Talk:Demographics of Islam

message: It shows clear light green, but the percentages are 60% muslim, 40% christian. And among the muslims almost half-half sunni-shia [according to the data table provided]. Please someone correct the map. Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.11.104 (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lebanon in the first map

message: The demographic statistics in muslim countries are not as reliable as in USA. I'm from Turkey and I know for sure that muslim ratio is less than 99%. There are two reasons which must be taken into account. First, when a baby is born muslims are assuming that baby is muslim and registering him/her as muslim, changing the religion on paper is a difficult process so nobody cares. Second, since there're no reliable demographics muslims tend to increase the ratio.
In my opinion at least it must be written that these numbers may not reflect reality.
:I think as his/her. According to some statics Muslims make up %92 to %95 of total population, others are %1 Christians and %4 to %5 Atheists. Turkey should be updated. Zaparojdik 17:24 24 March 2007
These numbers are definately made up because they make no sense. The person who made that section didnt have a neutral point of view, and decided to just make up numbers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.71.80 (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics are not correct 

message: How can the U.A.E. not be on this list? Kingturtle 20:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.A.E. ?? 

message: After I copyedited the section on extrapolating the 2005 total for India's Muslims, I started to think that allowing "estimates" and "extrapolations" based on past trends might be a bad idea. The future is not always like the past. Of course, if we allow ONLY census figures as of the date of the census, then the figures won't be comparable, as countries don't always perform censuses on the same schedule. Is there a statistician in the house? We could really use someone with experience working with messy datasets here. Zora 00:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extrapolations, messy datasets 

message: The collection of religious statistics is notoriously biased and inaccurate. Religious groups generally report high numbers for their own adherents and lower ones for other groups. The Journal for the Institute of Muslim Minorities (JIMMA) contains several heated disputes over the population statistics of a number of nations. I've found statistics on the Muslim population of different African nations in an Islamic Encyclopedia, which contained absolutely no reference to a source. It seemed that the author was expressing wishes more than facts.
In the table on Wikipedia there are some obvious questions. Is the table to reflect citizens (and permanent residents) of a nation, or do they include temporary residents, such as foreign military personnel. I know the case of Djibouti personally, and it would be difficult to find the 7,000 non-Muslims in the country, unless one were to count the French and American military personnel. For citizens and permanent residents (including refugees from Ethiopia) the number would be less than even 1,000.
Also in the table Kenya is listed as being 34% Muslim. This is another situation that I know something about. This percentage is often thrown out when the Muslim community in Kenya is making political demands. However, several censuses and surveys have been done in Kenya and this number is simply unsubstantiated. For example, the "Kenya Demographic and Health Survey: 2003"  found 7.6% of the population claim to be Muslim. The other surveys and the official Kenya censuses have always found a similar percentage.
On the Christian side, the percentages that are usually cited can be anywhere between 75-90%. However, more accurate surveys, conducted by Evangelical Christians, have found that approximately 7% of the population goes to an evangelical Protestant church. When one includes Catholics and Independent churches, one would have to estimate that only around 15% of the population attends church on any regular basis. Many more would check 'Christian' on a survey. On the "Kenya Demographic and Health Survey: 2003" nearly 90% of those surveyed 'checked' Christian. —The preceding --Chipmunkmike 15:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the statistics are bias, because we use no common source. We need to use a single source to gather all data, then the statistics would be less bias. These statistics need to be updated, and based from a single source when possible, and not necessarily muslim sources. I think the CIA World Factbook would have more accurate statistics than some of the ones used here. I just recently corrected the U.S. from a exagguration.--Sefringle 03:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thats the problem. There aren't many statistics that meet that requirement. Muslim sources tend to exaggurate muslim statistics, while other sources tend to under report. The CIA World Factbook is, for the most part, considered to be one of the more reliable sets of statistics by most people though. If you diagree, thats your opinion. Either way, we need consistency.--Sefringle 23:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy and bias in the collection of religious demographic statistics 

message: I noticed that most of the intro paragraphs were about the issue of number discrepancies in regard to the Sunni-Shia breakdown.  I moved it into a section of its own, as it seemed to warrant such attention.  I then noticed the given reference for the percentage breakdown, which can be found here.  It's literally just a map; it doesn't appear to have any statistics about the populations.  There was also a reference cited here.  I thought i'd have more luck but that didn't seem to be the case; this site also has maps, in fact it looks like a repository of them.  I know the conversation above discussed the issue of needing a consistent source, which I think is good.  I'm really not feeling the whole maps thing, though.  We should try to find something better for this. MezzoMezzo 00:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of reliable source for discrepancy section

message: Can someone put the shia/sunni percentage split of the middle east as well. Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.227.227 (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to adherents.com the are more Shias live in the world. Please consider this table with regard to population increase. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: While a good faith effort, adherents.com is not a reliable source for statistical/demographic information.  On their own page, they don't even provide the methods under which these statistics were collected or when. MezzoMezzo 18:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The data in the article was taken directly from adherents.com.  Do not insert this again as it is not reliable, and as it is the table should be removed. MezzoMezzo 01:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: While you are correct that the data is not from adherents.com - that was a mistake on my part - where is it from?  An unsourced table here on Wikipedia is not a valid source either; in fact, it's actually even worse than using a website like adherents, as we don't even know where these numbers came from. MezzoMezzo 03:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I feel that if you review the above two Wiki links, you'll understand where i'm coming from a little better. MezzoMezzo 02:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shia/Sunnah % 

message: I want to nominate this article as a Featured list on the basis of the WP:WIAFL. What's your idea.--Seyyed(t-c) 17:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured list

message: This chart says that the total number of Muslims is over 1.4 billion. References need to be given to source these populations (preferably all from one source) If this cant be done I recommend redoing the whole chart..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.185.229 (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, as it is, the chart is calculations by editors taken from outside sources - that looks like a violation of WP:OR to me, I don't think there's any way around it.  It would best be simply replaced with something else. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total Number of Muslims? 

message: Everyone (who is interested) knows that Indonesia has the greatest percentage of world Muslim population but is there any way to learn what percentage of the world's Muslim population resides in other countries?Nicto (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  percentage of world Muslim population 

message: The Sunni to Muslim % for Egypt is correct--Puttyschool (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egypt 

message: I've found a different map of Sunni/Shia distribution. It was featured in the article The Origins of the Shia-Sunni Split published by NPR. Since it slightly differs from the map currently used here on Wikipedia can someone more experienced in the subject go over it and possibly work it into the map here? 24.83.176.171 (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A different map of Sunni/Shia distribution 

message: I don't know why, but these pages on Muslim statistics always downplay the role of conversions to Islam in the overall figures related to its growth worldwide. 
I live in Canada and the majority of Muslims I've met over the past five years were in fact recent converts to the faith. As a convert myself, I can certainly attest to the fact that my religion has never been officially recorded to have changed from Catholic to Muslim. 
I'm left to wonder whether or not religious statistics are ever really reliable. For one, if I do happen to officially list myself as a convert to Islam, will the same process also identify my former religion as Catholic? And will it, therefore, be noted that the Roman Catholic population has also lost an adherent?
Having been raised Catholic in a known Catholic majority country, I can also attest to the fact that a very large portion of those I shared my former Catholic identity with did not actually believe in or practice any religion at all. On the other hand, those of us who choose to convert often practice our new faith quite fervently.
I suppose overall it's very difficult to really gauge religious adherence. The main function of such numbers really is simply to gain a statistical estimate. In any case, I do think those of us who convert should definitely be given more weight and consideration when collecting these statistics. Converts to any religion tend to make up a decent percentage of those who actually integrate a religion fully into their lives, while a large portion of those who are "born" into any religion tend to simply identify themselves by the religion their families raised them in rather than being active practitioners of any specific faith. 
What is the purpose of recording the numbers of those who are given a religious title at birth, whilst ignoring those of us who actually believe in a religion we choose?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZaynaRazia (talk • contribs) 05:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversions... 

message: Is rounding the numbers preferred? -- Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rounding 

message: The data table uses the CIA factbook as a reference to the total USA population and the Muslim percentage of that number. So .6% of 307+ million is 1.8+ million. There are other estimates, some saying the Muslim population is under 2 million to 2.8 million, others estimating the number being from 6 million to more than 9 million. Going by the CIA factbook(which was the reference), the number is just over 1.8 million. Maybe the discrepancies should be noted somewhere. DD2K (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for reverting the IP vandal and correcting my mistake (I must have multiplied with 0.06 instead of 0.006). I noticed the discrepancy as well, I have always heard that Muslims make up 2 percent of the population. But if the CIA source should be considered reliable for anything, it would be US census. CIA is more of an authority than factbook and adherents on the subject of US census. Therefore, I am okay with just leaving as is, but you are welcome to mention the discrepancy in the paragraphs above the chart. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Falastine, you've done a very good job and we appreciate your efforts. I'll leave the discrepancies for others, but I did change the Sunni/Shia USA numbers to reflect the change in the total. DD2K (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Very encouraging feedback to hear. I am not sure where the Sunni/Shia US percentages are from, but I am in the process of looking for verifiable numbers. For most of the list, I had to keep the Sunni/Shia numbers the same. I didn't expect it to be this hard to find such data. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim Population in the United States 

message: Currently the population of Palestine (West Bank and Gaza) and Israel are combined in the chart. Should I list them separately, keep them combined, or combine Gaza and West Back under the name Palestinian territories? -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestine data 

message: A lot of it is uncited, and the numbers are practically caricatures. 100% in four countries? That's ridiculous. You mean to tell me that not a single inhabitant of those four countries is Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, Buddhist, or Hindu? I know for a fact that is incorrect. There was recently a Christian in Afghanistan who was going to be executed by the Karzai regime for being Christian. The link provided for Afghanistan in the article doesn't even work. Here's a more accurate source for a lot of the numbers: http://www.mepc.org/workshops/popstat.asp 71.113.244.168 (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh, the CIA has now changed the links and statistics, now I have to go replace each one. DAMN! As for your "terribly inaccurate" comment, this is something you have to take up with the CIA factboo. For Wikipedia, it is more about verifiability not truth here. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is terribly inaccurate. 

message: http://www.welt.de/politik/article3984811/In-Deutschland-leben-mehr-Muslime-als-erwartet.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.234.125.18 (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New data available for Germany 

message: I think one thing that has to be established is that there are many Muslims who are identified as such but aren't practising or only practise to the extent of certain cultural ceremonies (fasting, marriage, funerals etc.). 
For example in Turkey the majority of Turkish Muslims are not practising. Being Muslim in Turkey is just the default position regardless of practise. However curiously enough despite not following 5 times a day prayers, or Turkish girls not covering up, it seems that fasting is still widely adhered to and Turks who would otherwise drink alcohol, restrain from doing so during the holy month of Ramazan. Also words such as Masallah, Insallah and Kismet are part of the Turkish vernacular so the use of them doesn't indicate the religiosity of the person.  
Therefore I think it has to be said in the article that the figures of Sunni Muslims does not indicate the number of practising Muslims. But just because someone doesn't practise doesn't mean they don't believe in God or don't identify as Muslim. But certainly in Turkey the 99% Muslim figure is definitely not true. 99% of Turkish citizens (100% of ethnic Turks) are of Muslim descent yes, but it in no way indicates how religious the person is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.167.69 (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim Identity VS Practise