Talk:Muslim world

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Islam (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Religion (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
A note to all editors:
Please remember to sign your comments using "~~~~"! (This request includes anonymous users.) Please keep off-topic discussion unrelated to the upkeep of the article to a minimum. Thanks!


Islamic State and State Religion[edit]

Both the article and the map make a distinction between and "Islamic State" and a state with the "State Religion of Islam" and a simple "State with Majority Muslim Population". What is the difference between the first and second term? It's not at all clear.

Kitplane01 (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Aniconism, Iconoclasm, and Arabesques-- and the limits of Wikipedia[edit]

A long, nuanced article on the topic exists at "aniconism." This short, one-sided paragraph should be deleted, and the reader sent to aniconism.

But does what Wikipedia says still matter? Less and less. By Summer 2007, who would trust Wikipedia on any topic remotely related to any hot political issue, particularly those related to religious wars or cultural wars. It is too easy for desperate cliques to control our articles. We're still useful on uncontroversial things like "history of the button"-- at least until cultural chauvinists start debating which nation invented the button first. Just look at the jockeying for position below, even on topics one would have thought uncontroversial, like the number of Moslems worldwide. I refuse to get into flame wars over such things, since our reference articles are no longer taken as reference, but only as a kind of blog. It isn't impossible that in five years Wikipedia will have gone the way of the Yahoo Discussion Boards that they used to have following the articles.Profhum 18:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Profhum

Total Land Size[edit]

I would like to know how many total square kilometers the entire Muslim world makes up. Would someone be kind enough to inform me, and also perhaps put it in the article, seeing how it seems a relevant addition? Thanks. OneGyT/T|C 21:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


"Desperate militant groups labeled as extremists" is hardly npov i would think

Iran and the Jews[edit]

The article says that Iran gives extraordinary rights to it's jewish population. Unless someone can document this I will remove the reference.

Economic Ethnic Summaries[edit]

Can we get some economic, ethnic and population summaries for countries normally considered part of the so-called Islamic World? Given how critical these issues are, it would be good to know. may have some good stats.

I deleted this paragraph:

Probably at no time since the Crusades has there been such a uniform level of tension between the Islamic and English-speaking world.
THee was no English-speaking world at the time of the Crusades. The nation of England spoke French. RickK 03:18, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
What? Didn't the events recounted in Robin Hood and Ivanhoe take place during a Crusade (see Richard the Lion-hearted)? Didn't Robin of Locksey speak English? Or Anglo-Saxon? --Uncle Ed 14:11, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Islamic power[edit]

Although the impact of such a move would be less today, it demonstrates the power of the Islamic world acting in concert (in 1974, to support West Bank and Gaza Strip Arabs in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), and the key role of religion and ethnicity in the politics of oil regions, with which the Islamic world very deeply intersects.

How does it demonstrate Islamic power? What sort of support did it lend to Palestinian Arabs? And what is the "role of religion and ethnicity" which this move relates to? --Uncle Ed 14:16, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The Islamic world was more divided back then, then it is now. See: Islamic revival

                                   --Anonymous  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC) 


(Genesis 5:5 KJV) And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. He Walejulie (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

(Genesis 5:6 KJV) And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:

Walejulie (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

W(Genesis 6:5 KJV) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Genesis 6:6 KJV) And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Walejulie (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

IYANII ON FCBK Walejulie (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Number of muslims[edit]

The number of Muslims is grossly exaggerated (interesting sign of..?) as usually, especially in North America and China: No more than 4 M (or 3) Muslims in the US max.

Mir Harven

1979 shift[edit]

the paragraph: "In 1979 there was a big shift in the way the Muslim world dealt with the rest of the world. In that year, Egypt made peace with Israel, Iran became an Islamic state after a revolution, and there was an invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. A lot of things changed in that year. By 2001 the Soviet Union was gone, Jordan had also made peace with Israel, and on September 11, 2001 there were major attacks on the U.S. - which most people believe were made to drive the United States out of the Muslim world, especially Saudi Arabia. In many ways the events of 1979 led to the events of 2001." is speculation. pls. add proof.

I've removed the sentence "In many ways the events of 1979 may have led to the events of 2001.". This whole section needs editing still, though. Nloth 05:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

the paragraph: "Many believe that the Islamic World is fated to come into deeper conflict with the western world. At least one Islamic nation, Pakistan, has developed nuclear weapons, and others, e.g. Iraq, have attempted it. Weapons of mass destruction are likely to become easier to construct given the modernizing economies of the Islamic World." is also speculation, as well as inciting anger. A muslim might say it is not so. A non-muslim might take it as proof and act upon it. re George W. Bush

and finally, the link to msnbc is dead. no article can be found there. is it censorship? or an incorrect link?

Mohammed Arafa, Cairo, Egypt, 20/3/2004

Quality of language, quality of information, NPOV[edit]

Guys, this article needs a major overhaul. We have huge holes in many sections (particularly the history section), everything is written in a clunky style, there are some questionable historical statements (e.g. "Islam was also spread by war and colonialism, particularly of the powerful Ottoman Empire. Nations were conquered, and their inhabitants were given a choice to convert to Islam, or live as dhimmis, second class citizens." Although this does not contain any outright falsehoods, it totally misrepresents what actually happened, and oversimplifies a very complex series of developments. And policy differed between countries over treatment of non-Muslims quite widely.), and I am generally not happy about the tone and patchiness of the article. Beginning today, I am going to start rewording as much as I can, but there is so much information that needs to be filled in that there is no way I could do it all on my own.

And also, it could be asked: is this article really needed? We have articles already on Islam, so what exactly is the purpose of this one? Should it be covering the history of Islam (already covered in History of Islam), or the current political status of the Islamic world (already covered in Islam pretty well), or what? Is there any point to this article existing except as a brief definition of the term? Polocrunch 12:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The forcing of other people to convert occured but it was not Islamic policy. It depended on the ruler. Search for Dhimmi in Wikipedia and scroll down to the section: Freedom of religion and forced conversions. This captures the issue well. John 20:05, 13 Oct 2007

Status of Albania[edit]

Edits by Patterns Reverted I reverted edits by Patterns with respect to Islamic World and Balkan population. Justification given ". a) albania was mostly islamic after the fall of the ottoman empire and b) albania is the worlds first aethitst country. Same with bosnia. Gov is not islamic. Alb is no more isalmic than england" is irrelevant and POV. Albanian Communist regime was indeed ostentatiously aethiest, that however is not a logical argument that the population is not part of the Islamic world (any more than Russians ceased en toto being Orthodox Christian). Non or loose practicing cited in second edit also specious and highly POV. (Collounsbury 04:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC))

Albania's peaked at 70% while under Ottoman rule. I believe the main source for the inclusion of this article is the CIA factbook, that is in fact wrong. While a lot of Albanians can identify their religion, about 20 ~ 30 percent are active. Of those only about 15 percent are practising muslims. I worked for USAID there. Please do not add the revert again until you can find sources. Patterns 12:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I will continue to revert as your edits are tenditious POV. As you say "hile a lot of Albanians can identify their religion, about 20 ~ 30 percent are active." You seem to be under the mistaken impression that one has to be "practising to be counted as an adherent to the religion. This is certianly not the case elsewhere and in re other religions, and should not be applied willy-nilly to the Balkans and Albanian because one user has the idiosyncratic idea that only practising members of the religion "count." It is entirely appropriate to note in the text that some large portion of the population is not practising, it is not appropriate to merely delete reference to the population in the summary data. As for your working with USAID, who cares? You are not a "source" and your "belief" re the CIA factbook is irrelevant. None of the other data with respect to numbers of Muslims (or Xians) takes into account practising or not (e.g. Turkey/.e.g England), only ostensible adherents in some vague sense. This is merely a question of consistency. Now, if you have objective sourcing with respect to percent of population practising, say survey data, I would encourage you to add some text in the body re non-practising population in the Balkans - else leave your personal predilictions out of the article. (Collounsbury 19:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)).
I note that I also have personal experience in region, but I am not using myself as a source either. The issue at hand is one of standard reference practice. Reference materials do not 'subtract' data on religious believers based on supposed level of practice. Thus the CIA Fact Book data on the Balkans, Turkey, Europe do not get into the issue of whether the Muslims or Xians go to Mosque/Church or not. Patterns evident peronsal confusion in this area aside, it is inappropriate to apply the thinking to the Balkans/Albania when it is not elsewhere (for good reasons of inherent subjectivity, and general irrelevance as level of belief is a seperate issue).(Collounsbury 19:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)).
If uncited, you must leave OUT of wikipedia. I welcome you to put it again so I can request arbitration on the matter. Keep in mind the 3RR Patterns
What is uncited? Are you stupid? You keep vandalising based on an idiosyncratic reading of what should be included in religious population figures. None of the other population figures are cited, I may add. However, from the CIA factbook we get Albania 3,563,112 (July 2005 est.), of which 70 percent estimate on Muslim population. Balkans, we have, agree from CIA factbook Bosnia Herzogovina, 4,025,476 (July 2005 est.), 40 percent Muslim. Macedonia: 2,045,262 (July 2005 est.), 17 percent Muslim. Serbia Montenegro, 10,829,175 (July 2005 est.). 19 percent Muslim. That gives us an estimate right in the range of the figures given that you keep deleting on no more basis than your idiosyncratic and illiterate belief they should be, and more of a citation than any of the other figures. I await you to provide some citation re population figures and religious affilitation estimates being based on one person's personal observations. I can't wait for arbitration. (Collounsbury 05:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)).

Iraq with nuclear weapons?[edit]

Whoever wrote this needs to think again. It has never been proven that Iraq was even developing them and any attempt to say that they were is not a neutral viewpoint. I have removed Iraq from the "future" part and replaced it with Iran, which we know is deveveloping nuclear energy and possibly weapons.

The "WMD" argument prior to heading into Iraq was referring to chemical weapons, the use of which is well documented. I assume that argument was mistaken for nuclear weaponry? Perhaps noting that would have been better. I would also like to point out that all posts must be signed, even if you're the only editor on an article. Chrissd21 (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Move this page[edit]

This page should really be called "Muslim World", considering it refers to Muslim nations, and not just nations ruled by the selective interpretations of the shariat - Any Objections?--Irishpunktom\talk 21:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no necessary implication in the phrase "Islamic World" of "sharia" or anything like it. Insofar as in English the Islamic World may refer variously to majority Muslim nations, nations with specifically "Islamic" governments, or merely the universe of territories that have some large portion of at least nominal Muslims living there, it is appropriate to keep. (collounsbury 22:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC))

No and Yes. There are no objections that the "Islamic World" has traditionally been called the "Muslim World". This is becuase the word "Islamic" means "Muslim". Islam is a noun, Muslim is the adjective associated with the noun. Becuase anglophones like to anglicize all the terms, they have created the term "Islamic", which was "Muslim" originally.

There are objections to you saying that Islamic implies, "not just nations ruled by the selective interpretations of the shariat". All Muslims, even the secular ones consider themselves to be "Islamic". What I'm trying to get at is that Islamic, and Muslim are the same thing.

Bottom line: Let's change the name of the article to "Muslim World". Bless sins 20:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

As to this idea that the Islamic World has "traditionally" been called the "Muslim World" that is pure bunk. A variety of terms have historically been used to refer to the Islamic world, none of which were "Muslim" (indeed adopting the term Muslim in English is fairly recent, previously Moslem and even more commonly "Mohammedan" or Musulemane (the latter from Turkish) were used.) The rubbish about "anglophones" is pure ignorant tripe, Islamic merely is an anglicisation, there is nothing peculiar to English about nativising terms (e.g. old Ottoman Turkish turned Muslim into Musulemane). (collounsbury 22:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC))
Islam is a religion, Muslim is a people. As such, Muslim world is the appropriate name. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Just curious: do you imply that a Muslim may not be a follower of Islam!!! --Bhadani 16:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


The amount of Muslim in Pakistan is 157 million (162 million x 0.97).

All numbers form CIA factbook.

Adding India[edit]

When the page talks of parts of Russia, how can one ignore India? Undivided India was ruled for centuries by muslim rulers, and they built monuments like Taj Mahal though some believe that Taj Mahal was a Hindu Temple. --Bhadani 16:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


I found in the page : "Like Christians or Buddhists, there is no single Muslim race; the world's Muslims are connected only by the common heritage of a religion." This sentence is not correct, and should be modified. --Bhadani 16:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If such a simple fact is not correct, I am sure that the page may correct several other wronmg information. If such wrong information gets circulated, it shall lower the credibility of wikipedia. --Bhadani 16:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't undersatnd the problem. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no problem as such, if it were a repor or an essay in a school examination. We are building an encyclopedia, and as far as possible we should give correct information. Both Christians and Buddhists belong to several races and ethinic groups - they are not of one race as understood in anthropology. I will try to read the page more carefully so that we may remove POVs and incorrect information about the Muslim world. The world should know about the subject matter. I also thank you for involving yourself with this work - it is an important topic of human history. --Bhadani 16:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
By the way for understanding the problem, I would suggest you to read some good books on anthropology. You may borrow them from any good library. --Bhadani 16:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Bhadani what is your reason for adding npov, attention, and expert? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I have tagged the article with {date=December 2010 {date=December 2010}

{date=December 2010} in view of above discussion, and factual inaccuracies and absence of encyclopedic perspective. Jumbo Whales has created Wikimedia Foundation to build an encylopedia, and we shoudl combine our talents to create nothing less than that. Insha'Allah, we will do justice to this page. Please do not worry, God is great! Sukriya!!! --Bhadani 17:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Please also see this: for an insight. Thank you, that is, Sukriya Bhaijaan! (Brother). I would love to contribute to Islam related pages as in my India we have Muslims more than in a number of Muslim states. It is all about one's depth of knowledge!!! --Bhadani 17:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Well even with this interest you have in this Islam page, if the only problem is one sentence, that is no reason to tag with three different ones. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Please confine your discussion to the topic and not on me - please abide by the general wiki-principles. By the way, my interest in Islam is not new - you may see a number of pages edited by me, and I have several friends in real life who are muslims. My interest in wikipedia is also not new - and I move around the wikipedia as a "volunteer editor" and wherever I notice compromise of wiki-principles, as also quality of contents, I stpe into to make suitablke changes. By the way, by “discussion”, I meant the discussion contained in the entire talk page tagging implicitly indicates the quality of contents as also the assistance required to make this page truly encyclopedic in the treatment of the subject matter. If required, you are welcome to place few more tags, as this will attract the attention of fellow wikipedians to come forward and render suitable assistance to make the page truly encyclopedic. --Bhadani 17:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I would also suggest that please refrain from passing on sarcastic comments on users, including me – always comment on the contents and not on the editors. --Bhadani 17:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
What sarcasm? I am not interested in learning about you here or what you want to contribute. I am saying that if the problem is only one sentence, there is no reason to use three different tags on the article. So can you please tell what your main concern is? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to help to improve the article to a better standard by tagging it suitably so that editors interested in the subject may contribute to make the page appropriate for an encyclopedia. In case, you wish me not to work on this page – ok, there are other avenues here where I may contribute – I understand some people suffer from “ownership-syndrome” vis-à-vis the pages in which they have deeply involved themselves. In case, you feel that the page has reached encyclopedia standard, you are most welcome to hold your views. Editors should, from time to time, read the following to get them mentally attuned to keep a mental frame suitable for encyclopedic writing: Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability (policies), Wikipedia:Reliable sources (guideline), and Wikipedia:Cite sources (style guide), and stick to them. I trust that you shall readily agree. Still, I implore you to please remove POVs from the page. --Bhadani 11:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Bhadani this isn't about you and isn't about your contributions at all. Also these were my first few edits to the page so your ownership attack was completely unecessary and should be a little embarassing for you when you look at the edit history. I don't think the page has reached high standard, but I know enough about wikipedia not to add three different tags to an article and then not explain the details of it. Please read the policies first and then tell us what you find POV instead of trying to attack me for asking you a simple question. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
AE please do not read between the lines, I was talking in general terms and I would request you please refrain from further personal attacks. In case, you are so hurt, please take up the matter to ArbCom or other forum. It looks so childish - is not it? --Bhadani 16:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Who is hurt Bhadani and show me a personal attack that I made? You just said indirectly that I was suffering from "ownership-syndrome" when this was my first edit to this page. Yes, I think it is childish talking about me instead of the article. So why don't you answer my simple question? What do you find pov? I am not here to talk about you, but about the article but you keep using ad-hominems and talking about me rather than the article just to make things worse. So please just say what you find wrong with the article? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The distinction, in this article, between Jews and Arabs is clumsy and, moreover, difficult to make even if one were careful. It is impossible to consistently establish “Jewish” as an ethnicity or race in the scientific sense. Attempts to establish this have in fact supported the very strong likelihood that Jews and “Arabs” share a common genetic heritage in the Arabian Peninsula i.e. Jews were originally Arabs and many still are. This is not a difficult to see as there are “African black Jews, European white Jews, Asian Jews, Arab Jews etc. Also linguistics, posits a common Semitic origin once again the Arabian Peninsula (or the horn of Africa). Hebrew and Arabic are of the same language family. The evidence that “Arab” is a linguistic classification, not a racial one or an ethnic classification is overwhelming.

A Jewish woman can speak Arabic as here first language and give birth to Jewish children, so the linguistic distinction also fails. Most Jews do not speak Hebrew as their fist language.

The point is that the distinction between Arabs and Jews cannot be made since Jews can be Arabs and Arabs can be Jews. It does not logically stand. Once again the distinction being made in this article is lazy, clumsy, ill-founded and dangerous.

Let’s put more effort into it and say what we mean, for example: Why not say the Jews and the Muslims, or, the Jews and the Palestinians, or, the Israelis and the Palestinians, or, The Jewish Israelis and the Muslim Palestinians, or, the Jewish Israelis and the Jewish Palestinians, or, the Muslim Israelis and the Jewish Palestinians? However, religious tradition also holds both Muslims and Jews descended from Abraham. You get the point.

Could you provide references for your argument, please? While you argument for a common root between Arabs and Jews is plausible, I don't believe it negates the power of "race" in this conflict, so I'm not sure it is relevent. There are many examples of "race"-based conflict between ethnic groups that are much more closely related than Jews and Arabs (for example the conflict in the former Yugoslavia). Also, it would be excellent it you could sign your comments. Nloth 00:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

there is no such race as the jewish race though many would say otherwise such as nazi's

Moving the page[edit]

The page, as the discussion on the talk page and the contents explicitly and implicitly indicate, is fit for moving to Muslim people or some similarly named page – as the name of the page-name Muslim world is not appropriate. This shall remove the ambiguity about the contents of the page. This is just a suggestion for wider dissemination of information about the Muslim people. --Bhadani 12:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the page should be namd "Muslim" World. After all the inhabitants are called "Muslims" not "Islamics". Secondly, the term Islamic is up for debate. Several countries, such as Turkey, are fiercely secular, and belive in the complee seperation of Religion and State. Calling Saudi Arabia "Islamic" would earn you the wrath (metaphorically) of those who oppose Wahabbis; calling iran "Islamic" would earn you the wrath of those who oppose Shias. Yet no one denies that the inhabitants of each of those countries are Muslim.

Thirdly, this article includes the Muslim populations of France, U.S., Canada etc...yet there is nothing Islamic about each of those countries. Once again, Muslims are referred to as Muslim and not Islamic.Bless sins 23:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I support the move to change the name to "Muslim World" 16:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

you what?[edit]

The article says: "The spread of Islam was also due particularly to the powerful Ottoman Empire. Nations were conquered, and their inhabitants were given a choice to convert to Islam, or live as dhimmis, protected second class citizens practicing an officially accepted religion.

The Ottoman Empire came to an end in 1918 when Turkey lost control of the bulk of the Arab World, which it had ruled for centuries and in which it had suppressed most of the traditional norms of Islam. The United Kingdom and the United States supported Arab independence, but France insisted on retaining control of Lebanon and ultimately Syria. This, plus the status of Kuwait and Palestine, and the later partition of India, remain major sources of global tension to this day. Islam allows oppressed Muslims to practice Jihad, struggle against aggressors."

This is amazingly false. The Ottoman empire did not spread islam. It was one of many Muslim Kingdons, and unlike several others, from its inception to it's demise it ruled over lands which were previously Muslim, with the exception of the Balkans. --Irishpunktom\talk 12:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That the United Kingdom and the United States supported Arab independence is flawed too. What about Kuwait and Saudi-Arabia? Raphael1 02:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


I rolled back as major deletion of contents were done by an editor without discussing the contents. Such deletions are not expected to be carried out at wikipedia, we have a system here. --Bhadani 15:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The discussions on that removal are right above this --Irishpunktom\talk 15:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page:

Dont act as a proxy for other POV warriors, the information you are trying to add by force is false. In wikipedia we should always remove false information. "The spread of Islam was also due particularly to the powerful Ottoman Empire. Nations were conquered, and their inhabitants were given a choice to convert to Islam, or live as dhimmis, protected second class citizens practicing an officially accepted religion." - That statement is utterly false, the only place the ottomans took Islam was to the balkans. Unless you are saying that Islam is predominantly a balkans based religion you must conceed this is false. It then proceeds to speak about Twentieth century politics, nothing about the history of Islam in the Muslim world, nothing about where most Muslims come from - It short, its false information which has no place. Now, Why would you want the section on the denominations removed? Its verifiable, and acorrect, and I don't understand what you want to remove it. Please explain --Irishpunktom\talk 15:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest you to discuss the matter with on the talk page of the article. I am moving this to the talk page. You are also welcome to cite sources which do corroborate with your contention. --Bhadani 15:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I know about the discussion - let the consensus be reached before you delete massive contents. --Bhadani 15:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The info is false. We need correct sources before it can be added. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Its hardly massive, its a false section. We should be working under the obligation that unsourced patently false information should be removed. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Please listen to reason as advised by SlimVirgin, and I would quote her: "Never disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Read Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability (policies), Wikipedia:Reliable sources (guideline), and Wikipedia:Cite sources (style guide), and stick to them even when it's killing you." Thank you. Happy editing and cheers. --Bhadani 15:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The part added is original research. We don't keep information that's false and without a source in an article. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Always assume good faith. In case, you have verifiable sources to claim that it is original research, please cite your sources. I would suggest you to please always assume good faith, and give that editor benefit of doubt. We are building an encyclopedia, and not advocates in a court room. --Bhadani 15:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
According to that, I can add a paragraph to the George Bush article that says he is really a democrat and no one can delete it. The person adding the information needs sources Bhadani. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that you may add "cite sources" if you do not agree, some one shall surely cite sources. Instead of edit warring, this shall solve the problem for the time being. --Bhadani 15:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest you not to disturb the sequence of discussion, as that is not in good taste. Please also do not give such irrelevant examples - in case, you really belieive that the other editor/s adding contents is acting in a manner he/she is not expected to add, please initiate suitable action - no one claim that he is a master of everything under the sun. Why can not you allow another editor to add another version of the position as may have been obtaining in those times. --Bhadani 16:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
And, like wise, a person can delete the information that Bush is President of USA, and the person deleting the iformation is not required to prove that his deletion was correct. AE you can not mis-argue in this way - I suggest let all the information should be there. However, in case, you want that only information liked by few should be there in any page - that is the outlook of the wiki-community - I am sure that some one shall update the information. --Bhadani 16:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I have not stopped anyone, and this example is relevant. And any person deleting that Bush is president, has many sources against him. And I'm not arguing for information "liked by some", I want correct information. This is actually an encyclopedia and being accurate is the outlook of the community. So if any editor is after adding information that has never even been heard of before, he should have proper sources. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

A Note[edit]

Reproduced from the talk page of User talk:Irishpunktom

Blanket reverting

Do not blanket revert a good faith edit that has added useful material, merely because you dislike some of the other changes. David | Talk 20:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I do agree. Before major deletion of contents, please discuss on the talk page. --Bhadani 15:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Please note that your indirect reverts tantamounts against the spirit of wikipedia. Please assume good faith, and avoid such deletion of contents. --Bhadani 15:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Unquote --Bhadani 16:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see what your discussion has to do with that. David was talking about another article. This addition to the article has no sources.--a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
This has been brought here so that other editors may understand the nature of the editor involved in edit-warring and deletion of contents. --Bhadani 16:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
"Nature" of the editor can be found in his history, we don't need something like this being added everytime he reverts somewhere. Assume good faith Bhadani. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedians are integrated and you have to understand the editor involved well. I know that a senior editor like you should not encourage such edit-warrings. I always assume good faith, and I also know that you are doing all this with utmost good faith. Please try to understand that good faith is a two-way lane, and not a one-way affair. My intention was to give that editor a chance to tell the other side of the story, which you with your standing here in trying to kill. Anonymous, please do not do that - please allow the editors to tell the truth - please do not use your standing and height of respect you command here to influence the contents of pages. We are building an encyclopedia from a global perspective, and not from the perspective of an individual. Please give the other editor the benefit of good faith. Thank you - enough for to-day, bye. --Bhadani 16:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
No one is standing here to kill. The other editor can tell his story without having you making it worse for Irishpunktom. Or without having yourself involved in reverting. Please assume good faith and don't do this to other editors, because it's just like a personal attack against them. An encyclopedia from a global persective doesn't have to be wrong in it's information. The original research policy is very important, please read. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I have read them repeatedly, I would also request Annonymous that you too keep yourself revised and updated of trends here. I love Irishpunktom, yesterday we ate a lot of grapes together, some are still there, would you like to have some? --Bhadani 17:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I am sure that apart from reading, you could also understant them, at least most of them? --Bhadani 17:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The information is false, it is clearly false, and it is unsourced.

Ottoman 1683.pngAge of Caliphs.png|MajorityMuslemNations.png

Here, compare the ottoman empire on the left - at its height in 1683, with the caliphate in 750 in the middle, with the Muslim world as whole, the subject of this article. --Irishpunktom\talk 21:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Muslim world is about the geography, history, and culture - everthing integrated in one - unsourced, un-encyclopedic map is not going to take us anywhere. We are building the Project from a global perspective, and it should reflect the truth and nothing else. In case, you are sure of the verifiable sources (of repute), you are most welcome to update the info, no one shall be there to stop you. But, by bashing a fellow editor-administrator, that is, me to be a PROXY of POVs pusher shall adversely affect your reputation as a reasonable editor. An administrator no so friendly to you (as I am to you) shall step in, and initiate actions in conformity with wiki-policies, and you shall suffer. I do not want you to suffer, my friend. And, on account of my other interests in wikipedia, I shall not be able to watch these pages, I am removing them from my watch list. Insha'Allah, we shall meet again sometime somewhere. May God bless you! --Bhadani 15:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Bhadani, All of those maps are from Wikipedia Articles, and they are sourced on ottoman empire, Caliphate and Muslim World respectively. I apologise if I offended you, but, you must realise that the information was simply wrong, and Netscott required me to prove a negative, which is not how Wikipedia should work. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Indonesia, seemingly?[edit]

In Indonesia, the growth of various groups allied to those seemingly responsible for the Bali bombing most of which have been invisible, has been marked. It is expected that executions of perpetrators of that attack, which hit mostly citizens of Australia, will polarize that nation further.

What groups is it? Seemingly, is it MMI(Majelis Mujahidin Indonesia/Indonesiam Mujahidin Assemmbly)? They always reject that that allegation, Even Amrozi (The bomb maker) himself reject that he is connected with MMI. Except they were from the same culture. Fellow Indonesian Muslim202.69.101.170 04:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Conflicts with Israel: WP:WEASEL[edit]

The Conflicts with Israel section badly needs re-writing. I've added a WP:WEASEL tag for the moment. I'll give it a go if no one else wants to tackle it. Nloth 05:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Why? You give no specific example(s) of why you did this. It seems to me that the editors have made every attempt to be fair: (a) use of "some" to distinguish from a blanket statement of all; (b) an example of Muslim cooperation with Judaism; (c) an example of Jewish cooperation with Islam; (d) explicitly stating that many Muslims distinguish between zionism and Judaism. (Danaidh 04:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC))

Trying to be "fair" isn't the point. Have you actually read what WP:WEASEL talks about? You asked for examples - here's one: Some, but not all Muslims see this as a fight against Judaism or Jews. - the page WP:WEASEL says: Here are some weasel words that are often found in Wikipedia articles (but shouldn't be):"Some people say..."
"explicitly stating that many Muslims distinguish between zionism and Judaism" is a problem in itself, unless it is backed up with sources. For instance, if it could be stated that "according to a report in xxxx, xx% of Muslims distinguished between Zionism and Judaism" that would be fine. Nloth 23:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Uploaded new image[edit]

I created a new image, using the blank maps provided by Vardion. I felt the old map was blurry, the blue ocean was distracting, the borders were obtrusive, and Azerbaijan did not have the exclave of Nakhichevan noted as part of its territory. Ekrub-ntyh 20:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Wesley Clark[edit]

I think that the quotations from General Clark are inappropriately POV and as such should be deleted. The US, like China,and other countries with signfigant millitaries almost certainly has plans for war with every other major country. I am certain that the US has plans for both a conventional or a nuclear with all of those countries, and that those plans would surely involve invasions, at least on a theoretical level. Is there an "Iran Plan," you bet. Are there hundreds of variations on the "Iran Plan," yes. Does this mean the United States "plans" to invade Iran. Maybe. Does it mean the United States intends to invade Poland or France, no. I'm going to wait a few hours, then I am going to remove the section on General Clark, or provide a balance. If anyone has comments or agreement, please post them on my talk page or here. --V. Joe 01:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with removing the reports. They actually say that the US had planned a campagin to invade those 7 countries. It is saying that plans weren't just contigency plans - they were part of a US policy. (It's unfortunate that the actual sources for these comments aren't available and we have to link to second-hand reporting of them, though) Nloth 23:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

not a world view[edit]

Folks, I added the following tag:

I added it because the Muslim World is a predominantly South Asian/Indonesian based Population. Old India (Pakistan, Bangla Desh, Sri Lanka & India) and Indonesia accounts for around one half of the entire worlds Muslim Population. As it stands, the article *appears* to be arab-centric. There should be more on the varying Sharia systems in the Indian Sub continent, and the Indonesian model of Islam (Considering it is the nation with the largest Muslim Population). Feel free to remove the tag if you disagree. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Future Bias[edit]

Is the "future" section some sort of joke? Best way to democratise the world? Replacing consitutional monarchy with representative democracies? More like replacing democracy with theocracy. I can't believe this has gone un-noticed. Anyways, perhaps the whole section should be scrapped. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Trip: The Light Fantastic 01:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Regardless of religion and current rule system, all nations are moving towords a democracy, and for one reason or another, the nations economy is the primary reason. No religion can claim to be the best at moving towords a democracy, it's the collective human nature that causes the push, religion has a choice of adapting to a democracy or rebelling against it, the greater the religions emphasis on discipline as a virtue the stronger it is at rebelling against democracy. Another measure would be the emphasis a religion places on conversion over peace.[Maya] 14:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


"The Muslim world is a term given to the world-wide community of those who adhere to the religion of Islam. " Well they are Muslims or the Muslim community.... Just to enforce the contradiction there is map of "Nations with a Muslim majority"... Oh yes, there's no article about a "Christian world" Ericd 21:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • For whatever it may be worth (I make no claims), there is an article on Christendom. -- 19:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Muslim vs Muslem[edit]

What is the difference (is there a difference?)? Both are used. Masa 03:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


".. South West Asia have the potential to create new clusters of tiger economies of 1st century." Should this be "tiger economies of the 21st Century"? Masa 03:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is Malaysia included as a country with a strong current of secularism? 00:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Nations with a Muslim majority appear in green, while nations that are at least 50% Muslim appear yellow. Huh?? This quote is from the map showing Muslim distribution in Africa. And I always thought 50% + was BY DEFINITION a majority. (snide remarks omitted)


"Nations with a Muslim majority appear in green, while nations that are at least 50% Muslim appear yellow."

Forgive me, but doesn't majority mean more than 50%?

-) these countries have around 50% of Muslins but who knows ?. Félix Houphouët-Boigny once said "Ivory Coast has 50% of Christians 50% of Muslims and 100% of animists". Ericd 19
32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


Does anyone else think it's a bit misleading to have the image show only nations that are near 50% Islamic (yellow) and "majority Islamic" (which to my mind could include 51%) (green), and all other nations in grey? This would seem to underrepresent how widespread Islam is throughout the world, as I'm sure there are many nations with Muslim populations amounting to anywhere between 0 and 50% of the population. I'd say a map with more than three visible gradations would be more informative, but I don't know how to make such a map myself. Kasreyn 01:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with Albania being excluded from the image, after all the country has 70% Muslim population. Bosnia is included which has 40-something % Muslim population. Why should Albania then be excluded?This should be changed. (Honesty 03:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC))


Why is Nigeria not in green? It is a majority muslim country. More than 50% at least! 11:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually it isn't. There is dispute as to the exact population as some feel that the official censuses are distorted for political reasons. That being said, even according to the census, Muslims are not regarded as an absolute majority of the population. Doc Meroe 18:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Muslim countries[edit]

The section Muslim_world#Muslim-majority_countries is a good start. However, I plan to put this in a table format, which includes the following:

  • Name of country
  • Flag
  • State religion (if any)
  • Population
  • Capital

Is there anything mroe or less any one would like to see?Bless sins (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"Muslim majority"[edit]

The notion that "50% Muslims" is in any way relevant to which countries are part of the Muslim world doesn't appear to be in any way substantiated. I think it is mistaken. Islam isn't by its nature democratic. Muslim countries are countries where Muslims rule, regardless of whether they are in the majority. Thus, Al-Andalus was part of the Muslim world from the day of its conquest, regardless of a Christian majority, and it reverted back to Christendom on the day of its re-conquest, regardless of a Muslim majority. This isn't about a majority vote. --dab (𒁳) 11:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]

Why is Bosnia labeled as a Muslim majority country (in the map) when Muslims do not make up 50%+ of the population? Their numbers lie somewhere in the 40s.. which is not a "majority". --BignBad (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Muslim world[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Muslim world's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Saliba-1994":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 11:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


The article posted deals with the issues of demographics for a couple of lines, then goes on to discuss" jurisprudential matters.

"Muslims in any Muslim country or society are divided on whether they are Arabs or non-Arabs. " <<< If this is the case this should be sourced, is this a cultural development, official govt policy etc. It is also a very loaded statement with all that it implies, as the article goes on to say "This practice of segregation of Arabs and non-Arab Muslims is practised everywhere in Muslim world." Such segregation is unheard off and factually incorrect...

The rest of the article is also absurd since the very sources that it cities also claim there are a variety of interpretations, one of which is that ethnicity need not be one of the criteria for marriage.

To bring this article with other religious based articles, this is what demographics section should contain:

>Size >Sunni/Shia populations >Countries >Languages >Youthful population or lack off >Population growth

I suggest that this remain:

"One fifth of the world population share Islam as an ethical tradition. Muslims are the majority in 57 countries, they speak about 60 languages and come from diverse ethnic backgrounds. Estimates conclude that the number of Muslims in the world ranges between 1.3 - 1.8 billion, with the most accepted figure being around 1.6 billion. "

With the other figures with time being slowly filled

--Elbasan101 (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Did I do something wrong here?[edit]

My edit removing the uncited comment that "more than half of the Muslim population of the world including those from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia and some from Central Asia(Afghanistan) are descendants of Hindu converts. Almost all of them were converted (spanning over a millenium) by heavy preaching and services and not by force." was reverted. Was there a reason for this? --Czop10 (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There is already a citation required tag with the comment in question and the citation tag is dated August 2010. In general we at Wikipedia give some time for original editor(or anybody else) of the comment to add reference. This some time at some times run to months. Meanwhile reader of article due to citation tag knows that this info is not a solid one and this new citation tag is good one as it shows dotted line under whole comment in question. So its better to wait and watch and then act. Any way if you start removing un-cited comments from article I think great portion of Wikipedia will simply be deleted. ;) --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 02:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
OK. --Czop10 (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I have added references to the paragraph in question. Your insistence to remove it propelled me to search for references and there were many. I hav slightly reworded the para and added a sentence to it. Hope now you will find it acceptable to the article. :) --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 03:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Although your references might source the statement you added (but why add some many references when noboddy has denied it? ;) ) : "Most of the Muslim population in these regions is of local origin with undetectable or minor to obvious levels of gene flow from outside, primarily from Iran and Central Asia, rather than directly from the Arabian Peninsula". They do not source the following statement: "More than half of the Muslim population of the world including those from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia and some from Central Asia(Afghanistan) are descendants of local (Hindu, Buddhist & animist) converts. Almost all of them were converted (spanning over a millenium) by heavy preaching and services and not by force.".--Chrono1084 (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The references I provided deal both previous and new sentence, I just placed them at end of para. Regarding your aprehension that They do not source the first sentence, I can only say that its not cut n paste form any source but its is the jist of detail found in source. I'll be repositioning references to explicitly identify them with the sentences which they point to more prominently (both sentences and sources regaring them are intertwined). --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 04:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, please reposition them and indicate in the article the exact page(s) where the info can be found in the pdf documents. Also please choose more carefully your sources: there's been one dead link, one blog, one Factoidz article written by a student and an islamproject source which didn't support any of the claims.--Chrono1084 (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
"Islam Project: article syas:
In South India and Sri Lanka, traders and Sufis, or mystical followers of Islam, spread Islam and carried it to Southeast Asia by 1300 CE. Over the next two centuries in today’s Indonesia—the Spice Islands—Islam spread from Malaysia to Sumatra and reached the Moluccas in eastern Indonesia. Entering a land where Buddhism, Hinduism and traditional faiths of the island people existed, it took several centuries before practice of Islam became established as it was practiced in other Muslim lands. In Central Asia, Islam gradually spread to the original homelands of the Turks and Mongols, until it was the main religion of nearly all Turkic-speaking peoples. Islam spread into Xinjiang, the western part of China, where it was tolerated by the Chinese empire. Much earlier, in the 8th and 9th centuries, a group of ethnic Chinese Han had accepted Islam. These groups continue to practice Islam today. Islam spread to China through the seaports such as Guanzhou, where the earliest Chinese masjid exists.
Sources, which it quotes:
Richard W. Bulliet, Conversion to Islam in the Medieval Period: An Essay in Quantitative History (Harvard University Press, 1979) [The dates marked with an *asterisk are derived from this study]
Khalid Y. Blankinship, "Politics, Law and the Military," in S. L. Douglass, ed., World Eras: Rise and Spread of Islam, 622-1500 (Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group, Inc., 2002), pp. 230-232.
Marshall G. S. Hodgson, The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization, Vols. 1 & 2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974)
Francis Robinson, ed. Atlas of the Islamic World Since 1500 (New York: Facts on File, Inc, 1982.
I think it clearly says that how Islam grew in thse areas. About Factoidz article written by a student, I can't see the student angle.
--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 02:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Like I said, what the Islam Project article quotation says is much different than : "More than half of the Muslim population of the world including those from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia and some from Central Asia(Afghanistan) are descendants of local (Hindu, Buddhist & animist) converts. Almost all of them were converted (spanning over a millenium) by heavy preaching and services and not by force." You'll see that Drona Negi is a student if you click on his name at the top of the article. Don't forget to put the page(s) for the pdf documents so that they can be verifiable.--Chrono1084 (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
See Forced_conversion#Practice. Also in at least one country, it is illegal to leave Islam. This supports my original statement that they were probably born into Islam. Just my two cents. --Czop10 (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The sub-section of article which you are talking about is marked as disputed and non-NPOV. If you are refering especially to Islam related portions of South Asia (which you are obviously pointing to) of the sub-section then apart from two links (one related to Tipu Sultan & other to Moplah riots) all other links sort of point to nowhere and the link for Tipu also is pointing to an excerpt from which nothing can be deduced clearly because the book is not navigable).
--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 02:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Eleven days later, there's still no page(s) indicated. I've read both sources and I found nowhere something equal in meaning to the two controversial sentences, so I'll delete them both.--Chrono1084 (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Islamic Gunpowder Empires[edit]

Islamic Gunpowder Empires is a very considered topic studied by modern scholars and authors.DFGH6789 (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Number of Muslims worldwide[edit]

The article gives two contradictory numbers for the worldwide Muslim population in the first three paragraphs. The absolute number given is outside of the range in the second reference. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The title Muslim world is totally inappropriate and does not fit with the content[edit]

This title is inappropriate for many reasons. The first reason is that there are so many differnet religions in Lebanon/Syria/Iraq/Jordan/Eygpt. Those people are not necessarily muslims and they contribute to the history (good or bad) of the region so it will not be fair for them of the title stay as it is.

The second thing is that There are so many things that I do not think fit well in this article. For example, what does the "Syrian occupation of Lebanon " with muslim world. Hafez Alasam, the presendet of Syria at the time of occupation, was a communist and Syria at that time had secular constitution so how does that make this article fit with the muslim world? Obviously whoever wrote put this particular point knows very little about the important issues of modern history of the region. Lebanon is also another example. This country can never be considered a muslim country because of the pupulation/geverment structure. So again categorize everything to the history of Lebanon in this article is again a mistake. I do not see any article titled: the Christian world or the Jewish World or even the Hindo world. I do not think that the title fits at all with the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


Some of the refs are "incomplete". For example:

  • Tonna (1990), pp.182-197
  • Grabar, O. (2006) p.87
  • Ettinghausen (2003), p.87[clarification needed]
  • Mason (1995) p. misc

What are these? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

These have been updated, and they are all available online. Ettinghausen was not needed. -Aquib (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Muslim majority countries map is incorrect[edit]

Eritrea is majority christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Population Figures Need Updating to 2011/2012[edit]

Population figures from the Pew Survey are Approx. 3 years old not to mention it was done over a period of 3 years (in 2006) making it another ~3 years older considering the Muslim Population is growing at a rate of 1.84% an year (Carnegie Endowment for Peace) that would mean the figures from the Pew Survey are off approx. 11.30% maybe this should be used instead:

          -Anonymous  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC) 

File:BaburCruise1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


An image used in this article, File:BaburCruise1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Language Use[edit]

"The original concept is derived from a pre-Islamic Persian prototype that probably relied partly on Indian elements.[25]". The word "probably" is used when unsure. An example would be "The cat is probably alive but we won't know till we open the box". If there's enough references to state that Arabic mythology did indeed stem from a Persian prototype that relied in part on Indian elements, then state as such. Guessing isn't done on Wikipedia. Chrissd21 (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Use of English[edit]

With the Indian subcontinent (along with a Muslim minority) and Indonesian populations, English would seem to be a widely used second language, maybe just behind Arabic and maybe just behind Hindi-Urdu, or maybe ahead of it. There seem to be no actual statistics on this, but see which "sort of" alludes to this issue. Student7 (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The condition is the same as in Kenya. Qadeer Nil (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

May contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations ?[edit]

To remove the section tophat, ....

inappropriate or misinterpreted citations[edit]

Please bullet list inappropriate or misinterpreted citations. --J. D. Redding 03:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Most of article is history[edit]

Some of the article is correctly labeled as history. Other parts, "arabesque", for example, describe current architecture. But a lot of the rest is history and belong there: Literature, Technology, etc. Muslim World should describe the world of Muslims today outside of the subsection "History." Student7 (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Population figures[edit]

Starting on 25 Feb 2014, there were various edits to the section "Countries with the largest Muslim populations (2010)" that do not match the cited source (Pew Research). So I changed the numbers back to what they were on 20 Feb 2014. If there is any reason to change them again, please discuss it here on the Talk page. -- (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


Al-Idrisi's map is one of the greatest geographic marvels invented in the Muslim World and his works mention Muslim communities in distant lands.

Expressing the importance of women in the literature of the Muslim World is very important.

Ibn Khaldin's economic theory is still relevent with regards to economics and philosophy.

Chronological errors on literacy and scholarship have to be dealt with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


There are many Muslim majority countries that are secular and many that are not. To spot the differences between them by using pictures is incorrect...the only way differences can be spotted is by using statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Palestine as a nation-state[edit]

Recent edits adding Palestine to and removing it from the State religion section caught my eye. The latest one I saw added it back in with the comment "It's a nation-state." I'm not sure whether Palestine meets the definition of a nation-state as described in that article but, if it does, I'm pretty sure that its mention should not be linked to the Palestine article. That article talks about Palestine as a geographical region, not as a national entity. Perhaps State of Palestine, or Palestinian National Authority, or some other article should be linked -- my guess is the latter, since the article section is about a governmental entity declaring Islam as its state religion. Incidentally, looking at the Palestinian National Covenant article led me to this, The Third Draft Constitution for a Palestinian State: Translation and Commentary, which says "Islam is the official religion in Palestine". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

That was my edit. If you have a better link target, go for it. My point was that Palestine is part of the Muslim world, has its own government, and has Islam as the state religion. --NeilN talk to me 02:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Call to discussion regarding a possible name change[edit]

To those concerned, I stumbled across this page and realised "Muslim world" is the title of the article as a substitute for the word Ummah. I did a search through relavent dictionaries and found the following definitions:

  • Oxford --> "The whole community of Muslims bound together by ties of religion."[1]
  • Reference OED --> "The Islamic community, founded by Muhammad at Medina, comprising individuals bound to one another by religious ties on a tribal model."[2]
  • Collins --> "the Muslim community throughout the world"[3]
  • McMillan --> "all Muslims in the world, considered as a group"[4]
  • Vocabulary(.com) --> "the Muslim community or people, considered to extend from Mauritania to Pakistan"[5]
  • Infoplease --> "the Islamic community"[6]
  • Dictionary(.com) --> "the Islamic community."[7]
  • Mnemonic dict --> "the Muslim community or people, considered to extend from Mauritania to Pakistan"[8]
  • Wiktionary --> "The worldwide Muslim community."[9]
  • WordNet 3.0 --> "the Muslim community or people, considered to extend from Mauritania to Pakistan"[10]
  • Reference(.com) --> "Ummah (أمة) is an Arabic word meaning Community or Nation. It is commonly used to mean either the collective nation of states, or (in the context of pan-Arabism) the whole Arab world. In the context of Islam, the word ummah is used to mean the diaspora or "Community of the Believers" ( ummat al-mu'minin ), and thus the whole Muslim world."[11]

A google ngram search for the use of the terms; "Muslim world", "Ummah", "Muslim community" and "Islamic Community" showed "Ummah" was most cited by books between the periods of 1800 and the year 2000. This is followed by "Muslim community". For results see here[12]

Based on the above the most suitable name for the article would be either "Ummah" or "Muslim community", if the use of an English term is a must. Any thoughts? Mbcap (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the current title. Most English speakers will not search for "Ummah" so that's out and "community" has a sense of smallness that seems at odds with the content of the article. --NeilN talk to me 14:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Muslim world. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Literacy rate[edit]

This edit caught my eye. It added the following material to the Literacy section.

According to Dr. Ibrahim B. Syed Ph. D. (President Islamic Research Foundation International, Inc.),


The average literacy rate for Muslims of the world is around 38 percent and in rural areas in Muslim countries, the illiteracy rate among Muslim women is 93 to 97 per cent. In spite of comparable levels of development the mean rate for literacy for the Muslims is 35 per cent lower than that for the Third World, and 40 percent below the world’s average.[1]

I've reverted the edit because I perceive some problems with it.

  • The source cited is undated
  • The cited source has been on the internet at the linked URL since at least 2004, and since at least 2003 in other locations (See e.g., [13] and [14])
  • As presented in the article, it had WP:DATED problems -- giving the impression that the info is current info.

My guess is that the gist of the information which I've removed is still valid, but that is WP:OR on my part. It would be an improvement to the article to add such information, better supported. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I did a bit more digging and found the following source gives similar numbers. Is there any problem with this source? (And if not, does it validate the original source?). Also once I have you here already, I'd like to ask you what should be done about the fact that the article consistently puts the population at 2.1 Billion, despite the fact that it doesn't seem to be supported by any of the sources given (and in fact it would seem that the sources would be at odds with that number). Yaakovaryeh (talk) 08:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
That is a big improvement in timeliness of sourcing. An assertion in the article along the lines of "In 2015, the International Islamic News Agency reported that nearly 40% of the population of the Muslim world is unable to read or write, basing that figure on reports from the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.[2]
On the 2.1B figure, I have not combed the article for internal contradictions about this or looked for contradictions with other articles, but I would not be surprised to find some if I did look. That is not a good thing but, given edits like this one, it is not uncommon in WP articles. I do see that this source is cited at some points in the article in support of the 2.1B figure but it actually gives the figure of 2,190,154,000 as a projection for the world Muslim population in the year 2030; it gives population figures of 1.1B (1990), 1.3B (2000), 1.6B (2010), 1.9B (2020 projected), 2.2B (2030 projected). The article lead says 1.6B in 2010 (citing that source in support) and it looks to me as if the assertions of the 2.1B figure elsewhere in the article ought to be revised or, if supported by other sources, explained. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Muslim world. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Indonesia-Malaysia Confrontation[edit]

can someone please add the Indonesia-Malaysia Confrontation to the conflicts list? or it doesn't count as one, because it's still in the muslim world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azariq MT (talkcontribs) 11:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Muslim world. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Muslim world. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Syed, Ibrahim B. "Integrate Modern and Islamic Education". Islamic Research Foundation International, Inc. Retrieved 8 December 2015. 
  2. ^ "Narly 40% of Muslim world's population unable read or write". International Islamic News Agency. January 14, 2015.