Talk:Demographics of Islam/Archive 1

Untitled
This is excruciating! Shouldn't it be possible to get some sort of ballpark figure for the break-up. I'm not a Muslim so I'm obviously not privy to the sensitivities of over-stating one or the other; but some figures please! Sunni 80 - Shia 20, Sunni 77 - Shia 23.......something, somebody.

After watching Sunnis estimate the Shi'a population DOWN, and the Shi'a estimate their adherents UP, I decided to make a country by country table with the best figures I could get. The table could probably be considerably improved by consulting national censes.

This is the first time I have prepared a table and I have probably made dumb mistakes in the table formatting as well as in the demographics. Help is invited. Zora 14:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You've accomplished 99% of the job ;) I'll try to help you. -- Svest 15:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

Macedonia (FYROM)
Zora, what do you mean by (FYROM)? Cheers -- Svest 21:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;


 * I didn't check what name was used in Wikipedia. FYROM stands for Former Yugoslave Republic of Macedonia. As I understand it, Greece does not want Macedonia to use the name Macedonia, as that was the homeland of Alexander the Great and the name belongs to Greece, dang it. Greece will hold its breath until it turns blue if Macedonia uses the name Macedonia. Therefore Macedonia must call itself FYROM. Dunno how Wikipedia deals with this problem. I'd stayed up all night and I was too tired to check. Sorry. Zora 22:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The name used in Wiki is Republic of Macedonia. The article reads referred to by the United Nations and most countries as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). So, we still have to use Republic of Macedonia. Cheers -- Svest 22:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

Filling in some missing numbers
Zora,

There is a complete blackout in many places around the world about Shia population statistics. This makes it hard to get an objective count.

In some places like in Yemen, there is even ongoing massacres against Shia populations that go completely unnoticed in the western media.

Therefore I hope you dont mind me posting numbers from Imam Reza Net, to fill in some blank spots in the table.

I did not have the time however, to add the numbers to the total and change the overall percentages accordingly. Could you do that please? My time is up here in the library. Thanx.--Zereshk 23:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

D'oh
There's another article, Islam by country, that discusses the demographics, but not in such detail. The two articles should be merged. I prefer the demographics title, but could be argued out of it . Gosh I feel dumb for not noticing that there was a possible conflict. I had dismissed the Islam by country article because it didn't give any sectarian breakdown. Zora 02:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Corrected version

Iraq - Shia: 62% Sunni: 18% Kurd: 20%

Bahrain - Shia: 67% Sunni: 30% Other: 3%

Spain
Spain does not show up in the list. Anyone can provide us with some figures? Cheers -- Svest 23:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

I corrected table -- possibly I shouldn't have
User Khakhan corrected the table to show that India's Muslims were 85% Sunni, 15% Shi'a. That seemed reasonable, and I calculated the figures, changed totals, etc. -- and then, d'oh, I stopped to wonder exactly what source Khakhan had for those figures. I will revert unless Khakhan can give a source. Zora 20:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Brazil
Correct information (in aid of the comments below) Muslims in Brazil: 2.5 million Shia: 40% Sunni: 60%


 * The correct number is 27 000 as per the last Brazilian census (verify link in the article). However the percentage of shias and sunnis seem to be correct (40/60). Nfo here have to be based on reliable sources like Censuses. PMLF 02:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The Brazil info here is completely wrong. The correct amount is around 27,000 as per the Brazilian official census which is the only reliable source available. But I think the whole article should be deleted (or transfromed into a redirect) as there is a similar article already. PMLF 22:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * But adding the percentages of Sunni and Shia in the other artcile would be a good idea. The percentages given here for Sunni and Shia in Brazil seems correct as at least 90% of the muslims living in Brazil are Lebanese-born that came here from the 1980s onwards. However, as mentioned above the amount of Muslims in Brazil is only around 27000 PMLF 22:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The two articles should be merged -- Islam by country doesn't give Sunni/Shi'a/Ibadi breakdown, and it's not good at giving sources or caveats. I like Demographics of Islam better as a title, but would accept Islam by country if that's what other editors liked better. Zora 00:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Islam by Country is a better title because there are other similar articles (Jews by country, Roman Catholics by Country and so on). PMLF 00:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Blatant intellectual dishonesty
I hope some of us realize that giving Muslim population counts for each country down to the individual level is nonsense. First of all these numbers are obviously made up numbers, at best an extrapolation from someones arbitrary estimate of percentages. And of course the sources for these numbers are who ? Oh the CIA, who is notoriously unable to get any accurate data about the Muslim world. But of course if the CIA says it is so then it must be so, (like the WMD in Iraq). But who are we to question the travesty of scholarship that gets published by officialdom, lets just pretend that we do not notice the absurdity of those claims and propagate the deception to our gullible readers--Ibnra 06:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you have a suggestion re rounding? I agree that the figures are improbably precise. Should we round to the nearest hundred? Thousand? As for the use of CIA figures and adherents.com -- that's what's easily available on the net. Using figures from a national census would be better, if the census is reliable. Don't just yell at us, start work . Zora 08:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as the overall Muslim population is concerned, I do not think using CIA figures is harmful and I personally do take their data seriously. I can accept that the Sunni,Shia breakdown might be inaccurate but I don't think it is that serious of a matter. خرم Khurram 14:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The inaccurate Shia Sunni breakdown might not be a serious matter for you, but it is for some people. And as the accuracy of it is unreliable it should not be there. --Khalid! 20:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * we will obviously take the best numbers we have. If you have more reliable numbers than those of the CIA, you are more than welcome. For many countries, there are more precise estimates. Islam in France, for example: CIA says 3-6 million, the French interior ministry estimates 4.1 million. In this case, we should settle for 4.1 million, until somebody comes up with a more accurate study. 81.63.50.227 14:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Article scope
so far, I don't see why this should be separate from Islam by country. If this is to remain a separate article, it souldn't list percentages by country, it should discuss the history of Muslim demographics in intelligent, flowing prose. 81.63.50.227 14:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Fine, you write it then. Zora 22:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Busy, Zora? -- Svest 00:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;


 * Dang busy. I'm over-extended, that's what it is. Zora 02:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * it shuld be merged with Islam by country --Khalid! 12:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Dodgy table methodology
This is really lousy methodology and completely unencyclopaedic. The rows should be left blank if this figure is not known. It is definitely invalid to provide a sum total or sum percentage for the columns where sometimes the figure is known, and sometimes it is not. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Muslims have been enrolled, provisionally, in the Sunni column

The future of this article (merge)
Following the discussions above, and since I removed the misleading statistics I mentioned above, and someone else came along and wiped the whole page and replaced the contents with a redirect to Islam by country, it has become clear that this article needs to be merged with that other article.

I've reverted the redirect at this time because there are some sourced Sunni/Shi'a statistics which are worth either merging or preserving. I suggest that either these statistics are merged to the other article, or this article retains the countries where we have the Sunni/Shi'a statistics, delete the other countries, and build on that by renaming this article Sects of Islam or similar. It could then contain the flowing prose mentioned above, with a small (but growing) section of Sunni/Shi'a statistics for each country. We currently have Sunni/Shi'a statistics for seventeen countries. It would be a shame to lose them. Please express your views about what should happen to the information in this article. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the other article should not be deleted or merged with this article. That article gives nice collection of the links to all "Islam in countryname" articles. Also, that article has verifiable numbers from the US State Department. There is no way you can create a list of shia/suni number except a few countries like Iran, Iraq, Pakistan etc; Such stats are not available for 99% of other countries. You are never going to find any reliable (like US State Department) numbers for shi'a/sunni for 99% of the countries. It will completely ruin that article to add 'shia' and 'sunni' numbers just for the sake 4 and 5 countries  72.129.170.249


 * As I mentioned above it is seventeen countries (around 10% of all countries) that we have Sunni/Shi'a statistics for. There are probably many more available. The reputation of the current source is equivalent to the US State Department, and there are many other reputable publishers who might provide equally reliable statistics. The pursuit of Sunni/Shi'a statistics is worthwhile IMO. If you don't think the verifiable stats from this article should be merged to the other article, then at least don't remove them from this one. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you'd look at the references, you'd see that the article is based on the CIA Factbook, where it isn't superseded by national censuses. Do you have an agenda, anon, in wanting to delete the Shi'a and Sunni numbers? We had many many fights over Sunni and Shi'a statistics before I made this table -- now there's something that most people accept. If we delete all the figures, then we'll go back to this situation: Sunni editors declare that 95% of all Muslims are Sunni and only 5% are Shi'a. Shi'a editors declare that 80% of all Muslims are Sunni and 20% are Shi'a. Revert wars in the various Islam-related articles ensue. It would be a VERY VERY bad idea to delete the closest thing we have to a count. It could certainly be improved. But people come here and kvetch and never do any work. Zora 03:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * These entries should be properly referenced and verifiable. It would be a very bad idea to depict a number for one group (say 100% Sunni), where this is not in fact reported by any reputable publisher -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Wiping all the (inaccurate and unverifiable) Sunni figures
I just realized that Zwhatsisname removed all the Sunni figures, on the grounds that it was wrong to enroll people in the Sunni column unless we had figures for the country. I feel a sectarian agenda there too -- Shi'a can claim higher numbers, since no one "knows".

It is universally accepted that there are large populations of Shi'a in only a few countries. It is unclear how many Shi'a there are in the US, say -- no one even agrees how many Muslims there are! But as long as we make it clear that Shi'a constitute a small portion of the Muslim population in many countries and that the overall count would probably swing more in the Shi'a favor if we had good stats, I think it's fair to put Muslim populations in the Sunni column until we have better info. Instead of blanking the table, get better info! Erasing all info until we have perfect info doesn't help anyone. Zora 03:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not easy to merge this article with that article. First, there is no room in that other article to add more stuff. That article has easy access to all "Islam in country" articles like Islam in Egypt, Islam in Turkey, Islam in Saudi Arabia, etc. Second, that article is based on the US State Department reports -- not CIA factbook. The % doesn't always match between two articles (see Liberia). The US State Department uses more up-to-date sources (and national censuses, UN sources when available). That article also has useful information about each region and top countries list. Third, you are never going to find shi'a/sunni stats for 90% of the countries. There are only few countries that have significant Shi'a population. This list will stay with '?' for most of the countries72.129.170.249 06:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Zora, (that is your username), I know this may be difficult, but please assume good faith. I know you have spent some considerable effort on this article. I have no sectarian agenda - my only relevant interest here is in making Wikipedia a well-referenced accurate encyclopaedia. I am really not interested in claims other than to have them accurate and verified. So no personal attacks please.


 * I accept your statement that Sunnis outnumber Shi'a in most countries. If I had any stats I would add them to the article. In the meantime, it is misleading to suggest (using your example) that all Muslims in the US are Sunni. I challenge you to provide a verifiable source which says there are 2,957,341 Sunnis in the US, or that 100% of the Muslims in Brunei are Sunni (that's what the table says). You can't. You can only currently provide a source which provides this figure for all Muslims. The number of Sunni/Shi'a is a fact that we simply don't know because it hasn't been reported (and verified). In an article which principally reports the Sunni/Shi'a proportions, providing a figure where there is none is simply misleading and could be viewed as being very biased. It's like saying that the overwhelming majority of people in America were born in America therefore the number who were born outside the country is zero. This table is similarly saying (with authority) that the number of Shi'a in most countries is zero. You can't say that. It would be better to say nothing. Statistical proportion tables are zero-sum. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's reasonable to assume that 90% of countries that don't have shi'a/sunni stats don't have significant population of Shi'a to make any difference to overall percentage. No one is saying that there is not a single shi'a say in Morocco -- but even if there are, so what? They are small enough minority that it makes no difference to overall count. Add 10,00 to 150 million; the result is still 150 million. In any case, if you are going to delete that part than this article will stay with '?' blanks because no such data is available. In that case, this article should be just deleted and redirect added to the other article. 72.129.170.249 16:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your interpretation. The table says there are 32,300,411 Muslims in Morocco and then it says there are 32,300,411 Sunnis. If there are any Shi'a in Morocco then one of those figures is incorrect - the same one which is not verifiable because it is not reported by any reputable publisher. I'm not going to continue reverting this article. The table as it stands is absolutely misleading, biased, unverifiable, and inaccurate. Those made-up figures should be removed from the Sunni column. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said, you are not going to find how many of that 32,300,411 are Shi'as. Even if there is a Shi'a minority in Morocco, the number is so low that there will be no way you would find that stat anywhere (same is true for 90% of other countries on the list). Besides, let's say there are 50,000 Shi'a in Morocco. How does that change overall percentage? It doesn't at all. 150 million + 50,000 = 150 million. 72.129.170.249 20:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No we do not have a source which says how many of the 32,300,411 are Sunni either, so that figure should be removed. However we do have sources for at least seventeen countries, which makes at least that much information worth hanging on to (and not simply deleting without warning). Your point about percentages is moot. We have sources (in most cases) for the proportion of the population which is Muslim. The number of Sunni + Shia will always add to 100% (except in notable cases like Oman). At the moment the article is saying that 103 countries have 100% Sunni which is plain wrong in so many ways. If we find a source which says there are 5% Shi'a then we put that in the article. As you say, this main focus of this article is to provide a source for Sunni/Shi'a numerical debates. It is therefore wrong to a) says that all Muslims in 103 countries are Sunni, and b) not report the sources we do have. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * what's your problem? It is obviously wrong to say there are 100.00% Sunni anywhere; that's a strawman. This is about estimates, and while we don't have the exact number, it is safe to say that the percentage of Shi'a Muslims in North Africa is low enough so as not to significantly affect the total percentage in the order of 12% Shi'ites (maybe 10, maybe 15, we don't know, because for some reason these countries don't manage to do a proper census). In countries like Morocco, it is certainly more informative to give upper limits (such as "<5%") rather than simply a noncommittal "?". dab (&#5839;) 09:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll explain very briefly and clearly exactly what 'my problem' is. This article is presenting figures for the number of Sunnis in most countries that are a) unverifiable b) original research, and c) POV. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Total
Zora gave the justification for this table because it ended Shi'a vs Sunni number dispute. If you are not going to add the total (and you are never going to find the stats for 90% of the countries on the list anyway), what's the point of this table? It should be deleted and redirected to other article 72.129.170.249 20:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how it can end any dispute to count all Muslims as Sunnis. The calculations are misleading in the extreme (and if you'd care to check the totals are currently wrong anyway). I would even go so far as to say that it is POV. It is completely unencyclopaedic. Please only report verifiable facts. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If there are no figures for Shi'a at CIA Factbook and adherents.com, that is because the number is too small to mention. The lack of mention of Shi'a is a fact.

I do think that it would be a good idea to round off the figures, which would emphasize that they are just estimates, instead of actual people counts. How about rounding off to the nearest 1000? Nearest 5000? Nearest 10,000?

The table is not a spreadsheet and does not self-update if someone changes a figure in the table. That's why the totals are off. I've been extremely busy and I haven't had time to update the spreadsheet.

I agree, it's wrong to count all US Muslims as Sunni. So, how many Shi'a mosques are there compared to the number of Sunni mosques? If we can take mosque percentage as a guide to percentage of total population, then perhaps we can make some estimates.

Do some work, instead of trying to erase info. Zora 08:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Somalia is incorrect
I personally know three people living in Somalia. The husband and wife are both CATHOLIC and so is their daughter. Therefore the statistics should read:

Total Population = 8,591,629 Muslims = 8,591,626.

I have change this accordingly. Wallie 17:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

1.5 B
http://www.usislam.org/muslimstatistics.htm

--Striver 17:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm often amused at how the message of fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist anti-Islamic Christians is often identical, "be very afraid! By 2030, Islam will rule the world". These groups should really consider mergers, publicity-wise, it is often difficult to tell which is which. That's not to say that there Islam doesn't have a demographic problem of multiplying destitutes succumbing to extremism, population pressure will be one of the scourges of the 21st century, but the "barbarians at the gates" fearmongery is childish: population pressure is much more severe on the homelands, and the "fastest growing religion" will bring governments to their knees 'at home' rather before it will lead to the "end of the Occident". A more sober prediction would be "if Islam doesn't manage to curb its 'fastest growing' quality, most of North Africa and the Middle East by 2030 will look like the Sudan is looking now," never mind theological finesse. dab (&#5839;) 10:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

So how come there is nearly a 200 million population difference between that guy's CIA computation and Wikipedia's?--mpa

Sufism?
Does anyone know if any figures are available on the percentage of Muslims that follow Sufism? Is it substantial enough to measure and factor into this article, or am I missing something? Thanks! - Jersyko · talk  15:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is very hard to come up with such a number, becuase it is hard to define who is Sufi and who is not. The idea of Sufism can be found in Sunni and Shia sects. It is safe to say the Sunni majority used to be Sufi during the Ottoman rule, but it is declining sense the end of that period. --Islamic 23:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Shi'a / Sunni merge
This article used to contain statistics for Sunni Muslims until a massive rewrite by anon. I propose the information should be merged, and where no statistics are available then no figures should be used. Any thoughts? -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

900,000+ Muslims in Israel - where are they on this page?
There are more Muslims in Israel than in Lebanon. Is it politically incorrect to list them here? The question I have not been able to determine is how many of them are Shi'a ... Cbdorsett 03:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added the numbers for Israel (taken from Dept of State Report and the CIA factbook). Couldn't find any breakdown for Shias vs. Sunnis, but I guess it's a start... --Frescard 03:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Muslims with religious freedom
''this discussion has been moved here from the Talk:Islam page:

This article includes multiple estimates of how many Muslims there are worldwide. What I've never seen -- but would like to see -- is the number of Muslims who are free to follow another religion, or none, without being punished by the government of the country in which they live.

A transparent and fair method of deriving this figure would be to use a country-by-country breakdown of Muslims and then add the numbers who live in countries which allow religious freedom. This, of course, requires determining which countries permit religious freedom and which do not. The US State Dept. produces an annual report on the matter: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/

It seems to me spurious to count every citizen as a devotee of a religion in countries where the person would be killed or jailed for pursuing anything else. We know every Iranian is a Muslim; we don't know how many Iranian Muslims there would be if Iranians were not forced to follow Islam. The situation cries for context. One short sentence would provide it: "Approximately X number Muslims [or X% of Muslims] live in countries where they are legally free to choose another belief system."

Alyoshevna 03:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Alyoshevna

Not every iranian is muslim, in fact I think the number is 90%. also, this would be more appropreate in the critisisms on islam article. it seems very much to me to be a sneeky way to bash islam. saying "islam would have waaay less folowers if they had any choice in the matter!" is hardly NPOV. it's like including a note in the article on atheism that some countries force you to be atheist. Zazaban 03:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not accurate about Iran. The figure from the State Dept. report is that Iran is 97% Muslin. It also states, "The Government restricts freedom of religion. The Constitution declares the 'official religion of Iran is Islam and the doctrine followed is that of Ja'fari (Twelver) Shi'ism.' All laws and regulations must be consistent with the official interpretation of the Shari'a (Islamic law). The Constitution states that 'within the limits of the law,' Zoroastrians, Jews, and Christians are the only recognized religious minorities who are guaranteed freedom to practice their religion; however, members of these recognized minority religious groups have reported imprisonment, harassment, intimidation, and discrimination based on their religious beliefs. Adherents of religions not recognized by the Constitution do not enjoy freedom to practice their beliefs."

The figure representing Muslims who have a choice would not be "a sneaky way to bash Islam" any more than figures on religious participation in the Soviet Union are "a sneaky way to bash religion." It is fact that the USSR had atheism as its official policy and suppressed religious expression. In that context, religious participation was unsurprisingly low. The number of Muslims who would suffer no ill treatment for changing their beliefs is similarly a fact, at least, one that can be reasonably approximated (as religious participation in the USSR is). To cite the fact is not to disparage the faith of Muslims in countries like Iran but to give a clear-eyed reckoning of the very different political contexts in which Islam exists. Alyoshevna 15:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That would indeed be an interesting statistic. But I'm afraid if we actually tried to pin down exact numbers we'd end up in endless debates as to whether a country has religious freedom or not. After all, what do you do if the rights are there on paper, but aren't really enforced? And just because it might be illegal in certain countries to be anything but Muslim, that doesn't mean that a lot of the population wouldn't also choose Islam if it were a true option. So it'll probably be pretty much impossible to get any real numbers.
 * But a brief disclaimer - that not everybody counted as a Muslim has the option not to be one - might be appropriate. --Frescard 03:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This would probably be original research too. BhaiSaab talk 04:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Adding numbers that come from reputable sources is not Original Research: "''[[Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary_and_secondary_sources|

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged.]]". Neither would presenting statistics on which countries have religious freedom or not. --Frescard 04:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The State Dept. report is just that -- not the Bush Administration or the Roman Catholic report. The Executive Summary (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51386.htm) lists countries of concern in six categories, starting with "Totalitarian or Authoritarian Actions." Then there are detailed reports on each country. The report is punctilious. Not only Sunni and Shi'a Muslims, but Hindus, Buddhists, Jews and Christians are reported to have legally privileged status in some countries. The Wikipedia entry for Israel says, "According to 2005 US Department of State report on Israel, "The government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, there were problems in some areas..."

If the State Dept. report is reliable enough for the Israel entry, it ought to be reliable enough for the Islam entry. A fair-minded person could count which countries make it impossible (e.g., Sudan) or very difficult (e.g., Iran) for citizens to pursue anything but Islam. Given the case of Sudan's Islamist government, which persecutes unaffiliated Muslim groups, and the difficult situations of the Saudi Shi'a minority and Iran's Sunni minority, one might use the wording, "Approximately X million Muslims live in countries which do not suppress minority religions, including minority Muslim faiths."

The State Dept. report also has the virtue of being so openly available a source as to make the process of coming up with an estimate transparent. Alyoshevna 15:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, all of this would be more relevant at Demographics of Islam. BhaiSaab talk 15:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Seconded. -- Szvest 15:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * BhaiSaab is probably right, in that statements about the statistics' accuracy belong on the Demographics page. Should I move this discussion over to that talk page, so we can continue there? --Frescard 15:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good idea. -- Szvest 15:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

A plea for voluntary assistance: Coming up with this statistic will require combing through dozens of country reports to figure out which have freedom of religion. Would someone or someones please volunteer to share the task? Alyoshevna 19:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am thinking about expanding the data table to include a column for "State Religion". If a country falls into that group we can put a "yes" in there (perhaps with a link to the appropriate reference). That way it's easily visible which countries have been classified, and several people can work on it at the same time.
 * In addition to that we should have a section defining what state religion means in this context (after all, one could say that in Germany, for example, the state religion is Christianity, since you regularly see the heads of state go to church etc...)
 * I thought I posted this earlier, but here it is again: Perhaps the column should be "Religious Freedom," since the issue is whether citizens can freely practice another religion or a minority form of the state religion, e.g., Shi'as in a Sunni state. A country may have an official religion but not hamper others; another may claim legal freedom but not enforce it or deploy force to prevent some religious observation. Given Zzuzz's concerns, maybe categories could be not Yes/No, but Free, Limited, and Very Restricted.
 * Either way, I think we need to make clear both the source(s) of information and the methodology for determining State Religion or Religious Freedom - in the text or as footnotes or links.Alyoshevna 04:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's probably not a good idea to squeeze your replies into the middle of an existing discussion, Alyoshevna. That way, unless people actually look for the differences via the history page, they won't find your post (that's why it too me a while to stumble across it...).
 * You probably noticed that I called the column "Religious Freedom" already. It seemed less controversial and easier to define anyway. I think we should use the definition as it was defined by the UN in 1948 (see the article on Freedom of religion). Right now I have linked to that article from the legend paragraph - I'm wondering though if I should include the full declaration quote as well.
 * As far as classifying whether a country has religious freedom or not, splitting that into three categories wouldn't really make it any easier. Rather the opposite. Now you have three classes to define, and to decide whether a country fits into into one of them. With the UN definition it's easy. Either you have all the criteria that are declared in there or you don't (in which case the definition of religous freedom is not met - ergo a "no"). --Frescard 17:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the column for religious freedom. I believe relying on the US religious freedom report is POV for a start. Take the initial offering for Afghanistan, which an editor says has no religious freedom. Then compare the report:
 * "The new Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the Government generally respected this right in practice.
 * "The new Constitution proclaims that the "religion of the state is the sacred religion of Islam." It also states that "followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law." In general, there were fewer reports of problems involving religious freedom than in previous years."

to interpret whether this actually means religious freedom is Original Research. To say that people in Egypt have no religious freedom, Iraq (witness the Christians), Turkey, ... all with no religious freedom? This column is asking for trouble. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The US Dept of State is generally accepted as a neutral source. In case you have another source you would like to suggest, then we should definitely consider that as well.
 * And yes, some cases will be borderline, but that doesn't mean the whole table is erroneous, or that a lot of countries aren't very clearly on one side or the other... --Frescard 00:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I accept there are worse sources, though one source does not provide IMO the necessary independence. The report normally writes a few thousand words on the nature of religious freedom per country. Do you think this can be boiled down to a simple yes/no? Do you think Afghanistan has been accurately reported here? -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I trust named sources over anonymous editors. Nobody is without bias, but the State report appears to strive for NPOV. As I said above, if it's reliable enough for the Israel entry, it's reliable enough for Islam. And it can be linked so readers can judge its trustworthiness for themselves.  What other accessible sources should be consulted? Overall, how do you think the issue of coerced observation of Islam should be handled?Alyoshevna 04:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Do you think this can be boiled down to a simple yes/no?" Actually, I do...;) Either you have religious freedom, or you don't.
 * Here's the definition by the United Nations, as it was adopted by the 58 member states in 1948 (which included, among others, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia & Turkey). Let me know if you agree with that: ""Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance."
 * And while I agree that things have improved in Afghanistan - as long as people like Abdul Rahman are still arrested for leaving Islam I doubt that that could be called religious freedom by any definition... --Frescard 03:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on placement. I think the Yes/No approach is problematic. Unlike a genuine Y/N situation (pregancy), a country can have some religious freedom without meeting the UN definition. To me, the State report descriptions of Indonesia and Malaysia are similar, so I don't know why Malaysia should be a Yes and Indonesia a No; the Indonesian government restricts some religions and practices, declines to punish some private abuse of non-Muslims, and allows one province to enforce Shari'a. Both prohibit non-Islamic speech directly to Muslims. Neither meets the UN criteria. I'd have deemed both Limited.

A thought experiment could provide a measuring stick: If a person set up a Rastafarian congregation and invited Muslims to join, what would the government do? Possibilities, in descending order of severity:
 * 1. Execute the Rastafarians and the Muslims who joined
 * 2. Execute the Muslims and deport the Rastafarians, or execute the Rastafarians and require the Muslims to reconvert
 * 3. Otherwise punish the Rastafarians and Muslims
 * 4. Punish only the Rastafarians
 * 5. Send police to destroy the Rastafarian premises and beat or kill the Rastafarians
 * 6. Allow civilians to do the same without punishment
 * 7. Restrict the civil rights of Rastafarians
 * 8. Allow civilians to deface Rastafarian premises and fire and/or evict Rastafarians without punishment
 * 9. Require the Rastafarian group to register with the government and meet only in homes
 * 10. Require only registration
 * 11. Do nothing -- which would be true religious freedom

The middle is neither free nor unfree. In Indonesia, a Rastafarian could not talk directly to a Muslim about his faith, and if the Muslim converted to Rastafarian, he could be discriminated against, physically abused, and be refused an identity card and registration of his marriage and children's births. That's not a Yes. What do you think? Alyoshevna 21:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Another idea: Title the column "Religious Restrictions," with ratings as Severe, Some, and None. The description would be, "The Religious Restrictions column reflects relative religious freedom, that is, the level of legal and other obstacles to practicing a religion other than the majority Muslim faith."Alyoshevna 21:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, Indonesia should be in the 'no' class...
 * I initially classified everyone with a yes, and then, when going through the reports, changed it to a no if any negative reports were present. The problem with that is that I didn't go through every single one yet, and I later figured it would be better to leave the column empty, so it would be more obvious to me and others where there's still work to do. Indonesia probably slipped through the net like that. I will change it right away.
 * As far as your example is concerned - if you apply the UN definition, point 10 & 11 are ok; if any of the other ones are there, then you do not have religous freedom. Simple registration doesn't infringe on what you can do or not (as long as it's just a registration, and not an application which might or might not be approved), but point 9 (...only in homes) clearly violates the "...either in public or private..." part of the UN definition. And since the resolution is meant to be fulfilled in all aspects, not just certain ones, a country would have to fulfill every single criteria in order to meet the religious freedom definition.
 * And regarding the different levels of "freedom" - you can have different level of religious suppression, but as far as religious freedom is concerned, that's an all or nothing deal. At least that's how the UN guys saw it, and I must say I agree with them...;) --Frescard 21:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So it IS like pregancy! My, you're strict. Well, let me say that if I were member of the LDS church, I'd rather be one in the US, then in Germany (where the government would deem me a member of a "sect"), then in Indonesia (where Christianity is an officially recognized religion), then in Egypt (where I might incur "excessive attention from State Security"), and lastly in Sudan or Iran (where I'd be lucky to be bodily intact).
 * The UN definition is ideal, but it applies in relatively few corners of the globe. As a practical matter, there are degrees of freedom. I think "Religious Restrictions" would give readers a better idea how much pressure citizens face to follow the majority religion, and how much they jeopardize to do anything else. In short, I think it better addresses the issue of how much choice citizens have in each country.
 * Furthermore, many countries now listed as having religious freedom don't meet the UN standard: Senga, Syria, Tanzania (where the Mufti of Zanzibar must approve speeches), Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan (Hare Krishnas can't get a permit), Niger (some senior officials are required to take a religious oath), Azerbaijan (some groups can't get registered and some unregistered groups suffer "police intimidation, fines, and occasional beatings").... You have to scroll down to the section "Restrictions on Religion Freedom" to see whether the country is completely free. Registration turns out to be not a formality but often a hurdle.


 * The problem with using another defintion (or gradients) is that we can't just make up our own. That would definitely fall into the "original research" category. After all, who's gonna define what "religious freedom" is, and who's gonna define what "a lot" or "some freedom" will be? With the UN definition we have something that the member states agreed to, and something other Wikipedians can agree to. Yes, it is very strict and absolute, but as soon as you start making judgement calls (e.g. "limited freedom", "hardly any freedom", etc.) you're in original research territory, and the whole column will be thrown out. Whereas with hard and absolute rules there is no interpretation neccessary (Either a country meets the specifications or it doesn't. Simple. No interpretation needed.), and therefor cannot be attacked as OR. --Frescard 02:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Update: I finally found a source that rates countries by their religious freedom (so we don't fall into the controversy of doing it ourselves), and have implemented their data into the table.