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
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
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
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
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
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. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, 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.
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
Stats by ethnicity are missing; maybe start with [4] or [5]?
To the recent editor who just reverted, what makes you think that the article I cited was unreliable? It's only deemed as unreliable if I get a warning before I click publish. However, this wasn't the case when I added this article about birth rates of Muslims. ShawarmaFan07 (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of LDas12345, see investigation)[reply]
@ShawarmaFan07 You need to read WP:RS. Wikipedia has rather strict rules for reliable sources. Just finding an Internet page that says something is not enough. Before you continue Wikipedia, it would be good to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies. Jeppiz (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
For any image that depicts the prophet, angel and gods face should be removed because in islam it is very disrespectful to do so because it encourages idolatry, or the worship of physical objects. This is inconsistent with the Muslim faith's monotheism, which teaches that God alone should be worshipped.
whenever i see these i feel disrespected as i myself am muslim and a follower of islam i find it wrong to just see ancient paintings of something and immediatly think its right without background checking it with an actual muslim thank you for reading this and goodbye. Fnafkidfrom2014 (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Islam is oldest religion in the world, please correct it , the first prophet was Adam ( from life start of Human Beings ) and the last was Muhammad:
The first prophet, considered the father of the human race. His story teaches about forgiveness, obedience, and patience.
Muhammad
The last prophet, who received a divine gift of revelation through the angel Gabriel. Both Sunni and Shi'a Muslims believe that no new prophet can arise after Muhammad.
Idris (Enoch), Nuh (Noah), Hud (Heber), Saleh (Methusaleh), Lut (Lot), Ibrahim (Abraham), Ismail (Ishmael), Ishaq (Isaac), Yaqub (Jacob), and Yusuf (Joseph) etc there is more then one lakh messenger from God till the last 117.254.233.106 (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article already states that Muslims believe this. WP is not in the business of stating religious beliefs as facts - regardless of which religion it is. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ! How Can You Just Say That Islam Was Spreading Father Due To The Fertility Rate ? Theres Thousands and Thousands Of Reverts Across Globe And Reverting Rate Was Much Higher. That fertility Fact Was Too Descriminating and Replicating Propaganda Myths . So I Request Someone Who Can Access The Edit Section Of This To Edit The Part . Thanks So Much ItsTrueNow (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the latest study conducted by the Pew Research Center, conversion does not play a significant role in the population growth of religions, including Islam. The study states that the primary factors driving this growth are fertility rates and median ages. The source is included in the demographic section. If you have any new research sources suggesting that Muslim population growth is mainly due to religious conversion, please share them along with the sources. I have reverted your last edit as it was not supported by a source. Durziil89 (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of @William M. Connolley's request, I will make a discussion regarding the "separation from:" parameter and its value within the infobox, I am inviting @Sinclairian and @Jtrevor99 to join the discussion.
First of all, I've been skimming this article and the History of Islam in order to find the information regarding the separation of Islam from ancient Arabian (possibly just Meccan) polytheism, and from this article alone I found no indication or evidence to support this particular information to be kept in the infobox. But I do, in fact find some information regarding the relationship between Muhammad early religious activity and Meccan paganism, but it is still ambiguous and cannot explain the whole idea of Islam being parted from Arabian polytheism.
This is why I insisted on removing the data, until a clear and unequivocal information is given and included in this article alone. I advocated the use of Infobox in any article, but not if the information given by the infobox is misleading or contradictory with the content of the article, I heavily discouraged the policy of adding or keeping unsourced information in the infobox. Mhatopzz (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CITEREF. My objection was to your deletion of references to the Separations section, and the three references it contained which back up the assertions of that section. Meanwhile, the article you deleted the link to, Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia, contains references that back up that assertion. That said, I will have to defer to other editors: I am traveling for the next few weeks for holiday, and Internet connectivity will be questionable starting in an hour or two. Good luck. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I agree with the separations section, but the separated from section does not reflect the article (see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE), the particular claim that Islam is separated from Arabian polytheism is not described at all within the article, and infobox is supposed to be made to summarize the whole article, not to add something up. That is why I said, this particular claim needs a source and mention as well, if not well then remove it, and that's it. Hope everyone understands. Mhatopzz (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just chiming in as a random person but I completely agree there’s no source or anything to back up that Islam is separated from Polythiesm of any kind and it’s an entirely false and made up claim. It’s a completely Abrahamic religion so this must be removed from the infobox and I support your removal. Thanks Rafnator9 (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support its removal. But I do, in fact find some information regarding the relationship between Muhammad early religious activity and Meccan paganism, but it is still ambiguous and cannot explain the whole idea of Islam being parted from Arabian polytheism. With sources that contrast the two faiths, it might come down to what they mean by "separated": (1) some adherents gradually modified elements of the faith until it was a distinct religion? or (2) among the population, Islam appealed to more and more adherents until the population comprised two distinct groups? I think common wisdom says (2) is true. I agree, we'd want some sources that explicity spell out (1), if it's going to be in the infobox. My two cents. signed, Willondon (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abrahamic religions also separate from polytheism. They do not fall from heaven.
That's nonsense, people usually start with believing one god before they started associating with others. And again I'm not talking that we should cite it, I only highlight the problem is the infobox is to summarize the article, and the given information is not in the article, your claim in the comment below proves no evidence, I just reviewed the section and I still found no such information, not even a clear and unequivocal. I believe WP:BLUE are for specific stuff that are crystal clear and universally known, but this is an exclusive infobox, and it should not be stuffed with information not provided in the article. Mhatopzz (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article pretty much states that it originated and separated from Arabic polytheism in the section "Muhammad and the beginning of Islam (570–632)"? You do not need to cite the sky is blue. If Islam does not derive from Arabic polytheism, from what is it deriving? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 04:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do not need to cite the sky is blue. Yes, but we're talking about infobox, and WP:BLUE are definitely not made for specific informations in an infobox, unless such information is found within the article, and your claim proves no evidence. Mhatopzz (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see no objection to remove it as long as it is done for good reasons.
The only scholars who claim that Islam began as a Christian sect are from the Revisionist school of Islamic studies. Evidence for their claims are lacking at best if not outright diametrically to a vast majority of primary and secondary sources. Wang, Shutao. in: The origins of Islam in the Arabian context. MS thesis. The University of Bergen, 2016. explains the issues pretty well on pages 21-23. So, if not from polytheism, where does Islam come from?
Your arguement is that we should simply leave it open because there is no explicit statement. Please note that basic calculations or combining two logical propositions are not Original Research WP:CALC. Likewise, obvious examples do not need to be cited (WP:BLUE). Both Muslim sources as well as Western sources agree that Islam parted from Arabian Paganism by asserting that the Arabs should worship only Allah and not any other deity. I do not see how this claim (separated from Arabic Polytheism) can be wrong except from a religious point of view, which violates neutrality (WP:ABRAHAMICPOV).
If there is good reason to doubt the general consensus that Islam derives from Mecca and that Mecca was predominently polytheistic, I agree with the removal, but if not I object to that. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VenusFeuerFalle, I think it would have merit to supply an inline citation for this particular entry in the infobox. And, I must admit, I am not quite sure that the reasoning here is sufficiently rudimentary as to avoid WP:SYNTH—but to be clear it is just unsurety presently. Moreover, WP:BURDEN seems to apply. Remsense ‥ 论04:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An inline citation would certainly solve the discussion. However, some citation requests cannot be met. Not because they are not true, but because it is not a statement found. The explicit statement that Islam separated from pre-Islamic paganism is surely such a statement. We can find various thesis discussing the Revisionist school of Islamic studies attempting to debunk that origin, but we will hardly find a properly published paper containing this exact statement. Here, I also want to point out to WP:FACTS especially WP:PEDANTRY. WP:CK is also relevant here.
I do not think that "Controversial claims" from the WP:CK guidline applies, as it is not a religious claim, but a historical claim touching upon potential religious sensitivities. Not a clear citation as much, but given that I may errorneously presume that something is common knowledge while it is not; I would like to drop " by Yehuda D. Nevo, Judith Koren Review by: Gabriel Said Reynolds" accessable on Jstor, as an overview of the discussion of Islam's origin.
What I do see as a valid arguement for a removal is that pre-Islamic polytheism also entails monotheistic elements. They did believe in a High God, although in contrast to the monotheist, likely not interfering with human-life. Christian and Hebrew terms are also mentioned in pagan writings, such as "cherubim" (archangels). I would suggest to consider alterantives and improvements first, before we remove it for weak reasons such as "insistence" or "lack of citation", when a citation becomes rather nit-picking. My bold change now was to move from polytheism to paganism, as the latter is broader defined. Alternatively, I could also imagine to insert "Pre-Islamic Arabian beliefs" instead. But removing the origin of Islam in its historical context runs danger to censorship (WP:NOTCENSORED). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VenusFeuerFalle, if there's no statement that can be found in RS, then we can't ourselves make an equivalent statement. That is a very basic distillation of WP:NOR. I respect the work you do a lot, but the argument you're making for your position here is trivially problematic. Remsense ‥ 论21:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see it more as a form of censorship, as I said, I do not see a reason to cite trivial information. But I also have other things to do, as long as there are no blatantly wrong informations added, I can accept, though with disappointment, the removal of a statement which is simply common knowledge. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you take me in complete sincerity when I say I understand your frustration. However, the basic reply that is usually applicable—and I would say especially applicable here—is that just because a statement is trivial to you, does not make it so for others that may be reading. You should already get that, as if it were trivial to everyone there wouldn't be such strong concerns over whether it is being censored. The citation isn't for your own benefit, it's for those who do not necessarily have the acclimation that you do. That is why verifiability is important. Remsense ‥ 论21:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not take it personal or anything, and I do see your point. To be honest, I had doubt about me reverting too, but a second thought and a look through the guidlines, I decided to revert it.
I do not insist on my addition though, but it still leaves a bitter taste. The Islam info-box is now the only one of the Abrahamic Religion which hides its origin. Even Judaism has a claim of its Yahwistic/pagan origin.
More than the removal of content, I am afraid the implications for why such a claim is disputed in the first place may bother me even more. Because it makes no sense on an academic level, but makes heartbreaking sense on a social one. I am afraid that the separation from "paganism" leads some people to the errorneous conclusion that Islam's truest identity is "pagan" (see also the Allah as a lunar deity-hoax). However, the opposite is the case: Separation from a previous belief means always a rejection of it to a certain degree, just as early Christians rejected the Greco-deities, Muhamamd separated because he rejected pre-Islamic polytheism.
It is disheartening to see that people feel pushed to defend themselves as well as how it poisons academic discourse.
Considering the broader context, the inline citation might really be a necessity because the context of the statement is by far not as obvious as I thought it would be. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did some research last night. I only wanted to present results if I had at least a couple sources, since I do not want to engage in cherrypicking or the appearance of such, but barring the chance that I do not return to this, I wanted to at least show the solid attestation I did happen to find:
ʿAẓma, ʿAzīz al- (2014). The emergence of Islam in late antiquity: Allah and his people. Cambridge University Press. pp. 48–49, passim. ISBN978-1-139-41085-4. For the purposes of the present investigation, two registers are of special pertinence. The first is generic. A generic history of a supreme deity, including Allāh, would consider in comparative compass the rise to primacy, eventually to indivisible divine remit, of one among deities emerging from a polytheistic universe to attain exclusive and indivisible divine status, in a movement that was to be recapitulated structurally in the Paleo-Muslim period of Muḥammad and his immediate successors. [...] This was an area that, in the late sixth century, still saw the persistence of a generic polytheism, forming a series of geographical and religious enclaves of Arab polytheism alongside a variety of Christian, Jewish and, possibly, Judaeo-Christian denominations and conceptions, so far of uncertain physiognomy. Both polytheism and ambient monotheisms were equally pertinent to the emergence of Allāh as a monotheistic deity: the former pertinent to the religious transformation of the pagan Arabs, in some ways analogously to the cultic transformations of Israelite religion to Judaism.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In this article it is written that MUHAMMAD SAW is the founder of islam which is not true . Muhammad saw were the last messenger of ALLAH SW. according to Quran & sahih Hadith. 106.215.131.199 (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Blocked sockpuppet of LDas12345, see investigation)
Not done: Wikipedia is not censored. FifthFive (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)