Talk:Islam

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

The starting date of Islam needs to be changed to 610AD from CE. Blobbyjones (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. Not everyone uses BC or AD. Simply put, the reason why is because of religious differences. This is also the reason why not everyone uses the same calendar system. There's a reason why CE is used in this case. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 21:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Why would anno Domini nostri Jesu Christi be better for this article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

See MOS:ERA for the guidelines regarding the choice between BC/AD and BCE/CE in an article. Largoplazo (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

There is no source for this claim, or the claim that 'higher fertility' is one of the main contributors to Islam's growth. This statement could be purely anecdotal for all we know.

It should be sourced and verified or it should be removed. Knit G (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

It is sourced, in the body of the article. Per Wiki policies, we do not use references in the introduction for claims that are developed and sourced in the article. Jeppiz (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

Many people have a misconception that Islam is a new religion that was formulated about 1400 years ago, and that Prophet Muhammad was the founder of Islam. However, Islam is not the name of some unique religion presented for the first time by Prophet Muhammad. Prophet Muhammad was not the founder of Islam but he was the last and final messenger of Allah sent to earth. Almighty God revived through him the same genuine faith, which had been conveyed by all His previous Prophets. Therefore, the info box should be changed from Muhammad to Allah, and from 610 C.E. to the birth of Adam in Islam KneeHallHawk (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Sigh, this yet again. See archives - this has been asked countless times. Wikipedia reports what reliable scholarly sources state, not what religious belief does. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry about that. KneeHallHawk (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

No worries! And, I apologize: I didn't intend to sound hostile, but upon a reread, I think I did sound that way. While we can't state any religious belief as fact (and that's true regardless of the religion), we CAN state what religious adherents believe. Hopefully, this article makes clear both the scholarly consensus and the religious belief. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I hold no grudges against you and I am glad we can agree on what should be written in these articles. KneeHallHawk (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Change "Founder" to 'Last Prophet' Reason: calling Muhammad the "Founder" of Islam is an personal Attack on Islam. ~2026-85631-6 (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

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)

 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)

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: ): " 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)