its being removed ? This isnt seems like going as per WP:NPOV . Ive submitted sources based on WP:WEIGHT too . ItsTrueNow (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:The source you provide discusses Muslims in the United Kingdom and some Western countries such as Australia and the United States. However, it does not state that conversion to Islam plays a major role in the global Muslim population growth. The Pew Research source already provides a global overview. However, it does not indicate that conversion to Islam is a primary driver of Muslim population growth worldwide.

:The Pew Research source provides a comprehensive global overview, including both religious conversion and religious disaffiliation. It clarifies that net gains through religious conversion do not play a significant role in the global growth of the Muslim population.

:Even in Western countries, while there are increasing numbers of converts to Islam, the source highlights that some individuals born into Muslim families leave the faith. For example, in the United States, about 20% of American Muslims are converts, but 23% of those raised as Muslims now identify as non-Muslim. This indicates that religious conversion does not contribute to population growth among Muslims in the U.S.. Similarly, in Europe, Pew Research finds that when taking both converts to Islam and those leaving the religion into account, the result is a small net negative change through religious conversion.

:The introduction should focus on Islam as a global religion, however, the source you provided discusses only a handful of Western countries, where Muslims make up a very small minority compared to the global Muslim population. So any analysis based solely on these countries does not provide a complete picture of Muslim population growth worldwide. Durziil89 (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for the detailed feedback! I agree the lead needs global focus per WP:LEAD, but the current version imply8ng fertility alone drives growth overlooks a significant trend-conversions-per WP:NPOV. My edit didn't claim conversions are 'major driver' of global muslim population but a significant amount in modern contexts, which sources as 5k yearly in UK(Faith Matters), 20% of US muslims(Pew Research), etc Supports. The Point abouy net growth(converts in vs out) from pew is valid but misaligned with my claim. I'm highlighting the inflow of converts embracing Islam now the net population change. Disaffiliation is a seperate phenomenon like emigration vs immigration. Pew notes 100,000 annual U.S. conversions to Islam-huge, even if offset by 23% leaving. US,UK,France,Australia spans three continents which reflexts the western modern trend enough for a summary mention as per WP:SUMMARY, not an exhaustive list . I hope you get it Thanks ItsTrueNow (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Incorrect. The source clearly states that the main reason for the global increase in the number of Muslims (and by the way, this is also true for other religions like Christianity and Hinduism) is high fertility and the youth demographic. Only among the religiously unaffiliated does religious conversion play a role in population growth (and this group has lower fertility compared to other religions).

:::You are also completely ignoring the number of people leaving religion. For example, in the United States, the percentage of those who were raised as Muslims but no longer identify as Muslim is slightly higher than the percentage of those who were raised in another religion and now identify as Muslim—resulting in a negative net gain. Therefore, the claim that conversion plays a role in population growth among Muslims in the U.S. is incorrect.

:::This may also be true in other Western countries. For instance, according to INSEE, 20% of those raised as Muslims in France no longer identify as Muslim today. Most of them now identify as religiously unaffiliated, and a smaller portion identify with another religion, mainly Christianity.

:::When discussing religious conversion, we must also talk about conversion away from the religion, in order to accurately assess whether conversion plays a role. You are trying to impose a viewpoint that is not supported by sources.

:::No one denies the increase in conversions to Islam in the Western world—this is a fact, especially among women. But the question is: does it play a role comparable to fertility or age distribution? According to sources, the answer is no. This is in contrast to the religiously unaffiliated group, where conversion plays a major role in their population increase. That's the difference. Durziil89 (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Another note – according to Pew, the net gain in conversions to Islam is happening in Africa, not in Europe or North America. (According to the study, the number of people leaving Islam in Europe or North America slightly exceeds the number of those converting to it.)

::::To me, this reflects a kind of Eurocentrism – the world does not revolve around Europe and the West. Even if we only look at those converting to Islam, the majority come from Africa, not Europe or North America, and by a significant margin.

::::The focus on the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia definitely leans toward a Eurocentric perspective – Islam is a global religion, and in absolute numbers, conversions to Islam are happening in Africa, not the Western world. Durziil89 (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::thanks For The Response . Im not Saying conversions is the main source or conversion results in islam's growth but the trend thats significant among modern world . Here the point isnt about 'Conversion increases muslims' but 'theres notable proportion of muslims converting globally' per WP:WEIGHT . You're mistaking in understanding this . ItsTrueNow (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::You need to do something other than graft this directly into the lead. The lead is meant to be a balanced summary of the article body. Remsense ‥ 论 01:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yeah brother it should be a balanced summary but theres no way to minimize it than this . Not mentioning conversions are not bias at the same time . Lead should have the context non-biased too . Lacking certain information in lead is too a fault isnt it ? ItsTrueNow (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I see you're concerned about minimizing the lead . Let me add a foreshadow in lead in one or two line and i'll add this info with source in demographics sub . Ok ? ItsTrueNow (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::You still have not addressed the issue that, instead of balancing the article by reflecting what sources say, you are seemingly trying to insert your own conclusions, perhaps vaguely related to the sources you're citing, but not what they actually say.

:::::::::Your sources are a study examining converts in the West, and a report even more narrowly studying converts in the UK. As a baseline, it is totally unacceptable to cite these sources for any statement about converts to Islam generally (or equivalently "in many areas", a totally useless qualifier) as you've done—demographics, their means, motivations etc.

:::::::::{{xt|a significant number of individuals are Embracing Islam through reversions, contributing to the growth of muslim population. This trend is increasingly evident across various regions, with people from diverse cultural, social, and ethnic backgrounds choosing to adopt the faith}} seems to be your own view, based on your own characterizations and extrapolations. These claims would not be verifiable by someone checking the sources you've cited, but you've chosen to put such statements in their mouths anyway, as if they said specifically that conversion to Islam, in many different areas, is significant, increasingly evident, diversified in each of those ways, etc.

:::::::::Even clearer, not only can a study focusing on the UK not by itself verify any claims being made about other regions, your UK study says explicitly that {{xt|Ultimately, even at the highest figure suggested for 2010, the number of converts is relatively small compared to the total Muslim population (approximately 4%) and almost insignificant when compared to the total population of the United Kingdom (less than 0.2%).}}, which directly contradicts your ideas more than anything it says could theoretically support them to begin with.

:::::::::I'm going to ask that if you want to contribute to this article, you workshop potential additions on the talk page first so others can help you, because it's not productive to come up with things your sources don't say and keep trying to add them. Please read sources first and only write what they actually say, avoiding WP:OR, as opposed to deciding you want to make a statement first and then trying to find sources that fit (or in this case, ones that seem to explicitly disagree with you.) Remsense ‥ 论 11:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Thanks for the feedback . The sources i mentioned states 20% of american muslims , 5200 reverts per year,etc spans 4 major countries with variability of 3 continents which contributes tens of thousands across everywhere and 4% of total uk muslim's population , 20% of total us population which is significant by WP:Weight . I say significant which means notable amount even though its not majority . The sources also notes the diversity: women,white british,christian background dominate(faith matters,Cambridge), supporting diverse background. 'Many areas' refer to these documented regions-not every country-per WP:Summary allowance for representative examples. Im not ignoring fertility's primacy , my edit says primarily fertility not claiming conversion drive net growth. I was insisting to note the inflows not the net change as valid per WP:NPOV . Thats why i said i'll refine my edit to demographics to stick closer to sources .

::::::::::Still if the country's minority view is hindering you or Those countries represent just a minority not world (even though its notable per WP:Weight) i'll collect sources for every countries and i'll provide you those to prove the stance in some days . Thanks for spending time to clarify . ItsTrueNow (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::The issue is as I said before: you need to work from sources and only write what they actually say, not derive your own analysis or work backwards from conclusions you already feel to be true. We will not publish your (or anyone's) original research. To be clear, we will only describe something as {{xt|significant}} if sources themselves do—we don't decide ourselves that a certain number is significant or insignificant. To merit inclusion in the article lead, this needs to be a characterization attested in many sources, given how broad this article is and how additions need to be proportionate to what is found across the entire body of reliable sources on a topic.Remsense ‥ 论 04:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the most recent additions [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam&diff=1285041134&oldid=1285039358]: they do not include a page that supports the claim. I reviewed the source — there is a paragraph about the relationship between English society and the Islamic and Jewish religions -pages 18-21 -, but it does not address the influence of Islam on the European Renaissance. Instead, it discusses the military relationship between Christian Europe and the Turks. User:Blueeyesyellowmellow Could you please specify the page number from which you drew that sentence?.Durziil89 (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Islam|answered=yes}}

Just a suggestion: Turn the region into worldwide, Islam is genuinely everywhere even if it’s a minority, on the Christianity page it said worldwide so it should be the same here, because Christianity is a minority in some countries as well. 101.115.3.194 (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. PianoDan (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:Remove where it everything in the “region” part and replace it with worldwide 101.115.81.183 (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::There's only justification to do this if that's the characterization made in the sources we cite. Remsense ‥ 论 05:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::In addition to requiring sourcing, change X to Y means literally that - you need to specify exactly what change you are suggesting. "Change 'Watermelon is a fruit with black seeds' to 'Watermelon is a fruit with black and white seeds'." What the text is now, and word-for-word what the text you are suggesting is to replace it. PianoDan (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Request to remove depictions of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. This page gets a lot of traffic and should present Islam with a similar respect Muslims would. 67.169.184.45 (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:See WP:NOTCENSORED and Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for explanation why they will not be removed. Jtrevor99 (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)