This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islam article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	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.
	Islam has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 1, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 11, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 17, 2006 Peer review Reviewed October 20, 2006 Peer review Reviewed November 20, 2006 Peer review Reviewed December 11, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed May 3, 2007 Good article nominee Listed May 22, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted January 9, 2008 Featured article review Kept July 30, 2010 Featured article review Demoted May 20, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed August 28, 2023 Good article nominee Listed This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of November 18, 2006. Current status: Former featured article, current good article

This  level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religion Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Islam Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Middle Ages High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Theology High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Spirituality High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Other talk page banners

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 in one or more external publications. Since these publication(s) 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) Section sizes Section size for Islam (49 sections) Section name Byte count Prose size (words) Header Total Header Total (Top) 9,989 9,989 486 486 Etymology 4,456 4,456 167 167 Articles of faith 765 25,009 21 1,312 God 3,477 3,477 238 238 Angels 3,163 3,163 169 169 Scriptures 4,844 4,844 239 239 Prophets 7,734 7,734 343 343 Resurrection and judgment 3,141 3,141 243 243 Divine predestination 1,885 1,885 59 59 Acts of worship 1,367 18,169 53 946 Declaration of faith 1,878 1,878 87 87 Prayer 2,848 2,848 178 178 Almsgiving 4,042 4,042 160 160 Fasting 1,278 1,278 95 95 Pilgrimage 4,114 4,114 210 210 Other acts of worship 2,642 2,642 163 163 History 404 73,657 0 3,284 Muhammad and the beginning of Islam (570–632) 4,934 4,934 463 463 Early Islamic period (632–750) 9,562 9,562 612 612 Classical era (750–1258) 17,389 17,389 802 802 Pre-modern era (1258 – 18th century) 10,110 10,110 415 415 Modern era (18th–20th centuries) 14,630 14,630 535 535 Contemporary era (20th century–present) 16,628 16,628 457 457 Demographics 27,587 27,587 547 547 Main branches or denominations 142 37,936 0 933 Sunni 6,668 6,668 311 311 Shia 14,192 14,192 374 374 Muhakkima 2,417 2,417 142 142 Other denominations 11,942 11,942 0 0 Non-denominational Muslims 2,575 2,575 106 106 Mysticism 8,729 8,729 374 374 Law and jurisprudence 7,817 7,817 407 407 Society 14 25,819 0 1,403 Religious personages 2,251 2,251 131 131 Governance 5,657 5,657 369 369 Daily and family life 10,064 10,064 500 500 Arts and culture 7,833 7,833 403 403 Islamist movements 2,031 2,031 100 100 Influences on other religions 5,281 5,281 151 151 Criticism 4,399 4,399 246 246 See also 289 289 0 0 References 15 19,759 0 0 Footnotes 30 30 0 0 Quran and hadith 54 54 0 0 Citations 29 29 0 0 Sources 15,120 15,120 0 0 Encyclopedias and dictionaries 4,511 4,511 0 0 Further reading 4,948 4,948 0 0 External links 814 814 0 0 Total 276,689 276,689 10,356 10,356 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 reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future: Stats by ethnicity are missing; maybe start with [4] or [5]?

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the third paragraph of the lead, the word modern should be linked to the article Modernity. ~2026-13182-59 (talk) 07:22, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per MOS:OVERLINK; we don't link everyday words unless doing so would provide any particular extra context to the topic of the article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed in the "Influence on other religions" section, the article states: "Sikhism, founded by Guru Nanak in late 15th century Punjab, primarily incorporates aspects of Islam and Hinduism", citing Graceful Women: Gender and Identity in an American Sikh Community by Constance Waeber Elsberg. I fail to see how this source supports the common trope and misunderstanding that Sikhism is a "mix of Islam and Hinduism", like the article seems to posit, nor does it specify what Islamic aspects Sikhism specifically incorporated. The book itself states the following on the cited page (bolding-emphasis added by me):

"To the extent that Sikhism has received attention in general treatments on world religions, it has typically received brief coverage (Juergensmeyer 1979, 1993). For some time it was treated as a descendant of both Hinduism and Islam, but today the preferred approach among Western academics is to place Sikhism "within the context of fifteenth and sixteenth-century India, especially the milieu of the medieval sants" and to view it as arising primarily within a Hindu milieu while recognizing some Islamic influences (Juergensmeyer 1993, 14; McLeod 1976). This scholarship places Sikhism in the general context of Bhakti religion, which, though it originated earlier, had become popular throughout India by the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Bhakti stresses devotion as the route to God (as opposed, for example, to the paths of knowledge or good works)."

The source cited seems to admonish the outdated belief that Sikhism is a mix of Islam and Hinduism and rather describes the religion as primarily an Indic phenomenon (influenced and a product of the mediaeval-era Indian society experiencing the Sant & Bhakti movements) that has some Islamic influences (although it does not specify what exactly these Islamic influences are). Thus, I believe this article currently mischaracterizes the source or overplays Islam's influence on Sikhism, failing to state what exactly these influences are. It is important to note that Islam is monotheistic whilst Sikhism is panentheistic (although commonly misunderstood as being monotheistic). It may be better to re-word this sentence as follows: "Islam had some influence on the development of Sikhism" or something akin to that.

Sikh studies scholar W. H. McLeod stated: "It is accordingly incorrect to interpret the religion of Guru Nanak as a synthesis of Hindu belief and Islam. It is indeed a synthesis, but one in which Islamic elements are relatively unimportant. The pattern evolved by Guru Nanak is a reworking of the Sant synthesis, one which does not depart far from Sant sources as far as its fundamental components are concerned." (Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion (1968), page 161).

The angle of Sikhism being "syncretic" has also been criticized by James R. Lewis, due to how ambiguous it is (see: [6]): " If one examines survey books (especially textbooks) on world religions and/or general works on Asian religion, one almost invariably finds that Sikhism, if mentioned at all, is usually presented as “a hybrid of two old religions, Islam and Hinduism.” 17 There are, however, some curious variations on the syncretism theme. One finds, for example, that some authors assert that Nanak “stands in a closer relation to Hinduism” 18 . while other authors assert that Nanak “leaned rather more to Islam than to Hinduism.” 19 Similarly, in opposition to writers who explain Sikhism as being “an offshoot of Hinduism”,20 one can discover writers who assert that in Sikhism “there is little doubt that the Muslim source predominates”.21 Still other authors emphasize that Sikhism, because of its syncretic character, “is not in any absolute sense new”,22 an opinion not shared by scholars who stress the originality of Guru Nanak” 23 over Sikhism’s supposed syncretism. And it would probably be possible to find many other such examples of disagreement. Thus Hindu/Muslim syncretism, which many writers on religion appear to regard as an axiomatic and “obvious” category for beginning any analysis of the Sikh religion, turns out to be extremely ambiguous, This peculiar state of affairs leads us to ask deeper kinds of questions about Sikh syncretism, such as, why has this question attracted so much attention? and, what ultimately, is at stake in this issue? ." MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

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