Islam is a
former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check
the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
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.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
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.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Theology 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.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects 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.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality articles
It needs to be integrated better internally; some sections do not flow properly
Article reviews have pointed out the citations. Primary sources alone are discouraged. And many books cited here only have title and author.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about
Islam. Any such comments
may be removed or
refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about
Islam at the
Reference desk.
This article was reviewed by The Denver Post on April 30, 2007. Comments: "quite impressed"; "looks like something that might have been done by a young graduate student, or assistant professor, or two or three"; "clinical and straightforward, but not boring"; "where important translations of Arabic language or fine religious distinctions are required, Wikipedia acquits itself well." Please
examine the findings. For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see
this page.
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following sources:
Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. (2010), Contemporary Islamic philosophy: Islam, philosophy, modernity, Western philosophy, Jamal-al-Din Afghani, Muhammad Abduh, Muhammad Iqbal, Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic philosophy, Alphascript Publishing{{
citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. (2009), Islam and modernity: Modernity, islam, sociology of religion, Islamism, Arab socialism, liberal movements within Islam, Islamic feminism, Alphascript Publishing{{
citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. (2010), Islamic view of Ishmael: Islam, Ishmael, Abraham, Rasul, God, Adnan, Muhammad, Alphascript Publishing{{
citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Current consensus for article style - Primary sources, particularly scriptures, alone are discouraged. Article is ideally to be in
Summary style but move extra content to its specific article rather than deleting it.
[1] Differences in transliteration can be listed when first introducing the word but then must be consistent throughout the article with the most commonly used form
[2][3] History section should focus on religious history rather than political history of Muslim states Images on Wikipedia are not censored.
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)reply
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)reply
Muhammad (SAW) was not the founder in islam.He was the last prophet in Islam
Mohammad (SAW) was not the the founder of Islam, he was the last prophet in Islam. Before him estimate 1,24,000 prophet was sent to earth to spread beauty of Islam.
2409:40E1:D:2AD:8000:0:0:0 (
talk) 17:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2024
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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)reply
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)reply
I see it now. I've changed the text
boldly. It may be reverted.
You have to define precisely whom you count as a Muslim. For example a recent poll from Iran said that less than 40% of Iranians consider themselves Muslims today, and yet the maps and figures in this article claim that islam is the religion of more than 90% of Iranians. The same can be said about other countries. Muslim demographics articles totally ignore the statistics about atheists, agnostics, apostates, converts to christianity and non-believers of all sorts. They simply count everyone born within a traditionnally Muslim society as Muslim. To be fair, this isn't the way
christianity figures are constructed. The numbers estimated for christianity are those of the estimated actual believers, not people born in Christian cultures. How do you plan to correct this bias ?
Yorik18 (
talk) 21:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Greetings,
You have to define precisely whom you count as a Muslim
We cannot, but it would be great if such definitions would be clarified in such statistics. However, it is rarely done. We can only work with what sources provide us.
The numbers estimated for christianity are those of the estimated actual believers, not people born in Christian cultures
There is a difference between Christianity and Islam in regards of adherence. A Christian is made by baptism and every person is born "sinful" (this is also why a lot of babies were baptized when born and babies unbaptized led to the Catholic limbo-theory). In Islam, a child born from Muslim parents are consdiered Muslims. It does not have to be a conscious choice, you probably do not even have to believe in it. There are some opinions which constitute [[[Apostasy in Islam|Apostasy]], but they are not clearly defined. For some, missing a prayer can lead to Apostasy (I think some Hanbalites hold this position), while others even interprted angels as merely abstract intellects and are still highly esteemed scholars of Islam (such as
ibn Sina). Because of these reasons, Muslim and Christian identity are hardly comparable.
VenusFeuerFalle (
talk) 19:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Picture depicting Prophet Mohammed should be removed
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)reply
"Abrahamic" is more familiar to me, I can say that much.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (
talk) 21:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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.[1] While there are prominent similarities, such as
Creatio ex nihilo[2] 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.[3] 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)reply
^Bakhos, Carol. The Family of Abraham: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Interpretations. Harvard University Press, 2014.
^Burrell, David B., et al., eds. Creation and the God of Abraham. Cambridge University Press, 2010. p. 25-39
^Schubel, Vernon James. "Teaching Islam as an Asian Religion." EDUCATION ABOUT ASIA 10.1 (2005).