Talk:Islam

Meaning of "Islam"

Why does this article not explain the true meaning of Islam. Islam means "peace". Peace through submission — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.120.224 (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't --Nutthida (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The word Islam, actually means "submission." It comes from the root Arabic word "taslim". In Arabic, the word for peace is only "solh". You can find a website that discusses that here. Be warned, though: that website presents a very critical perspective on Islams and its teachings of violence and intolerance toward unbelievers... That website elucidates many statements of the Qur`an such as:
"Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are merciful to one another, but ruthless to unbelievers" --Surah 48:29.
"Kill the Mushrikun (unbelievers) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush..." --Surah 9:5.

In order to unerstand the true meaning of Islam , it is very necessary to read and fully understand the Book of God i.e. The Quran.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtsayyed (talk • contribs)

There is already a wiki article on the meaning of the word Islam. The root word of Islam is only three letters and you can make many different words by inserting vowels, such as, peace, submission, surrender etc.Xareen (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

1.5 billion

The Pew forum reference says 1.57 billion Muslims. The CIA world factbook, which does not give a percentage, states that 22.43% of the world's 6,928,198,253 population is Muslim. This comes out to 1.5 billion. These references (which are more current than 2007) are the ones being used for the number, the other references (such as PBS) are being used for the claim that it is one of the fastest growing religions. Even then, Adherents.com gives 1.5 billion. The two news sources really are more acceptable for the fastest-growing claim, but the Pew and CIA sources should trump them when it comes to numbers (as those should be their sources). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The 1.2 billion that PBS has on its website is from the 1990s, I have that documentary on DVD called Islam: Empire of Faith, it was released in 2000. In fact, it (PBS) states "one quarter of the world's population" now that would come to 1.7 billion today if we follow PBS.--NorthernPashtun (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Violence?

Some historians assert that Muhammad proclaims a religion of violence, only shrouded by poetry and otherwise holy actions. I'll let you guys make that decision for yourself. If you want to edit the Wikipedia page to reflect this alternate perspective, go ahead do so, but my hand will have no play in that. I'm only providing the alternate perspective. After all, this is the "Discussion" page. Do with the info as you wish. Farewell.
COice6 (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

1.8 Billion?

http://www.religiouspopulation.com iS THIS SOURCE RELIABLE WHICH STATES MUSLIMS ARE 1.8 BILLION.ive included it in article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mranderson56 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

TURN OFF TOUR CAPSLOCK. Typing in all caps is the internet equivilent of shouting. The website you linked to said that they used Wikipedia as a source, so we cannot use them or we get cyclical sourcing (which is not good). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

purpose of existence is to worship God

Muslim does not believe that purpose of existence is to worship (in a sense of offering prayer) God, although it is compulsory for Muslims but not the purpose of existence. In verses referred it is more in sense of obedience (this is also not exact translation), this line can create confusion. It will be better if you eliminate this line or place Arabic word as used in this verse along with word worship. 39.48.12.243 (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

An Addition to the Denomination Section of this Article.

Even though there are many different divisions, Islam encourages the people to be and live as “One Ummah” or “One People”. These divisions are not encouraged. In Islam you should not only be one people but should call yourself ‘Muslims’ and not anything else. Since all divisions in the end believe in one God (Allah) and the Last Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h) - as long as we have the same belief we are all brothers and sisters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.82.205.232 (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

yeah, in theory you may have a point, but regardless of that Muslims do have several denominations. Or do you mean to imply there is a group of Muslims who would identify themselves as Non-denominational Muslims.. Shaad lko (talk) 07:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong percentage given for Sunnis

The User:PassaMethod changed 80-90% Sunnis to 75-90% everywhere [4] but all sources say that Sunnis are 80-90%.

• Pew Research Center - "Of the total Muslim population, 10-13% are Shia Muslims and 87-90% are Sunni Muslims" [5]
• Encyclopædia Britannica - Sunni Islam = "... nine-tenths of all the adherents of Islām. "[6] / Shi'a Islam = "Shīʿites have come to account for roughly one-tenth of the Muslim population worldwide." [7]
• Library of Congress Country Studies - "Sunni constitute 85 percent of the world's Muslims; Shia about 15 percent." [8]
• Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs - "Shi’a Islam is the second largest branch of the tradition, with up to 200 million followers who comprise around 15% of all Muslims worldwide..." [9]
• Vali Nasr - "Shias are about 10-to-15 percent of the entire Muslim world" [10]

It's not only quantity but also quality. There are many more which agree with the above highly respected sources but no one claims Sunnis at 75% minimum so this should be changed back because it is false and misleading. The article should give the same figures as given by the leading experts which is 80-90%.--Kiftaan (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

After making my point clear on this User:PassaMethod again changed Sunnis from 80% minimum to 75% minimum and used the CIA Factbook as a reference.[11] This guy seems to not understand English or he is deliberatly trying to falsify information. The CIA states "Shia Islam represents 10-20%" and "Sunnis account for over 75% of all muslims". [12] CIA doesn't mention any other Islamic sect so how do you figure that Sunnis are "75-90%"? Even a 10 yr-old-kid can tell you that since Shias are 10-20% that means Sunnis are 80-90%.--Kiftaan (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Images

There may be a contention as to which images to use in this article, particularly the history section. I have a few comments in this regard.

Mosques seem like a good choice of images as they often represent both culture (given their style and architecture) and political power (given who built them). They can be used to represent different periods in Islamic history, including different parts of the Muslim world in contemporary times.

On that note, images should reflect the breadth and diversity of the Muslim world, not just that of the Middle East. The majority of the world's Muslims live outside the Middle East: south and southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.VR _talk 07:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You are right and I agree. There are many things to consider before putting images in an article.

• The pic about the city of Herat and Ghurids is very significant because that city was often called the "pearl of Khorasan", which played a major role during the Islamic golden age, it was the 2nd major learning center (after Baghdad) in the Muslim world, and the Ghorids played a positive role in the advancement of Islam before the Mongol invasion. Islam was constantly at war with non-Muslims in this eastern part, especially the Indian subcontinent, where the majority of Muslims today live. There was not much happening in the sub-Saharan African region or in the Arab world from the 7th century until the 20th century when oil discovery turned that regions rich and popular.
• The image showing the surrender of the Shi'a Safavid dynasty in 1638 is also very signficant for the section because 1.) that's where the powerful Sunni Mughals and Shia Persians drew their line. The Safavid dynasty were attempting to spread Shiaism to Mughal territory in the east but were stopped by the Sunnis, and 2.) the image itself dates back to the 1600s and this makes the history section look more professional.
• The image about Kazan, Russia, is to help readers know that Islam is not only practiced by non-whites. Since Russia has white Muslims and mosques so does the United States or Europe and it (West) is where Islam is a hot issue today, so I think that these 2 are very appropriate and make sense.
• The images about Malaysia and Nigeria are fine I believe, one shows a far away place from the Middle East and the other is in Africa where 50% is Islam and 50% Christian. There already is one image that covers the sub-Saharan African and the people of that region are Arabs just like in the Middle East so we don't need to much of that.

In Iran, all women including nonmuslims, must dress like the ones on the right lower side.[1] It would be very inappropriate to add them in Islam if they turn out to be Zoroastrians, Bahá'ís, Christians, or other. Also, How can we be sure that the 2 Indian women [2] are Muslims and not Sikhs, Hindus or other? According to where they are from (Jaipur), 83% of the population are nonmuslims (78% Hindu, 4% Jains, 0.5% Sikhs, 0.5% Christian). [3].

Non-muslim women but they dress and look just like Muslim women

I think these are good choices because I didn't just add them for own pleasure or just randomly. We could add one more into the section Abbasid dynasty (750–1258) but it should be something very much related to that era. Anything more than that will look bad.--Kiftaan (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This article should not allow images of people that can be easily recognized, I removed the image of women because it's controversial in a way that it may be used for anything other than educational purposes, and not all Muslim women dress like that, and at the same time, many non-Muslim women dress exactly like that except the one with the all black burqa which is mostly worn by radicals or extremists. If you see Sikh, Hindu, and some Buddhist women they usually dress exactly like South Asian Muslim women. The non-Muslims and Muslims also usually dress very similar in the Middle East and in Central Asia.--Kiftaan (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Instead of putting pics about clothes which is the least thing that deals with Islam, an image relating Halal foods would be great for the section Etiquette and diet. Even a sign marked on food product with "Halal" written on it would be very nice.--Kiftaan (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, Herat and Kandahar are both cities from Afghanistan, so I think only one picture should stay.

Secondly, women's dress has a lot to do with Islam and how its perceived. I've restored the image noting that Muslim women wear a variety of things.

Sure, an image illustrating Muslim dietary concerns would be a good idea.VR _talk 21:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, I believe the importance of the Mughal Empire (as illustrated by the Taj Mahal) has been far greater than that of Ghurids.VR _talk 21:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Herat was histoically Persia and part of the Persian Shi'a Safavids, it served as the 2nd most important Islamic center during Islam's golden age. This city played a major role in Islam's history and the mosque in the image was built by the Ghorids, who also played an important role in Islam's history.
• The other image is important because it is very old, showing something very imporant in Islam's history (i.e. Shia Safavids vs. Sunni Mughals). The city that is shown is less important.
• Why we have 2 images relating to Afghanistan? Afghanistan is very important in Islam's history because so many notable Muslims originate from there or have roots there (i.e. Al-Biruni, Ibn Sina, Rumi, and many others), so many Islamic empires were based there or originate from there (i.e. Saffarids, Ghaznavids, Ghorids, Khiljis, Timurids, Mughals, Durranis, etc.). From Afghanistan, they invaded Hindustan (land of Hindus) and Kafiristan (land of kafirs), converting Hindus and Kafirs to become Muslims. Mughals didn't spread Islam, they defeated the Afghan Lodi dynasty (Muslims) and took over their territory. Yes the Mughals built wonderful places but many other Muslim rulers did the same. The Mughals were more known for constantly being at war with other Muslims and we have a perfectly suitable image in the history showing that. The Taj Mahal is just one building, the Afghan Suri dynasty, for example, who defeated the Mughals, introduced the Rupee (currency of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc.), built the main road network in Pakistan-India with guarded rest areas for travellers, introduced tax collection, built buildings and etc.
• How people dress today has nothing to do with Islam. I know about South Asia and the 2 Indian women in the lower left are most likely Hindu or Jains.--Kiftaan (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Third party intervention re Sunni numbers

Totalling the sources:

• The CIA factbook (2011) says over %75
• Pew research center says %87-90
• Berkley infers not more than %85
• Jewish virtual library says 87-90, but it cites Wikipedia. Please remove this source from the article.
• Brittanica gives roughly %90.
• Library of Congress Country Studies says %85
• Vali Nasr indirectly gives %85-90.

The majority of sources go for figures around %85-90. The CIA factbook is an often cited reliable source though. I propose going with:

"Most estimates of hold that 85-90% of Muslims are Sunni (with a few estimates as low as %75), while 10-20% are Shia."

Ian.thomson (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has ever used "as low as 75%" for Sunnis until Wikipedia editor User:PassaMethod recently decided to. [13] The CIA states: Shia Islam represents 10-20% ... Sunnis account for over 75% of all muslims. [14] CIA doesn't mention any other Islamic sect so how do you figure that Sunnis are 75% minimum? Even a 10 yr-old-kid can tell you that since Shias are 10-20% the remaining Sunnis would be 80-90%, which is backed by all the sources. I had already made my point above at Talk:Islam#Wrong percentage given for Sunnis.--Kiftaan (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

See Islamic_schools_and_branches#Other_groups_and_movements. Although Sunni and Shia are the largest groups, that are certainly not the only ones. And in all fairness, some of the sources (Berkley, Nasr) don't actually give figures for Sunni Islam, they just give the figure for Shia Islam. Does this mean these sources do not acknowledge the existence of Sunni Muslims? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That my friend is a different topic and has nothing to do with this one. We are here trying to figure out the number of Sunnis, what experts say. About a year ago a number of admins had decided to keep the numbers as 80-90% for Sunnis and 10-20% for Shias but I wonder where that discussion is now. Btw, don't use another Wikipedia article as a reference.--Kiftaan (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The argument "Even a 10 yr-old-kid can tell you that since Shias are 10-20% the remaining Sunnis would be 80-90%" is based on the assumption that the Sunni and Shia figures must add up to %100, which is an incorrect conclusion that ignores the presence of other sects. I was only pointing out that other sects exist, not citing the Wikipedia article as a reference for the article. Reliable source for the existence of those groups are already cited, or else we wouldn't have articles about them. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You said "The CIA factbook is an often cited reliable source though." That is only if its information is current and it doesn't mean that the CIA is error-free. Here is an example of how wrong the CIA can some times be. In regards to Afghanistan, in 1991 it stated: "Religion: 74% Sunni Muslim, 15% Shia Muslim, 11% other... Language: 50% Pashtu, 35% Afghan Persian (Dari), 11% Turkic languages (primarily Uzbek and Turkmen), 4%... Ethnic divisions: 50% Pashtun, 25% Tajik, 9% Uzbek, 12-15% Hazara..."[15] but then a year or 2 later it stated: "Religions: Sunni Muslim 84%, Shi`a Muslim 15%, other 1%... Languages: Pashtu 35%, Afghan Persian (Dari) 50%, Turkic languages (primarily Uzbek and Turkmen) 11%, 30 minor languages (primarily Balochi and Pashai) 4%; much bilingualism... Ethnic divisions: Pashtun 38%, Tajik 25%, Uzbek 6%, Hazara 19%; minor ethnic groups include Chahar Aimaks, Turkmen, Baloch, and others..."[16] and then several years later it comes up with something different.[17] If you compare these percentage on religions, ethnic groups and languages for Afghanistan, then you'll notice the huge errors and you should agree that the CIA is not a superior source as you think it is. If you say oh well that's not a big deal it is old record, then how about as recent as 2008 it (CIA) stated that Afghanistan's population was 32 million [18] but the Afghan government conducted a recent nationwide census and it turned out that the population is only 26 million.[19] I'm using this as just one example of how wrong the CIA can be and I'm very sure if you investigate you'll find 1,000s of other major errors. The Pew Research Center (PRC) has already did this work for us, it summed it by stating:[20]

The Pew Forum's estimate of the Shia population (10-13%) is in keeping with previous estimates, which generally have been in the range of 10-15%. Some previous estimates, however, have placed the number of Shias at nearly 20% of the world's Muslim population.

I'm sure that where it mentions "Some previous estimates, have placed the number of Shias at nearly 20%" is refering to the CIA's dubious 10-20% estimate that you are trying to use here in Wikipedia. Before 2009, the CIA doesn't report the total percentage of Sunnis and Shias of the world.[21]--Kiftaan (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I propose that we write it like this: "Most estimates show that 85-90% of Muslims are Sunni (CIA states over 75%), while 10-20% are Shia." CIA says over 75% and that is not the same as saying as low as 75%.--Kiftaan (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Many books sources give 80% as the Sunni figure. i.e. [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]; or lower [29], [30], [31]. The current wording is more neutral, and i removed CIA from the text.

Pass a Method talk 12:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Your wording was unencyclopedic for an article like this one. Did you bothered to find out when these books at google.com were written or published and by whom? One was pubished in 1991 and another in 2002. When it comes important stuff like this we have to consider who the author of each book is and where he/she gets the percentages from. These books are older sources and the Pew Research Center (PRC) explains:[32]

The Pew Forum's estimate of the Shia population (10-13%) is in keeping with previous estimates, which generally have been in the range of 10-15%. Some previous estimates, however, have placed the number of Shias at nearly 20% of the world's Muslim population.

You have just provided those older previous estimates. There is no reason to oppose PRC unless you can find a source more credible. Also, I suggest that you let a 3rd party decide because it seems that you are looking for strange ways to lower the Sunni and raise the Shia percentages.--Kiftaan (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Older books are not a problem for an issue like this, because sects dont drastically change within the space of a few years. Its not the same as corporations who's numbers can fluctuate easily. Pass a Method talk 11:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I disagree with your opinion, older books are a problem in regards to this. In addition to that, some of these books are not about Islam but politics and other things. Nobody else has a problem with the Sunni percentage but it's just you alone dismissing scholar Vali Nasr and religious experts such as Pew Research Center and Berkley as well as highly credible sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica. When all of these claim that Sunnis are 85-90% why do you refuse to accept? By you being the only one refusing this it clearly demonstrates that you have an agenda. There is no need for me and you to keep repeating the same thing over and over, there are many others who will examine the information presented here and decide what is the best wording. Thanks.--Kiftaan (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

All references (except for one) are from the 21st century. The other is from the 90s, so your "too-old" argument makes no sense. Pass a Method talk 23:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It's amazing to see you being the only person opposing all the listed experts on Islam. It's like them saying the sky is blue but you're saying no the sky is green.--Kiftaan (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The CIA is a reliable source, hence used all over the wikipedia. If you disagree with CIA's reliability, go to WP:RSN Pass a Method talk 08:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not rejecting the CIA (Factbook). The problem is that you're misinterpreting the CIA's figures. It gives 20% for Shias and obviously the other 80% would be Sunnis because they don't mention any other sect, but you put this in Wikipedia as 20% Shias and 75% Sunnis which only adds to 95%. Where does the other 5% go? Percentages are suppose to add up to 100.--Kiftaan (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Your wording "Estimates vary from over 75-90% of all Muslims being Sunni, and approximately 10-20% are Shia." is unencyclopedic and difficult to understand.--Kiftaan (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed wording for denomination in the intro

1. Islam is divided into two sects, with Sunnis being the majority and the Shias make up 10-20%.
2. There are two sects within Islam, the Sunnis who make up the majority and the Shias who are 10-20%.
3. The largest denomination in Islam is Sunni Islam, which makes up over 75% to 90% of all Muslims, and the remaining 10-20% are Shias.
4. Two sects form Islam, the Sunnis (over 75% to 90%) and the Shias (10-20%).

I like to change the wording "Estimates vary from over 75-90% of all Muslims being Sunni, and approximately 10-20% are Shia." to something like the listed 4 above because the current sentence is not formed well and confuses the readers. Thanks.--Kiftaan (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

All your proposals assert there are only two sects within Islam, which is false. There are dozens of sects. Therefore all your proposals are invalid. I wouldn't mind if you reworded it to make it clear Sunni and Shia are not the only two sects. Maybe something like "the two largst sects ..." or something. Pass a Method talk 13:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

To verify that "Islam is divided into two sects" is incorrect:

• Diane Morgan's Essential Islam discusses Ahmadiyya Islam.
• Additional sources for Ahmadiyya Islam: 1, 2
• Source on Mahdavia Islam, which rejected prior interpretation of the Qur'an by Hadiths or Imams in favor of the interpretations of their current leaders.
• Source on the beliefs of the Nation of Islam, who believe that W. Fard Muhammad was the Mahdi and God incarnate.
• Website for United Submitters International, a reformist group started by Rashad Khalifa.
• Source on Ibadi, the dominant form of Islam in Oman and Zanzibar.
• The website for Ahl AlQuran, a group which rejects the authority of Hadiths and Imams.
• One source and another source discussing Quranists around the world.

Can you provide any anthropological or sociological, non-sectarian explanation for why these groups should not to be considered Muslim by this encyclopedia?

"The majority of Muslims are Sunni, being at least %75, with most figures typically between %80-90. The second largest sect, Shia Islam, makes up %10-20." gives accurate figures, doesn't give undue weight to the additional sects, but does not deny their existence. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

These groups are part of the Sunni sect and their numbers are so tiny that they all put together would not even come near 1% of Islam. Shia's were formed as a political party, which believes that Ali was the rightful successor of Muhammad. Any Muslim who rejects this view is naturally considered a Sunni. All movements you listed are Sunnis, that includes Ahmadiyyas, Nation of Islam (NOI), and all others who are not affiliated with Shia Islam. Again, the CIA does NOT use "at least 75%", it states over 75% Sunnis and 20% Shias. Let's not keep misinterpreting this. Where does the other 5% go? If I'm not mistaken 5% of 1.57 billion is about 78.5 million. Even if you argue and argue and argue that these movements you listed are not Sunnis, which is completely wrong, add the numbers of Ahmadiyya (whom there may be 4 million [33] and maximum 100,000 in India [34]), the maximum 50,000 NOI Muslims and all the others, you can see that they don't come near 1% (15,700,000) of total Islam (1.57 billion).--Kiftaan (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, your analysis is wrong. Some Sufis are not Sunni. Ahmadiyyas are not Sunni. Ibadis are not Sunni. Quranists are not Sunni. Nation of Islam is not Sunni. Secondly, you need to provide a reference that they "would not even come near 1% of Islam". Pass a Method talk 09:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"Some Sufis are not Sunnis" is irrelevant because I never claimed them to be all Sunnis. Yes, some are Shias and some are Sunnis. The Shia Sufis are counted with the Shia population. Learn what Sunni Islam really is before you start calling Ibadis, Quranists, and Nation of Islam not being Sunni. Like I said even if you argue for weeks or months and I end up agreeing with you, these groups do not even come near 1% of Islam.--Kiftaan (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, PassaMethod, you're the one supposed to bring a source suggesting that these tiny minorities constitute more than 1%. In any case, most sources are using 85% for Sunni. The CIA numbers are a minority here and should not be given more weight than other sources. Also, the CIA is more or less a partisan source when it comes to Muslim populations. I suggest that their numbers should be ignored and our preference should be given to neutral academic sources. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 10:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the CIA is using indeterminate percentage numbers. I have also pointed out above that the CIA makes many errors. The CIA is not an expert on religion. It is a site that provides general information on different countries, and before 2009 it never reported the total percentages of religions.--Kiftaan (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have never said that "minorities constitute more than 1%". Why should i provide a source for something i did not say? Also, if you disagree with CIA's reliability, go to WP:RSN. Pass a Method talk 11:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I meant if most sources ignore these groups, either by considering them tiny minorities or counting them as Shia/Sunni, then we should ignore them too. And regardless of CIA reliability, your wording gives a minority view held by 1 source more weight than a view held by 6 other sources. Instead, we should try to reflect which numbers are more common (which seems to be 85-90% from the list above). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 12:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If you look at my first comment above, you will see several refs with differing figures from your estimate. Estimates vary widely, which is why i worded it that way. Pass a Method talk 13:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Unless we can find sources specifically countering and discrediting the CIA factbook, opinions against it are original research, so it should be included. The issue of due weight is an issue, but something to the effect of 'The majority of Muslims are Sunni, being at least %75, with most figures typically between %85-90. The second largest sect, Shia Islam, makes up %10-20' deals with that. All the sources agree with at least %75 (and there is no difference in "at least" and "over"), and the most in "most sources" places more emphasis on the %85-90 figures. The existence of minority sects is not being brought up to suggest their figures for the article, but to counter the argument that the Sunni and Shia figures have to add up to %100 because they're supposedly the only sects. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I took the issue to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts#Percentage of Sunnis and Shias in Islam--Kiftaan (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Change request

Taliban claim to be islamist but are they recognized as such by muslims scholars? Didn't mainstream muslims regard them as terrorist?

At any rate, it is suggested to improve the ending phrase of the paragraph "Jurispridence > Family Life", as Taliban is not a reference nor an exception to the standards; hence one could say : "Certain countries like Afghanistan, have enforced the veil onto women, while other countries like egypt have left this issue to the private realm".

Excuse me as I don't have in mind a sound reference to counter-argument Esposito's view (but I could search for it if asked) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khonsali (talk • contribs) 14:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Were a reference supplied, we could change it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

potential resource

Islamism’s New Clothes DECEMBER 22, 2011 The New York Review of Books Jean Daniel, translated from the French by Antony Shugaar 99.181.147.68 (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

NPOV in the lead paragraphs.

Muhammad (c. 570 – June 8, 632) was a trader later becoming a religious, political, and military leader. However, Muslims do not view Muhammad as the creator of Islam, but instead regard him as the last messenger of God, through which the Qur'an was revealed. Muslims view Muhammad as the restorer of the original, uncorrupted monotheistic faith of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets.

So Islam was invented by Muhammad sometime prior to 632. Why isn't this reflected in the first paragraph, as it is with all other religions articulated with a history notable enough to discern the creator of the religion in question, al la Scientology or Mormonism? I noticed the same thing lacking on the Christianity article, and am about to raise the same question, it's clearly an NPOV breach, and is clearly a feigned attempt to legitimize a religion as being derived from a supernatural entity as opposed to being created by a specific leader of the faith and his other religious folks who penned their holy books respectively.

Could we get this fixed, please? I'd like to at least be able to tell myself this is an encyclopedia and not a place for people to type out their belief systems verbatim and go unchallenged in neutrality. 211.30.150.122 (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It says Muslims view him as such, and just after that it gives further info, so I dont really see any major NPOV breach  :

For the last 22 years of his life, beginning at age 40 in 610 CE, Muhammad started receiving revelations that he believed to be from God. The content of these revelations, known as the Qur'an, was memorized and recorded by his companions.[86] During this time, Muhammad preached to the people of Mecca, imploring them to abandon polytheism.

The wording could be improved here a bit perhaps to reflect that historically this is how Islam developed.. Shaad lko (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I've attempted a modification of the above. David Trochos (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion on how the wording can be improved: "Muhammad reported receiving revelations from God that was later perserved in the Quran." Xareen (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)