Talk:Islam

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)

Oh, please, there will be even more problems! Considering the fact that the Quran says that the Jews think that Ezra is the son of God!

That's not even true! How will you resolve that? SinplicityOverused598 (talk) 12:16, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Do you want us to guess what you're referring to as "that"? Largoplazo (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

When I said that , i mean what i just said about Ezra being son of Allah SinplicityOverused598 (talk) 12:22, 23 August 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)

Let them have at least a picture but make sure a veil is over Muhammad SinplicityOverused598 (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

As stated above, Wikipedia is not censored. Largoplazo (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Good point, but it's just that (my opinion) the pictures don't really add much to the article.

Just going to quote EditorAli21 on this: "Finally sorry if I annoyed anyone or disrespected anyone."

I might find a picture that is more on topic or explains something better. (Referring to the 15th century Persian miniature.)

Thanks, -- LightningThrower (talk) 03:29, 11 August 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)

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)

Islam founder is not muhammed (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

Islam founder is Allah the one true and only god the founder should be removed out of respect to Muslims if so then christianity founder should be Paul. Have respect and remove it Egyboi (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times already. The answer has not changed. WP goes with what reliable sources say, not religious dogma. Jtrevor99 (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

The historical founder is the prophet Muhammad [PBUH]. Stop using your religious opinions in a historical account.

Also if you are going to say Muhammad is in the Bible then your message is useless... SinplicityOverused598 (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Also Jesus is a historical figure so Jesus is founder of Christianity SinplicityOverused598 (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Edit request

In articles about religions, including Christianity and others, the followers of each branches are specified in the lead with numbers, but strangely, this is not the case in the Islam article, it only has percentages with no numbers to be found. That is a crucial information missing. Please add them in the lead just after the part where it first mentions Sunni and Shia. Use this text: "Sunni and Shia Muslims together constitute nearly the entire global Muslim population, with estimates ranging from approximately 1.7–1.8 billion Sunnis to 285–300 million Shias worldwide."

Here are the sources you going to need for citations. The Pew report provides the figures for Sunnis, while the Harvard University provides the figures for Shias. You can use the other sources too. These are just a few; you can also look for additional sources yourselves. Please just add the vital info as soon as possible. I honestly can't believe it isn't already there...

https://www.pewforum.org/2009/10/07/mapping-the-global-muslim-population/

https://iric.org/world-shia-muslim-population/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331545468_MAPPING_THE_GLOBAL_MUSLIM_POPULATION_A_Report_on_the_Size_and_Distribution_of_the_World's_Muslim_Population_2009

https://shiism.hds.harvard.edu/

https://www.zwemercenter.com/guide/who-are-the-shia-muslims/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2016)573914

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-16047709

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Shii

~2026-37208-19 (talk) 09:29, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

While the WP-lead doesn't state Sunni/Shia in numbers of people, it does say

"The monotheistic religion has an estimated 2 billion worldwide adherents"

and

"The two main Islamic branches are Sunni Islam (87–90%) and Shia Islam (10–13%)."

It's slightly different from the Christianity article lead, which has the number of people but no percentages for the denominations, but it doesn't appear "worse" IMO, and there is no reason these two articles must match in approach on this specific thing (WP:OTHERCONTENT). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I only used the Christianity article as an example. If you look anywhere else in the Islam article, you won’t find any numbers across the article. The actual number is much more important and shows the number of followers much more clearly than percentages does. There’s also no problem with having both the number and the percentage; one doesn’t have to be sacrificed for the other. Having both ultimately benefits the readers. I would appreciate it if you could make the change. It would be beneficial to both the article and the readers. ~2026-37208-19 (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I made this change for now. If someone wants to use other numbers/sources, they can. Afaict, that report didn't give a Sunni-number. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

That is not in the lead tho, please fix it. Placing it in the lead after the part where it first mentions Shia and Sunni creates a connection between the two pieces of information within the same topic. ~2026-37208-19 (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD is meant to be a summary of article content, so I'm not putting that particular detail there. The percent is likely fairly stable, but the number is a bit old and probably outdated. You may want to consider WP:REGISTER and edit yourself. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I just created my account. I’ll fix it soon. Thank you! Er-gg1ab (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Request to Remove/Replace the Depiction of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ

I would like to respectfully request that the image depicting Prophet Muhammad ﷺ receiving the first revelation from the Angel Jibreel (Gabriel) be removed or replaced on the *Islam* article.

The image currently used in the article is a historical Persian miniature from the *Jami' al-Tawarikh*, dated to approximately 1306–1315. While it is historically significant as an example of Islamic art, it depicts Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and the Angel Jibreel عليه السلام in visual form.

For Muslims, visual depictions of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ are a highly sensitive religious matter, and many Muslims consider such depictions religiously impermissible and deeply objectionable. This is particularly significant on an introductory article about Islam, where the image is presented prominently to a broad international audience.

I am not requesting that the historical artwork itself be erased from Wikimedia Commons or from historical scholarship. My request is specifically that the image be removed or replaced on the *Islam* article with a non-figurative alternative that does not visually depict Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.

A suitable alternative could be an image related to Islamic architecture, calligraphy, a Qur'anic manuscript, or another historically relevant subject that can represent Islam without depicting the Prophet ﷺ.

I understand that Wikipedia's editorial decisions are based on its content policies and community consensus, and I am therefore raising this as a good-faith request for discussion.

Thank you for considering this request. ~2026-50110-63 (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

This already has been answered multiple times. It is asked earlier on this page, and multiple times in the archive. The answer is no, for good reason. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Miniatura Maometto

@Jtrevor99 In this discussion Talk:Islam/Archive_31#Angel_section_imagery editors decided to go with a different image of Muhammad and the angel, but I see it's been changed back at some point, I don't think there was another discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I see no issue with changing it back… Jtrevor99 (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Ex-Muslims

Er-gg1ab, the Pew Research source you cited does not actually support the claim that Ex-Muslims are more likely to convert to another religion than to become irreligious. In fact, it says: Most who have left Islam either no longer identify with any religion (i.e., they identify religiously as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular”) or now identify as Christian. This should be either reworded to match with the source or a potentially available newer source should be provided, because the current wording fails verification. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. The claim could result from a misreading of the chart "Most adults raised Muslim are still Muslim today". While the total percentage points in the "Other religions" column (31) is higher than that in the "Religiously unaffiliated" column (20), each country's population is a factor. Yet factoring in each country's population is WP:OR and should be avoided. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I just found that out and removed it. Please search for and find a suitable and reliable source to add. Thank you. Er-gg1ab (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I removed the content as well. If a decent source turns up, it can be reinserted, or whatever the source supports instead. The WP:ONUS is on you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2026 (UTC)