Talk:Demographics of Islam

Lebanon in the first map

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

Table Data

This table makes no sense whatsoever. It is internally inconsistent (most numbers don't add up) and a lot of the data is simply incorrect.

Since there was no discernable sort order in the previous data table here, I updated it with one sorted by country, and also created a new one, ordered by population percentage/muslim population: Demographics of Islam - Data by Percentage --Frescard 21:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should sort it by muslim population instead. It would be more intuitive. -- Abbas

But it is sorted by population. I swapped them a while ago, so that the one sorted by name is the external one now. --Frescard 00:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I question the accuracy of this table. I don't have alternate data at the moment but I know for a fact that Turkey, for one, is not 100% Muslim. The Wikipedia article on Turkey states that "Nominally, 99% of the population is Muslim. . . The remaining 1% of the population are of other religions, mostly Christian (Greek Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic (Gregorian), Syriac Orthodox, Molokans, Roman Catholics and Protestants), Jewish, Bahá'ís and Yezidis."

The Filipinos in Saudi Arabia are not "citizens of the country. As such they should not be included. Also, I think the 100% numbers have been revised down to conform to the CIA factbook and other sources. Thanks, Muhammad.

I hope that there is further information on Muslims in Russia available soon.

Why was the column on religious freedom added?

Whether or not a country respects religious freedom has no obvious relationship with the percentage of Muslims, or with the Sunni/Shi'a breakdown. It has NOTHING to do with demographics, but with politics. I suspect a veiled argument on the order of "Muslims don't respect religious freedom." While this is unfortunately TRUE of some Muslim countries, this article is not the place to make the argument. I'll wait a day or so and unless someone comes up with a darn good reason to keep the column, I'm deleting it.

I think we should also round the figures to the nearest thousand. The figures have a totally spurious precision. I should know -- I started the article. It's MY FAULT and bad science. Zora 07:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete it and ill add it back. I think it is legitimate. Especially when in some nations people cant choose not to be muslim. Your argument is very POV. Mattrix18 06:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The column is there to illustrate the issue whether the people being counted as Muslims have an option not to be one.

An important point when you're trying to interpret a statistic. After all, in some countries you may get arrested if you try to convert from Islam. This naturally would have serious implication on the believability of religious statistics coming from that country. --Frescard 14:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not averse to having a para in there about the difficulty of guessing at religious affiliations, or social pressures that prevent people from saying what they REALLY think or believe. Linking to the article on apostasy in Islam (whatever it is called now) would be appropriate. There are probably other WP articles that apply to this situation. If you have a well-run national census in a secular country, presumably "religious affiliation" means "research subject checked this box" and nothing more -- it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how often he/she attends church, whether or not he/she believes all the doctrines of the church, etc. When there are no censuses, as in some of the countries, or if claiming a certain religious affiliation exposes you to persecution or death, the figures are going to be fuzzy or skewed.

The place to make these arguments is discursively, in the text, not as a kind of subliminal suggestion by inclusion of another column in the table. The column is POV. I'm not a Muslim, I'm a Buddhist, so I'm one of the people who would NOT be allowed to practice her religion in Saudi Arabia. I do not support such discrimination. However, I also want to be fair and out-front. Zora 07:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A little disclaimer note doesn't cut it. That's like those TV ads where they scream at you about some outrageous deal you're getting, and then, once you come to the illegible fine print, you realize that you're not really getting a deal at all. It's just a legal "fig leaf", which has no real informative value.

You have a HUGE table here that takes up a couple of screens. A brief sentence, hidden away somewhere, explaining the worthlessness of most of the data doesn't balance the weight and presence of that table.

And, to use your argument about "implying" things via the data, couldn't one also claim that the table numbers imply how popular Islam is? After all, it's got a billion followers! How can it be wrong? Except that most of these people didn't actually "choose" Islam. They had to!

No. I think most of the data of this table is totally useless from a neutral point of view, and we have to make that very clear, and on equal standing with the data, that the trustworthyness of these numbers is very questionable. --69.157.234.199 16:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a mighty big strawperson you set up there, anonymous. I'm not making any argument that Islam has to be right because so many people believe in it. Some Muslims boast that Islam is the fastest-growing religion and assert that this means the religion is true, but I don't believe the "fastest growing" claim myself, and I remove such arguments where I find them.

Also, claiming that the data is "useless" is silly. If this data is useless, so is all data re religious adherence. I agree that some people are probably classified as Muslim who are atheists, or agnostics, or perhaps even secret Christians, who keep their mouths shut about their real beliefs. But do you really think that those people are more than a minority, even a tiny minority, in any country? For every college student in Iran who is a secret agnostic, there are twenty villagers who accept popular Shi'a beliefs fully and completely. The figures are fuzzy, but they aren't completely unbelievable.

I'm going to delete that column, add a para about the difficulty of enumerating adherents and a link to the apostasy page (not immediately, because I have a life, but soon). If we end up in an edit war, we'll have to invite the wider WP community to come have a look. Zora 21:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the table. There is no sufficient reason for it to be here. I don't see anything comparable on any other demographics page for other religions. I am a muslim and I admit that they have problems but it is hypocritical in the extreme to have this table and nothing similar for other religions.Hokiefan 15:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Statistics are not correct

The demographic statistics in muslim countries are not as reliable as in USA. I'm from Turkey and I know for sure that muslim ratio is less than 99%. There are two reasons which must be taken into account. First, when a baby is born muslims are assuming that baby is muslim and registering him/her as muslim, changing the religion on paper is a difficult process so nobody cares. Second, since there're no reliable demographics muslims tend to increase the ratio. In my opinion at least it must be written that these numbers may not reflect reality.

I think as his/her. According to some statics Muslims make up %92 to %95 of total population, others are %1 Christians and %4 to %5 Atheists. Turkey should be updated. Zaparojdik 17:24 24 March 2007

These numbers are definately made up because they make no sense. The person who made that section didnt have a neutral point of view, and decided to just make up numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.71.80 (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Mistake: The figure for Israel and the OPT only includes Israeli citizens

It is stated that 16% of the population of Israel is Muslim, which sounds right for those with Israeli citizenship, but there are roughly 3 million more Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza who do not have Israeli citizenship and would not be included in this figure. Palestinians are about 96% Sunni Muslim, 4% Christian. This would make the percentage of Muslims in Israel and the OPTs combined more like 40-45%. I would suggest adding a row for the OPTs and looking up the exact population and Christian/Muslim split. (I think there was a census in 2002).

I would've editeded myself, but it's your article.

U.A.E. ??

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

The UAE is on the list, somewhere down the middle. I've lived in Dubai, UAE for 15 years, and I think the 85/15 split for Sunni/Shia is about right, although in Dubai, it could be higher due to immigration from Iran and Pakistan in the 60s-70s. Cheers, Raza

Extrapolations, messy datasets

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

Inaccuracy and bias in the collection of religious demographic statistics

The collection of religious statistics is notoriously biased and inaccurate. Religious groups generally report high numbers for their own adherents and lower ones for other groups. The Journal for the Institute of Muslim Minorities (JIMMA) contains several heated disputes over the population statistics of a number of nations. I've found statistics on the Muslim population of different African nations in an Islamic Encyclopedia, which contained absolutely no reference to a source. It seemed that the author was expressing wishes more than facts.

In the table on Wikipedia there are some obvious questions. Is the table to reflect citizens (and permanent residents) of a nation, or do they include temporary residents, such as foreign military personnel. I know the case of Djibouti personally, and it would be difficult to find the 7,000 non-Muslims in the country, unless one were to count the French and American military personnel. For citizens and permanent residents (including refugees from Ethiopia) the number would be less than even 1,000.

Also in the table Kenya is listed as being 34% Muslim. This is another situation that I know something about. This percentage is often thrown out when the Muslim community in Kenya is making political demands. However, several censuses and surveys have been done in Kenya and this number is simply unsubstantiated. For example, the "Kenya Demographic and Health Survey: 2003" [1] found 7.6% of the population claim to be Muslim. The other surveys and the official Kenya censuses have always found a similar percentage. On the Christian side, the percentages that are usually cited can be anywhere between 75-90%. However, more accurate surveys, conducted by Evangelical Christians, have found that approximately 7% of the population goes to an evangelical Protestant church. When one includes Catholics and Independent churches, one would have to estimate that only around 15% of the population attends church on any regular basis. Many more would check 'Christian' on a survey. On the "Kenya Demographic and Health Survey: 2003" nearly 90% of those surveyed 'checked' Christian. —The preceding --Chipmunkmike 15:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)unsigned comment was added by Chipmunkmike(talk• contribs) 18:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Yes, the statistics are bias, because we use no common source. We need to use a single source to gather all data, then the statistics would be less bias. These statistics need to be updated, and based from a single source when possible, and not necessarily muslim sources. I think the CIA World Factbook would have more accurate statistics than some of the ones used here. I just recently corrected the U.S. from a exagguration.--Sefringle 03:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have much faith in the accuracy of the CIA World Factbook, though it is a start. The French Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres, and the British Foreign Office also have similar statistics. However, these three sources don't necessarily do detailed research themselves. I'm not so concerned if Muslims, Christians, Hindus or atheists are reporting on these sort of stats, as long as they are based on solid research and not on political posturing or wishful thinking. --Chipmunkmike 15:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Lack of reliable source for discrepancy section

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

Shia/Sunnah %

Can someone put the shia/sunni percentage split of the middle east as well. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.227.227 (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

According to adherents.com the are more Shias live in the world. Please consider this table with regard to population increase. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Country	Population	Muslim (%)	Muslim	Shia to Muslim (%)	Shia Population	Sunni to Muslim (%)	Sunni Population
Saudi Arabia	24,600,000	100%	24,600,000	10%	2,460,000	90%	22,140,000
Turkey	72,900,000	99%	72,750,000	20%	14,550,000	80%	58,200,000
Yemen	20,700,000	99%	20,680,000	42%	8,685,600	55%	11,994,400
Kuwait	2,600,000	99%	2,600,000	35%	910,000	65%	1,690,000
Oman	2,400,000	99%	2,376,000	5%	118,800	55%	1,306,800
Bahrain	700,000	99%	700,000	70%	490,000	30%	210,000
Iran	69,500,000	98%	68,805,000	89%	61,924,500	9%	6,880,500
Iraq	28,800,000	97%	27,936,000	65%	18,158,400	35%	9,777,600
UAE	4,600,000	96%	4,416,000	15%	662,400	85%	3,753,600
Qatar	800,000	95%	760,000	10%	76,000	90%	684,000
Egypt	74,000,000	94%	69,560,000	1%	695,600	99%	68,864,400
Jordan	5,800,000	94%	5,452,000	2%	109,040	98%	5,342,960
Syria	18,400,000	90%	16,560,000	15%	2,484,000	85%	14,076,000
Lebanon	3,800,000	55%	2,104,310	60%	1,200,000	40%	850,000
Israel & Occupied Territories	10,800,000	46%	5,000,000	2%	21,760	98%	1,066,240
TOTAL	340,400,000	95%	324,299,310	35%	112,546,100	64%	206,836,500

According to the table of figures, shia - 35%, sunni - 64% (Ibadi make up the 1%) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.227.139 (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

I didnt use adherents.com for the figures, the figures came from the data from the article. therefore i will revert the changes made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.227.61 (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Sorry, i have to revert this, i have checked the figures and they do not match to adherents.com figures. this is relevant information and to compromise I will change to 'While in the Middle East the figures are approximately Shia 35%, sunni 64% and Ibadi making up the remaining 1%.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.227.245 (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Listen MezzoMezzo, the above table is directly copied from the article, which means that it uses CIA worldfactbook or one of the encyclopedia listed as its source. It doesnt use figures from adherents.com. i do not understand why my line keeps being reverted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.227.163 (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

1. The notability of the information contained in your line hasn't been addressed.
2. The table itself isn't cited and as it is I don't know if it actually does come from the World Factbook or elsewhere - in its current state, it looks entirely like original research.
3. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

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

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) 17:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Total Number of Muslims?

This chart says that the total number of Muslims is over 1.4 billion. References need to be given to source these populations (preferably all from one source) If this cant be done I recommend redoing the whole chart.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.185.229 (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, as it is, the chart is calculations by editors taken from outside sources - that looks like a violation of WP:OR to me, I don't think there's any way around it. It would best be simply replaced with something else. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Turkey-Alevi

You can not categorize Turkish Alevi/Bektashi as Shia. These two religious sects are different at every aspect. Besides that, categorizing Alevi as Shia will lead people to make false political interferences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.239.135.213 (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually we are Shi'a as we believe in Imam Ali as the Wali of Allah. We are however not like the Shias of Iran, Iraq or Pakistan -- Regards, Sa'af, a Shi'a Alevi Turk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.140 (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I've spent a few days of research among Alevis in Istanbul and I must say, the differences between Alevis and Muslims are far greater than any difference between Sunni and Shia Muslims. I notice that in Wikipedia Alevi entry, they are listed as part of Shia. Personally, I would just put in Turkey 80% Muslims, period, but maybe we should keep the Shia figure adding a note under the table to say that these 20% Shia in Turkey refers to Alevis. Just as to illustrate: Alevis (normally) don't pray (according to what both Sunni and Shia Muslim consider the official Muslim prayer)

Most Ismaili Shi'a don't pray traditional prayer either. --Enzuru 20:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

, they never go to mosques (whereas Sunni and Shia may well share the same mosque)

Neither do most Ismaili. --Enzuru 20:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

, they don't read normally the Quran (holy to both Sunni and Shia)

Often times, neither do most Ismaili. --Enzuru 20:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

, they do not recognize a number of prohibitions, such as

Neither do most Ismaili or Bektashi. --Enzuru 20:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

outlawing of alcohol (agreed upon by both Sunni and Shia), they do not pronounce the Shahada, i.e. the credo which is according to any Muslim, be he/her Sunni, Shia, Ibadi or whatever, the most basic obligation to be a Muslim... Yes, they consider themselves Muslims, they actually do!

Shahada isn't even a pillar for some Ismaili, they recognize the shahada, like Alevi do.

But if you went to a Shia Mosque and then to an Alevi worshipping ritual, you wouldn't find any more similarities then if you went to a church instead. I suggest adding the *Note. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you would find similarities to what you see Sufi Muslims do all around the world. They are Muslim, you don't know much about how much Shi'a Islam differs in practice, all your examples refer to Twelver Shi'a Muslims, you are leaving out the second largest group of Shi'a, the Ismaili, and lots of Sufi. --Enzuru 20:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That's very interesting, thank you for your comments. I really did not know that Ismailis are so different ('Sufi Islam' is a very widespread phenomenon which may or may not differ a lot from Sunni Islam, depending on each branch or brotherhood). But that doesn't necessarily speak against the idea of adding a comment to the presence of 'Shia Islam in Turkey'. Please note that in WP Ismaili, the Druze are counted as one branch of Ismailis, and although in Lebanon, Druze are in fact recognized as one of the branches of Islam, in WP Religion in Lebanon they are clearly identified as not being Sunni nor Shia. I don't want to enter here in a discussion if Druze or Alevis should be considered Shia Muslims or not, but just suggest to add a note that in Turkey, the 'Shia' population refers almost exclusively (or at least in its biggest part) to Alevis, because a not too well informed reader might just think of the mainstream Twelvers, which would be misleading. Don't you think it could avoid confusion?--Ilyacadiz (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

percentage of world Muslim population

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

Egypt

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

A different map of Sunni/Shia distribution

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

Conversions...

I don't know why, but these pages on Muslim statistics always downplay the role of conversions to Islam in the overall figures related to its growth worldwide.

I live in Canada and the majority of Muslims I've met over the past five years were in fact recent converts to the faith. As a convert myself, I can certainly attest to the fact that my religion has never been officially recorded to have changed from Catholic to Muslim.

I'm left to wonder whether or not religious statistics are ever really reliable. For one, if I do happen to officially list myself as a convert to Islam, will the same process also identify my former religion as Catholic? And will it, therefore, be noted that the Roman Catholic population has also lost an adherent?

Having been raised Catholic in a known Catholic majority country, I can also attest to the fact that a very large portion of those I shared my former Catholic identity with did not actually believe in or practice any religion at all. On the other hand, those of us who choose to convert often practice our new faith quite fervently.

I suppose overall it's very difficult to really gauge religious adherence. The main function of such numbers really is simply to gain a statistical estimate. In any case, I do think those of us who convert should definitely be given more weight and consideration when collecting these statistics. Converts to any religion tend to make up a decent percentage of those who actually integrate a religion fully into their lives, while a large portion of those who are "born" into any religion tend to simply identify themselves by the religion their families raised them in rather than being active practitioners of any specific faith.

What is the purpose of recording the numbers of those who are given a religious title at birth, whilst ignoring those of us who actually believe in a religion we choose? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZaynaRazia (talk • contribs) 05:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Why isnt the Netherlands ( with 1 million muslim) not in the tabel??? -Barakus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.173.109.247 (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Rounding

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

Muslim Population in the United States

The data table uses the CIA factbook as a reference to the total USA population and the Muslim percentage of that number. So .6% of 307+ million is 1.8+ million. There are other estimates, some saying the Muslim population is under 2 million to 2.8 million, others estimating the number being from 6 million to more than 9 million. Going by the CIA factbook(which was the reference), the number is just over 1.8 million. Maybe the discrepancies should be noted somewhere. DD2K (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the IP vandal and correcting my mistake (I must have multiplied with 0.06 instead of 0.006). I noticed the discrepancy as well, I have always heard that Muslims make up 2 percent of the population. But if the CIA source should be considered reliable for anything, it would be US census. CIA is more of an authority than factbook and adherents on the subject of US census. Therefore, I am okay with just leaving as is, but you are welcome to mention the discrepancy in the paragraphs above the chart. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Falastine, you've done a very good job and we appreciate your efforts. I'll leave the discrepancies for others, but I did change the Sunni/Shia USA numbers to reflect the change in the total. DD2K (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Very encouraging feedback to hear. I am not sure where the Sunni/Shia US percentages are from, but I am in the process of looking for verifiable numbers. For most of the list, I had to keep the Sunni/Shia numbers the same. I didn't expect it to be this hard to find such data. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Palestine data

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

This page is terribly inaccurate.

A lot of it is uncited, and the numbers are practically caricatures. 100% in four countries? That's ridiculous. You mean to tell me that not a single inhabitant of those four countries is Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, Buddhist, or Hindu? I know for a fact that is incorrect. There was recently a Christian in Afghanistan who was going to be executed by the Karzai regime for being Christian. The link provided for Afghanistan in the article doesn't even work. Here's a more accurate source for a lot of the numbers: http://www.mepc.org/workshops/popstat.asp 71.113.244.168 (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, the CIA has now changed the links and statistics, now I have to go replace each one. DAMN! As for your "terribly inaccurate" comment, this is something you have to take up with the CIA factboo. For Wikipedia, it is more about verifiability not truth here. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

New data available for Germany

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

Muslim Identity VS Practise

I think one thing that has to be established is that there are many Muslims who are identified as such but aren't practising or only practise to the extent of certain cultural ceremonies (fasting, marriage, funerals etc.).

For example in Turkey the majority of Turkish Muslims are not practising. Being Muslim in Turkey is just the default position regardless of practise. However curiously enough despite not following 5 times a day prayers, or Turkish girls not covering up, it seems that fasting is still widely adhered to and Turks who would otherwise drink alcohol, restrain from doing so during the holy month of Ramazan. Also words such as Masallah, Insallah and Kismet are part of the Turkish vernacular so the use of them doesn't indicate the religiosity of the person.

Therefore I think it has to be said in the article that the figures of Sunni Muslims does not indicate the number of practising Muslims. But just because someone doesn't practise doesn't mean they don't believe in God or don't identify as Muslim. But certainly in Turkey the 99% Muslim figure is definitely not true. 99% of Turkish citizens (100% of ethnic Turks) are of Muslim descent yes, but it in no way indicates how religious the person is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.167.69 (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)