Talk:Islam

Muslim Population Figure Is Wrong

According to the Pew Research Center (https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2011/01/27/the-future-of-the-global-muslim-population/), in 2010 (the last year with reliable data), the global Muslim population was 1.6 billion. The wikipedia page the link sends you to does not, in fact, have any solid source for the claim that Muslims now number 1.9 billion.--Mwidunn (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The number 1.9 billion does not seem impossible.

Muslim Population by Country 2024 (worldpopulationreview.com) says it reached 2 billion

Global Muslim Population Exceeds 2 Billion (moroccoworldnews.com) says 2 billion.

The latter seems to have a bias, I don't know how reliable the first one is. The citations are given in the Demographics section. I want to have a look at it. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I tried to fix some issues. For example, projections are given by the PewResearch. I further removed sources used twice. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Devta mission meaning 2409:4054:211B:8B3E:0:0:1979:38A5 (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Muhammad (SAW) was not the founder in islam.He was the last prophet in Islam

Mohammad (SAW) was not the the founder of Islam, he was the last prophet in Islam. Before him estimate 1,24,000 prophet was sent to earth to spread beauty of Islam. 2409:40E1:D:2AD:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Mohammad may be the last prophet to Muslims and Jesus may be the son of god to Christians but these titles are religious claims that don’t factually describe who they were to people outside that religion. “Founder” is the most neutral and accurate term. LaggyMcStab (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

No, Founder is not neutral at all. It is misrepresenting the religion.

if you check the definition of the word "founder" and its usage through time. It is hardly ever used in the context you did. Moses is not the "founder" of Judaism even though the laws, teachings and identity of the religion comes from him.

Therefore the word is wrong not only because it is misrepresents the religion but also because it isn't the norm when speaking about religions for it usually denotes the views of the writer rather than the neutrality of the writer.

To be truly neutral means to stand apart from certain beliefs and world views. The idea of "paul" being the founder of christianity is an argument made against christianity and you will find many articles to this effect. If you choose this stance when describing paul, that is not you taking a neutral stance but you picking a side

. Same can be said of "moses" in respect to judaism and "mohammed" in respect to islam.

I indulge you to do a little research on the concept, history, etymology and usage of the word "founder", thank you. Aleebabz (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes he is right founder is not a correct word, in your below link you're saying Hazrat Muhammad PBUH was sent to restore Islam here u r saying Founder.

Please change these words.

If you're own Wikipedia words n statement its mean we are not supposed to trust this field.

Please change or remove this page.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_in_Islam#:~:text=In%20the%20Quran,-Further%20information%3A%20Muhammad&text=According%20to%20the%20Quran%2C%20Muhammad,%22%2C%20and%20%22Prophet%22. Zohranajam2 (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The religion didn't exist before him, and there is no historical sources from RS previously and independent of the subject that proved that Islam existed before Muhammad. Does Judaism, Christianity, African religions, Hinduism, etc., all of which predates Islam mentioned anything about Islam in their sources prior to Muhammad? Does any historical source prior to Muhammad mentioned anything about Islam? If the answer is no to both, then he was the founder, using Muslim sources. Tamsier (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2024

Whats with the practicing and non practicing muslims on the top, Christians,Hindus,etc are not practicing or non practicing? is it islam where we draw the line? Raah7sj (talk) 22:55, 22 January 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. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

whats the need of using the term "practicing and non practicing muslims population", replace it with just muslims. Raah7sj (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I see it now. I've changed the text boldly. It may be reverted.

I agree that having that in the lead is a bit odd, especially when we do not have that in the lead for Catholic Church or Christians. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

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 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)

Picture depicting Prophet Mohammed should be removed

The picture depicting Muhammad leading Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other prophets in prayer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#/media/File:Medieval_Persian_manuscript_Muhammad_leads_Abraham_Moses_Jesus.jpg User583489 (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Why? Seems a reasonable part of that section per MOS:IMAGES. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Change type to Abrahamic?

Over at Talk:Christianity there has been some contention over whether Abrahamic or Universal religion is a better fit for Type in the Infobox. The primary justification for “universal religion” has been the fact it’s used here. But “Abrahamic” seems more notable for both. Thoughts? Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

"Abrahamic" is more familiar to me, I can say that much. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Abrahamic is given its own descriptor in the classification line. I guess we should wait to see what the outcome of the discussion at the Christianity talk page is before making changes here. The debate is if "Universal religion" should be left in or not. Completely Random Guy (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

After recently cleaning up unreliable sources from Abrahamic religions, I realized that the term has a few more issues than it seems on the first glance. The term originates from Interfaith dialogue and entered academic discourse. However, the academic validity has also been criticized, for oversimplification. While there are prominent similarities, such as Creatio ex nihilo and veneration of a Creator-deity, there are also significant differences.

Other similarities are only shared on the surface level. For example, all three feature Abraham, but the role ascribed to this figure is different. Both Islam and Christianity share the return of Jesus, but while in Islam, it is more or less an aggadic narrative featuring some end-time battles with barely to no theological significance at all, in Christianity it is a closure of the history of mankind (as per Christian teachings). Other concepts often mistakenly considered "typical Abrahamic", like hell, are not even precisely Abrahamic at all (Karmic religions do feature hell as well, whereas Judaism not necessarily).

Besides these "intra-religious" differences, there also has been objection from an ethno-historical perspective. Islam, as a religion spread through Asia is also an Asia religion, not (only) a religion surrounding the Mediterranean Sea. Christianity spread across Europe and incorporated European ideas, whereas Islam assimilated to Asian ideas as it spreads. Judaism is a unique situtation again, given that this is also an ethnic religion.

By using the the classification "Abrahamic", we allow judgement over theological features, which is something up to the theologicans and the adherences of the religion. Same as using "karmic" (as I did above), when not speaking about a religion featuring Karma. For example (and this is only an example), when I believe in Buddhism but not Karma, does this form of Buddhism stops being Buddhism? Classifying religions according to features (in this case the figure of "Abraham" and associated beliefs, often even subject to dispute within one of these three religions themselves) comes witht he issue of being prescriptive rather than descriptive. The label "Universal religion", on the other hand, explains very well how the religion operated over centuries (and thus, gained reliablitiy). In contrast, Judaism is an ethnic religion. We often see that Judaism does not entirely fit into the same classifications of Christianity and Islam and has a lot of unique traits, but due to similar mythologies and the label "Abrahamic", it is assumed they are equal in most matters.

Terminology such as "Universalistic" is actually used then discussing the classifications of religions, as for example, here: A Matter of Class: Taxonomies of Religion Author(s): Jonathan Z. Smith Source: The Harvard Theological Review , Oct., 1996, Vol. 89, No. 4 (Oct., 1996), pp. 387- 403 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School" and (although pretty old, yet good in regards to classifications I suppose) "THE CLASSIFICATION OF RELIGIONS Author(s): Durin J. H. Ward Source: The Monist , OCTOBER, 1908, Vol. 18, No. 4 (OCTOBER, 1908), pp. 544-575 Published by: Oxford University Press". I would suggest to go with terminology actually describing the religion, instead of referring or implying certain theological elements. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Islam origin is wrong

Hazrat Muhammad PBUH was the last messengers with last book revelation which Quran with all details from the day world created. Before there was Tawrat, zahoor and Injel in which its clearly mentioned that Hazrat Muhammad will come. As you can check Hazrat Adam A.S was the first human then how cum islam start from 610 Islam Start from Hazrat Adam A.S and last book was revealed with amended and final call from Allah at Hazrat Muhammad PBUH time. Please correct this information as it giving a wrong concept to everyone.

there is many prophets came before Hazrat Muhammad PBUH

Islam was there and people were getting converted to other activities so from there these religion like christian judism came.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salih Zohranajam2 (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The origin story you are describing is purely a religious claim and therefore not up to Wikipedia standards. No pre-Islamic sources support it.

Your point has already been addressed on this talk page. See here:

Talk:Islam#Muhammad (SAW) was not the founder in islam.He was the last prophet in Islam Zoozoor (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, see its not about religous talk this is our history, which details are mentioned and I am talking about your own data.

You cannot show origin date from Hazrat Muhammad PBUH time as first person was Hazrat Adam A.S

Our whole existence is getting change and u r saying this is religious talk am i asking to change some sunni shia or prayer related.

If you think writing write origin or origin is religious then you should remove, you cannot write our origin from your own finding.

If you're not changing or removing then I will take this matter to next level. 217.165.17.104 (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)