Talk:Islam/Archive 16 - Misplaced Pages

< Talk:Islam

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zora (talk | contribs) at 14:21, 17 September 2005 (Need help on Demographics of Islam article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:21, 17 September 2005 by Zora (talk | contribs) (Need help on Demographics of Islam article)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islam/Archive 16 page.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives of older discussions may be found here:

"Fastest growing"

I don't think that the "fastest growing" claim could be sustained. If you're just talking about rates, and not size, then perhaps Pastafarianism is the fastest growing, since it's come out of nowhere in the past few weeks. It's hard to tell, since in my experience doing fieldwork on religious affiliation in Tonga, believers have an enormous capacity for deluding themselves and their superiors. They'll report as "members" people who might have attended one meeting out of curiousity, as well as refusing to subtract for members who have left. Believers tend to take being "the fastest growing" as proof that they are the divinely ordained TRUE religion, and they'll torture statistics to prove it. Let's report (later, not in the first para) on census estimates, and leave out the superlatives. Zora 06:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

well, Islam is not some hysterical newly founded cult, but has been going steadily for 14 centuries. But you have a point, of course, since many Muslims seem to imagine themselves as in some sort of race against Christianity. dab (ᛏ) 07:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Pastafarianism may be new, but it's not hysterical. Praps I'll start a Zen Pastafarian branch <g>. Zora 07:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I know, I was thinking of Tonga; or is there a sect of Pacific Pastafarianism forming? "fastest growing" of course is supposed to refer to absolute numbers, so I'm afraid the Pasta people cannot compete yet :) dab (ᛏ) 08:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

There are some ignorant people who think that population growth rates or absolute sizes of religions are some sort of divine proof that their religion is the One True religion. This of course overlooks, for example, the fact that for about a millenium the vast majority of people thought that the Earth is flat and though the learned few knew that the Earth must be spherical since ancient times. Higher birth rates are statistically correlated with greater poverty and ignorance. It would come as no surprise then that perhaps Muslims have the highest population growth rate. A Google search will show that a large number of Muslims seems to be convinced that overpopulation in populations that suffer unimaginable poverty and ignorance is some sort of proof of Islam's claims. It probably hasn't occured to them that this global growth is not due to conversions. But I am hard pressed to find a single study showing that Islam really is the fastest growing religion in the world, as is often claimed. If there was an actual reliable source showing what exactly this statistic is and that it is true, then we can include it in the encylopedia. It would not surprise me if the aggregated population growth rate of Muslim countries exceeded the aggregated population growth of non-Muslim countries. But I can't find any proof of it on google, though there are a LOT of people out there claiming that Islam is the "world's faster growing religion." Then again, at one point there were a lot of Muslims claiming that Neil Armstrong has realized that he heard the azan when he went the Moon during the Apollo mission and has now converted to Islam. --Zeno of Elea 11:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

YOur colloration between the Christian belief in a flat earth and population growth rates is rather odd, and seems to serve no point. Flat Earth was an idea built around the premise that the pope is always right, and the bible is always right, and the bible's references to four corners of the earth are literal. There is no religious significance, or importance, or anything really within Islam to spreading fast, or being more populus, the opposite, in fact, is true from a religious prespective. "Islam" never made claim to be destined to the worlds number one religion till after the coming of Jesus, thats Basic Islam 101. That Islam is the fastest growing religion on this earth is simply a statement of fact. What is also a statement of fact is that in places where Islam is not the traditional religion, such as the UK where the Head of State is also the head of the Official religion, there are more Muslims attending Mosque's on Fridays than any other religious grouping attending service, followed then by Catholics and followed only then by CoE. The Neil Armstrong story is an Urban Legend, there are hundreds of them, I recommend going to Snopes to see just how gullable all sectors of society can be to such tosh.--Irishpunktom\ 12:00, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I must say that ZOE statements are based on superiority and ignorance before any science. Anybody reading those comments above would notice that. That is not a language of a wikipedian. This is why:

Can the comments be applied as well to the bible? It is said that it is the most read book in history. So if we apply that insane logic than people who read the bible think that their religion is the One True religion?
High rates of birth are correlated to ignorance and poverty? High rates of birth in Islam have been observed since the birth of Islam and this means when Islam was powerful and spreading knowledge around Europe.
Comments talk about "them"! This is wikipedia and not a your place of cult or your political party office. In wikipidia, there are poeple of every ideology and cult. Cheers and respect -- Svest 18:29, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

The point is that we cannot find any sources supporting the "fastest growing religion in the world" claim. --Zeno of Elea 20:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree about that of course. And Zora got a point. We all agree. What I simply said above is that I cannot agree with your analysis and the way of commenting on the issue. You just said many things instead of simply say that it got no valid argument or source. Cheers -- Svest 21:09, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well, here we go, The CIA I am using as source here, can we agree on that?

Niger - Birth Rate (BR): 48.3 - Muslims Population (MP) - 80%
Uganada - BR: 47.39 - Christian Population (CP): 66% MP: 16%
Afghanistan - BR: 47.02 - MP: 99%
Mali - BR: 46.77 - MP: 90% - CP: 1%
Chad - BR: 45.98 - MP: 51% - CP: 7%
Somalia - BR: 45.62 - MP: 100% Apparently
Angola - BR: 44.64 - CP: 53%
Liberia - BR: 44.22 - CP: 40% - MP: 20%
Dem. Congo - BR: 44.38 - CP: 70% - MP: 10%
Burkina Faso - 44.17 - MP: 50% - CP: 10% --Irishpunktom\ 21:44, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Which CIA web page says "Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world" ? --Zeno of Elea 22:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Why would the CIA create a page for such a claim? You said "It would not surprise me if the aggregated population growth rate of Muslim countries exceeded the aggregated population growth of non-Muslim countries. But I can't find any proof of it on google...", I thought you wanted evidence of aggregate population growth of countries broken down into regious denomiations, which I have provided. --Irishpunktom\ 22:53, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Those are not all the countries in the world, and you have not actually sourced anything. You do not even state the units of measurement. --Zeno of Elea 00:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

As stated previously, the Source is the CIA. Those nations, according to the CIA have the highest Birth Rate on the planet. The Birth Rate is the standard way of measuring Birth Rates, and that is Number of Births per 1000 of the Population. This is all on the CIA Website, I am not making it up. Here is the CIA page for Niger, you will see both the Birth Rate, and the Muslim population at 80%.--Irishpunktom\ 10:40, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

The link you have given deals only with Niger and does not give the Muslim Birth Rate. I don't see anywhere on the CIA website the statement, "Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world." --Zeno of Elea 11:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The point of the link is to show that the CIA stated the figures, not me. Previously you said "It would not surprise me if the aggregated population growth rate of Muslim countries exceeded the aggregated population growth of non-Muslim countries. But I can't find any proof of it on google" - I shown you this to be true on a source significantly more reliable than Google. --Irishpunktom\ 11:28, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that Islam might be the fastest-growing religion in the world. Aside from population growth due to a high birth rate, militant Muslims have murdered millions of Christians and members of other religious groups. Call it what you will; but please do not call it "peaceful". I have read that one of Islam's practical beliefs is: once the Islamic population in a country reaches or surpasses fifty percent, a militant jihad becomes inevitable. This provides another explanation for a high birth rate: it's a necessary military preparation. (Sept.)

The last comment was unsigned by 129.24.95.220. Obviously someone who hasn't heard of the crusades, the Iraq war, etc. Just for fun, I would like the editor to give any historical evidence on the murder of millions of christians, lol, or the source of this practical belief. :) a-n-o-n-y-m 20:07, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that Secret plan for Muslim world domination that only Islamopobic reactionary bigots seem to know about.--Irishpunktom\ 21:02, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

What the hell

What the hell is this link doing there? Apart from being racist and offensive ("A Muslim takeover of Western Europe" no less) it's conclusions arrived at are frankly bizarre. Note how it states "Although the Muslim birth rate today is the world’s second highest (after sub-Saharan Africa)" - What the hell does that mean? What about the Muslims in Sub Saharan Africa, which pool do they belong to? His reference is the UN, but nowhere on the UN's United Nations Population Information Network site can i find any reference to the "Muslim World", nor here at the United Nations Publications Catalogue which leads me to suspect this was a calculation he made by heimself, in which case I'd like to know where the hell it came from, what countries did he include, and which did he ditch?--Irishpunktom\ 20:28, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Albania

According to this article, "The majority of of Albanians are secular / atheist in orientation and most of the remaining Muslim population adheres to a hedonistic sect of Islam based on a Sufi order", yet according to Islam in Albania, "Bektashis were estimated to represent approximately 20% of the country's Muslim population before 1967".. what gives?

As well as that, what makes them so "Hedonistic"? --Irishpunktom\ 14:34, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I discussed this in the most previously archived talk with Zeno_of_Eleo. Apparently they're hedonist because they eat pork, have pre-marital sex etc. Personally, the use of the term in this context seems like irrelevant sniping to me. I also asked about the majority/20% bit but got no response. Ashmoo 23:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I'll remove it. --Irishpunktom\ 10:38, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Conquest of Syria and Jerusalem

An editor named Jbull "corrected" the Islam article to read that the Muslims conquered Syria and Jerusalem in the eleventh century. Um, dude, you're only four centuries off. Both subdued by Umar, the second caliph, in 636 and 637 CE. Sheesh! Zora 18:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I really mangled that. I should have written that the Seljuk Turks conquered Syria in 1076 and Jerusalem in 1077, spurring the Crusades. Thanks for the rv. Jbull 19:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Some text in the Qur'an section removed

Someone, sometime, added some material to the opening para of the Qur'an section. Some of it was merely repeated facts given further along in the section (leading me to believe it might have been a newbie editor, editing before he'd finished reading the article) and one assertion, that currently 9 million Muslims have memorized the whole Qur'an in Arabic, strikes me as probably false and certainly unprovable. So I trimmed away. Nothing was added. Zora 09:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the text should reworded in a more compact method. As for the assertion, I have absolutely no doubt that 9 million Muslims have the entire Qur'an memorized. I know it is quite amazing, but many Imams have this acheievement and that is also regular in many religious circles and madrassas (religious schools) especially among adolescents. I don't doubt the assertion, but once a source is given, I believe it should be readded to the Quran article.-- a-n-o-n-y-m 18:29, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

There are men in Afghanistan who put on shows where people ask for any hadith or surah, and the men recite it .. in a dramatic fashion. Hafiz has always been encouraged in Islam.. always --Irishpunktom\ 18:36, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I reinserted the assertion, but now I have sourced it (with a link), rephrased it, and linked it to the hafiz article. Feel free to adjust it. -- a-n-o-n-y-m 18:59, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I have no doubt that more than 9 million muslims out of 1 billion recite the whole koran w/ no single mistake. Most muslim nations have a course about the Koran that lasts for a few years dedicated to kids. The issue is that nobody can claim that in an encyclopedia. The simple reason is about facts! Who could count those 9 millions?! Why not 10, 25, or only 2? Cheers -- Svest 23:50, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

The new material is just shoveled into the opening para as a breathless torrent of "stuff that makes me feel good as a Muslim". It does not WORK with the rest of the section. As a non-Muslim editor who is trying to remain NPOV, I protest. I am going to rewrite and put the hafiz material into its own section LATER in the article. Zora 21:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Islam and other religions

Can we cut the spin and include some straight facts about Islam and other religions ie the de facto policies of Islamic countries towards other religions. I know it sounds so nice and PC to generalize that Islamic countries are tolerant of other faiths but certainly there is ample evidence on the news wires nearly every day that this may not be an entirely correct assessment.User:Kyodai 05:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Too many changes

There's been so much churn in this article since it was unlocked that things just slip right past me. I check the latest edits and the latest diffs, and don't read the whole article -- which means that I miss all sorts of sub-standard prose.

We fought through the #$%#$@% Islam and other religions section sentence by sentence. I thought it was OK by all; then a few editors started adding stuff at the end -- layered strata of Islam is bloodthirsty, no it isn't, yes it is. No mention on the talk page. I don't know quite when all that was added, and it would be a major project to find out. So I just removed it.

Aside from wishing that the Islamists wouldn't blow up things for the sake of the people and things they blow up, I wish they wouldn't blow up things so that this article can get a rest! After every incident, we get another wave of vandalism and bigotry. Yeah, sure, that'll show those Islamists! I'll go vandalize the Islam article on Misplaced Pages! Zora 05:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually , if we could just arrive at some sort of truth and not spun statement in that sub topic then things would probably settle down as they have in different sections where this has occured. The problem is some editors are dedicated to cleansing this article of anything which reflects badly on the Muslim world and Islam. But the ugly facts keep rising to the surface like a dead body thrown into a swamp a fews days after a murder. That is just the nature of the beast.User:Kyodai 05:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, then. Why not adopt a username and propose a series of trackable edits that you feel would make the article more objective? If you feel so very strongly about the issue, what's the necessity for keeping people from seeing what your edit history is? BrandonYusufToropov 10:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not feel very strongly about the issue at all, it is such a drudgery to try to present information to people who are not willing to look due to their own ideological reasons. I just keep having this issues brought up to my attention through the regular flow of daily newstories that present themselves to me. Then I come to this page and I see a serious misrepresentaion of what is currently taking place around the Islamic world. You cannot deny that there is group of Islamic oriented editors who are dedicated to whitewashing these Islamic pages.--Kyodai 12:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

what is taking place in the "Islamic World" does not mean that what these nations do is a reflection on the religion of Islam no more than Nations with Christian majorities reflect Christianity. Do you really think that the Quran authorised Saddam Hussein to Gas the Kurds? --Irishpunktom\ 14:22, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Irishpunktom, are you suggesting that nothing that occurs in the world can ever have any relation to Islam? --Zeno of Elea 01:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Zeno, are you suggesting that anything bad that happens in the world is due to Islam? I suppose all of a sudden the Vietnam war was somehow caused by Islam? a-n-o-n-y-m 01:49, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I believe that those kind of discussions here have never changed, neither in nature nor in any other aspect. There's no respect, no gentle approach to discuss matters in this area. It seems as if it is a ground 0.

Yes, too many changes of course as in any other article in WP. However, big and nonesense changes are well spotted by all editors, most of the time are agreed or disagreed between the same editors. The problem here, as I hear, are not the changes but the definitions and the expressions used to define those who make those changes. I hear that there are Islamists messing around and blowing up stuff indeed! So do you mean anyone doing so is an extremist, maybe a terrorist?

I expect, as a reader, to find out about principles of Islam in this article. This article is about Islam and not Muslims. I hope that makes a big difference. There's an article about Muslims.

Another issue is that most of the editors, including myself, have only very little knowledge compared with academics who have or had spent their entire life to search the subject! We are nothing but keep teaching eachother here, as in school, w/ uncivilized manners most of the time, how to deal w/ the situation. I am wondering how come we should include in the article things like Islam is evil or Islam is the best!!! The article should be academic and never political or ideological. Why? Because, for political and ideological issues we have dedicated articles. Easy... In How stuff works, we don't say cars are polluting the environment, we just simply mention how cars work! For pollution issues, you'd surely find them in How cars pollute the invironment article. Cheers -- Svest 02:09, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Fayssal, are you upset with me for mentioning that Islamists are blowing things up? I am not using that term to include all Muslims. I'm using it to mean the kind of guys who DO blow things up ... the jihadis, the Qutbis, etc. I referred to them by their political beliefs and not as terrorists because I didn't want anyone to assume that I meant all Muslims. I hope that's clear. Zora 03:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

No Zora, I am not refering to you but to the overall situation and indeed I never take things personally. Of course I agree with you that this article is an appropriate target for naughty boys of both sides. I am not talking about anonymous editors but talking about all of the well known editors here. How many times we heard the kind of expressions like Islamists trying to hijack articles and so on. Who are those hijakers Wikipedians? Brandon, Anonymous, Irish, Mel Etitis, Juan, Me, etc...?!! I believe nobody is. I'd never think or pretend to say anything against any editor. Personally, I don't care about being called any thing someone would like to call me BUT I should care about the quality of discussion over here. Cheers and respect -- Svest 04:12, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Modern standards Vs Bronze age standards

ZoE, I hope you do understand well that if you agree about keeping "though deficient by modern standards" sentence than you should agree that there are thousands of articles in WP that the sentance must be inserted somewhere in every article! Say The persians formed a developped society ruled by law at the times of Hamurabi, though deficient by modern standards in terms of democracy and human rights. Say Greeks were the first to introduce the concept of democracy, though deficient by modern standards in terms of democracy and human rights... -- Svest 02:31, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

true. "deficient by modern standards" has no place in historical writeups. Or I'll start inserting "deficient by ancient standards" into quite some articles about current events. dab (ᛏ) 07:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Help at Muslim article

We have a new editor, a pious Muslim named Courageous who has written a new version of the Muslim article. It expounds his views of who the real Muslims are, and drops the few lines of material relating to the use of the term "Musselman" for Jewish holocaust victims. He doesn't think "Zionists" should be mentioned in an Islamic article. He seems to be prepared to play revert war to get his version in place. I left a message on his talk page, to which he replied that I was an infidel, and he was commanded by the Qur'an not to listen to me.

I'd appreciate if some of the sane Muslim editors could try talking to him -- and monitoring the Muslim article for any necessary reverts. Zora 21:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Zora, according to what you say in your request for help here, I must say that you really needed it. I immediately went to check who is the new naughty boy. However, as I checked the changes made by Courageous, I found nothing to be identified as POV. His changes were additions explaining the origin of the word Muslims (he gave reference indeed) and he added explanations on how Muslims accept a person as a Muslim.

IMO, there was no apologitic aspect in that and no POV at all. The thing that should be removed from there is the They could not accept Muhammad as a prophet, because he had not yet been born sentence. Why? Because the text before deosn't imply it!!! It simply says that A Muslim to be considered as a Muslim, He should recognize all Prophets before Islam as Muslims. The later in not a WP POV but a condition in Islam and should be mentionned without any other comment after it.

His reply to your message in his talk page includes some weird answers that I totally disagree with him in telling you that he must not listen to you!!! However, to be fair, his changes got nothing to do with being POV.

I prefer not to talk to him for now until he does something stupid and of course we'll be monitoring. Cheers -- Svest 22:24, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you don't see his changes as introducing an unacceptably high level of piety and pious language. You've also disregarded his deletion of material re the Holocaust. Zora 22:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't disregard his deletion concerning the Holocaust. I kept indeed the rev by you and Dmcdevit. What I said is that I didn't find any of his insertions as using pious language. I don't want to paste some of his text here as it is not necessary but please Zora, It will be helpful for me to tell me exactly what was bothering as unacceptable so we can solve it here. Cheers -- Svest 23:12, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

As far ass Muslim is concerned: People of the Book is all there is about Christians and Jews Islamic|law Islamic law some could complain about the tax and so on but remember that Islam is a theocracy therefore they weren't really trusted and paid tax in return of "policce like" protection. Islam as a theocracy has nothing to do with any event after the Ottoman Empire.

--The Brain 11:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Organization

This section was blanked... I think I re-added everything.... I didn't see a reason... was it just unfixed vandalism or what? gren グレン 08:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I dont think it gives much info anyways . Farhansher 19:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Dome of Rock

For some unknown reasons , the picture of dome of rock is on the top . I think at that position , the best option will be to use a picture of Kaaba , rather than dome of rock , which I think is the 4th or 5th holliest site in Islam . Farhansher 19:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Well, it's the 3rd. -- Svest 19:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree too. Yes, it is the third. a-n-o-n-y-m 19:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, well some people consider Al Aqsa mosque as the third holliest site ( Dome of rock & Al Aqsa are separate buildings though in the same area ) . And some people also consider Jannat-al-Baqi as the third holliest site after Kaaba & Masjid-e-nabvi . Anyways the point is , the place belongs to Kaaba , & not dome of rock . Farhansher 21:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

True. The place belongs to Kaaba. -- Svest 21:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Farhanser, are you going to work on it? a-n-o-n-y-m 21:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Lead section

Out of interest, why is the lead section so short for such an important article? - 220.101.78.35 11:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Because, unfortunately, neutrality has been made stricter for this article. Even if anything that is a fact about Islam is added there, it is removed by some anti-Islamic editors (mind the expression) who think that it speaks positively and ofcourse they can't let that happen. That's the simplest way to put it. a-n-o-n-y-m 23:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

GOD Vs Allah

I don't understand that after almost 3 millenniums, people are still confused about the litteral meaning of the Arabic name Allah! I am sorry to say that people who are still struggling to learn about the issue do not deserve to be here editing, let alone argue about the issue!

Butrus is not Peter. Mariam is not Mary. Yahya is not John, etc...

In Arabic, there's no other word to call God except Allah. It could not be called McDonald's as Arabs speak Arabic. Neither Hebrews nor Arabs call God God, Dieu, Dios or Jesus.
"Elaw" means "GOD" in Aramaic
The Arabic name for God, Allah, refers to the God worshiped by Jews and Christians. Encarta
The Hebrew title of God is "Elohim;" in Arabic it's "Allah." These two words for God have a common bond that most people don't understand. Both of these words have their origin in pagan deities of the ancient past... Allah is derived from two words "al," which means "the" and "ilah," which is related to the feminine Hebrew word for God, "eloah." by Penny Warren B.A., M.A., D.D - 1998 PLIM REPORT Vol. 7 No. 3. In other words, if you argue against that Allah is not the Christian God than argue the same relating Elohim to the Christian God! If you have problems with Arabic, Hebrew or Aramaic than better to stay away from the section about the origin of the word Allah in this article. Same thing if you think that Salam got nothing to do with Shalom, and of course the list is long!
What does Allah mean? Allah means God. The same word is used by Arabic-speaking Christians, Muslims and Jews. When translating Arabic expressions, translate all the words, for consistency. The translation of "Allahu Akbar," for example, would be "God is great," not "Allah is great." Detroit Free Press. Not surprising, among other questions you'd find a qustion about the difference between Islam and Muslim!!! Maybe because readers need the same education as some editors of this article!
If Islam talks about the same Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus (as well as archangel Gabriel and many others) than, for God's sake, why it would talk about a different God?!
I Cor. 9:19-22 "...I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some."

I hope that reverting would stop for once and for God sake when comes to this issue. Cheers -- Svest 19:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Need help on Demographics of Islam article

I just spent many hours preparing a spreadsheet and then a table of the Muslim population of the world, broken down into Sunni-Shi'a-Ibadi to the extent that I could. I got the figures from the CIA World Factbook and adherents.com. The Sunni-Shi'a breakdown is grossly inaccurate and underestimates the Shi'a. I would appreciate any help other editors could give me in making the figures more accurate and in making the table (my first ever!) look better. Zora 14:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)