Talk:Islam by country/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Note

Why is this cult allowed?It eliminates other religion followers ,once it's followers achieves critical mass.India is the largest muslim population unofficially.there are illegal immigrants from pakistan ,bangladesh in India.21% of India Population is islum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.2.249 (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Why does the first senctance discuss that Turkey and Iran are not Arab countries - plus the FULL CAPS? Not only does the article not say this, it actually says the opposite. There is no need to discuss the ethnic backgrounds of countries in this article and more percisely no need to single out two countries. There are lots of countries lists which are not Arab countries. Bw022 (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Something is wrong

Have a look on this numbers: 7 Nigeria 64,385,994 45% Iran 98% 67,337,681 8 Iran 64,089,571 98% Algeria 99% 32,206,534 What is the real population of Iran? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.75.167.9 (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a percentage error in the opening paragraph: The October 2009 Pew Trust study estimates the 1.57 billion Muslims of the world's 6.8 billion population as 23% - not 33%, as written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.229.197.197 (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Foreign workers in gulf countries

The numbers on Qatar are way , way, way off. Qatar has a huge population of foreign workers who are not citizens; they outnumber actual Qataris by some counts. These foreign workers are often not Muslim. Thus, the '95%' number is extremely wrong.

One can easily have a reasonable assumption that the same problems exist in other gulf countries with large foreign worker populations.

population of foreign workers who are not citizens should not be counted : population counts should only be of the citizens of a particular country

EDIT: Actually, no ! The figure of Qatar is not way off. According to CIA World book of Facts, Percentage of Muslim in Qatar is 95%[1]. I have edited and added the source ;)

Source

The source for most of these stats is CIA Fact Book. That's where I got this data initially.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

Later, the rest of the stats were filled from

http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_321.html#2058 OneGuy 19:34, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have added most percentage/stats from U.S Department of State site:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/

Japan

• Just out of curiosity, where did the Japanese percentage come from? 760,000+ Muslims in Japan look like a pretty huge number. PMLF 19:53, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All the math work was done from the percentage used by the program I wrote (the table was also generated by the program). I used 0.6% using

http://www.adherents.com/adhloc/Wh_164.html

The percentage on that page for Japan was from 0.2% to 1%. However, the 1% is from a very unreliable source (in most cases I ignored that source). I don't remember why I used it in this case. In any case, I can change it to 0.2% which will make the total 254,666 which seems more correct OneGuy 23:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • Thanks for answering so fast. I was just curious because that original number sounded too big for a country with no historical Islamic minority and where conversions to foreign religions (like Christianity and Islam) traditionally isn't very common. Although I think even 254,666 is probably too much but since this is the most reliable source available it's OK to keep it until a better source (if there is one)is found. PMLF 04:41, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Immigration not a conversion might be a factor. I know a few Muslims on the internet who claim to be from Japan. Most of them are immigrants from Pakistan, India or Middle East OneGuy 05:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • • According to the page Religions of Japan, there is only a few Muslims in Japan:
    • "Islam has been slowly growing as people comes to contact with it through people from Islamic nations or by learning about it through various ways. It is a very small group probably not even in the thousands and have a limited or no social influence yet and unlikely to in the foreseeable future. While believers may be frowned upon at first, generally, their need to pray and observe certain teachings are not hampered and unlikely to turn into a problem."
    • I don't know what was their source though and unfortunately is too hard to find information about this subject. So, as I said earlier, I am not against keeping the 0.2 % that is already in the page. PMLF 22:22, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That cannot be right. A number of Japanese Islamic sites indicate that there are many more than just a few thousand.

Islamic Center - Japan http://islamcenter.or.jp/

isuramu.net http://www.isuramu.net/index.html

Islam website in Japan http://www2s.biglobe.ne.jp/~racket/e_index.htm

Tokyo Mosque http://islam3.hp.infoseek.co.jp/benri/masjidtk.htm

Nagoya Mosque http://islam3.hp.infoseek.co.jp/benri/nagoya.htm

OneGuy 04:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And this page has links to dozens of more Japenese Islamic sites

http://www2s.biglobe.ne.jp/~racket/islamlink.htm

And by pictures of Tokyo Mosque [2], it looks to be pretty big mosque. OneGuy 04:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, all these mosques suggest a population reasonable high of muslims. Maybe at least 50 000 or more. PMLF 04:25, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Brazil

By the way, PMLF, can you post the source for 0.03% Muslims in Brazil? I was unable to find the 2000 census result on the internet. OneGuy 18:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Here (Islamica = Islamic): http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/populacao/censo2000/primeiros_resultados_amostra/brasil/pdf/tabela_1_1_2.pdf

The information is from IBGE which is the Brazilian Institute of Statistic. They are the ones that make the census in Brazil.

But they actually say only 27 239 (although I read in some newspaper that it was 56 000). So, maybe you'd better change the informnation to 27 239 instead of 56 000. I'll change my Islam in Brazil page accordingly as I mixed the Census info with the newspaper one.

Hope that helps. There are also information about the amount of Christians: 153 milion out of 170 Million people. And 12 million religionless people. 86,000 Jews, etc.... Feel free to ask qquestions about the file as it is all in Portuguese.

PMLF 04:22, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. According to that site, the total poulation in 2000 was 169,872,856. That makes percentage to 0.016%. I was using 0.1 since I couldn't find the source for 0.03. I will change it to 0.016. I also did Catholicism by country. The percentage I used for Catholics in Brazil was 79.97%. But according to this site, it's little lower, 73.57. OneGuy 06:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

73,57% is closer to the census info. According to IBGE there were 125 million Catholics out of 170 Million people in Brazil in 2000. PMLF 17:36, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Christianity

For or a comparison see User:OneGuy/Christianity by country OneGuy 20:12, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

changed percentages

I changed many of the percentages to US State Department's International Religious Freedom Report 2004 [3].

These reports are more up to date than both CIA factbook and adherents.com. I also found them more accurate. If anyone finds an error (in most cases a typo with percentage), let me know OneGuy 04:09, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Any explanation for the large (75%) change in the Serbia and Montenegro? Does the new list exclude Kosovo? - SimonP 04:30, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

75%? It's 5% and was taken from http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35482.htm

The Muslim faith is the second largest in Serbia and Montenegro, with approximately 5 percent of the population, including Slavic Muslims in the Sandzak, and ethnic Albanians in Montenegro and southern Serbia.

OneGuy 04:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see you meant change. No explanation. I just went with the numbers of State Department in this case. That is more authoritative source than adherents.com. I am not sure if they excluded Kosovo (which is unlikely) OneGuy 04:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If 19% came from CIA Factbook, I will take State Department's statistics over CIA factbook. I have found many errors in CIA factbook. For example, CIA factbook has 10% Muslims in Swaziland. However, this was contradicted by every other source. I checked State Department on Swaziland and they have...

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35385.htm

The population is approximately 40 percent Zionist, 20 percent Roman Catholic, and 1 percent Islamic.

In my view, these State Department's International Religious Freedom reports are far more accurate than CIA factbook OneGuy 05:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Serbia and Montenegro

That was bad :) The above link I gave clearly says that Kosovo was excluded and the rest of the population is 5% Muslim OneGuy 06:59, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Actually according to State Department, (including Kosovo), it's 21%

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35482.htm

According to Montenegro's 2003 census, almost 70 percent of its population is Orthodox, 21 percent is Muslim, and 4 percent is Catholic. OneGuy 21:03, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico is not an independent country, and therefore shouldn't be given special treatment. Maybe I can make some of the accompanying text small. So it doesn't screw up the tables. WhisperToMe 05:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is not part of the USA either so I think they should have their own entry in the article, just like they used to do. PMLF 13:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Puetro Rico is part of the USA, and maintains a semi-sovereign status. —thames 23:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Map

The map on this page fails to show France, Guyana, and Suriname all of which have a Muslim population of over 10% and is confirmed.

Confirmed you say? Please provide proof of the "confirmation" - you would seem to be in possession of information no-one else on the entire planet has. 90.242.28.201 03:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The German page on islam has a great map of Islam by country which we should steal and put here. —thames 23:41, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here is a great map showing Islam by country—specifically the state of Islam in the country's constitution: whether it is an islamic state, islam is the official religion, religion is not mentioned, or the state is officially secular. Very interesting, and data which we should represent here, or at least copy on a map of our own. —thames 15:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Brazil-2

About Anon Editor's revert. If there is controversy give a source for the 1-1.5 million because that is a huge difference from 27,000. So, give a reliable source for alternative population counts. Using "unofficial estimates" is far too vague, so, just cite it. gren グレン 03:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, there is controversy in every country not only in Brazil. So, if it`s to add this supposed to exist Brazilian controversy, then other similar controversies should be added as well. I doubt, for instance, that there are so many Muslims in Argentina as Muslim immigration to Argentina was negligible. PMLF 03:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that should be given a source to the claim that the Muslim population in Brazil range from 1 million to 1.5 million. Also, what "unofficial estimates" are these? These sources need to be identified. Otherwise, this entry should be deleted, as per Wikipedia:Cite sources. Regards, Carioca 05:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay guys, no need to rush. Here is the one from the Islam in Brazil page: [4]. Here are two more I found which cite Muslim community leader estimates [5], [6].Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I still don`t think this controversy should be in the article. Just let it herei n the discussions. This Muslim estimatives look like just wild guesses (which they probably are as according to one of the sites there are only 55 mosques in Brazil, none in Rio, by the way). These sources are simply not reliable since they made no kind of unofficial census. Also, anyone that wants to know the Muslim estimatives on this issue can read the Islam in Brazil article which mentions it. PMLF 19:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, you might not think the statistics are true, but I am sure that various community leaders whether they be Muslim, Catholic or Jewish have a rough idea about how much of the populace is in their community. Also discussion does not count as an article. Think of discussion as a forum discussing the actual article. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Then these so-called controversies should be added about all other counties not only about Brazil...Otherwise just remove it from Brazil as it`s unfair to include it only for one country when Islamic authorities (and any other religious authorities for that matter) inflate their estmatives in all other countries too. Unofficial estmatives are just that, unofficial estimatives (aka wild guesses as statets above) and doesn`t deserve to be in the article when there is more reliable info available (the census). PMLF 19:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Ofcourse they should be added to others, as long as the sources are reliable. For example I provided a government source that classifies as reliable. But I think one of the reasons on why Brazil's population information is fascinating is because there is such as large difference between government census figures and community estimates. I think this is perhaps due to particular communities that are not amalgamated. Nevertheless, in the future, I will try to work on this for other countries and I will invite you there to check if you want. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The sites you provided are not reliable at all. Two of them are completely unofficial and are not relevant and the other one (state.gov) says this: Muslim leaders have never taken a formal count of the number of Muslims; however, they believe that the official census greatly underestimated the size of their community. So, this info is not reliable either. So, I keep my position that this controversy must be removed from this article. This controversy only exists in those Muslim leaders heads. I live in Brazil and I can say that their estimative is completely absurd. I don`t know if they want political gains or anything or just think inflating the numbers will make Islam more attractive to Brazilians but the fact is that there is no way there are so many Msulims in Brazil. Newspaper estimatives (56,000-70,000 Muslims) are far more realistic than the Muslims authorities ones. The census is pretty accurate and such a diuscrepancy would probably never occur. It`s hard to believe that 900,000 Muslims didn`t want to say they are Muslims... I`m sorry but I see no reason to keep that controversy in the article. PMLF 20:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why the figures differ that much. My assumption can only be that there is isolation of communities in Brazil. Still community leader estimates are reliable especially since many community leaders agree on anywhere from 700,000 - 3 million and none below that. You keep saying that because you live in Brazil, you have seen this first hand. I am sorry but your opinion in this case cannot change the article because you are not a sourcable material. Just like you, the brazilian Muslim community leaders also live in Brazil, and they claim their numbers. The only difference between them and you is that they are sourcable. Also I don't know whether the census is reliable or not, because there could be problems with it. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It`s the same Muslim authorities all the time that say there are this ridiculous amount of Muslims in Brazil. But I really can`t believe you find that source is reliable. Asource has to be reliable to be included and that one simply isn`t... Only because it`s in the internet it doesn`t make it true, you know. You may not believe the official census but they are the only reliable source, like it or not. PMLF 20:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

No, the census is "official", reliable can be anything that is widely popularized and cited. I don't agree with either numbers the census nor the community leaders, but this will still need to be in the article especially because there is such a wide difference between the numbers. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Again you are comparing the official census to mere estimatives. The wide difference is irrelevant if the alternate source (Muslims authrorities) is not reliable. Adding this estiomative is also misleading because it leads the reader to believe the census is wrong and the alternate sources are right. So, we have to add only official numbers. The place for controversies is in each country`s specific page about Islam not in this article. What Muslim authorities believe or not believe is irrelevant when compared to official (and like it or not, more reliable) sources. PMLF 21:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The only reason this one should be kept is because there is such a large difference between the "official" census and the estimatives of the many community leaders. If there was a difference of ten thousand then there would be no reason, but the difference here is atleast 1 million! Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It is already mentioned in the Islam in Brazil article. No need to addi t here. If anyone is interested in this controversy, then the person wil simply visit the Islam in Brazil article. So, it has ot be removed. No need to include it in the Islam by Country article only for the sake of including it. PMLF 22:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Ofcourse they need to know here because there is so much difference between the numbers. It is a large controversy. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually there is no controversy. Anyone that thinks the census is wrong will simply verify the Brazilian article for more information as like they do regarding any other country. Wide numbers happen everywhere and this is why we need specific countries articles about this issue. PMLF 20:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Folks, in any case, I think the numbers in the table should reflect the actual, official count by the Brazilian powers that be. If I may venture another wild guess, the numbers cited by various "community leaders" - 700,000 to 3 million - must actually reflect the number of Brazilians of Arab origin. Anyone who knows a bit about the history of immigration in Brazil knows that these folks, mostly Lebanese and Syrian, are overwhelmingly Christian, not being Muslim being the main reason they fled the Middle East. I'm reverting the table to the official count.

Afc 18:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Purpose?

What precisely is the necessity of these Islam by nationality articles? It is the only religion that gets this special treatment by Wikipedia (the Christanity one doesn't dedicate near enough dialogue to come close - and every other religion is ignored).

At best these articles should be reintegrated into the cultural segments of their individual nations and the larger data should be integrated into the Islam article - rather than maintaining this larger seperate structure. However some of this information is completely useless and should be disgarded if it cannot demonstrate a real and concrete impact on the nation in question e.g. Puerto Rico.

---

Well, you can start your own page dedicated to enlightening people about Christianity in every nation of the world. No body is stopping you from doing that!!

---

There is an article about Christianity by country. There is a separate article about Catholicism by country. There is an article about Lutheranism by country. There is an article about Jehovah’s Witness by county. I stopped checking after that. Just another ranting moron who cries when factual normative statements are made that encroach on his pathetically narrow world-view. Try Free Republic’s website so you can insulate yourself with others who will only discuss world matters in terms of Daniel Pipes’ “clash of civilizations” wet-dreams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.210.73.15 (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Muslim Population by Country

Where do the figures come from? I remember reading somewhere that Bangladesh had a greater Muslim population than Pakistan (though those figures could be out of date, as Bangladesh's population is no longer larger than Pakistan), and I'm pretty sure that Bangladesh's Muslim population is greater than India's. ςפקιДИτς ^{СФГиганты} 16:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Bangladesh had a greater muslim population in 1971, at the time of the independence of Bangladesh. At that time, it had a population of 90 million, while West Pakistan had a population of about 80 million. However, West Pakistan has had a higher population growth rate over the past 35 years, and has overtaken Bangladesh.

India's Muslim population was always larger than that of either West Pakistan or Bangladesh, and it is also increasing at a faster rate than that of either of its Muslim-majority neighbours. Historically, since the 17th century AD, undivided India had the world's largest Muslim population. South Asia remains home to nearly 47% of the world's Muslims, mainly in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

If it is true than soon india is going to have the largest muslim population even overtaking indonesia

According to Bangladesh Government census 2001, and also US Dept. of state, Muslims in Bangladesh constitute 88.3% [7]. I have edited the current figure of 86%, which is wrong. --Itsalif 04:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Map is inaccurate.

• If that map is right than Islam is the majority religion in Kenya, Ethiopia, India, and F.Y.R. Macedonia which it is not. Pure inuyasha 21:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• sorry.... didn't see it said areas with more than 10%. Pure inuyasha 21:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I read for some days ago that:

- the total population of pakistan is 170 million+ where 98% are muslims. - the total population of bangladesh is 150 million+ where 81%+ are muslims. - the muslim population of India is standing at 174 million+

• It's probably nit-picking but why is Kaliningrad shown as having 0-9% while the rest of russia is 10-19%. I'm sure this is accurate but I understood the map was a consistent national average? --Cphi 14:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

redundancy

"Listing of Muslims by country."

What the heck is need for this meaningless sentence? The Title already says "Islam by country." Pure waste 72.129.170.249 20:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Picture

The picture should make it clear that the green indicates 10% or more Muslim population (obviously not all of India is Muslim as this picture shows. When 10% populatoin is Muslim, the picture indicated that as green) 72.129.170.249 20:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Now changed. Hope it's clear enough. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Map is incorrect and misleading. Islam is only 13.5% in India. 85% persent of Indian map is shown green like pakistan as if Islam is dominant in India like pakistan. In most of the Indian interior part shown green here, Islam is as low as 2%. It's better to post a map with different shades where each shade explains definate range of percentage. --Holy Ganga 12:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's not the most detailed map in the world, but it does correctly show countries which have a Muslim population of more than 10%. India is 13.5% Muslim therefore it is green. I think the map should be included in the article. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

United States

I see someone just changed the figure for the number of Muslims in the United States from 4,140,277 (1.4%) to 7,140,277 (3.5%), so I just want to set some verifiable references for this figure.

• 1% (2,957,341) 2005 CIA Factbook - reported as a percentage which has undoubtedly been rounded making the actual number quite inaccurate. It could be as low as 1,478,671 or as high as 4,436,012.
• 1,104,000 (2001) Statistical Abstract of the United States (p55) - adults only.
• 1,558,068 (2004 est) adherents.com - total Muslim population.

There is some good discussion of the reliability of these figures at adherents.com, where the whole range of reported figures (from 1.1 million to 12 million) are discussed. The main summary page reports a reputable study in 2000 which suggests a best estimate of 1,886,000 and an absolute maximum of 2,814,000. I would personally suggest that the 2004 estimate from adherents.com is used, because it is the figure that they use and it is relatively recent, and that's what I will put in the table now - 1,558,068 (0.5%). The order in the rankings table, the totals for all countries, and the total for North America will need to be updated accordingly. I would prefer to check a few more of the figures before I update it myself. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

there are definately more than 4 million Muslims in America. There are about 400,000 Muslims in the Chicagoland area alone.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.194.133.213 (talk • contribs) .

That's your opinion is it? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Total

Where does the "Total" row comes from? Population column sums up to 6,430,856,221 (not 6,430,856,221) and summing of muslim population for every country gives slightly more than 1,497 milions (not 1,476,233,470). Computet from those two values (if correct) muslim share in world's population is slightly less than 23,3% (not 29,955%).

And now (29/06/2008) summing up country population column gives us 6,589,688,908 NOT a 6,671,226,000 as indicated in the "Total" row. Where this additiona 80 millions comes from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.252.2.237 (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Zambia

According to the US State Dept religious freedom report[8], 1% (100,000) of Zambia's population is either Hindu or Muslim. According to the US CIA Factbook[9] 24% - 49% (2,702,830 - 5,518,279) is either Hindu or Muslim. What nonsense. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Regional

How is it that the Caribbean has 15,000 Muslims, but Trinidad and Tobago has 65,000? Does the rest of the Caribbean have -40,000 Muslims? Guettarda 17:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Serbia and Montenegro

This country no longer exists - we ought to split it up. I assume most of the Muslims are in Serbia (i.e., Kosovo?) john k 00:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

United States in Top 60 chart

Why is the US listed as #41 on this list, when it clearly isn't? Ed Sanville 12:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the source of these figures? Tagishsimon

See United states section above. It should be removed from the table, but I'm not sure what should replace it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Map

The map on this page has North Korea as very dark, while the page on Korean Islam says there is almost no Islam in North Korea. From what I understand about the country, the latter is probably correct. It should be fixed. Atropos 08:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

In the map key, it says countries in black have "no data," which is understandable for an isolationist insane regime like North Korea. Ed Sanville 11:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Korea/South Korea/Itaewon

I have seen the mosque in Itaewon and I wonder why Korea is not on the list.

population of muslims in india

from the time of independence of india to the current day the indian leaders have said that the muslim population of india is greater than that of pakistan. we should remember that bangladesh was also a part of pakistn before 1971.and in that year the population of west pakistan (that is the current day pakistan) was 80 milliom and that of east pakistan (that is the current day bangladesh) was 90 million if we add that we get apopulation of 170 million in 1971 of which 90% were muslim or 153 million . so how many muslims are today in india ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madman 0014 (talk • contribs)

At least, the population figure for East Pakistan (1971) stated above is *wrong*. The population of independent Bangladesh, according to the 1974 census, was 71.3 million [10]. Even considering the large number of Bengalis (between 1-1.5 million) (both Hindu and Muslims) killed by Pakistan Army in Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971, the number was never above 75 million at that time. The population of west pakistan was lower than this, as Bengalis were 56% of the population of united pakistan. --Ragib 20:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

On my part i found the information from some old arcives from the liaquat national library here in karachi and the arcives were official pakistani documents of the time.

never the less according to cia world fact book the bangladeshi population is 147,365,352 (July 2006 est.) and the pakistani population is 165,803,560 (July 2006 est.) so how do we explain this --User:Madman_0014

i was reading an interview of the imam of fatih pur mosque delhi imam mufti muhammad mukkaram nakshbandi. In the interview he said that the population of muslims in india was at least more than 300 million.(you can find the interview at http://jang.com.pk/jang/aug2006-daily/12-08-2006/dunia.htm)

The census of India in 2001 reported Muslim constitute 13.4% of the population and number 138 million. Reference http://www.censusindia.net/religiondata/Summary%20Muslims.pdf. The Muslims constitute over 98% of Pakistan's population of 166 million people and number 161 million and are the second largest Muslim population in the world. ArsalanKhan 13:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

according to this report the indian muslim population is 30.38% [11]7day 16:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a plainly wrong report from an Islamophobic site. Statistiki 21:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The table at the end states that Muslim population in India is over 170 million, making it higher than that of Pakistan. In the 2001 census, the Indian Muslim population was about 13%, close to around 130 million. 6 years later, I doubt that it has grown to as high as 170 million, I'm sure the exact number is around 150 million, less than that of Pakistan. Obviously South Asia as a whole houses over 400 million Muslims, no one can dispute that.

Accuracy of the figures

How can these figures be accurate when 0.1% of the population in Afghanistan is Christian? The figures in the table states that Afghanistan is 100% Muslims are Islamic. --Canadia 23:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

See also the United States figures above and in the table. This article really needs the references for the numbers for each individual country to be identified and labelled. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No one with even the most elementary understanding of demographics, or common sense for that matter, would believe that ANY country would have 100% of the population with the same religion. Even just the margin of error here would make that suspect. Not a single Afghani is non-muslim? I doubt it. Obviously these figures are wrong and need to be corrected with reliablee statistics. 72.227.6.34 00:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about rounded figures here. Similarly if we were to say 99% doesn't mean that there are exactly 30746427.03 Muslims in the country. Generally speaking, when a number is given as 100%, it meants that the actual figure could be any from 99.500.....% and larger... If you have accurate info 0.1% of the Afghani population is Christian then please cite it. Please note that 0.04% for example is not 0.1%. It's more accurate to say there is 100% Muslim then 99.9% if the the actual figure is 99.96% (I'm not saying this is the case, I have no idea, I'm siply giving an example, obviously it would be better to say 99.96% if this were the case). Nil Einne 09:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

To avoid further confusion, I added the word nearly so it now says nearly 100%. Although it isn't necessary strictly speaking, I feel it's better to avoid confusion with people who have a limited understanding of stats. Until and unless we can find better figures I suggest it be left at that. Also if we have conflicting info from equally reliable sources we can't just ignore one because we don't like it. For example, if someone says Afghanistan is 0.1% Christian and someone else says it's 99.99% Muslim, and both of these are equally reliable we have can't ignore either. In a case such as this, we would probably use the 99.99% figure and mention that some sources claim Afghanistan has 0.1% Christian (and that this doesn't add up). Again this is just an example rather then a real case but is illustrates the point Nil Einne 10:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at the CIA book and it's highest estimate for the number of non Christians is 8k. This is only about 0.025% so way below the 0.1% figure quoted above (and this is the highest estimate). There is also a small Sikh and Hindu population but I didn't read in depth Nil Einne 08:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Afghanistan has 80% Sunni, 19% Shia, making a total of 99%, the rest 1% is Christian, Bahai.etc http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5380.htm

Number of Muslims in China

First there were 38 million Muslims in China, now there are 130 million ! Sources indicate the figure is closer to 20 million. Please comment on the available facts:

• For 130 million[12]

1. apparently published in 1986 in a single Muslim source
2. apparently based on the 1971 census
3. 'Another statistic was used' from a non-available webpage[13] because the World Factbook 'lacks the percentage of Muslims'.
4. clearly a POV source

• For 20 million (c.)

1. published in multiple sources since 2001 based on data from year 2000.
2. There was no census in 1971, and probably no official religion statistics either; There was a census in 2000
3. The World Factbook does not lack this figure - it says it is 1%-2% [14]

I suggest the figure of around 20 million (1.5%) should be used because it is based on a more recent and reliable source. 133 million (11%) is just laughable, as is the verifiability, NPOV and independence of that source. Please comment. Martin Jensen 00:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 1.5% is also used in US State Department 2006 report (this is the source for the rest of percentages in the article anyway). Here is what it says:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71338.htm

The country has five main religions: Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism. While these are the primary religions, the 2005 religious affairs regulations did not identify "official" religions. The Russian Orthodox Church also operated in some regions, and other religions existed in the country's expatriate community. Most of the country's population did not formally practice any religion. Approximately 8 percent of the population was Buddhist, approximately 1.5 percent was Muslim, an estimated 0.4 percent belonged to the official Catholic Church, an estimated 0.4 to 0.6 percent belonged to the unofficial Vatican-affiliated Catholic Church, an estimated 1.2 to 1.5 percent was registered as Protestant, and perhaps 2.5 percent worshipped in Protestant house churches that were independent of government control. 72.129.164.10 09:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

what about this source http://members.tripod.com/arabicpaper/country.html it says that the chinese muslim population was 100 million in 1971Madman 0014 19:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

A tripod page? It's the same as the islamicweb.com above. THERE WAS NO CENSUS IN 1971 !!!! Martin Jensen 19:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

what about this http://kcm.co.kr/bethany_eng/a_code/china5.html 124.29.194.169 14:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It contains some interesting historic reported figures and sources, but for recent estimates it appears less reliable then the 2000 China census and the US report on religious freedom and CIA World Factbook. Martin Jensen 16:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

what about this book http://www.riseofislam.com/russia_and_china_02.html 124.29.194.169 17:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say it's about as reliable as a two-year-old child saying there are 300 trillion candies in the candy shop. What about reading Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources ? Martin Jensen 18:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL!!! How could China have that large amount of Muslim populations anyway? Some of the statistics presented here are just unbelievable! Also, how could anyone trust a source from a website called "Rise of Islam"! Is this some kind of outrageous propaganda that some radical Muslims are trying to send out to say that they have influences on the world's most populous country? --Indefinitevirtue 15:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This is going against NPOV yourself, by judging the validity of a website looking at its name. Discrimination is not tolerated here. 84.69.132.58 05:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

than use this source http://www.islamawareness.net/Asia/China/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madman 0014 (talk • contribs)

When you explore this vague statement in further detail on the same site, it says there are 20 million[15] Martin Jensen 18:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/islchina.htm Madman 0014 18:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"Muslims in China number more than 35 million, according to unofficial counts" - where is the source of this information? Martin Jensen 18:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

this could be reliable http://www.naqshbandi.net/haqqani/Islam/China_islam.html 124.29.194.169 18:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This has no reference to any source at all. Martin Jensen 18:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

or this one http://www.geocities.com/mutmainaa/history/islam_china.html 124.29.194.169 18:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"according to official statistics there are 28 million Muslim in China" - Nonsense! Martin Jensen 18:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

this appears in context http://www.mail-archive.com/islamcity@yahoogroups.com/msg09940.html One2one 18:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

this is intresting http://kcm.co.kr/bethany_eng/a_code/china5.html One2one 18:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Madman 0014 and/or 124.29.194.169 ( maybe one of you is the others sockpuppet), you need to stop posting these irrelevant sources from geocities and tripod. They are not academic nor credible sources! These are mostly biased informations. Please, take this into consideration, and stop reverting informations in articles like Islam in China and Islam in India.--Indefinitevirtue 00:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

User Madman 0014, is there any particular reason of why you deleted the message I posted above? It is considered vandalism to delete other users feedbacks in the Talk page without consulting the other person first, especially when the post is directed at you. Not only did you not give me a response, you deleted my post instead. I hope you have a legimiate reason for your action.--Indefinitevirtue 17:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

According to this article there was 48 million muslims in China in 1936 http://www.islamicpopulation.com/china_muslim.html

See the above discussions, it is not a neutral source to use for population estimations.

Unreliable sources

Both http://www.islamicpopulation.com and http://islamicweb.com/ are unreliable sources and should not be used for this article. They both claim to have got statistics from the CIA World Factbook, but in reality the figures they present are completely divorced from the reality of what has been published by reliable sources. Martin Jensen 10:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Than we should use another source http://www.themodernreligion.com/convert/china.html how about this one Madman 0014 12:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You have to ask, where does the number of 200 million come from? The source is obviously POV, doesn't reveal its sources, and isn't peer reviewed. That makes it an unreliable source. Martin Jensen 13:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with what you already said, why would anyone believe a website that claims to gets its facts from the World Fact Book when in actuality, it greatly differs from it. And how could China have a scentific census in the 1970s period when there was so much going on in the country (Cultural Revolution anyone?). --Indefinitevirtue 15:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

They are reliable. Islamic web says: "The final numbers were obtained by plugging in the percentage of Muslims (taken from MET) and the number of people (taken from CIA) in each country using Microsoft Excel." So not entirly from CIA, as the CIA is POV. --Islamic 01:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

These Islamic websites are POV, because if they claim to get its informations from the CIA World Factbook, why would they distort the population figures and fill in other estimated figures? The CIA World Factbook's statistics are official population findings, and are used by the majority of references works, it is at least more credible and neutral than those listed websites.--67.2.149.250 18:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone seriously needs to enact some kind of actions against all the vandalisms that are going on in this article. The Muslim population percentages in this article, taken out of the US Department of State's statistics, are consistently been vandalized by random users that clearly doesn't pay attention. Example, China's Muslim population is estimated by the Department of State as 1.5% in the 2006 report, but some users keep changing the number as well as the reference to some Islamic website's figures.--Balthazarduju 02:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: Balthazarduju, Indefinitevirtue, and 67.2.149.250, user:Joycedula, user:Godardesque, user:Andrepalis, and IPs on the ranges 67.2.145.xxx, 67.2.148.xxx, and 67.2.149.xxx are all the same person. -Will Beback · † · 19:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Bosnia ??

there are something wrong for the figures of Bosnia and Herzegovina

how could 48% of an population of 4,0 million be 2,4 million? (and CIA factbook say it is 40% muslims there, and when it comes to Ethnic groups it says: Bosniak 48%, Serb 37.1%, Croat 14.3%, other 0.6% https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bk.html#People

The figure in Bosnia was provided 52%, which is incorrect, i changed it to 40% (U.S Dept State 2006)

Afghanistan

In the above list Afghanistan's given rate is 100% but in the top 60 list it's 99%. Can someone explain that? --Theguys 06:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

that has already been corrected7day 07:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

According to US State Dept, Afghanistan has 80% Sunni and 19% Shia, and other religion is 1%. That makes a total of 99% muslims, [16] why is the figure given nearly 100% :S

Muslims in afganistan is 99%, WHY is it labelled nearly 100%, Most Statistics suggests 80% sunni, 19% Shia, which makes a total of 99% Can someone explain it ??

Reliability

Hi all. I would just like to reiterate a point made briefly above - when citing POV against any sites which probably do have a bias towards the religion, one should consider the question, why should the rest of the world, i.e. non-Americans consider the CIA facts as being NPOV? If for some of you, to consider sites which defend the faith as being biased is a problem, then for others, to consider sites by people they view as attacking the faith, will also be biased. I hope I make some sort of sense. I'm not arguing for either view here, but just making an observation. Be considerate. The-pessimist 15:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism and semi-protection

Wow, is this article always being edited like this? I'm not sure what the correct figure is for the U.S.; Adherents.com gives 0.5%: 1,558,068; the World Factbook apparently rounds to the nearest percentage, so it just says 1%. Has semi-protection been considered? It seems way too easy for anon editors to randomly change a number here and there, and if nobody notices immediately, it's the sort of thing that's really hard to catch in a later review. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is mostly full of made-up numbers, and has been for a while. Registered editors randomly change numbers too. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite a bold statement 84.69.132.58 05:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you said above under Accuracy of the figures ("This article really needs the references for the numbers for each individual country to be identified and labelled.") Every figure should be backed up with the original sources and assumptions. That will be a lot of work, though. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no Kazakhstan in top 60 by %Muslim

It is mentioned in top 60% by population and in Islam by country, but no there. It should be on position #51 Kazakhstan 47% 7,137,346

Now I have no time to change all table - could anybody do it? 91.90.179.77 01:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

France = 10%? 7.5%? 6.9?

The Muslim population of France seems high. The French government, you know, the Government of France, states thats that the population is 4m, which is about 6.9%, not the 10% given by the CIA. [17].

I addition, on the list of top sixty countries, ANOTHER figure is given...at 7.5% of the population. A degree of consistency?

I am sure it is possible to find more accurate data from within the French stats websites, and given the politisation of Islam with regard to demographics (ie how right wing yanks think that Europe is about to become a Caliphate) a more accurate picture should be presented. I do not like the over-reliance on US sources, the CIA fact book in particular. We should be going to nations states which have more accurate demographic date, constructing a more accurate picture. Matchrthom 11:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The map showing Muslim percentage of population by country has France in the 10-19% bracket which simply GARBAGE! Please people do your research before you make pathetic and (suspiciously) politically motivated statements as if they are fact. I will amend the map within a week unless someone can provide conclusive PROOF that France has greater than 10% Muslim population. 90.242.28.201 03:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly echo the above sentiments regarding the sources of information for France - Matchrthom makes some very important points about the politization of Islam and how right-wingers (in several countries) trying to present Europe in general and France specifically as the next Caliphate. I strongly suggest that the CIA "factbook" and the US State department are not reliable sources of statistical information. Yes, I know some countries here have had their data entered from these sources but I cannot agree with that either. I feel the best source of information must come from the data published by the country in question and only in the case of closed societies (eg North Korea) should 3rd party data be taken as a guide and even then definitely not as gospel. Since France does not qualify as a closed society it can only be reasonable to employ their own data; a note on which I have added below.

My understanding from the latest census data available is that there are up to 5 million people now living in France who come/came from or were born to people arriving from predominantly Muslim countries. Of these not all are or were practising Muslims. Further while living in France a considerable fraction, some 15-20% will have stopped or never took up observing Islamic tradition. Therefore, it does not take a huge leap to estimate that "something" less than 5 million people in France are observant Muslims. I am not willing to stand by a solid figure since I don't know exactly how accurate that figure would be - but until the time the French government decides to hold a census specifically asking for religious observance I fear we can only work with estimates, note the use of the term estimate and not guess. The figure originally stated for France, 10+ percent or 6.3 million, seems to me to be greatly exaggerated and not fit for use.

I refer those interested in following this up to the 2005 report The Muslims in France and the French Model of Integration by Dominique Maillard as linked to by a previous editor of the France stats link The Muslims in France and the French Model of Integration

Libertyleading 00:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Muslim population in Vietnam is not as high as 0,85%

Predominant of Cham ethnic people and a little of South Asian descents are Muslims.And about 60-70% South Asian Muslims as Indian,Pakistani,Tamil,v.v...They have converted almost to Buddhists or few poeple have converted to Hindus.Why they have converted?Because they say Islam is very hard,complicated and savage!The official estimate as 2005 of Muslim population of Vietnam's government is only under 70 thousands (nearly 0.08% of Vietnam's population)

Source:[18] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.186.235.168 (talk) 05:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Albania

Around 40-50% of the Albanians are Muslims. The percentage of Atheists under Albanians with a Muslim background is higher than under Christian Albanians, however to claim that only 10% of the Albanian population is Muslim is ridiculous. Statistics on Adherents.com shows that religion is growing in Albania. Although these figures are not very accurate. 82.156.71.144 19:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As of 2007, U.S Dept. of state puts the figure to 70%. I have edited and placed a figure 10%-70%. Source: [19] -- alif.

STOP DELETING THE FIGURE OF ALBANIA

According to US Dept of State, the Muslim population of Albania is 70% [[20]] . According to BBC source (2006), the muslim population of Albania is 70% [21]. BOTH of them are CREDIBLE SOURCES, so PLEASE STOP DELETING IT. This is not a personal blog. Thanks. -- alif.

The census of Muslim population must repair again!

Hello!السلام عليكم!I have edited some census of Muslim population in Taiwan,Laos,East Timor,Chad,Colombia,Ukraine with very explicit sources from CIA!And I will do more with some new countries when I am free!

I am confident to say the Muslim population in around the World now (June 2007) couldn't higher than 1.4 billion (but the minimum must over 1.3 billion people)

Hey!Muslim brothers and sisters;you should respect the truth of your religious population.An example here:

-Total Muslim population in East Asia (China,Japan,Taiwan,Korea,v.v...) is only under 20 million ("By country" table) but in "By region" table,it is double (over 39 million)===>Unbelievable and very LIAR!

I want to contact with someone who interest about all religions,not only to make new census of Muslim population with new census of World's population of Wikipedia (as July 2007)!

I will edit this article as soon as possible with the truest and the justice!

وقفة التاهب

Getting silly with highball and lowball numbers

I see that we now have a new source of numbers for a certain country, not one of the sources which we say we use, which also happens to be considerably lower than the sources that we DO say we use (0.08%, as opposed to the CIA's 0.1%, and adherents.com's 0.25%, 0.7% and 1%). I just wanted to remind editors how we get our figures. We use the US State Dept., CIA Factbook and Adherents.com figures, and, in case of conflicts between them (which there usually are), try to come up with a compromise between those figures which are recent and appear reliable. We do not try to minimize or maximize figures. A few times in the past I have found editors (most often anonymous IPs) systematically altering the numbers up or down for multiple countries. If I notice that happening again, I will refer to the talk page when reverting the edits, so that it will be clear what my reasons are. Thanks, Poindexter Propellerhead 04:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputed numbers

Since this page keeps getting hit with numbers that are not compiled from the sources we say we use, in the way that we say we do, I have begun compiling a list of the actual numbers our sources do give, and the latest population figures from the CIA Factbook (they're updated monthly). In response to the latest batch of such changes, I am going to redo the figures for all countries starting with "A" and "B," as well as a couple of others that were just edited (and accompanied with troll-like comments).

My methodology will be as follows: In some cases the US State Department seems to be taking its stats from the CIA factbook, so the two cannot really be considered to be independently researched. Sometimes one, the other or both will give no clear number, such as listing Islam as part of "other." In at least one case, the CIA figure (which is duplicated on the State Dept. site) is admittedly decades out of date. In a few cases, particular writers listed on adherents.org are wildly divergent from the remainder, and some of these (an author by the name of Noor, for example) indicate that they are using sources which are very out of date. In all cases, I disregard figures which are over 10 years old. Here we go...
Afghanistan: CIA says 99%, State says over 90%, adherents (9 figures) says 99-100% Conlusion: 99%
Albania: CIA + State both say 70%, both are decades out of date. Adherents has 40% and 60% (twice) listed. Conclusion: 53%
Algeria: CIA + State say 99%, adherents (4 figures) says 99%. Conclusion: 99%
Angola: State says less than 1%, CIA does not mention any, adherents has nothing. Conclusion: ??? No change.
Argentina: CIA and State both say only less than 4%, adherents says 1.5%. Conclusion: 1.5%
Australia: CIA says 1.5%, State says less than 5%, adherents says 1%, 1.5%, 2%. Conclusion: 1.5%
Austria: CIA + State say 4.2%, adherents has nothing. Conclusion: 4.2%
Azerbaijan: All sources agree on 93.4% Conclusion: 93.4%
Bahrain: CIA says 81.2%, State says 98%, adherents (5) says 100%. The three average out to 93.1% Conclusion: 93.1%
Bangladesh: CIA: 83% State: 88.3% adherents: 87%(2), 88.3%(3), averaging 87.8. Conclusion = average for all sites, 86.4%
Belarus: No useful figures, somewhere well below 4%. Will leave the existing number alone.
Belgium: No useful figures, no conclusion.
Belize: CIA says under 14% (lumped in with "other"), State says nothing, adherents says 1%. Conclusion: 1%
Benin: CIA: 24.4% State: 20% adherents: 13-17%, averaging 15% Conclusion = average of the 3 sites, 19.8%
Bhutan: CIA + State suggest well under 1%, adherents says 4.9-5.0%, averaging 4.95%. Conclusion: (0.5+0.5+4.95)/3= 2%
Bolivia: CIA suggests less than 1%, State + adherents have nothing.
Bosnia: CIA + State have 40%, adherents has nothing. Conclusion: 40%
Botswana: CIA has less than 1.4%, State has less than 4% (both under "other"), adherents has no data.
Brazil: CIA has under 2%, State has under 26% (both "other"), adherents has no data.
Brunei: CIA has 67%, State gives no useful data, adherents says 60-63% averaging 62%. Conclusion: (62+67)/2 = 64.5%
Bulgaria: CIA + State say 12.2%, adherents says 13-14%, averaging 13.3% Conclusion: (12.2+12.2+13.3)/3= 12.6%
Burkina Faso: CIA=50%, State=55%, adherents=50%(2) or 90%(1), but 90% looks like an error. Conclusion: (50+50+55)/3=52%
Burundi: CIA=10%, State=10%, adherents has 1-2%, averaging 1.3% Conclusion: (10+10+1.3)/3=7.1%

That concludes my alphabetical quota for today, but here are 2 bonus countries to settle recent reverts.
India: CIA=13.4%, State=12%, adherents(10) has 10-14%, averaging 12.6% Conclusion: (13.4+12+12.6)/3= 12.7%
Pakistan: CIA=97%, State=97%, adherents(5) has 95-97%, averaging 96.1%. Conclusion: (97+97+96.1)/3=96.7%

My activity in moving through the alphabet will be directly proportional to how much POV pushing I see going on, but for now, anyone should be safe in reverting any new changes to A-B countries.

All of the countries will be getting population updates while I'm at it, so totals as well as percentages will change. Poindexter Propellerhead 08:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. -- Having done that, just for the record... 16 countries showed increases in Muslim populations and 8 showed decreases from their formerly listed numbers. Considering that most of the countries had population increases, that makes sense. I hope that it also shows that I don't have an axe to grind either way. Poindexter Propellerhead 09:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Recombining the info like that is venturing into original research, PP. It's better just to stick to one source, or to simply recognize differences in quality between sources. For instance, the CIA factbook data on Ethiopia disagrees with all censuses taken by the CSA of Ethiopia, and isn't as reliable. Really, I think we should be using individual country government-sponsored censuses rather than outside sources which are less reliable, and sometimes carrying an agenda. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No method is perfect, and I myself have some major qualms with the one I used: it is a huge amount of work, relatively hard to verify, and, as you say, someone can worry that it's original research. On the other hand, averaging is exactly the method which this page has long said would be used in cases where estimates conflicted: "The percentage of Muslim population of each country was taken from the US State Department's International Religious Freedom Report 2004. Other sources used were the CIA World Factbook and Adherents.com. In a few cases of conflicting estimates, the average of lowest and highest estimates was calculated."

The only reason I went to all this bother was because, as an anti-vandalism editor, I noticed constant changes on this page, a number of which appeared to follow a pattern that indicated an agenda. Like picking between the three approved sources for the lowest possible number, or taking data from yet other sources when those might be lower still. When I see patterns like this, I have to be worried about neutral point of view being followed. I, personally, don't really favor any religion over any other, but I do feel very strongly about NPOV.

The only alternative I can see to using averaging in case of numbers disagreeing (as they usually do), would be to use only numbers from one source, or in a strictly adhered-to hierarchy. Like: CIA Factbook, unless they have no figures, in which case State Department, unless they have no figures, in which case the middle-most of all recent estimates from adherents.com, unless they have none, in which case we find whatever we can... or something like that. But that would represent a change from the existing policy of this page, so it's not the sort of thing I (or anyone else) should try to unilaterally impose on the article.

I'd be happy to redo my work based on a model like that, if there is consensus for such a change. Does everyone here support the idea of using (1) CIA Factbook where available, then (2) State Department when not, then (3) the middle-most of recent (1997 or later) and reliable-seeming adherents figures if the other two have failed, then (4) other reliable source as a last resort? Poindexter Propellerhead 21:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Message to Poindexter Propellerhead

Hi!I hope I and you will work together to make the new census of Muslim population with more exact census from many neutral and justice sources,fairness,truth because Muslim population is over 1.5 billion is very LIAR and BIASED CENSUS!

I will find the source and you will edit new census of population as 2007 and both of us will calculate it soon.Here is the census of World population as 2007:

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbrank.pl

I hope you will allow to combine with me!Thank so much! I hope the happiness to you.Good luck!

Thanks! I've actually already collected around half the world's data from all three sources, so most of what remains to be done is the calculating (population*percentage) and entering it into the page. I have absolutely no idea what the outcome will be, but I really want to see it done right. No more out of date population numbers, and no more percentages which get changed all the time. We should be able to get this page to where we know that it's true to the sources, and needs nothing more than occasional population updates. Poindexter Propellerhead 12:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The Muslim in Bhutan!

Bhutan is an Buddhist country with about 97% is Buddhists,2% is Hindus and only under 1% is Muslims maximum (1% is enough high)!No more no less!

According to all of the sources we use (CIA, State Dept. and adherents), Bhutan is at least 25% non-Buddhist, so for purposes of this page it should not be listed as 97% Buddhist unless you can bring the US government around to your way of thinking. Bhutan is a terrible mess to keep track of anyway, the CIA says that some population estimates are as low as 810,000, while theirs is 2.33M. That's part of why we use standardized sources. Not only are they fairly reliable, but it prevents revert wars where different editors pick and choose between wildly divergent figures from different sources. Poindexter Propellerhead 12:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely the "US Government" shouldn't be the only possible reliable source on this subject, nor should convincing the US government be the only way to change demographic information about a country. That being said, the anon ought to provide an actual source for his or her claims. As currently presented, the claim is being made entirely by assertion, with no evidence being provided at all. john k 22:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, under the existing policy of this page, the US State Department and the CIA Factbook are the resources of first resort, with adherents.com figures being used in desperate cases (see discussion at the tail end of "Disputed numbers" above). If you know of a comprehensive, authoritative and relatively unbiased source which should be considered, now would be a great time to bring it up. Poindexter Propellerhead 22:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not, but we certainly shouldn't a priori exclude them. john k 00:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the UN population estimate for Bhutan is 670,000, which is what we use on the Bhutan page. I'd also note that the CIA basically says there's no Muslims - 75% Buddhist, 25% Hindu, is what it says. john k 00:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked for the UN reference on the Bhutan page, but couldn't find the URL. When I Googled "Bhutan site:un.org," the first match was this page: http://www.cyberschoolbus.un.org/infonation/index.asp?id=64 which says that the population is 2.257M, which is the same as the CIA's estimate as of a few months ago, and within 3% of census.gov's current figure. What page should I be looking at to see a population of 670,000? Poindexter Propellerhead 01:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - I agree that the a priori exclusion of sources seems undesirable from a philosophical perspective, but we do have changes made to these figures on a pretty much daily basis, with nearly none of them explained on the talk page, and only a handful explained in comments. Without reviewing all of the talk pages and edit-time comments that have been made on this page, I feel pretty confident that avoiding biased/unreliable sources was one reason for standardization, and prevention of edit-warring was another. I think it was a pragmatic concession rather than the philosophical ideal, but we can discuss changing that, too... Poindexter Propellerhead 02:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Updates

For a to-do list, "(details)" should be added after the countries' names' in the tables. Also, the total population of most countries are a year or two old, they should be updated along with the corresponding population of the muslims.Opticals 00:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Change article's name?

Since territories should be included in this article, should this page be redirected to something like "Islam by country and territory"?Opticals 00:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Scrutiny of Sources

I, too, have noticed that the Muslim world figures don't match the Muslim continent figues. Let me give an example: If you combine the total Muslim populations of Africa, Asia, Europe, Oceania and the Americas...you end up with 1,490,082,474 Muslims. But the total at the top says there are only 1,449,426,377 Muslims in the world. That is a difference of 40,656,097. Also, a lot of the linked sources are way out of date (i.e. 1975, 1985 etc...).

Looking through the discussion, I see a lot of contention about the individual figures. This is to be expected. However, this is not to be accepted. Wikipedia has set forth certain standards regarding this issue: What is and what is not an acceptable source. It is because of this, that I have decided to create this post.

Sources: As mentioned above, there seems to be 4 'main' sources that people are regularly contending with. Those are Adherents.com, the US State Dept. ([state.us.gov]) the CIA Factbook and the International Religious Freedom Report. I think we can put some of the disputes regarding these four to rest.

I went to Adherents.com and ran through their databases. Did anyone notice that the absolute newest figures in their database are from 2000? And most others are from the 70's and 80's? If you can find some newer database at Adherents.com let me know, because I did a lot of digging. And hey, there seems to be a problem with them quoting sources as well.

Most of the tension, however, seems to occur when choosing between the US State Department, the CIA Factbook, and the US State Department's International Religious Freedom Report. In deciding which to use, most of the editors cite personal preference, or their opinion, who they think is more accurate. Since the International Religious Freedom Report is published by the US State department, we can probably just break it down to either the US State Department or the CIA Factbook.

Here's a question: Has anyone wondered where the US State department gets its figures? Or who the US State department uses as their source? Searching through their site I find, time after time, that they not only often quote from the CIA Factbook, but they regularly refer their website viewers to the CIA Factbook. Here are a couple examples: [22], [23], and [24]. The CIA Factbook doesn't quote the State Department's figures.

Now, Monday I am going to call the US State department and the CIA, and ask them, in their professional opinion, who we should trust as being more accurate. I am assuming nobody will complain about me doing that. This kind of information is too important to get it wrong. (TS Brumwell 02:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

I apologize for the delay in getting this information back. I have one phone call left to be returned from the CIA, but I think I have the answer to this devisive argument. I have talked to representatives in both organizations. In fact, I have called the US State Department so many times that Operator 15 knows my voice by heart. Here's the scoop: The US State Department updates their website statistics once a year (some might do it every six months). That is why, sometimes you will see the most recent update was 2004. They are very busy. The CIA, however, update the list of country leaders weekly, and everything else every two weeks. Now, someone could argue about which agency has better sources, but I don't think that's the right way to approach it. We want the best estimates available. Regarding this argument, I suggest we please both sides. Why not make one column on the list CIA Factbook numbers, and right next to it, have the US State Department numbers? It sounds like a good answer to me. Does anyone have any objections? (TS Brumwell 20:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

Gut reaction answer: No, I wouldn't mind that at all. Pragmatic answer: then there will also be at least 2 different figures which must be updated for total muslims in each country, as well as maintaining the percentage figures - possibly 4 if the CIA and State give different total population figures (which they usually will, since CIA updates more often). As this page now stands, it is badly in need of updating; the census figures for most countries are not current, but there is nobody who is really maintaining the article. Most edits are piecemeal changes to single countries (usually in one table but not the other, and totals are NEVER updated), or occasionally someone will edit a number of countries in the hopes of forcing the total number of muslims higher or lower. In short, this page is a royal PITA to maintain, so nobody's doing it. If you really feel like taking that on, I certainly won't object, but unless you're in it for the long haul I'd be reluctant to endorse anything which makes it harder to maintain. As it is, the problems are severe enough, and persistent enough, that I have wondered whether Wikipedia might not be better off if this article didn't exist.

I guess this is what I'd do, if I were going to lavish several hours on this article and had consensus for doing so: (1) cut it down to one table, to make it maintainable, and (2) get agreement on some rigid sort of hierarchy for sources, so that the religiously-motivated will not be so inclined to pick and choose between sources in order to drive the totals up or down. The ideal is probably to use census totals from each national government, but half of the time those don't exist, most of the time when they do they're not in English, and having scores of sites to check for figures will never work out. So I'd favor using whichever of State and CIA figures is most easily accessed, then have a fixed list of fallback sources to use in the event that the #1 source is lacking info on a particular country, like: #1 Religious Freedom Report, #2 CIA, #3 State, #4 Adherents figures for 2000, #5 any other reliable source, or something like that. I have no strong opinion on which figures tend to be the most accurate overall, but I'm sure that any one set of them is more reliable than having various editors pick whichever sources give the highest figures, or whichever give the lowest.

Oh, and expect problems with Albania, no matter what. Most of the country is agnostic, but 2/3 identify as ethnically muslim (see Bosniaks for another example of this phenomenon), even though most of those might have never set foot in a mosque and might have zero interest in ever doing so. So you get figures (based on censuses which are decades out of date) which say it's 60-75% muslim, which is true in terms of ethnic identity, and newer figures which say that 10 or 15 percent believe in the religion, which are also correct. There's just no winning. Poindexter Propellerhead 22:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Poindexter, you just gave me one of the best laughs I've had in a long time! Thanks! (PITA, lol). I'm willing to throw a couple of years at this project. It is actually right down my alley anyway. I also agree with you about sources. I can see how trying to throw two differing sets of numbers together could become a nightmare. It really is easier to agree on one. Concerning Bosnians...no problem. I've got a large group of Bosnians here in Iowa and I understand what you're talking about. But, man, Bosnians can bake bread! Yeah, I don't think a lot of people understand that the concept of being "Muslim", is not the same as having someone in the West say they are Christian. I'll give you an example. I know a Muslim who became a Christian, but a lot of the time, though 12 years have passed, when he is refering to his "identity", he still occasionally calls himself "Muslim". A more accurate rendering in the West would be calling oneself an "American". Concerning census totals...when I asked, I could hear their eyes rolling in their heads, over the phone. Let's see what the others think. If we can come to a consensus, I can update these figures at the drop of a hat. Actually, it would have to be a very slow hat cause I think it will take me a good day to fill in all the figures. Personally, I would like to go with the CIA Factbook. It's world famous, it's created for other branches of the Gov't to use, and it's easy to read. What do you guys think? (TS Brumwell 01:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

CIA Factbook as #1 reference is fine with me. Just be prepared for trouble when neither it or the State Department give any figures. Today I had to edit the South Korean figure, so that'll be a good illustration of the problem. According to "reliable" sources, the number of Muslims in South Korea is anywhere from 10,000 to 140,000. How do they come up with this huge range of figures? 140,000 = all who identify as ethnic Muslims, including at least 100,000 who are resident alien workers, who are neither Korean citizens or of Korean descent. Around 35-40 thousand are Koreans, but even Muslim spokespersons in Korea admit that only a quarter or so of those actually practice the religion: "According to Lee Hee-Soo (Yi Hui-su), president of the Korea Islam Institute, there are about 40,000 listed Muslims in South Korea, and about 10,000 are estimated to be active practitioners."(from the bottom of the article Islam in South Korea) So there's your answer: there are 10,000 to 140,000 South Korean Muslims. And there will be editors who will want to use either extreme, citing whatever reference is necessary to get it done.

You have my absolute best wishes on this article, someone with a neutral viewpoint definitely needs to take it under their wing, and I'm very glad that you've stepped forward. Poindexter Propellerhead 02:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Korea will be hard. I'll have to call the South Korean desks at the State Dept and the CIA. Hey, if I keep this up, I'll probably have to tell my secretary to let me know when the black suits arrive. Thanks Poindexter. (TS Brumwell 15:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

Problem Resolutions

Problem: A good number of our statistics have no source listed for their figures.

Proposed Solution: If you make a change, you must source it. Use Wikipedia's standards:
Wikipedia: Verifiability,
Wikipedia: Attribution,
Wikipedia: No original research.
In other words, the burden is on you, the editor, to show your change isn't your own point of view (POV), but is based on an actual authoritative source. How do you know what constitutes a reliable source?
Wikipedia: Reliable sources.

Summary: If you make a change, you must source it. If in doubt, hit the discussion board and find a consensus with us, your co-editors. If you make a change and it isn't sourced, don't be suprised if one of your co-editors "improves" it. If there is a dispute, we work out a consensus on the discussion page. If that doesn't work we go to Wikipedia: Dispute Resolution to determine whose position is the most neutral.

Since this proposal is in line with / direct quotes from Wikipedia: Five Pillars and Category: Wikipedia guidelines, I don't expect much disagreement. But, in the spirit of consensus, what say you all? (TS Brumwell 20:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

Table of Top 60 has one row missing

The top 60 table has a row (#49) missing.

Also, it would have been nice to have some way to convert tables to Excel.

Vandalism

I would like to make a complaint about the IP address 58.186.232.136. He has almost definitely signed on now as Opticans and has requested to block me. He is identified in the history of the article on more than one occassion with vandalism. He once said on the history page on the brief discription "All of the Muslims is worse than SHIT!And they are World's most dangerous terrorists!" To sum up, i would not like to be blocked.Opticals 14:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Some suggestions!

Hi everyone!

I am managing the articles of Buddhism by country (with User:Bikeable);List of religious populations and a little of Christianity by country (with User:Vexorg) and maybe I hope in near future,I can contribute for projects of another religions as soon as possible!

The first;I think we need to update new census of July 2007 from source from http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbrank.pl which is I think is the most exact!And total population of the World as July 1,2007 is 6,671,226,000.I made it for Buddhism first!

The second;I think we should make the new style for all article of any religious populations by country (Buddhism by country; Islam by country; Hinduism by country) just like Christianity by country did with minimum percentage and maximum percentage from many sources (government,CIA,etc...).But in my mind and mostly people we all know the populations of Christianity, Islam, Judaism or Hinduism could estimate nearly right but with Buddhism,it is very HARD!Some sxample:

1. Christianity in France (51%-85%), Belgium (38-84%),etc...
2. Buddhism in China (21.3%-80%), South Korea (27-48%),etc...

How do you think about my suggestions?

And I want to invite User:Vexorg (Christianity), User:Opticals and User:OsamaKBOT (Islam), I with Clay Collier and User:Bikeable (Buddhism);etc...to found "The Union of Wiki Project Religions".So I want to hear your opinions and replies about that!

Contact me about that on my talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Angelo_De_La_Paz#Some_suggestions.21

Thank so much!God bless all of you! Angelo De La Paz 09:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the scrutiny of sources section, you will see that the main source is going to be CIA Factbook, with a section for links to other figures. (TS Brumwell 17:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC))

To TS Brumwell;so we will use the census from http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbrank.pl soon and apply more than one figure in each country (as articles of Christianity by country and Buddhism by country did before).A example:

1. 1. Egypt: 90 (CIA,Religious Freedom) -94%

I like to invite some people to re make this article again!Thanks! Angelo De La Paz 10:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem Resolution: 2

As i have been working very hard these last 15 day putting together the new agreed stats (as of 01 aug 07), I was highly disappointed to find that not only is this page protected now, but people are posting without reading the previous posts. We have already gone over the basic rules in the previous Problem Resolution. The following are people who have put time and effort into this project: OneGuy, PMLF, SimonP, thames, Carioca, Afc, Itsalif, Pure inuyasha, zzuuzz, Guettarda, john k, Ed Sanville, ArsalanKhan, Statistiki,Canadia, Nil Einne, Martin Jensen, Indefinitevirtue, One2one, Madman 0014, Islamic, Balthazarduju, Will Beback, Theguys, The-pessimist, Jim Douglas, Matchrthom, Poindexter Propellerhead, Opticals, TS Brumwell. I suggest, we implement yet another page resolution: Changes are not made without first discussing them. In other words, post your proposed change in Talk section BEFORE changing. Let there be discussions about future changes. (TS Brumwell 18:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC))

I totally agree. The only thing I'd add is that reliable sources alone are not enough; they need to be a very limited set of reliable sources. The 3 we've been using have, to one degree or another, everything in one place, so that looking up 100 countries is a pain, but still feasible. Additionally, it is all online and in English (yes, we DO have articles on religious demographics where you have to be able to read Serbian or Urdu or something to read the cites), which makes it possible to revert bogus figures. This is not an article that needs unilateral editing, it is simply a list (and a mature one at that), which needs annual updating. The page protection comes at a bad time, since it is in the middle of getting caught up on needed updates, but once it's updated, it should be able to remain completely static for months at a time. Poindexter Propellerhead 21:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. (TS Brumwell 17:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Islam in Saudi Arabia

Nowadays,many foreign workers are working in Saudi Arabia where Islam is the state religion and all non-Islamic religions are prohibited:

• India (Hindu)
• Nepal (partly Hindu and Buddhist)
• Far East Asia,Indochina,Sri Lanka (Buddhist)
• Europe,North America,the Philippines (Christians)

1. 1. Saudi Arabia:over 99% Muslim could not right because with 3-5% Christian,1% Hindu,0.5% Buddhist and 1% others as Baha'imaximum of Muslim in Saudi Arabia could only from 92%-95%.

1. 1. Qatar:over 95% Muslim could not right too because with 8.5% Christian,1% Hindu,nearly 2% Buddhist and around 1% othersb maximum of Muslim in Qatar could around 86-87% no more no less.

(Please visit other articles of Christianity by country; Buddhism by country and Hinduism by country for more detail!

The Muslim populations in UAE,Kuwait or Bahrain were fine because it showed very exactly! Angelo De La Paz 05:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia's figures are given as such because even though there are large numbers of foreign workers in that country, those people are not citizens of Saudi Arabia and their numbers are counted for the respective nations which they are citizens of, instead of being counted twice.Opticals 02:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am disagree with you in some points!First,you can see here:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3584.htm

That shows in total 27.6 million,22 million is Saudis and 5.6 million foreign nationals (maybe over 2 to 2.5 million to from South Asian- Muslim countries as Pakistan,Bangladesh and maybe even a little from India or Southeast Asia as Indonesia).In fact,total Muslims in Saudi Arabia could only less than 92% as maximum (or 22 million Saudis with around 2-2.5 million non-Saudi Muslims).Here is the exact figure for Saudi Arabia (the collection) from:

1. 1. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71431.htm
   2. http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/country/?CountryID=27
   3. http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/nationprofiles/Saudi_Arabia/rbodies.html

• Muslims: 92%-95% (native Saudis and foreign Muslims)
• Christians: over 3-5%
• Hindus: over 1%
• Buddhists: around 0.5%
• Other or none (Baha'i,Sikhs,etc...): 1%

Sometimes,the sources couldn't help us!We need to make some "Wikipedian projects" from the reality;we did it for some countries as Communist states,Arab states and Islamic states where is the hell for all religions or non-state religions.I think I will invite some people to re-make some articles (Islam by country and Hinduism by country as soon as possible after we did the newsest estimate with census of 2007 (only source from http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbrank.pl and total population as July 2007 from United Nation as 6,671,266,000) for List of religious populations,Buddhism by country (finished) and Christianity by country (in process).

حياك الله to all!Take care!

Angelo De La Paz 06:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The common ideas for all articles of religious populations!

Hi all!I've just finished to update new census of 2007 for articles of Christianity by country and Buddhism by country,now I am so tired after 3 days (over 2 hours per day).So,I will remake this article Islam by country on tomorrow and it may take me 2-3 days to making!These are main points:

• Only one source of 2007's census for all articles of religious populations (Christianity and Buddhism were finished,Islam and Hinduism soon but Islam first).That is from here:

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbrank.pl

• The total World's population of 2007 is 6,671,226,000
• In some sects in "Table" part will show more than 1 figure from many sources (CIA,National Factbook,etc...) but not the sources of these websites:

1. 1. http://www.islamicpopulation.com/
   2. http://www.islamicweb.com/?file=statistics

And next update of Islam by country will take the census of 2008 (December).Any questions?

Angelo De La Paz 10:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Angelo, you really should read the rest of the posts. I will summarize just a few points...The CIA Factbook is updated weekly. The US State department updates their figures every couple years and for some departments, if they are frisky, will update every six months. One rep at the State Department told me to go with the CIA figures. So... The problems that we are having, are that people keep changing the numbers without using sources, using sources that have no credibility, and making changes just to make changes because people say, "I live in ****, and I KNOW this figure is wrong!" Hey, Appeal to an Authority (who isn't an authority) is a fallacy of basic logic. What is currently on the table is that we use the CIA Factbook as the main numbers, and then in the next column leave space where people can put links to different numbers they find. Quite frankly, keeping accurate track of Muslim populations around the world is part of my job. That's why I volunteered to commit a few years to this project. (TS Brumwell 21:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

Discussion: Possible Change

Gentlemen, according to the above mentioned policy, I am bringing forward a possible change for discussion, rather than just post it. I propose we change the opening paragraph in order to bring it into alignment with our current policy. I propose we change it to something along the lines of the following:

Islam by Country

This is an article about the population of Muslims around the world. You will find that the numbers are broken down by region, by country and by percentage of population. Although the gathering of statistics is considered a science, people use different methodologies and theoretical formulas. Therefore, different people get different numbers. In order to ensure the readers some level of confidence in our figures, we have decided to select one primary source, and then list links to other authoritative sources in order to enable the reader to observe the variances.

The primary source used in these breakdowns is the CIA World Factbook. Some readers may want to know why we have chosen this as our statistical reference. The primary reason the CIA World Factbook is utilized, is because it is not only an authoritative source, but it is also updated weekly. Other sources that were considered were the US State Department figures, Adherents.com, the US State Department's International Religious Freedom Report and the US Census Department. The reason the US State Department wasn't chosen, was because their statistics/numbers are updated irregularly. A small number of country departments update their numbers around every six months, while the majority update their numbers every year or so. Also, the US State Department regularly uses and references the figures in the CIA World Factbook. Adherents.com was not chosen as the primary source because it is seriously out of date and very few--if any--sources are quoted. The US Census Department was not chosen because its figures are based on the census, which takes place every ten years. Furthermore, the US Census Department and their International Data Base (IDB) falls under the US Department of Commerce. (optional) The US Department of Commerce is not known for their foreign intelligence gathering or their ability to balance the US Trade Deficit.

Please rely on these numbers with caution.

(TS Brumwell 23:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

Recent posts without discussion

Individuals are posting changes on this page without discussing them, and without reading prior posts regarding what is published. New editors are more than welcome here. However, we need to come to a consensus before "dramatic" changes are made.

The sheer number of disagreements, reverts and good intentioned changes this article has undergone and is still undergoing are proof that people are unwilling to try and come to a consensus.

Please, when you have a suggestion...post it in the discussion page first. We can make this article a shining example of cooperation and neutrality. We can make this article respected, in reference to our numbers. We can make this article a joy to edit. However, we can accomplish none of these things without consensus, discussion and compromise.

(TS Brumwell 17:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Numbers?

Sorry to bother ya'll. I was a bit curious about Islam so I started adding up the numbers. I am having trouble making heads or tails out of them. Either my calculator is deep fried or things just aren't addin up right.

Just thought I would mention it in case nobody noticed. (Patricia Op 23:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Hi! Welcome, Patricia. I know what you mean. This page can get into a jumble at times, but we're hoping to get some sort of consensus going and possibly get all the numbers reconciled. If your planning on staying around, we could use all the help we can get. (TS Brumwell 00:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

This Page Up For Deletion

My first reaction when seeing this up on the AFD board, was that it needs to be canned. The largest portion of this article is made up of statistics. Where is the extra content? Where is your commitment to get along? I'm looking at your discussion page and I am frustrated. I have voted to keep the article, but only on the condition that it be improved. If it isn't, and if it comes up on AFD again, I will vote to X it. I suggest everyone go to pages like Pony and Horseshoe. They are good examples of consensus at work. You can do it! I wish you well. (Myhorses 19:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Umm, err, thanks. (TS Brumwell 00:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for the invitation, but no thanks.(Myhorses 16:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

---

From....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Proposed_deletion

• If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page.

In line with the above I'm going to remove the tags. There are NO grounds whatsoever as has been pointed out. Let's make better use of our time than wasting it on this.Vexorg 16:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. (TS Brumwell 14:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

---

It is apparent that individual editors have very strong feelings about the reliability of each of their sources. The problem we have been having on this page, is that the feelings are sooo strong that people are changing numbers all the time. The question is, "How can we compromise in such a way that meets everyone's wants (regarding sources), and also cuts down drastically on the unilateral editing?"

After looking around at other pages, I believe I have a partial solution. What if we removed the numbers/tables from the main page and placed them on sub-pages? Then people can tweak those numbers to their hearts content. And if there is a conflict with those numbers...then all can simply refer to the numbers from that source.

Here is a roughed-up version of what I am talking about.

Listing of Muslims by country.

Important note: Population counts by religious affiliation, like most demographic characteristics of a population, are based upon statistical science and subject to observational error and are technically referred to as estimates. Likewise, partisans may seek to bias the estimates. The percentage of Muslim population of each country was taken from the US State Department's International Religious Freedom Report 2004 [25]. Other sources used were the CIA World Factbook [26] and Adherents.com [27]. In a few cases of conflicting estimates, the average of lowest and highest estimates was calculated. The total population of each country was taken from census.gov [28] (2005 estimates).

By Source

The CIA World Factbook: wiki internal page link

US State Department: wiki internal page link

US Department of Census: wiki internal page link

US State Dept's Freedom of Religion Report: wiki internal page link

Adherents.com: wiki internal page link

Uncle Bob's Religious Info and Stuff: wiki internal page link

If we do something like this, then we can start talking about adding other sections to this article. (TS Brumwell 15:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

Muslims in UAE

From reporter of IRF 2006 of US Department of States wrote:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71434.htm

The country's population is estimated at 4.5 million, approximately 85 percent of which are noncitizens. Approximately 85 percent of citizens were Sunni Muslim and the remaining 15 percent were Shi'a. Foreigners were predominantly from South and Southeast Asia, although there were substantial numbers from the Middle East, Europe, Central Asia, former Commonwealth of Independent States, and North America. Although no official figures were available, local observers estimated that 55 percent of the foreign population was Muslim, 25 percent was Hindu, 10 percent was Christian, 5 percent was Buddhist, and 5 percent belonged to other religious groups, including Parsi, Baha'i, and Sikh.

In late 2001 the Ministry of Planning inquired about religious affiliation in its first federal census. According to a ministry report compiled in 2003 using data collected during the census, 76 percent of the total population was Muslim, 9 percent was Christian, and 15 percent was other.

Here is the total Muslim number in UAE:

• 85% of which are noncitizens: 4,444,011*85% = 3,777,409
• 55% of the foreign population was Muslim: 3,777,409*55% = 2,077,575 [1]
• Approximately 85 percent of citizens were Sunni Muslim and the remaining 15 percent were Shi'a:

4,444,011*15% = 666,602 [2]

From [1] and [2]===> 2,077,575 + 666,602 = 2,744,177 or 61.75% in total UAE's population is Muslim.

Angelo De La Paz 07:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Maximum percentage of Muslim in Ethiopia

To Angelo De La Paz. Why were my edits deleted? The numbers for Ethiopia came from the state department, the most cited source on this page. This should at least be cited as an estimate, even if u dont agree with it. No reasons were given for the other deletions.Opticals 16:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

To Opticals:

About Muslims in Ethiopia:

Please read more here [29],it shows:

The country has an area of 472,000 square miles, and a population of 77 million. An estimated 40 to 45 percent of the population belongs to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (EOC), which is predominant in the northern regions of Tigray and Amhara.

Approximately 45 percent of the population is Sunni Muslim. Islam is most prevalent in the eastern Somali and Afar Regions, as well as in many parts of Oromiya.

And here [30]

Religions (est.): Ethiopian Orthodox Christian 40%, Sunni Muslim 45-50%, Protestant 5%, remainder indigenous beliefs

Common highest figure: 45%

Angelo De La Paz 07:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the 2 State department websites sometimes give different numbers, most countries listed on this page have three sources; the CIA, the State department's background notes and the state department's religious freedom report. Why should Ethiopia be an exception to this rule and since when has using the "common highest figure" been a policy on this article?Opticals 16:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

To Opticals:

The first,from sources of national census with CIA Factbook show that is over 32% is Muslim.(at least number)

And the second with new estimates, the various between these sources of CIA, the State department's background notes estimate the Muslim percentage in Ethiopia from 45% to 50%[31] but the state department's religious freedom report 2007 estimate that is 45% and it is actually more reliable because it's a specific figure[32] and everyone know that is Ethiopia is very famous as an Orthodox Christian country than an Muslim country and the influence of Christianity is stronger, deeplier, earlier and widelier than Islam.

I will revert the maximum of Muslim percentage in Ethiopia as 45% again with those sources!

Remember, I've done this article (as well as article of Christianity by country, Buddhism by country, Hinduism by country, List of religious populations, etc...) with many new sources and after all, the numbers of Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus are higher than any previous estimate from before to now and I see that is all estimates were very biased for Christians!

I will invite some people to arbitrate this problem soon!

Here is the main points of our disputes about maximum Muslim percentage in Ethiopia:

1. Angelo De La Paz: 45% [33][34]
2. Opticals: 50% [35]

Angelo De La Paz 18:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Muslims and non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia

All non-Islamic religions is prohibited in Saudi Arabia but in more than 27 million, including an estimated foreign population of more than 8 million. The foreign population reportedly includes 1.5 million Indians, 1.5 million Bangladeshis, 1.2 million Filipinos, 1 million Pakistanis, 1 million Egyptians, 600,000 Indonesians, 400,000 Sri Lankans, 350,000 Nepalese, 250,000 Palestinians, 150,000 Lebanese, 100,000 Eritreans, and 30,000 Americans (Source: [36]).That means:

• Christianity: 4.5% or over 1.2 million Christians (Predominant of about 90% of Filipinos, Americans and Europeans).Read more in Christianity in Saudi Arabia
• Hinduism: 4.5% or over 1.2 million Hindus (Predominant of about 80% of Indians, Nepalese).Read more in Hinduism in Arab states
• Buddhism: 1.5% or over 400 thousand Buddhists (93% of Sinhalese people from Sri Lanka; remainders are from East Asian countries as China, Vietnam, Thailand, etc...).Read more in Buddhism in Middle East
• Others as Sikhs, Baha'is, Jews, etc...all is common 0.5%

Overall Muslim numbers is including native Saudi Muslims and foreign Muslims (from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, etc...) is only 89% as maximum and it's 100% with 22 million native Saudi Arabian citizens.It means the numbers of Muslims is from over 22 million (100% of Saudi Arabia's citizens only) to 24.5 million (including foreign Muslims and citizens)

Angelo De La Paz 17:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi there well here is an estimate of which I have worked out for Saudi Arabia (counting non-Muslims): Total population: 24 Million Indian Population: 1.4 million; estimated 1 million Hindus ok, Filipinos 800,000 (christian 90% = 720,000) 150,000 Lebanese - estimated 20,000 Christians, 130,000 Sri Lankans (Buddhists), 40,000 Eritreans, 15,000 Christians estimated and 30,000 Americans. Add them all up = 1,000,000 + 720,000 + 20,000 + 130,000 + 15,000 + 30,000 = 1,915,000 < Total non-Muslim population, so 1,915,000 divide by 24,000,000 (Saudi total) = 0.079... < times by 100 will give non-Muslim percent = 7.979... (8%) so 100% - 8% = 92% which is an estimate from the calculations from foreign population. All Saudi Arabians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis are vertualy Muslims I believe. Laters. Thanks!!! Moshino31 (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The ranking of top Sixty Muslim Nations needs better referencing

I have been trying to find a source that tells me if Pakistan or India has more Muslims today, but have not yet been successful. The current sources contradict either one another or the material on the page, for example "adherents.com " cites the Muslim populations as

1. Indonesia 170,310,000
2. Pakistan 136,000,000
3. Bangladesh 106,050,000
4. India 103,000,000

and despite the fact that these figures do not appear on the page, it is referenced. In addition, I can't seem to find where the current figures come from, my search of the CIA factbook was not successful, if these figures are on there and are the ones that are being taken as accurate, an actual link to the page should be made.

Not Worth Waiting For 04:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Salaam Alaykum!

Hi!I think those are very old census (maybe from 1990's), only Indonesia has about 200 million Muslims recently and Pakistan is more than 150 million Muslims, we are using the latest sources we have with the latest census from page of census.gov

Thank you!Angelo De La Paz 17:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured list

I want to nominate this article as a Featured list on the basis of the WP:WIAFL. What's your idea.--Seyyed(t-c) 17:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's just fine but let's do it for other religions as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc...and maybe even Religions by country too!Angelo De La Paz 19:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated it here. please participate in it.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Souther Europe

Something is wrong with country clasification. According to the table Southern Europe consists only of two countries: Albania and Turkey. They should be moved to some other categories (f.e. Balkans an Middle East). Also Austria rather belongs to Western not Central Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.42.229.147 (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Data inaccuracy

I was going through the table of ascending order of most populated Muslim countries, on the left hand sid, the Saudi % is 100% but on the right it is 97%. Other data inaccuracies also occur. I don't know if it's been discussed above, but I didn't find it to be discussed. Kindly fix it.

User: Salvoray  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.101.160.87 (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 

And the table by percentage isn't strictly sorted by percentage. I don't know whether this is due to alterations to the order from the original source, or because people have changed the percentages (I should imagine some of them are controversial). Choalbaton (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Number of muslims is very inflated

Humanbyrace (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Humanbyrace (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The number of muslims can not exceed 1,1 bln with the highest estimation possible.

Here are the correct number of muslims country by country by a neutral and objectif point of view.

I rejected the:

-Ghulat of shia

-Wahabbi sect

-Folkloric muslims

-Muslims by culture only

-Atheistic&agnostic muslims by culture only

-Muslims by name[especially in the ex communist states and some muslims in europe,australia,africa,america and even middle east

Here the correct numbers by country(I have ommited conutries where number of muslims is very small)

Afghanistan 30

Albania 1

Algeria 25

Angola 0,1

Argentina 0,1

Australia 0,1

Austria 0,1

Azerbaijan 1

Bahrain 0,5

Bangladesh 80

Belgium 0,1

Benin 1

Bosnia and Herzegovina 1

Bulgaria 0,1

Burkina Faso 5

Burundi 0,1

Cambodia 0,1

Cameroon 1

Canada 0,1

Central Africa 0,1

Chad 2

China 2

Comoros 0,1

Republic of the Congo 2

Côte d'Ivoire 3

Cyprus 0,1

Denmark 0,1

Djibouti 0,5

Egypt 65

Eritrea 2

Ethiopia 20

France 3

Gambia 1

Georgia 0,1

Germany 2

Ghana 2

Greece 0,1

Guinea 7

Guinea-Bissau 0,1

India 120

Indonesia 150

Iran 20

Iraq 15

Israel 1

Italy 0,1

Jordan 5

Kazakhstan 0,1

Kenya 1

Kosovo 1

Kuwait 1

Kyrgyzstan 0,1

Lebanon 1

Libya 5

Republic of Macedonia 0,1

Madagascar 0,1

Malawi 0,5

Malaysia 10

Maldives 0,1

Mali 5

Mauritania 3

Mauritius 0,1

Morocco 25

Mozambiq 0,5

Myanmar 0,1

Nepal 0,1

Netherlands 0,1

Niger 5

Nigeria 20

Oman 2

Pakistan 100

Philippines 0,5

Qatar 0,5

Russia 3

Rwanda 0,1

Saudi Arabia 10

Senegal 2

Sierra Leone 1

Somalia 7

South Africa 0,1

Spain 0,1

Sri Lanka 0,1

Sudan 10

Syria 10

Tajikistan 3

Tanzania 3

Thailand 0,5

Togo 0,5

Tunisia 8

Turkey 50

Turkmenistan 0,1

Uganda 1

Ukraine 0,1

United Arab Emirates 1

United Kingdom 0,5

United States 1

Uzbekistan 1

West Bank and Gaza 2

Western Sahara 0,1

Yemen 15

TOTAL≈1,100,000,000(1,1 billion) as maximum

Humanbyrace (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Humanbyrace (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Disparity between statitics

in the "Top sixty" section, the numbers given for percentages and population differ from each other in each column; eg in the "By population" column it states that bangladesh has around 132 million muslims, yet in the "By Percentage" column it states that bangladesh have 127 million muslims. This kind of contradictory info is throughout the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.234.79 (talk) 02:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Article (s) needs to be re-developed

This article is just about mainly Demographics of Muslim countries, it is supposed to be about Islam around the world of countries, for example Asia or Europe, all of this is also available on Demographics of Islam. Islam by country, meaning the presence of Islam by country not by just demographics. Mohsin (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Cristanity not is a religion, because various religions

Catholicism is the major religion cristhian and your number is inferior to Sunni Muslims(the majority of Islam)!!! Islamics sunnis are + 1,5 bilion and praticants catholics are 1,4 bilions!!!(in Brazil, major country of catholics, the majority of the cristhians not are praticants)!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.71.54.68 (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• 0.016%[43] 30,402 - The numbers are falses; Only in "Foz do Iguaçu", a town of the Parana state, the number of muslims is very superior!!! In the North and Northeast parts, the number of muslims are small, because in South, Southeast and Middle-west the number is very high(~500,000 to + 1 milion)!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.71.54.68 (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That number is the official count, so your problem is with the Brazilian officials who oversee the counting. There's been a lot of discussion about this subject, as you can read above. Wikipedia is not a place for wild estimates, even if from "sourceable" references, especially when they may be biased. Furthermore, if the numbers were that high (around one percent of the population), you would bump into Muslims in all walks of life in Brazil, like is the case with descendants of Japanese immigrants (who total around 0.5 to 1% of the population). That is simply not the case with Muslims. There would be halal food ailes in most supermarkets, for crying out loud. afc (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Poland

This article says that in Poland is 3,852 muslims which makes 0.01% of the whole 38,518,241 population. Article "Islam in Poland" says that poland has 30,000 muslims or 0.07% of the total population. So what is the number? 10 times more is a big difference.

Revising Ethiopia statistics

Now that the 1994 & 2007 census results are online, I'd like to update the figures on this page. However, the results have been questioned about their accuracy, with some believing that Muslims in that country were intentionally undercounted & numbers for the Ethiopian Church inflated. (It doesn't help that the CSA limited all other choices to "Protestant", "Catholic", "Traditional" & "Other" -- which lumps Jehovah Witnesses with Baha'i & agnostics.) Any objections, or suggestions on how to best add this material? -- llywrch (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Religion in Albania

http://www.scribd.com/doc/15738681/Feja-ne-Shqiperi1

According to the newest statistics, 70% of Albanians are atheists... so change that 70%...

And if you don't belive:

http://albania.generalanswers.org/ http://ithelp.us/Albania/?p=7 http://www.albanians.gr/forumi/index.php?topic=232.0 http://ateistet.org/shkrime/feja-dhe-statistikat-fetare-ne-shqiperi http://www.tiranacity.com/shqiperia/pozita-gjeografike-mainmenu-147/486-besimet-fetare.html http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/nationprofiles/Albania/rbodies.html http://www.usab-al.it/usab/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=327&Itemid=114 --Dessy-The Hero's Land (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Lists of countries

Template:Lists of countries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Cybercobra (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The list mixes up countries and regions

The list mixes up countries and regions. That is very confusing. The article should containe a list of countries and a separate list of regions. User:nielsle October 17th 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.150.116.115 (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I follow you; could you help us understand which ways you feel it is confusing? The list shows an alphabetical listing of every country in the world, with the estimated Muslim population as per the Pew Research Center's October 2009 report Mapping the Global Muslim Population, the percentage of Muslims in the country, and finally the percentage of the global Muslim population that the country's Muslims make up. As an example, Bangladesh has 145,312,000 Muslims in the country, they make up 89.6% of the nation's population, and those 145.3 million Muslims constitute 9.3% of the world's total Muslim population. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Pew Forum

I think the original policy of citing the State Department and the CIA world factbook should be restored, maybe along with the Pew Forum as a source. Much effort over the years went to making a table that showed a total very close to the total of the Pew Forum, off by only 11 million. The discrepancy could have been minimized if editors had been a little more diligent in updating the figures. Additionally and more importantly, the Pew Forum report is not going to be updated, while the mentioned sources are updated annually in the case of the State Department and on and off in the CIA world factbook. Thus, in a year or two, the current data will begin losing its reliability. Opticals (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

While I do not know how often the Pew Forum plans to update the report (their web site mentions releasing a global report on Christian populations next year), it seems natural for us to shift to U.S. State Department and CIA World Factbook sources in future years if their reports are updated more frequently. However the Pew report has a lot of advantages right now because it provides all the information we need in a single location that not only cites it own sources, but also gives us an apple-to-apples statistical analysis of the demographic information for each nation. Plus speaking from the ease-of-editing perspective, HaireDunya`s switch of the article from a HTML-based table to a wikitable decreased the article's size by over 76%, which makes it much easier to edit and update. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Pew forum underestimate some European muslim populations

Pew Forum underestimate muslim populations considerably at least in some European countries. Here are some that I found:

• Norway is stated to have "65,000" muslims by PF in 2009, however in reality in 2007, - 80,000 people were officially members of Islamic congregations (which is not tradition in muslim countries, and thus count is lower than total), and in 2005, estimates for total muslim population by scholars varied from 120,000 to 150,000 (~3%).
• Denmark also had an estimated 270,000 muslims (~5%) in 2005, in contrast to 2% by PF.
• Belgium had an estimated 6% in 2008, however by PF it says 3%.

Because of this, I think it should be opened up for non-Pew forum sources in this article. If this is not accepted and one article have to only contain Pew Forum estimates I suggest splitting it to a new article called "List of countries by Muslim population (Pew forum 2009)" or something like that. -TheG (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Pew report has a notation by the statistics for each of these three countries that indicates the data was "drawn primarily from general population surveys, which have smaller sample sizes than demographic surveys and are not designed to measure the size of small minority populations. This may lead to undercounts of Muslims in countries where they represent a small minority of the population." In this case, the data for all three came specifically from the 2006 European Social Survey.

Personally I would be fine with seeing us change the numbers listed for these three nations as long as the replacement statistics were directly sourced and cited to reliable, third-party, published sources such as Statistics Norway. That said, I am, however very reluctant to see us start relying on government reported statistics for this information. While many western, democratic countries have a long tradition of independence for their official census information, that is not the case for all nations. The last thing I want to see is for us to parrot census information that was derived via political pressure (such as China's under-reporting of its Muslim population). — Kralizec! (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I edited this page last week, but someone changed it back. The Muslim population of Gabon (140.000) does not correspond to 0,1% of Muslims worldwide, as a little bit of mathematics can show. That's why I changed it to 0%, as has been done in the case of other countries whose Muslim populations are smaller than 0,05 of the Muslim population of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.163.149.246 (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for boldly making the change. While it may be hard to initially grasp, the mantra at Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth." Specifically, Wikipedia's official policy on verifiability states:

“ The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. ”

As such, since our source for this cited content –the Pew Research Center's October 2009 report Mapping the Global Muslim Population– states ".1%", I have changed it back. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Pew is not reliable

Pew is obviously not a reliable source and should just be ignored. These figures are completely unrealistic, misleading, wrong, fake, pooh. Not only that: figures have also been cited erroneously and incompletely: final result is quite ridiculous, obscene. Opicodor (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you help us understand why you feel that Pew's report is not a reliable, published source? Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

France

BBC News confirms in 2005 the French muslim population was 5-6 million (8-9.6%), this artical says for 2009 France has a muslim population of 3.5 million (6%) hmm? I think something is wrong, especialy as French government sources for 2008 stated the French muslim population was 6-7 million (9-10%).

Also UK muslim population is 2.4 million (3.5%) in 2009 NOT 1.6 million stated here! Rademire2 (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The French government doesn't do religious and ethnic surveys so if it wants an estimate, it just considers people that originate from muslim countries as muslim (apparently the BBC uses the government estimates), it has nothing to do with the "comprehensive demographic study" the Pew Research Center has done, read [37].--Chrono1084 (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Jean-Paul Gourevitch (French demographer) the French muslim population is 7,7 million (the largest in western Europe), not 3.5 million ! 3,4 million North Africans (including 2 million Algerians), 2.4 million sub-Saharan immigrants (Senegal, Mali, Comoros...), 500 000 Turks, 300/600 000 Asian Muslims, Other (Middle East, Converts, illegal immigrants). 40 million in 2050. See : Les Africains de France, Acropole Belfond (2009). ISBN 2735703207. 88.178.38.7 (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

world total

Democratic Republic of the Congo - 10% muslim of population 6.889.000 muslim population Cambodia - 6% .... 870.000 .... Rwanda - 14% .... 1.148.000 .... People's Republic of China - 6% .... 80.317.000 .... Albania - 55% .... 1.963.000 .... Bosnia & Herzogowina - 48% .... 2.214.000 .... Kosovo - 92% .... 1.936.000 .... Brazil - 0.9% .... 1.730.000 .... Kenya - 20% .... 7.800.000 .... Ukraine - 5% .... 2.200.000 .... Philippines - 11% .... 10.118.000 .... Burundi - 10% .... 898.000 .... Central African Republic - 15% .... 663.000 .... Malaysia - 69% .... 19.250.000 .... Ethiopia - 45% .... 35.649.000 .... Nigeria - 58% .... 91.482.000 .... Indonesia - 89% .... 213.841.000 .... India - 16% .... 188.800.000 .... Azerbaijan - 96% .... 8.640.000 .... Sri Lanka - 9.6% .... 1.942.000 .... Mexico - 0.5% .... 556.000 .... South Korea - 0.4% .... 200.000 .... Madagascar - 7% .... 1.445.000 .... Myanmar - 13% .... 6.502.000 ....

World Total - 25% .... 1.721.738.000 ....

---

Democratic Republic of the Congo - 10% muslim of population 6.889.000 muslim population Cambodia - 6% .... 870.000 .... Rwanda - 14% .... 1.148.000 .... People's Republic of China - 6% .... 80.317.000 .... Albania - 55% .... 1.963.000 .... Bosnia & Herzogowina - 48% .... 2.214.000 .... Kosovo - 92% .... 1.936.000 .... Brazil - 0.9% .... 1.730.000 .... Kenya - 20% .... 7.800.000 .... Ukraine - 5% .... 2.200.000 .... Philippines - 11% .... 10.118.000 .... Burundi - 10% .... 898.000 .... Central African Republic - 15% .... 663.000 .... Malaysia - 69% .... 19.250.000 .... Ethiopia - 45% .... 35.649.000 .... Nigeria - 58% .... 91.482.000 .... Indonesia - 89% .... 213.841.000 .... India - 16% .... 188.800.000 .... Azerbaijan - 96% .... 8.640.000 .... Sri Lanka - 9.6% .... 1.942.000 .... Mexico - 0.5% .... 556.000 .... South Korea - 0.4% .... 200.000 .... Madagascar - 7% .... 1.445.000 .... Myanmar - 13% .... 6.502.000 ....

World Total - 25% .... 1.721.738.000 ....

Vatican City

The table doesn't have Vatican City. Someone needs to add it, I can already tell you that there are no muslims in Vatican so everything should be ZERO. Vatican city is a country so it should be on the table. Bolivia13 (talk) 02:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You can add it yourself if you want, provided you have a reliable source. Airplaneman ✈ 21:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Puerto Rico again

This is the second time this subject has been brought up about Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico isn't in independent country, it is a territory of the United States of America. Therfore, it is part of the United States. Sure its self governing, but every state in the United States is self governing. Puerto Rico has common wealth status. It doesn't have senetors and the people there can't vote for president, but they are considered United States citizins. Therfore Puerto Rico shouldn't have its own section. Muchas Gracias. Bolivia13 (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the label in the table states "Country/Region". I'm guessing Puerto Rico is classified as a region. And please sign you comments with ~~~~, which you produce your name. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 21:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3