Talk:Islam/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Correct the information

This article is not based on Islam, it contains incorrect information. Please connect with Islamic scholars and update the content. We don't believe that Prophet Muhammad is the founder of Islam; rather, we believe that God Himself brought it to mankind. So, the founder should be God, not Prophet Muhammad. We believe that from Adam to Prophet Muhammad, all prophets came with Islamic revelation, as the meaning of Islam is submission. Please remove the date, and add the beginning of human existence, and the founder is God 117.205.188.113 (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:RNPOV may be of help to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2023

01alam08 (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Muslims in the United States page not found 404 is showing. I am changing the source and redirecting to the page.

Are you referring to, current ref 290?

References

The book is here: [1], nothing relevant on pagenumber given, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Correction

Prophet Muhammad peace and blessings be upon Him is not the founder of Islam. Islam existed centuries before Muhammad was born, Islam began with the beginning of time. 197.239.7.169 (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Addition of Al-Fatiha

Please add Al-Fatiha under the Prayer Section for people to listen and understand its meaning. This is the first and most important chapter of The Quran recited in the beginning of all prayers. LINK TO FILE - [2]https://file.io/v2ABHj9v0dnv Omar sam123 (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The section speaks about the Muslim prayer ritual and has a Wiki-Link to Salah, which explains the use of al-Fatiha during prayer. The main-article in question only touches the surface level on its matters, but allows readers to dive deeper into each related subject by simply following the Wiki-Links. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Islam Origin is Wrong

This topic has already been answered. The discussion has delved into a forum-type debate about religion rather than a discussion of sourcing. Please refrain from commenting further unless it follows the standards of WP:NPOV.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) Hi again, The article does indeed outline the traditional Islamic perspective on prophethood, including the belief in Adam as the first prophet, as per the Quranic narrative. It also delves into the concept of Khatam al-Anbiya (Seal of the Prophets) and highlights significant prophets from Adam to Muhammad. However, Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for sectarian apologetics. Because the written evidence from prior to the 7th century contains no explicit mention of Islam or Muhammad, the article describes the academic narrative of Islam's emergence. Thank you for listening. Zoozoor (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC) Can you please explain why you didn't follow same fof Hinduism there also no explicit mentioned which was written. This is not good instead of doing correction u r arguing with us. Apart from this go check history of Islamic place and history before 7th cc in Srilanka, turkey, jordan, KSA and many other countries there is places with our history even the most famous Masjid Aqsa 2001:8F8:1A61:2723:31BE:C9FB:6B83:77EF (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC) No, Zoozoor is correct. First, you are wrong on Hinduism: the History section clearly states the scholarly view, just like it is stated here, in Christianity, in Judaism, in Buddhism, etc. There is nothing to correct here: this article already covers both the scholarly view, and the traditional/religious view, as it should. As has been clearly explained multiple times already, changing it to only describe the religious view on Islamic origins, ignoring the scholarly view, would not be compatible with Wikipedia’s standards. There is no point in continuing to argue when you have already been told multiple times why both views are expressed. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC) Can you please share reference which scholars is saying giving this date for origin. Tell me what documents and reference need to change this origin date. Because this is not correct one side you are considering Hinduism book reference for date but here in Islam you don't consider reference from our Holy Book. 217.165.17.104 (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC) On referencing holy books on WP, see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. WP:RNPOV may or may not interest you. You may enjoy websites like WikiShia more. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC) There was no Muhammad or Islam prior to the 7th century. To do what you are asking for would be original research which is against Wikipedia's policy. And please refrain from using threatening language against other editors with comments like you will take it to the next level (whatever that means). It is most unhelpful.Tamsier (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC) From which way you are saying this is threat taking to next level mean to higher management or concerns. Don't drag this matter to other way. Here Wikipedia is considering books for Hinduism, Judaism etc but for Islam they don't considered where there is places, books and scholars reference is available. I am just asking what they need to correct this origin date I will gather if i am fail then its mean my point is wrong.2001:8F8:1A61:2723:31BE:C9FB:6B83:77EF (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC) On what basis you're sayiny there was no Islam prior 7th century... please go and search then you will know main problem these days is we don't bother to search and efforts for correct we all are depend on internet where almost information is wrong to be very honest after encountered this wrong information about Islam I have loose trust on Wikipedia and britania 2001:8F8:1A61:2723:31BE:C9FB:6B83:77EF (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC) check below link where they're saying Hazrat Muhammad PBUH was sent to restore Islam and hope u know the meaning of restore mean reestablish something which is existing, brother its not I am muslim saying this its about right or wrong once you study you will understand. Long time back someone told me Budhism was older then all so I correct by giving reference for Judaism n Christian. I have a huge respect for all authors who are bringing details for us its just I am asking to search and right correct date and details. 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 2001:8F8:1A61:2723:31BE:C9FB:6B83:77EF (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC) Unfortunately, you can't use a Wikipedia article to source and another Wikipedia article. It is not allowed by Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy. If you can however provide reliable and verifiable sources independent of Islam that claims that Islam and Muhammad existed prior to the 7th century then I'm sure the community will consider them, and if they meets our guidelines, include them.Tamsier (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC) Tell me where I need to send will do it 2001:8F8:1DB5:443C:D766:FB3:8E4A:B28F (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC) If you have a reliable, scholarly, non-Islamic source that states this, you can provide it here for consideration. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Wow this is not fair and reasonable as you're considering Judaism reference from there books n religion book for Hinduism u r preferring theier hindu refrence but for islam u need references from non islamic 2001:8F8:1DB5:443C:EBB8:8606:C0B9:E6A3 (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC) No, we aren’t. All religious articles require the same standards, as the guidelines we have provided you show. All of them ought to describe both the religious viewpoint and the scholarly one. If you have proof that any of the religious articles fail to describe the scholarly view, you need to provide it here, so it can be addressed. And you also need to be VERY careful accusing editors of malpractice or of “being unfair”. Meanwhile, the requirements we have described still stand. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

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

This topic has already been answered. The discussion has delved into a forum-type debate about religion rather than a discussion of sourcing. Please refrain from commenting further unless it follows the standards of WP:NPOV.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) as a muslim i confirm this, he was the last prophet not founder of islam. founder of islam is Allah. AverageM4A1 (talk) 05:50, 6 May 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)

I'll note that the parameter Classification is, per the template's documentation, intended for "Christianity", "Islam", "Buddhism", etc. when discussing branches, sects or denominations. It's not intended for this. Type is a valid (but undocumented) parameter that might be a better fit, but either way, I'd recommend removing Classification entirely from this and other major religions' Infoboxes per the discussion regarding the same topic on Talk:Christianity. It should only be used for subpages. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Is there an overall discussion going on somewhere? Since I think it might be beneficial to clear up the wrong usage of this template. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Not currently, no. On the template itself would probably be the best place for one, honestly. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

If you were about to start one, feel free to ping me along with other participants in these recent discussions. I want to do my best to provide input as soon as I feel to have the time for participating. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it was taken care of while I was offline for a RL event! Thanks for your interest though. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The term "universal" religion is very subjective. African spirituality, Hinduism, etc are all universal, as they have followers from various parts of the world. Abrahamic religions on the other hand is more objective as per sources as it is specifically about the 3 religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) which derived from Abraham - according to the followers of those religions. Many people know what you mean when you use the term Abrahamic religions. Using universal on the other hand may confuse the general reader.Tamsier (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem with Abrahamic is that it is more or less a term for comparative religion and interreligious discourse, not a strict academic definition (For example, Manichaeism would be included as well, but noone would use the term for it for obvious reasons). Hence, the term Abrahamic is contextual. The term universal religion, on the other hand, is jargon. Of course, this is less known for laymen, but we have the sister project "simple Wikipedia" for "simple langauge". The term universal religion is used for religions applying universal concepts, such as "evil", "objective morality", etc. It has nothing to do with the numbers or distributations of adherences. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

References

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)

It is considered bad in Islam to depict any prophets or God (or other major figures) that you do not know what they look like. 2600:1700:81D8:16A0:54AB:4E67:9E6:1B2D (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not an Islamic encyclopedia, and the prohibitions of Islam have no influence on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, both WP:NPOV and WP:IMGCONTENT make clear Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view and allows encyclopedic images even when shocking to some. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2024

Dear Author, I respect your conditions and rules.I am also an author who writes religious, scientific text explanaition. When I am writting this leeter to you this is wednesday, May29, 2024. I request you to permite me to revise this texts and insert some more reliable sources.

yours carefully, yours sincerely, UnkownReader543 (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments on Islam

1. Islam is not Abrahamic but independent Arabian religion founded by muhammad it is influenced and have elements of Judaism Zoroastrianism Christianity and arabian paganism. 2404:3100:140B:F41F:6BF8:C0CD:F09B:84A9 (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
2. It is mohammedanism because it was founded by muhammad every monotheistic religion is founded by a founder and known with it's name for example Zoroastrianism Baha'i babism many more and islam word it self means peace which submission word it will make every body muslim because all religions submit to God so it make nonsense muhammad itself was first muslim not adam 2404:3100:140B:F41F:6BF8:C0CD:F09B:84A9 (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
3. Islam came from arabian polytheism muhammad parents were polytheistic 2404:3100:140B:F41F:6BF8:C0CD:F09B:84A9 (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Please use reliable sources to propose clear, specific changes to specific sections of the article. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Ibadis and Zahiris

On the sections regarding Islamic schools of thought (madhdabs), it mentions the major Sunni and Shia schools of thought. However, I (and probably many others) would like it if Ibadis and Zahiris could be mentioned in this section. Ibadis are very numerous in Oman and have minority groups in Djerba, Tunisia, and Mzab, Algeria, and many more. It emerged in the First Fitna, being one of the oldest madhdabs in Islamic History. Zahiris are also very influential and many contemporary Islamic scholars recognize then. They are known to be strictly adherent to the Quran and Hadith, and they reject qiyas and contemporary ijma Habibullah Mohammad Khan Abdul-Siddiq Gondal Sameer (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Seperated?

Why you think islam was seperated from arabian polytheism? Islam wasn't based on arabian polytheism, they are entirely different from theology and society 114.124.243.222 (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

“Separated from” does not mean “based upon”, “descended from” or “related to”. It means just what it says: separated from. Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Oldest islam According to Total Messenger 124,000 and Messenger lives year and minimum gaps between Messenger 100 years

Oldest islam According to Total Messenger 124,000 and Messenger lives year and minimum gaps between Messenger 100 years 1,24,000×50=6,200,000=6.2 million 1,24000×100=12,400,000=12.4 million 1,24,000×150=18,600,000=18.6 million Muslim Messagenger × Messagenger age 50,100,150= Total years Ek Messagenger ka phasla 100 year Gaps. 1 Messagenger ka jindegi lagbhag 100 year 124,000×(50×100)=620000000 =62 million 124000×(100×100)=1240000000 Cardinal: 1240000000 can be written as One billion, two hundred forty million.

old Muslim Religion. 2409:40E6:7:6889:8CA6:5CFF:FEB0:3047 (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Total Messenger is not a reliable source. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2024

1,24,000×50=6,200,000=6.2 million 1,24000×100=12,400,000=12.4 million 1,24,000×150=18,600,000=18.6 million Muslim Messagenger × Messagenger age 50,100,150= Total years Ek Messagenger ka phasla 100 year Gaps. 1 Messagenger ka jindegi lagbhag 100 year 124,000×(50×100)=620000000 =62 million 124000×(100×100)=1240000000 Cardinal: 1240000000 can be written as One billion, two hundred forty million. old Muslim Religion. 2409:40E6:7:6889:8CA6:5CFF:FEB0:3047 (talk) 00:59, 21 June 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. Jamedeus (talk) 01:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The Population exceeded 2 Billion in 2023

Should be updated. Lastbattleofray (talk) 12:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Please update the whole article, not just the infobox. Importantly, you've deleted a reference that's in use later in the article, leaving the article with an undefined reference and conflicting information. The Infobox says that there are 2 billion adherents, and the prose says there are 1.9 billion. I've reverted your change to fix the referencing error, but when you take another run at it you'll see that there are many different sources that will need to be updated or changed. See also Muslim world#Demographics. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Criticism

Should there be a couple sentences summarising Violence in the Quran and the POVs? without entering into the politics at all. Sorry if this is polemical but I do think it's due Kowal2701 (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Greetings,

Since the linked article seems to have various issues, I cannot recommand to write a summary of its keypoints here. I do think that the core of the message is adressed in the article already: "Other criticisms center on the treatment of individuals within modern Muslim-majority countries, including issues related to human rights, particularly in relation to the application of Islamic law", is a quote from the criticism section. Violent verses of the Quran and the question how to reconcile them as laws with human-rights, is adressed here. Since the article focuses on Islam as a whole and not just urgent or contemporary issues, I would not expand on it any further for now. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Preparing to prayer

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

This Article/Page is Discriminatory

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

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

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

Vandalism on line 27

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

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

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

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

Out of Scope last section.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for belief systems:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2024

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

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

Flow of page and leaning

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

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

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

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

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