Talk:Islam

Bahá'í Faith being considered a separation of Islam is inaccurate.

The Bahá'í Faith is not considered to be a separation of Schism of Islam. Same issue raised in the page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Baháʼí_Faith. "Most religious specialists now see it as an independent religion, with its religious background in Shiʻa Islam analogous to the Jewish context in which Christianity was established." ~2026-16398-71 (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Both claims are correct. It is now an independent religion, but when it started, it separated from Islam. Jeppiz (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

This is not correct, I have replied to you on the other talk page. ~2026-16398-71 (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Addition to seperations

Yarsanism should be added as it is regarded as an independent religion which separated from Islam Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 16:08, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

The situation is more complex in the case of Yarsan, as the religion has pre‑Islamic roots and has gradually incorporated Islamic elements since the eighth century. Rather than representing a separation from Islam, it reflects a long-term process of Islamic influence. Dr. Ivan Kučera (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam

Hello. I have a positive suggestion regarding the subtopic "Criticism of Islam." Please remove it. There are several ambiguities or accusations about Islam. If you study Islam more deeply, these doubts will undoubtedly disappear. Please. ~2026-21870-14 (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

See WP:RNPOV. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

wikipedia is a page of free information and critisism of islam is a very prominent and relevant topic in todays climate and should not be erased. The argument "if you study islam..." could very well be interpreted as 'If you would share the same faith as me you would agree yo remove critisism regarding Islam'. This kind of rethoric should not be condoned on this ~2026-29931-28 (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Removing the picture

Hello, I request that this image of the Prophet Muhammad and the angel Gabriel be removed, as it is not permitted in Islam. This article about Islam violates Islamic law; how can it be about Islam when it contradicts it? This is completely unacceptable, and images of important Islamic figures must be removed as soon as possible. EditorAli21 (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is not censored. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for an explanation of why this will not be removed, and for steps you can take to hide these images for yourself. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a platform that respects everyone, and this issue has nothing to do with censorship; publishing this image is an insult to billions of people, and Islam clearly states that such images are not permitted. As Muslims, we show respect for our important figures by not displaying their images. If you visit any Islamic website, you will never find a single image of any Islamic figure. Non-Muslims should not be the ones handling an article like this; it is akin to giving someone authority over a matter they know nothing about. By not removing this image, you are showing a large portion of Wikipedia’s visitors that the site does not respect people. EditorAli21 (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death and you are suggesting nothing new here. If you do not want to see those pictures, then there is a way for you to disable them for yourself. Also, this is a global site. Anyone is free to edit. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Anyone free to edit??? You literally saying this has been discussed to death and it’s still not changed, At least the faces be covered. EditorAli21 (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Because people do not want to censor pictures, even if you personally do not see it as such. I already told you what your option is if you do not want to see the pictures. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

This article about Islam violates Islamic law; how can it be about Islam when it contradicts it? Wikipedia isn't Islam and isn't bound by Islamic law. The part about "how can it be about Islam when it contradicts it?" doesn't make sense. It's obviously about Islam despite its lack of conformity to Islamic doctrine. Largoplazo (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Respect for people who practice their religion goes without explanation. I am well aware of what Wikipedia is, and one of its goals is education; I mentioned only this article and no other, and I did not refer to Wikipedia as a whole or even to Wikipedia itself. This article “teaches” what Islam is, so how can it teach when it violates the most basic rules? It is like writing an article about mathematics, violating its most basic rules, and then saying: “This is mathematics.” This article needs updating, and the problem is not just the images; rather, some of what it teaches does not correspond to what Islam is. For example, the founder of Islam is Muhammad (peace be upon him), and this is incorrect; Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a messenger. I do not think at all that these images are necessary to understand what Islam is. If they were removed, it would not matter to the learners, and it would satisfy billions of people. EditorAli21 (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Respect for people who practice their religion goes without explanation. Wikipedia has no obligation to conform to every religious doctrine under the sun.

Since the article doesn't purport to be conforming to Islam, it doesn't need to conform to Islam. I can go out with some people and have a ham sandwich and a beer while explaining to them that Islam doesn't allow those things, and that's fine because I'm not claiming to be conforming to Islam.

If it offends you to see it, I understand, but you've already been given one alternative available to you. The other is to avoid Wikipedia. This is a bit like finding a restaurant with some items you'd like to try on its menu but insisting that the restaurant remove all the non-halal items because their presence offends you. That's unreasonable request. Your two legitimate choices are either to stick to the items that are halal or patronize only fully halal restaurants. Largoplazo (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

No one was saying there was an obligation. It's just respect and @EditorAli21 is correct. The images don't provide value in my opinion.

Thanks -- LightningThrower (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I would not reply anymore this conversation got big EditorAli21 (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Finally sorry if I annoyed anyone or disrespected anyone. EditorAli21 (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2026 – Grammar

In the section Main Branches or Denominations, subsection Sunni, change

"Maturidism, founded by Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (853–944 CE), asserts that scripture is not needed for basic ethics and that good and evil can be understood by reason alone,[339] but people rely on revelation, for matters beyond human's comprehension."

to

"Maturidism, founded by Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (853–944 CE), asserts that scripture is not needed for basic ethics and that good and evil can be understood by reason alone,[339] but people rely on revelation for matters beyond human comprehension."

The comma before "for" is erroneous, and "human comprehension" is correct because "human" is functioning as an adjective and not a possessive. Alabaster111 (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done InfernoHues (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Category mistake

Islam isn't an organization, and it wasn't founded in the 7th century. LightningThrower (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

On 7th century, see Talk:Muhammad#Frequently_asked_questions,_please_read_before_posting #6. But I think you have a point on organization, I'll remove it, "610 establishments" is good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:48, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks!

--LightningThrower (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2026 (UTC)