# Talk:Islam

Hi Ive Made an edit on islam's Adherents growing primarily due to Fertility rate while theres significant amount of People are converting to islam too in huge amounts . Ive submitted Reliable , credible sources , cited with proofs while still why its being removed ? This isnt seems like going as per WP:NPOV . Ive submitted sources based on WP:WEIGHT too . ItsTrueNow (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The source you provide discusses Muslims in the United Kingdom and some Western countries such as Australia and the United States. However, it does not state that conversion to Islam plays a major role in the global Muslim population growth. The Pew Research source already provides a global overview. However, it does not indicate that conversion to Islam is a primary driver of Muslim population growth worldwide.
The Pew Research source provides a comprehensive global overview, including both religious conversion and religious disaffiliation. It clarifies that net gains through religious conversion do not play a significant role in the global growth of the Muslim population.
Even in Western countries, while there are increasing numbers of converts to Islam, the source highlights that some individuals born into Muslim families leave the faith. For example, in the United States, about 20% of American Muslims are converts, but 23% of those raised as Muslims now identify as non-Muslim. This indicates that religious conversion does not contribute to population growth among Muslims in the U.S.. Similarly, in Europe, Pew Research finds that when taking both converts to Islam and those leaving the religion into account, the result is a small net negative change through religious conversion.
The introduction should focus on Islam as a global religion, however, the source you provided discusses only a handful of Western countries, where Muslims make up a very small minority compared to the global Muslim population. So any analysis based solely on these countries does not provide a complete picture of Muslim population growth worldwide. Durziil89 (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed feedback! I agree the lead needs global focus per WP:LEAD, but the current version imply8ng fertility alone drives growth overlooks a significant trend-conversions-per WP:NPOV. My edit didn't claim conversions are 'major driver' of global muslim population but a significant amount in modern contexts, which sources as 5k yearly in UK(Faith Matters), 20% of US muslims(Pew Research), etc Supports. The Point abouy net growth(converts in vs out) from pew is valid but misaligned with my claim. I'm highlighting the inflow of converts embracing Islam now the net population change. Disaffiliation is a seperate phenomenon like emigration vs immigration. Pew notes 100,000 annual U.S. conversions to Islam-huge, even if offset by 23% leaving. US,UK,France,Australia spans three continents which reflexts the western modern trend enough for a summary mention as per WP:SUMMARY, not an exhaustive list . I hope you get it Thanks ItsTrueNow (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Incorrect. The source clearly states that the main reason for the global increase in the number of Muslims (and by the way, this is also true for other religions like Christianity and Hinduism) is high fertility and the youth demographic. Only among the religiously unaffiliated does religious conversion play a role in population growth (and this group has lower fertility compared to other religions).
You are also completely ignoring the number of people leaving religion. For example, in the United States, the percentage of those who were raised as Muslims but no longer identify as Muslim is slightly higher than the percentage of those who were raised in another religion and now identify as Muslim—resulting in a negative net gain. Therefore, the claim that conversion plays a role in population growth among Muslims in the U.S. is incorrect.
This may also be true in other Western countries. For instance, according to INSEE, 20% of those raised as Muslims in France no longer identify as Muslim today. Most of them now identify as religiously unaffiliated, and a smaller portion identify with another religion, mainly Christianity.
When discussing religious conversion, we must also talk about conversion away from the religion, in order to accurately assess whether conversion plays a role. You are trying to impose a viewpoint that is not supported by sources.
No one denies the increase in conversions to Islam in the Western world—this is a fact, especially among women. But the question is: does it play a role comparable to fertility or age distribution? According to sources, the answer is no. This is in contrast to the religiously unaffiliated group, where conversion plays a major role in their population increase. That's the difference. Durziil89 (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Another note – according to Pew, the net gain in conversions to Islam is happening in Africa, not in Europe or North America. (According to the study, the number of people leaving Islam in Europe or North America slightly exceeds the number of those converting to it.)
To me, this reflects a kind of Eurocentrism – the world does not revolve around Europe and the West. Even if we only look at those converting to Islam, the majority come from Africa, not Europe or North America, and by a significant margin.
The focus on the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia definitely leans toward a Eurocentric perspective – Islam is a global religion, and in absolute numbers, conversions to Islam are happening in Africa, not the Western world. Durziil89 (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
thanks For The Response . Im not Saying conversions is the main source or conversion results in islam's growth but the trend thats significant among modern world . Here the point isnt about 'Conversion increases muslims' but 'theres notable proportion of muslims converting globally' per WP:WEIGHT . You're mistaking in understanding this . ItsTrueNow (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
You need to do something other than graft this directly into the lead. The lead is meant to be a balanced summary of the article body. Remsense ‥ 论 01:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Yeah brother it should be a balanced summary but theres no way to minimize it than this . Not mentioning conversions are not bias at the same time . Lead should have the context non-biased too . Lacking certain information in lead is too a fault isnt it ? ItsTrueNow (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
I see you're concerned about minimizing the lead . Let me add a foreshadow in lead in one or two line and i'll add this info with source in demographics sub . Ok ? ItsTrueNow (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
You still have not addressed the issue that, instead of balancing the article by reflecting what sources say, you are seemingly trying to insert your own conclusions, perhaps vaguely related to the sources you're citing, but not what they actually say.
Your sources are a study examining converts in the West, and a report even more narrowly studying converts in the UK. As a baseline, it is totally unacceptable to cite these sources for any statement about converts to Islam generally (or equivalently "in many areas", a totally useless qualifier) as you've done—demographics, their means, motivations etc.
a significant number of individuals are Embracing Islam through reversions, contributing to the growth of muslim population. This trend is increasingly evident across various regions, with people from diverse cultural, social, and ethnic backgrounds choosing to adopt the faith seems to be your own view, based on your own characterizations and extrapolations. These claims would not be verifiable by someone checking the sources you've cited, but you've chosen to put such statements in their mouths anyway, as if they said specifically that conversion to Islam, in many different areas, is significant, increasingly evident, diversified in each of those ways, etc.
Even clearer, not only can a study focusing on the UK not by itself verify any claims being made about other regions, your UK study says explicitly that Ultimately, even at the highest figure suggested for 2010, the number of converts is relatively small compared to the total Muslim population (approximately 4%) and almost insignificant when compared to the total population of the United Kingdom (less than 0.2%)., which directly contradicts your ideas more than anything it says could theoretically support them to begin with.
I'm going to ask that if you want to contribute to this article, you workshop potential additions on the talk page first so others can help you, because it's not productive to come up with things your sources don't say and keep trying to add them. Please read sources first and only write what they actually say, avoiding original research|, as opposed to deciding you want to make a statement first and then trying to find sources that fit (or in this case, ones that seem to explicitly disagree with you.) Remsense ‥ 论 11:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback . The sources i mentioned states 20% of american muslims , 5200 reverts per year,etc spans 4 major countries with variability of 3 continents which contributes tens of thousands across everywhere and 4% of total uk muslim's population , 20% of total us population which is significant by WP:Weight . I say significant which means notable amount even though its not majority . The sources also notes the diversity: women,white british,christian background dominate(faith matters,Cambridge), supporting diverse background. 'Many areas' refer to these documented regions-not every country-per WP:Summary allowance for representative examples. Im not ignoring fertility's primacy , my edit says primarily fertility not claiming conversion drive net growth. I was insisting to note the inflows not the net change as valid per WP:NPOV . Thats why i said i'll refine my edit to demographics to stick closer to sources .
Still if the country's minority view is hindering you or Those countries represent just a minority not world (even though its notable per WP:Weight) i'll collect sources for every countries and i'll provide you those to prove the stance in some days . Thanks for spending time to clarify . ItsTrueNow (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
The issue is as I said before: you need to work from sources and only write what they actually say, not derive your own analysis or work backwards from conclusions you already feel to be true. We will not publish your (or anyone's) original research. To be clear, we will only describe something as significant if sources themselves do—we don't decide ourselves that a certain number is significant or insignificant. To merit inclusion in the article lead, this needs to be a characterization attested in many sources, given how broad this article is and how additions need to be proportionate to what is found across the entire body of reliable sources on a topic.Remsense ‥ 论 04:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Request to remove depictions of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. This page gets a lot of traffic and should present Islam with a similar respect Muslims would. 67.169.184.45 (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCENSORED and Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for explanation why they will not be removed. Jtrevor99 (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi,
In the infobox, as well as in the article body and in one of the referenced sources, it is stated that the year of origin is 610.
However, in the linked Wikidata item Islam (Q432), the value of property inception (P571) is the year 631 (one year before the year of death of Muhammad). There is one reference cited from there, but reading through it, I couldn't find any support for that claim.
I started a discussion in the Wikidata item's talk page, with a suggestion to change the year 631 appearing there to 610. Of course I may have missed something; any opinion, viewpoint or comment would be very welcome.
Thanks! E L Yekutiel (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Actually it says "about 610". I'm guessing from the article it's based on "that's when Gabriel started talking to Muhammad". I wouldn't be surprised if there are other suggestions in sources, but if so, that's for interested editors to find and use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:20, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Cite 14 has a very dubious source for it's basis. Worldhistory.org is not even linked. You would expect a bit more of professionalism in the lede - 1 line from the beginning, no less! Treat this as somewhat of an edit request, there are better sources of information (print or even other better website repositories) for the fastest-growing religion. I'm also not particularly for having any citations in the lede at all, but if you must, find a better justification for it. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång. 182.185.42.137 (talk) 05:06, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree that this is a sub-par source, see for example Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_390#Encyclopedia_of_World_History. I don't think it's spectacularly wrong for that bit of info, "and the teachings of Muhammad.", but it shouldn't be hard to do better. I don't know if that is mentioned/cited in the article body, if so, per WP:LEADCITE it's not needed in the WP:LEAD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)