Talk:Muslims/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Problematic Picture

İ think there is a problem with this picture. This picture is orientalist painting and orientalist paintings are not seen appropriate by Muslims. That's because of they made by one sided foreign point of view. Secondly i think it's not appropriate because nobody live in 1865 and there are Muslims all around world from different cultures (not only Arabic culture). İ think that's why also there is no a picture in other believers page. İt should be deleted because it is offensive. Meambokhe (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

If you personally find it offensive, then that's your problem. Not Wikipedia's, since there's nothing wrong with the image. FDW777 (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

You only focus on my last words or did you read all ? İ live in a Muslim country but you know better it seems... This is not accurate to be in here because it don't represent all Muslims and adding an orientalists painting have no a meaning since nobody live in 1865 and the picture have no a significant contribution for article. That's not my personal opinion. Meambokhe (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

It would be impossible for any one picture to represent all Muslims; nor is there any reason it has to represent present-day Muslims. I don't think your assertion re Orientalist paintings is especially convincing, but do you have some other image you'd like to propose? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the picture anyways. I agree with FDW777 and Willam Connolley TheFirstVicar4 (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

İ think image are not needed because it's about heart that who is believer or not and can't represent all Muslims. But i found this picture is better rather than current one. (i found in other Wikipedia pages) : File:Kaaba mirror edit jj.jpg Caption = "[[Hajj pilgrims are performing the 'tawaf' around the Kaabah.]]" This can be more better image. Meambokhe (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Just for reference, the current picture appears in [1] in 2018. A previous pic was removed in 2017 [2] for reasons similar to yours. Other pix have come and gone.

For myself... I think I'd have no objection to the picture update you propose William M. Connolley (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Meambokhe that the image can be offensive as a representation of all Muslims because all Muslims do not wear such clothing - nor are Arab. However, i think the image is not offensive because it reflects a common aspect of Muslim culture; the clothing, more so the prayer rug, has a cultural influence on nearly all of the Muslim world, and it can be seen as a standard form of Muslim traditionalism, in mosques; religious institutions, clerics etc, including Muslim history regardless of ethnicity. If there is any perception of standard Muslim traditionalism, it would be this image, as is still evident today.

I disagree with the update, because i think that image is cantered around the structure of the Ka'ba rather than the people. In which case, the people in the image also would no less give off an Arab perception. (Also i'm not an Arab just to clarify; my name simply reflects scientist Ibn al-Haytham). AlHazen (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

İt's showing Muslims which are performing their worship in "religious clothes" so you confuse two thing that's not about culture and also there are Muslims from all around the world so it's one of the best picture which we can choose. Btw peoples movements in the orientalist painting have no a meaning and represent worship wrong also. İ didn't understand the part that you said "it's centered around structure of Kaba" because as i said before you can't know who is believer by looking. Perhaps that's also one of the best reason why we shouldn't choose an orientalist painting because it seems like they give peoples a wrong assumption that there is an certain Muslim looking.Meambokhe (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

There is nevertheless a tendency to add images in articles, especialyl if aspired to become good articles. For example, we have a shofar for Satan in the Judaism section, just because it is related to the tradition, blowing into a shofar to symbolically confuse Satan. Therefore, I can not understand how this image could be misleading. We merely could argue about, wether or not their clothes are typically for a Muslim.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

A few years ago we had this image with the caption "Dongxiang Muslim students in China". Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 01:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• I agree, it is odd we should use an Orientalist picture, rather than a picture which actually has significance to or is representative of the religion. I'm not saying it's offensive, it's just a really odd choice, given the history and critique of that movement (which aimed to exoticise the East, and did not necessarily depict things accurately). A more appropriate image would be some common symbolism, such as calligraphy of the word Allah or similar. FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Orientalism is not a movement, it is a field of study. Of course there might be some biases since it developed from Europe, but it does not mean everything they did is a distorted image of Muslims or Muslim culture. And I do not see (as from both Sunni Muslim culture and a student in Orientalism (History, and culture of the Middle East) I can not see anything odd with this picture. We could also add chinese Muslim people, we can add Central Asia Sufi and Shamanism based Muslim identities, we can also add an Arab with a long beared or whatever. But I think it is even more strange to add a certain person, to represent Muslims here, instead of an image, in which Muslims have been depicted as people actually perceived them. And since it is in no way offensive (for example contrary to Muhammad depictions from Dante) I can not detact anything objecable. A Caligraphy is not related to Muslims, to Islam yes, but not to Muslims. And Caligraphies are pretty monolithic if you are not into Arabic language.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC) edit: We also have an image for "Christians". However, they depict how they regarded early Christians. If you find a good image about Muhammad, Ali and Abu Bakr, we could also choose that one.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Orientalism is more than one thing. The article I linked to says "In art history, literature and cultural studies, Orientalism is the imitation or depiction of aspects in the Eastern world". And that's the thing, it is just a Western impression, with all the biases that includes, and the fact that the image used is so obviously Orientalist is an eye sore. Show a photo of pilgrims around the kabaa or something like that, then you'll be sure it's at leats authentic. As for the image in the Christians article, at least it does attempt to show the first followers of the religion, as depicted by European Christians. FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

And what exactly is wrong about the picture, what you think is in odds with European depictions of Muslims during this era, than with a recent photo or the image for Christians, which is also just an attempt to capture the nature imagery?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC) edit: looking at the image again, I think it is prtty good, depicting several states of prayer, lack of shoes, all in one direction. I guess a photo could not capture this important moment of prayer. Even a picture of Kaaba would merely show one specific moment, while the image does much more.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

You misunderstood there is no bad thing in painting (without little details about peoples moving) but the problem is it's place is not here, it's using is problem. When ı first opened the topic ı visited the page at the first time and i found it weird. Because here is a global Wikipedia isn't it ? And basically by putting an orientalist painting which dates back 1865 you speak in the name of Muslims that you are look like that. And yes this can be offensive. Imagine that i draw a painting look like Scottish men with their traditional clothes and added castles everywhere and they are praying (and add that some wrong representation about praying also) and we choose my painting in a global languages page in Christians article for example (Not important how beautiful it's.). What do you think and what a person which don't know anything about Christians think ? Now maybe you can understand what i mean with that example. The problem is this. And btw we can't compare with Christians paintings because their aim was telling peoples the belief, life of Jesus. But there is no such a way in Islam because of they are different religions and have different reasons. Because of that no need to compare and out of the topic. Meambokhe (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

No I can not understand. But I guess I get closer to your point. It is about, what people made this about over people. But I think this is not objectable. When we find a good painting of a Scottish Protestant, with traditional Protestant clothing, performing clearly Protestant acts, made by Turkish artists, I think it is completly fine to add to the Christian article. Just because someone makes a picture of someone else, it is not necessarily offensive, as long as this is a mostly accurate representation. Better than taking images of concrete people, which could lead to more biases. While the image just captures what people thought is the most striking point of the subject.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Read my words again please. İ didn't say religious clothes i just said traditional clothes i gave that as an example. Btw when ı say you or ı, ı am giving example and generalizing also. Islam flourished from Arabia but it came to all humanity and it's universal. These peoples clothes are not religious in the painting. But the image which i added was very universal, all Muslims from different places go to Kaaba and wear religional clothes. İ will not write anymore since i think you assume that orientalist view should accept good by everybody :) although it's already fully subjective, one sided. While choosing such a painting you are supporting stereotypes only. Have a nice day. Meambokhe (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm I will have a look at your suggestion, have overseen this. Just got a notification here and read about the image. Checked it and I like it. It is a very pretty picture. But I am not sure if Muslims performing the Hajj is better than giving a broader (and sterotypicall) image of Muslims, while we see in your suggestion only the backs and most Muslims wearing white cloths. It is a pretty good image though, but I think, the oriental image is better, especially because of the "sterotypes". But I think the image could be part of the article, or in the Article about the Hajj.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC) edit, I see the Hajj already got an image and is a GA article, maybe we can use it elsewhere instead. Sorry, I thought you were talking about objecting the image per se, not to promote your own suggestion.

Muslim population in China?

What are the sources and evidence that there are around 60 to 80 million Muslims in China? Nlivataye (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:REFB You can look here about resources.Meambokhe (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Regions with significant populations

It is wrong to claim that the population of all countries in the infobox are Muslim. For example, approximately 83 million people living in Turkey are reported as all Muslims, and this is absolutely wrong! There are a lot of unbelievers or people of other religions in the country. - Aybeg (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that many such statisitcs are not good for represantation and often just approximating. Do you have better ones? This would be very helpful--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

It would be useful if a map of countries with large or small population of Muslims was put in place of population data. Such as File:Islam percent population in each nation World Map Muslim data by Pew Research.svg - Aybeg (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Demographic part of infobox

Plz change the number of muslims in India from (x) 207,000,000 to (y) 250,000,000-300,000,000. According to Demographic expert the number of muslims is more then the census results as 90 million Muslims we're not included in the census due to some technical problem. Below is the reference. [3] [4] 2409:4065:301:6A3F:DE04:7E8:C545:9EBC (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Both references are speculations about the actual number. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding infobox Demographic part of Pakistan

Plz change the Muslim population of Pakistan in the infobox from (x) 213,095,000 into (y) 200,350,000. According to latest 2017 census of Pakistan, the country population founded to be 207,684,000 , of which around 200,350,000 are Muslims or say 96.47% of the country's population are followers of Islam. Below is the reference. [5], [6] 2409:4065:E87:4AE4:A4BB:35A2:E90C:47E3 (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 07:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding infobox Demography of India

The Muslim population in India is around 213.34 million as of 2020 year which has been estimated by the Pew Research Center. Plz change (x) 207,000,000 into (y) 213,340,000. 2409:4065:E87:4AE4:2A5:F2B3:CA4C:6C7C (talk) 07:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 07:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding India's muslim population

"Estimation varies"

As per as Pew Research Center, it is estimated that 213,340,000 Muslims are living in India as per as 2020 estimation.

Here is the proof - [7]

Recently India's politician experts on Demographics tell that India has around 25 crore (250 million) Muslims as of the year 2021 claim. Here is the proof - [8]

So, given that the credible references mentioned above, It clears the doubt that India's Muslim population as per as (2020-21) estimation lies in the range between 213.34-250 million respectively. Pitush Puttar (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

It looks like that reference is a projection from 2015. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 07:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The contention is not the estimation - it is the fact that it is a projection. It is a predicated figure based on trends and not a report on the size of India's Muslim population. Also you keep mentioning 250 million - which is not in the source. AlHazen (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your edit AlHazen

It is an estimation as of the year 2020-21 by Pew research center and by the Congress MLA. It is not predicted figure but based on their estimation research on the Muslim population growth in India which is more authentic and accurate. Your question - Also you keep mentioning 250 million - which is not in the source ?

It is in the source don't do eye balling. See the source which clearly states - country’s population is over 130 crores and the Muslim population stands at around 25 crores. So there are more than 100 crore non-Muslims in the country.” Here the 25 crore means = 250 million if you convert the crore into million through decimal expansions.

For your kind information I am providing the source again which state the figure 25 crore muslims or say 250 million - [9] Pitush Puttar (talk) 05:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure, why you have created a new section, as this is referring to the same discussion above? Please do not do this in the future.

Firstly, the Pew figures you referred are a projection. If you look under the graph, Pew is using their own future world religion projections report. This is the main source that we use for all projections, like the fact that Islam is the fastest growing religion etc. Pew is referring to this same projection report about India and we do not have actual figures for what the current size of India's Muslim population is.

Secondly, sorry about the 250 million report; i'm not familiar with the use of "crores". However, this is not a reliable source, as it is a statement made by congressmen Arif Masood, and cannot therefore be taken as an accurate figure. AlHazen (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2021

you must right mohamed alih salat wa salam not just mohamed

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2021

hello can you please just add after every name of mohamed alayh salam sitation sala lah alih wa salam and thanks!Bvcx nrde (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Bangladesh Muslim Demography

The Muslim population in Bangladesh as of the year 2011 Census is around 135.4 million. So plz change the (x) 151,900,000 into (y) 135,400,000. Below is the reference 2409:4065:E87:4AE4:2A5:F2B3:CA4C:6C7C (talk) 07:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 07:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2021

Aperson12332 (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Add صلى الله عليه وسلم after the name of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم

 Not done: The translation there is only for his name, not additional accolades — IVORK _Talk 04:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Good sources on the article?

This article doesn't look very good right now. However, its an important article and I want to get it to GA status. What are good sources that can guide this article's development? Here's two I found, but I'd appreciate more:

• Muslims, Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, Routledge
• What Everyone Needs to Know about Islam, Oxford University Press

I also wonder what should be the scope of this article as much of the topic of "Muslims" is either covered by Islam or Muslim world.VR _talk 04:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

11th region in the infobox

I like to add the 11th region in the infobox which is very much needed as we don't have a reliable population number for china. Emailaddressemailaddress (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Numbers of Muslims in China

There seems to be a dispute about the number of Muslims in China.

• Gorder, A. Christian van (2014-05-29). Islam, Peace and Social Justice: A Christian Perspective. ISD LLC. ISBN 978-0-227-90200-4. There are at least 60 million (some estimate as many as 80 million) Muslims in the People's Republic of China.
• "China (Includes Tibet, Hong Kong, Macau)". 2010 Report on International Religious Freedom. U.S. Department of State (Report). 17 November 2010. According to the State Administration for Religious Affairs (SARA), there are more than 21 million Muslims in the country. Independent estimates range as high as 50 million or more. ... The 2000 census reported a total of 20.3 million members of Muslim nationalities, of which again 96 percent belonged to just three groups: Hui 9.8 million, Uighurs 8.4 million, and Kazakhs 1.25 million.
• The Islam in China page cites the following article (I have reformatted it into a citation template):
  Friedrichs, Jörg (2017), "Sino-Muslim relations: the Han, the Hui, and the Uyghurs" (PDF), Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, vol. 37, no. 1, p. 4, According to the 2010 population census, China is home to 23.14 million Muslims, amounting to 1.74 percent of China's population of 1.33 billion.
• The Islam in China page has the following "citation", which an editor copied without attribution into the infobox for this page:
  For China Family Panel Studies 2017 survey results see release #1 (archived) and release #2 (archived). The tables also contain the results of CFPS 2012 (sample 20,035) and Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS) results for 2006, 2008 and 2010 (samples ≈10.000/11,000). Also see, for comparison CFPS 2012 data in Lu 卢, Yunfeng 云峰 (2014). "卢云峰：当代中国宗教状况报告——基于CFPS（2012）调查数据" [Report on Religions in Contemporary China – Based on CFPS (2012) Survey Data] (PDF). World Religious Cultures (1). Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 August 2014. p. 13, reporting the results of the CGSS 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2011, and their average (fifth column of the first table).

I have some problems with the last of these. Many of the links did not work when I tried them. Those that do work cannot be read by online translation tools.
release #1 is a scan of a table written in Chinese, which contains a line with percentages of Muslims. I do not speak Chinese so I do not know what it is meant to show. The percentages are very variable, so clearly the table cannot be a reliable set of data on the percentage of the population of China who are Muslims.

	2006	2008	2010	2012	2014
伊斯兰教 [Muslims]	1.21%	0.68%	2.87%	0.71%	0.45%

-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a newer version of the Report on International Religious Freedom

• "China (Includes Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, and Macau)". 2020 Report on International Religious Freedom (Report). 12 May 2021. According to a February 2017 estimate by the U.S.-based NGO Freedom House, there are ... 21 to 23 million Muslims

-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Social

S 2402:3A80:1959:896C:0:0:0:2 (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Shakeil facey

Rich 96.43.175.116 (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Sources in infobox need to be updated or removed as they are giving error messages

Sources in infobox need to be updated or removed as they are giving error messages Aleena98 (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I sort of understand now. The article has a load of citations defined in the "References" section. In the good (24 November version), the references worked fine. This edit of 18:20, 17 December 2021 deleted {{Reflist|30em|refs=, which caused a problem. By adding a {{Reflist}} at the start of the "References" section, the edit of 05:30, 19 December 2021 caused the reference error messages. By restoring {{Reflist|refs= in the place it was originally, the problem was fixed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

12 January 2022

17 January 2022

Most Muslims are of one of two denominations; Sunni (75–90%) and Shia (12-17%). About 12% of Muslims live in Indonesia, the largest Muslim-majority country; 31% of Muslims live in South Asia, the largest population of Muslims in the world; 20% in the Middle East–North Africa, where it is the dominant religion; and 15% in Sub-Saharan Africa. Muslims are the overwhelming majority in Central Asia, the majority in the Caucasus and widespread in Southeast Asia. India is the country with the largest Muslim population outside Muslim-majority countries. Sizeable Muslim communities are also found in the Americas, China, and Europe. Islam is the fastest-growing major religion in the world.

Most Muslims are of one of two denominations: Sunni (85–90%) or Shia (10–15%). Sunni and Shia differences arose from disagreement over the succession to Muhammad and acquired broader political significance, as well as theological and juridical dimensions. About 12% of Muslims live in Indonesia, the most populous Muslim-majority country; 31% live in South Asia, the largest percentage of Muslims in the world; 20% in the Middle East–North Africa, where it is the dominant religion; and 15% in sub-Saharan Africa. Sizable Muslim communities can also be found in the Americas, China, and Europe. India is the country with the largest Muslim population outside Muslim-majority countries. Islam is the fastest-growing major religion in the world.

References

One of the sources for the Shia figure in the 17 January version says that "Sunni Islam accounts for over 75% of the world's Muslim population", but one of the major changes in the 17 January version is to change the % of Sunnis from 75-90% to 85-90%. This seems like creative use of sources to support a conclusion, rather than using sources properly. I am reverting.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm also not sure it's worth trying to include a generalizing statement about the Sunni-Shia split in the lead - risky business generalizing with this. Might be best left for later explanation, fully contextualised and caveated. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I reverted back to the 12 January version, but have modified the statement about the percentage of Shia to say: Shia (10–20%).^[17][18][19] Of the three sources, two say 10–13% (Britannica and Pew) and one says 10–20% (CIA Factbook).-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Checking a citation to the CIA Fact Book

"Religions". The World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency. Archived from the original on 9 June 2011. Retrieved 25 August 2010. Sunni Islam accounts for over 75% of the world's Muslim population... Shia Islam represents 10–20% of Muslims worldwide...

• The url is a dead link - tq|404 Error The page you requested doesn’t exist.}}
• The archived URL is a 9 June 2011 version, which lists religion by country. It does have world figure, but these say Christians 33.03% (of which Roman Catholics 17.33%, Protestants 5.8%, Orthodox 3.42%, Anglicans 1.23%), Muslims 20.12%, Hindus 13.34%, Buddhists 5.89%, Sikhs 0.39%, Jews 0.23%, other religions 12.61%, non-religious 12.03%, atheists 2.36% (2004 est.) So that is not the real source of the quotation that appears in various Wikipeda pages.
• But the access date was 2010, so let us check a 2010 archived version 27 March 2010 That does have the quotations.

I will fix various Wikipedia pages to have the right archive (i.e. 2010 version not the 2011 version).-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Criticism, persecution, and debates

This category is missing and should be added to every page about religion and philosophy 178.58.195.55 (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Languages in the infobox

This seems illogical. Islam is so widespread that this is definitely not a definitive list of the languages spoken by Muslims (e.g. no Tamazight). It might make sense for a smaller faith with a close-knit community with a distinctive language, but here it is essentially just listing the languages spoken in the countries with muslim populations. Unless someone objects here, I'll be removing this. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Iskandar323: Tamazight is spoken by Imazighen ethnic group. Imazighen population size is at least 50 million and are predominantly Muslims. No one is saying this is a definitive list. The listed languages are the largest languages of the Muslim world. If you want to add more languages please feel free to do so but this list can be so long. At the end of the listed languages, it does says "and languages of the Muslim World" and "etc" to compensate for languages that are not listed. Emailaddressemailaddress (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323 Agreed. As far as i can see, this "languages" section shouldn't be filled in at all because it's not relevant to Muslims or Islam as a whole who as they are a religious group consisting of multiple people and thus languages. The fact that Muslims speak different languages is a given and thus an unnecessary point to be made; i would probably say the same about Christians. It should only say "Arabic" as the liturgical language as that is relevant and exists between all Muslims. Because anyone can be a Muslim, the rest has no purpose in my opinion.AlHazen (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I suggest try asking for change for the Template:Infobox religious group. The infobox clearly says (Languages) so this area is not only for liturgical language but common languages of the religious group. That is how it is used on every major religious group article. Emailaddressemailaddress (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323, AlHazen, Emailaddressemailaddress, I see a consensus of three (including me) to one to limit the number of languages. Please see this edit. Infoboxes need not be exhaustive, and this list was way too long and should only list the big ones. I have no opinion on whether I left the right ones, though it seems fair to me. I also removed some redundant and not so applicable references, including to a UNHCR report on another matter, articles from Brittanica, and a rather odd unlinked article in Norwegian apparently related to Ethnologue, but without proper bibliographical information. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Requesting inputs

Greetings,

Adequate and nuanced overview for even non– Muslim audience is expected out of the articles Muslims and Muslim world. Whether the articles are achieving that purpose adequately? Requesting and expecting proactive participation in providing inputs from non–Muslim audience too along with Muslim users.

Since the article Muslim world is tagged various improvements it can not be submitted to formal review process still I feel the article deserves more inputs for content improvement.

Requesting your visit to the articles

• Muslims and
• Muslim world

and provide your inputs @

• Talk:Muslims/Archive 8#Requesting inputs and
• Talk:Muslim world#Requesting inputs

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Claims about India

According to the article: India is the country with the largest Muslim population outside Muslim-majority countries. The source cited for this is:

• "India invited as 'Guest of Honour' to OIC meet, Sushma Swaraj to attend". @businessline. 23 February 2019. Archived from the original on 16 March 2020. Retrieved 14 February 2020.

This 2019 article says that there were "185 million Muslims in India". But it does not compare the Muslim population of India with other countries, and so does not support the statement it is cited for.

@JazzyBsolarjatt: has added another statement: & it is also the country with the most Muslims in the world. The sources cited for this are:

1. "Islamophobia turning 250 million Indian Muslims into 'persecuted minority'–social critic".. This 2022 article says that India has 250 million Indian Muslims. But it does not compare the Muslim population of India with other countries, and so does not support the statement it is cited for.
2. "Chorus for 'hum do humare do' grows in MP, but over 80 MLAs have more than 3 kids". This 2021 article says that "Now, the country’s population is over 130 crores and the Muslim population stands at around 25 crores. So there are more than 100 crore non-Muslims in the country". But it does not compare the Muslim population of India with other countries, and so does not support the statement it is cited for.
3. "Fudging the population: The missing 90 million Indian Muslims". 26 October 2017. This says that in the 2011 census, India had 172.2 million Muslims. It also says that if the Muslim population of India had grown as much as the population of India, there would have been 262 million Muslims in India, and suggests that "there are at least 90 million Indian Muslims who have not been registered by the Indian authorities." The article does not say that India is the country with the most Muslims in the world.
4. "Mehbooba: BJP wants to destroy country's secularism, says Mehbooba | India News - Times of India". The Times of India. This says that "The country has 20 to 25 crore Muslims along with Christians and other minorities". This 2022 article does not say that India is the country with the most Muslims in the world.
5. "An Enemy of Muslims (And Hindus)". 4 February 2022. This article says that India has 25 crore Muslims. The article does not say that India is the country with the most Muslims in the world.

In short none of this is supported by the citations cited for them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2022

39.40.63.119 (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2022 (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. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 23:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

“Musulman”

This page redirects from “musulman”. Surely it should be in the lead paragraph, as “Muslims, also known as musulmans”… would this not be more useful? “Musulman” is at least as common as “Muslim”, in common usage. LeetToTheBeatMakeItRoar (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

"At least as common"? Um, what? I'm not sure I've encountered the term Musulman in English-- certainly not in anything modern-ish. PepperBeast (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Musulman is not a term seriously used in any contemporary literature. It is an archaic term of the 16th-19th centuries. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree... I think I've seen it at least once or twice in 18th century stuff, but it's certainly not in common usage this century. PepperBeast (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Although it's possible that some confusion may arise due to Romance language still using “musulman” analogues. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Regarding an Unsourced demographic edit

An User name @Ftimasheikh450 have been continuously editing the page without giving adequate references to the changes that she have been made recently multiple times. She has been continuously editing without providing any credible source/reference. Please look after that with immediate effect.

Thank you With regards – Pitush Puttar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitush Puttar (talk • contribs) 19:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Please correct error

Please correct your article about Muslim. I error in the article I mentioned below:- Muslim must give "Shahada" that Muhammad is last prophet of Allah, and "Ahmadiyya" sect is banished from Islam, because they don't give "Shahada" that Muhammad is last prophet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.111.149.149 (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

"Mulsim" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mulsim has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7 § Mulsim until a consensus is reached. Mast303 (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

"Islams" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Islams has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 2 § Islams until a consensus is reached. An anonymous username, not my real name 20:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

2 billion Muslims

change 1.9 billion Iamsmfs1 (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Muslim Population

Can you provide a source that the number of Muslims has exceeded 2 billion people? AlhyarJy (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

As of 2020, it has 1.9 billion adherents, or 24.9% of the global population. According to data from the Pew Research Center, the global Muslim population was estimated to be around 1.8 billion in 2015, and it's projected to reach 2.2 billion by 2030. Some sources indicating that the number reached 2 billion but not reliables, unless someone shares reliable sources * ab. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2023

Please remove flags from infoboxes per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. 112.204.197.139 (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This is a relatively long standing status quo that matches other articles like Christians, so I'd ask that a consensus is developed before that change is made. I'll note that MOS:INFOBOXFLAG specifies that in "human geographic articles" consensus will dictate the use of flags. Bestagon ⬡ 19:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

This is IMO a pretty straightforward ask. "Human geographic articles" are pretty clearly spelled out as spatial divisions of residence - i.e. the examples of "settlements and administrative subdivisions" - and lists of countries where religiously affiliated individuals do not fit these examples. The MOS section begins by plainly stating, "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a 'country', 'nationality' or equivalent field". But since there's objection, I won't implement. --Pinchme123 (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Brought here by discussion at Talk:Christians. I tend to agree with both Pinchme123 and the IP: INFOBOXFLAG seems to identify articles like these as examples where flags are inadvisable (as opposed to articles on spatial bodies like diocese or ecclesiastical provinces, where flags seem permissible). ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I've also noticed, in the "long standing status quo" linked above, the edit summary points to Jews as an example. Which is an extended confirmed protected page where lots of discussion happens, yet the flags were removed months ago without even being noted, much less objected to. --Pinchme123 (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Seeing that example and the general support for removal here, I think we have a minor consensus towards invoking INFOBOXFLAG to remove the flags. I will do so at Christians with reference to this discussion. If additional opposition to such a move arises, we can defer to the status quo of including them and rehash it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Given our discussion, I've removed them here. --Pinchme123 (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2023

Remove Hindustani from info box language section instead add Urdu as it is the national language of Pakistan. Ethnologue ranks Urdu as the tenth most spoken language in the world. Hindustani is not mentioned in that list. In India, Urdu is the first language of about 50% of muslims and second language of many more. In Bangladesh it is spoken in Old Dhaka. Also spoken in Terai region in Nepal. Hindustani is now mostly spoken in bollywood films that too is ending as resurgence of Hindi. 223.123.110.74 (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: I started a discussion below but seems like no one wants to discuss the issue. 223.123.112.73 (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on addition of Urdu in the language section of info box

I like to remove Hindustani from info box language section instead add Urdu as it is the national language of Pakistan. Ethnologue ranks Urdu as the tenth most spoken language in the world. Hindustani is not mentioned in that list. In India, Urdu is the first language of about 50% of muslims and second language of many more. In Bangladesh it is spoken in Old Dhaka. Also spoken in Terai region in Nepal. Hindustani is now mostly spoken in bollywood films that too is ending as resurgence of Hindi. 223.123.110.74 (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems like no one wants to discuss. 223.123.112.129 (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2023

Remove Hindustani from info box language section instead add Urdu as it is the national language of Pakistan. Ethnologue ranks Urdu as the tenth most spoken language in the world. Hindustani is not mentioned in that list. In India, Urdu is the first language of about 50% of muslims and second language of many more. In Bangladesh it is spoken in Old Dhaka. Also spoken in Terai region in Nepal. Hindustani is now mostly spoken in bollywood films that too is ending as resurgence of Hindi. 223.123.112.129 (talk) 07:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. You've been told this before, and simply need to be patient. Please stop using the edit-request feature in this manner. You should also provide a reliable source that says what you really want to say: that more Muslims speak Urdu than Hindi, though that's not really information suitable for the infobox. Xan747 (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Never said anything about Hindi. I only mentioned Hindustani. 223.123.109.240 (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Languages in infobox

This infobox element is of pretty dubious WP:WEIGHT. There is a paucity of reliable sources focusing on this to a significant degree. One source is just about global populations, another analyses languages among Muslims, but at a community level, and another is just about Arabic dialects. More generally, this is a rather unusual and unnatural way to bisect a religion's adherents. It is also relatively duplicative of the already tiresome list of different populations by country, since language use obviously closely reflects the national origins of adherents. In addition, there is no information about languages on the page, making the inclusion of this material in the infobox, which is supposed to be a summary of material on the page, an overreach per MOS:INFOBOX. So doubly flawed. If it were to be binned, it would be no loss to readers. Does anyone disagree? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree (While we're at it, the section above that, listing the Sunni, Shi'a etc shouldn't be called "religions", but something like "denominations" or "branches"). Furius (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Not an unreasonable proposal to me... This particular infobox doesn't seem to say much besides some potentially inaccurate statistics better fit for the body of the article. On a (marginally) related note, the first paragraph in "Demographics" might be better presented as a list. Albertatiran (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The alternative is that all of these infoboxes are just jokes. Hindus has the additional irony of using the subhead "Predominant spoken languages" before rattling off about fifty examples, somewhat exemplifying the Pandora's Box nature of this kind of infobox addition. POV turns "predominant" into everything. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Correctness of the shahada transcription

Hello, I just noticed an issue with the shahada transcription (see here: diff), I am certain that my edit was correct as I checked many other websites and also other Wikipedia and Wiktionary pages to be sure. Other than that, I am not an expert in Latin transcribing Arabic, so I would be happy if anybody can check that transcription for any other errors that may be present. Thanks.

As a Muslim myself, I do not say "illallahu", but "illallah", there is no "u" in the page Shahada either. So I need assistance here, because I do not want to make edits that I am not 1000% certain about. Guherto (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)