Talk:Muslims/Archive 8

Problematic Picture
İ think there is a problem with this picture. This picture is orientalist painting and orientalist paintings are not seen appropriate by Muslims. That's because of they made by one sided foreign point of view. Secondly i think it's not appropriate because nobody live in 1865 and there are Muslims all around world from different cultures (not only Arabic culture). İ think that's why also there is no a picture in other believers page. İt should be deleted because it is offensive. Meambokhe (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * If you personally find it offensive, then that's your problem. Not Wikipedia's, since there's nothing wrong with the image. FDW777 (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

You only focus on my last words or did you read all ? İ live in a Muslim country but you know better it seems... This is not accurate to be in here because it don't represent all Muslims and adding an orientalists painting have no a meaning since nobody live in 1865 and the picture have no a significant contribution for article. That's not my personal opinion. Meambokhe (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It would be impossible for any one picture to represent all Muslims; nor is there any reason it has to represent present-day Muslims. I don't think your assertion re Orientalist paintings is especially convincing, but do you have some other image you'd like to propose? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with the picture anyways. I agree with FDW777 and Willam Connolley TheFirstVicar4 (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

İ think image are not needed because it's about heart that who is believer or not and can't represent all Muslims. But i found this picture is better rather than current one. (i found in other Wikipedia pages) : File:Kaaba mirror edit jj.jpg Caption = "[[Hajj pilgrims are performing the 'tawaf' around the Kaabah.]]" This can be more better image. Meambokhe (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Just for reference, the current picture appears in in 2018. A previous pic was removed in 2017  for reasons similar to yours. Other pix have come and gone.
 * For myself... I think I'd have no objection to the picture update you propose William M. Connolley (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Meambokhe that the image can be offensive as a representation of all Muslims because all Muslims do not wear such clothing - nor are Arab. However, i think the image is not offensive because it reflects a common aspect of Muslim culture; the clothing, more so the prayer rug, has a cultural influence on nearly all of the Muslim world, and it can be seen as a standard form of Muslim traditionalism, in mosques; religious institutions, clerics etc, including Muslim history regardless of ethnicity. If there is any perception of standard Muslim traditionalism, it would be this image, as is still evident today.

I disagree with the update, because i think that image is cantered around the structure of the Ka'ba rather than the people. In which case, the people in the image also would no less give off an Arab perception. (Also i'm not an Arab just to clarify; my name simply reflects scientist Ibn al-Haytham). AlHazen (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

İt's showing Muslims which are performing their worship in "religious clothes" so you confuse two thing that's not about culture and also there are Muslims from all around the world so it's one of the best picture which we can choose. Btw peoples movements in the orientalist painting have no a meaning and represent worship wrong also. İ didn't understand the part that you said "it's centered around structure of Kaba" because as i said before you can't know who is believer by looking. Perhaps that's also one of the best reason why we shouldn't choose an orientalist painting because it seems like they give peoples a wrong assumption that there is an certain Muslim looking.Meambokhe (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is nevertheless a tendency to add images in articles, especialyl if aspired to become good articles. For example, we have a shofar for Satan in the Judaism section, just because it is related to the tradition, blowing into a shofar to symbolically confuse Satan. Therefore, I can not understand how this image could be misleading. We merely could argue about, wether or not their clothes are typically for a Muslim.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * A few years ago we had this image with the caption "Dongxiang Muslim students in China". Wiqi(55) 01:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree, it is odd we should use an Orientalist picture, rather than a picture which actually has significance to or is representative of the religion. I'm not saying it's offensive, it's just a really odd choice, given the history and critique of that movement (which aimed to exoticise the East, and did not necessarily depict things accurately). A more appropriate image would be some common symbolism, such as calligraphy of the word Allah or similar. FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Orientalism is not a movement, it is a field of study. Of course there might be some biases since it developed from Europe, but it does not mean everything they did is a distorted image of Muslims or Muslim culture. And I do not see (as from both Sunni Muslim culture and a student in Orientalism (History, and culture of the Middle East) I can not see anything odd with this picture. We could also add chinese Muslim people, we can add Central Asia Sufi and Shamanism based Muslim identities, we can also add an Arab with a long beared or whatever. But I think it is even more strange to add a certain person, to represent Muslims here, instead of an image, in which Muslims have been depicted as people actually perceived them. And since it is in no way offensive (for example contrary to Muhammad depictions from Dante) I can not detact anything objecable. A Caligraphy is not related to Muslims, to Islam yes, but not to Muslims. And Caligraphies are pretty monolithic if you are not into Arabic language.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC) edit: We also have an image for "Christians". However, they depict how they regarded early Christians. If you find a good image about Muhammad, Ali and Abu Bakr, we could also choose that one.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Orientalism is more than one thing. The article I linked to says "In art history, literature and cultural studies, Orientalism is the imitation or depiction of aspects in the Eastern world". And that's the thing, it is just a Western impression, with all the biases that includes, and the fact that the image used is so obviously Orientalist is an eye sore. Show a photo of pilgrims around the kabaa or something like that, then you'll be sure it's at leats authentic. As for the image in the Christians article, at least it does attempt to show the first followers of the religion, as depicted by European Christians. FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And what exactly is wrong about the picture, what you think is in odds with European depictions of Muslims during this era, than with a recent photo or the image for Christians, which is also just an attempt to capture the nature imagery?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC) edit: looking at the image again, I think it is prtty good, depicting several states of prayer, lack of shoes, all in one direction. I guess a photo could not capture this important moment of prayer. Even a picture of Kaaba would merely show one specific moment, while the image does much more.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

You misunderstood there is no bad thing in painting (without little details about peoples moving) but the problem is it's place is not here, it's using is problem. When ı first opened the topic ı visited the page at the first time and i found it weird. Because here is a global Wikipedia isn't it ? And basically by putting an orientalist painting which dates back 1865 you speak in the name of Muslims that you are look like that. And yes this can be offensive. Imagine that i draw a painting look like Scottish men with their traditional clothes and added castles everywhere and they are praying (and add that some wrong representation about praying also) and we choose my painting in a global languages page in Christians article for example (Not important how beautiful it's.). What do you think and what a person which don't know anything about Christians think ? Now maybe you can understand what i mean with that example. The problem is this. And btw we can't compare with Christians paintings because their aim was telling peoples the belief, life of Jesus. But there is no such a way in Islam because of they are different religions and have different reasons. Because of that no need to compare and out of the topic. Meambokhe (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * No I can not understand. But I guess I get closer to your point. It is about, what people made this about over people. But I think this is not objectable. When we find a good painting of a Scottish Protestant, with traditional Protestant clothing, performing clearly Protestant acts, made by Turkish artists, I think it is completly fine to add to the Christian article. Just because someone makes a picture of someone else, it is not necessarily offensive, as long as this is a mostly accurate representation. Better than taking images of concrete people, which could lead to more biases. While the image just captures what people thought is the most striking point of the subject.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Read my words again please. İ didn't say religious clothes i just said traditional clothes i gave that as an example. Btw when ı say you or ı, ı am giving example and generalizing also. Islam flourished from Arabia but it came to all humanity and it's universal. These peoples clothes are not religious in the painting. But the image which i added was very universal, all Muslims from different places go to Kaaba and wear religional clothes. İ will not write anymore since i think you assume that orientalist view should accept good by everybody :) although it's already fully subjective, one sided. While choosing such a painting you are supporting stereotypes only. Have a nice day. Meambokhe (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hmmm I will have a look at your suggestion, have overseen this. Just got a notification here and read about the image. Checked it and I like it. It is a very pretty picture. But I am not sure if Muslims performing the Hajj is better than giving a broader (and sterotypicall) image of Muslims, while we see in your suggestion only the backs and most Muslims wearing white cloths. It is a pretty good image though, but I think, the oriental image is better, especially because of the "sterotypes". But I think the image could be part of the article, or in the Article about the Hajj.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC) edit, I see the Hajj already got an image and is a GA article, maybe we can use it elsewhere instead. Sorry, I thought you were talking about objecting the image per se, not to promote your own suggestion.

Muslim population in China?
What are the sources and evidence that there are around 60 to 80 million Muslims in China? Nlivataye (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:REFB You can look here about resources.Meambokhe (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Regions with significant populations
It is wrong to claim that the population of all countries in the infobox are Muslim. For example, approximately 83 million people living in Turkey are reported as all Muslims, and this is absolutely wrong! There are a lot of unbelievers or people of other religions in the country. - Aybeg (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with that many such statisitcs are not good for represantation and often just approximating. Do you have better ones? This would be very helpful--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be useful if a map of countries with large or small population of Muslims was put in place of population data. Such as File:Islam percent population in each nation World Map Muslim data by Pew Research.svg - Aybeg (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Demographic part of infobox
Plz change the number of muslims in India from (x) 207,000,000 to (y) 250,000,000-300,000,000. According to Demographic expert the number of muslims is more then the census results as 90 million Muslims we're not included in the census due to some technical problem. Below is the reference.  2409:4065:301:6A3F:DE04:7E8:C545:9EBC (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌. Both references are speculations about the actual number. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding infobox Demographic part of Pakistan
Plz change the Muslim population of Pakistan in the infobox from (x) 213,095,000 into (y) 200,350,000. According to latest 2017 census of Pakistan, the country population founded to be 207,684,000, of which around 200,350,000 are Muslims or say 96.47% of the country's population are followers of Islam. Below is the reference. , 2409:4065:E87:4AE4:A4BB:35A2:E90C:47E3 (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 ( talk ) 07:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding infobox Demography of India
The Muslim population in India is around 213.34 million as of 2020 year which has been estimated by the Pew Research Center. Plz change (x) 207,000,000 into (y) 213,340,000. 2409:4065:E87:4AE4:2A5:F2B3:CA4C:6C7C (talk) 07:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 ( talk ) 07:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding India's muslim population
"Estimation varies"

As per as Pew Research Center, it is estimated that 213,340,000 Muslims are living in India as per as 2020 estimation. Here is the proof -

Recently India's politician experts on Demographics tell that India has around 25 crore (250 million) Muslims as of the year 2021 claim. Here is the proof -

So, given that the credible references mentioned above, It clears the doubt that India's Muslim population as per as (2020-21) estimation lies in the range between 213.34-250 million respectively. Pitush Puttar (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like that reference is a projection from 2015. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 ( talk ) 07:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The contention is not the estimation - it is the fact that it is a projection. It is a predicated figure based on trends and not a report on the size of India's Muslim population. Also you keep mentioning 250 million - which is not in the source. AlHazen (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your edit AlHazen
It is an estimation as of the year 2020-21 by Pew research center and by the Congress MLA. It is not predicted figure but based on their estimation research on the Muslim population growth in India which is more authentic and accurate. Your question - Also you keep mentioning 250 million - which is not in the source ?

It is in the source don't do eye balling. See the source which clearly states - country’s population is over 130 crores and the Muslim population stands at around 25 crores. So there are more than 100 crore non-Muslims in the country.” Here the 25 crore means = 250 million if you convert the crore into million through decimal expansions.

For your kind information I am providing the source again which state the figure 25 crore muslims or say 250 million - Pitush Puttar (talk) 05:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, why you have created a new section, as this is referring to the same discussion above? Please do not do this in the future.
 * Firstly, the Pew figures you referred are a projection. If you look under the graph, Pew is using their own |2010-2050 future world religion projections report. This is the main source that we use for all projections, like the fact that Islam is the fastest growing religion etc. Pew is referring to this same projection report about India and we do not have actual figures for what the current size of India's Muslim population is.
 * Secondly, sorry about the 250 million report; i'm not familiar with the use of "crores". However, this is not a reliable source, as it is a statement made by congressmen Arif Masood, and cannot therefore be taken as an accurate figure. AlHazen (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2021
you must right mohamed alih salat wa salam not just mohamed

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2021
hello can you please just add after every name of mohamed alayh salam sitation sala lah alih wa salam and thanks!Bvcx nrde (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Bangladesh Muslim Demography
The Muslim population in Bangladesh as of the year 2011 Census is around 135.4 million. So plz change the (x) 151,900,000 into (y) 135,400,000. Below is the reference 2409:4065:E87:4AE4:2A5:F2B3:CA4C:6C7C (talk) 07:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 ( talk ) 07:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2021
Aperson12332 (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC) Add صلى الله عليه وسلم after the name of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The translation there is only for his name, not additional accolades — IVORK Talk</b> 04:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Good sources on the article?
This article doesn't look very good right now. However, its an important article and I want to get it to GA status. What are good sources that can guide this article's development? Here's two I found, but I'd appreciate more: I also wonder what should be the scope of this article as much of the topic of "Muslims" is either covered by Islam or Muslim world.VR talk 04:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Muslims, Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, Routledge
 * What Everyone Needs to Know about Islam, Oxford University Press

11th region in the infobox
I like to add the 11th region in the infobox which is very much needed as we don't have a reliable population number for china. Emailaddressemailaddress (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Numbers of Muslims in China
There seems to be a dispute about the number of Muslims in China. I have some problems with the last of these. Many of the links did not work when I tried them. Those that do work cannot be read by online translation tools. release #1 is a scan of a table written in Chinese, which contains a line with percentages of Muslims. I do not speak Chinese so I do not know what it is meant to show. The percentages are very variable, so clearly the table cannot be a reliable set of data on the percentage of the population of China who are Muslims. -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The Islam in China page cites the following article (I have reformatted it into a citation template):
 * The Islam in China page has the following "citation", which an editor copied without attribution into the infobox for this page: For China Family Panel Studies 2017 survey results see release #1 (archived) and release #2 (archived). The tables also contain the results of CFPS 2012 (sample 20,035) and Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS) results for 2006, 2008 and 2010 (samples ≈10.000/11,000). Also see, for comparison CFPS 2012 data in p. 13, reporting the results of the CGSS 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2011, and their average (fifth column of the first table).
 * The Islam in China page cites the following article (I have reformatted it into a citation template):
 * The Islam in China page has the following "citation", which an editor copied without attribution into the infobox for this page: For China Family Panel Studies 2017 survey results see release #1 (archived) and release #2 (archived). The tables also contain the results of CFPS 2012 (sample 20,035) and Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS) results for 2006, 2008 and 2010 (samples ≈10.000/11,000). Also see, for comparison CFPS 2012 data in p. 13, reporting the results of the CGSS 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2011, and their average (fifth column of the first table).

There is a newer version of the Report on International Religious Freedom -- Toddy1 (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Social
S 2402:3A80:1959:896C:0:0:0:2 (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Shakeil facey
Rich 96.43.175.116 (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Sources in infobox need to be updated or removed as they are giving error messages
Sources in infobox need to be updated or removed as they are giving error messages Aleena98 (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I sort of understand now. The article has a load of citations defined in the "References" section. In the good (24 November version), the references worked fine.  This edit of 18:20, 17 December 2021 deleted {{Reflist|30em|refs=, which caused a problem. By adding a {{Reflist}} at the start of the "References" section, the edit of 05:30, 19 December 2021 caused the reference error messages. By restoring {{Reflist|refs= in the place it was originally, the problem was fixed. -- Toddy1 (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Changes to the lead
One of the sources for the Shia figure in the 17 January version says that "Sunni Islam accounts for over 75% of the world's Muslim population", but one of the major changes in the 17 January version is to change the % of Sunnis from 75-90% to 85-90%. This seems like creative use of sources to support a conclusion, rather than using sources properly. I am reverting. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm also not sure it's worth trying to include a generalizing statement about the Sunni-Shia split in the lead - risky business generalizing with this. Might be best left for later explanation, fully contextualised and caveated. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I reverted back to the 12 January version, but have modified the statement about the percentage of Shia to say: Shia (10–20%).[17][18][19] Of the three sources, two say 10–13% (Britannica and Pew) and one says 10–20% (CIA Factbook). -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Checking a citation to the CIA Fact Book
 * The url is a dead link - tq|404 Error The page you requested doesn’t exist.}}
 * The archived URL is a 9 June 2011 version, which lists religion by country. It does have world figure, but these say Christians 33.03% (of which Roman Catholics 17.33%, Protestants 5.8%, Orthodox 3.42%, Anglicans 1.23%), Muslims 20.12%, Hindus 13.34%, Buddhists 5.89%, Sikhs 0.39%, Jews 0.23%, other religions 12.61%, non-religious 12.03%, atheists 2.36% (2004 est.)  So that is not the real source of the quotation that appears in various Wikipeda pages.
 * But the access date was 2010, so let us check a 2010 archived version 27 March 2010 That does have the quotations.
 * I will fix various Wikipedia pages to have the right archive (i.e. 2010 version not the 2011 version). -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I will fix various Wikipedia pages to have the right archive (i.e. 2010 version not the 2011 version). -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Criticism, persecution, and debates
This category is missing and should be added to every page about religion and philosophy 178.58.195.55 (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Languages in the infobox
This seems illogical. Islam is so widespread that this is definitely not a definitive list of the languages spoken by Muslims (e.g. no Tamazight). It might make sense for a smaller faith with a close-knit community with a distinctive language, but here it is essentially just listing the languages spoken in the countries with muslim populations. Unless someone objects here, I'll be removing this. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Tamazight is spoken by Imazighen ethnic group. Imazighen population size is at least 50 million and are predominantly Muslims. No one is saying this is a definitive list. The listed languages are the largest languages of the Muslim world. If you want to add more languages please feel free to do so but this list can be so long. At the end of the listed languages, it does says "and languages of the Muslim World" and "etc" to compensate for languages that are not listed.  Emailaddressemailaddress (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Iskandar323 Agreed. As far as i can see, this "languages" section shouldn't be filled in at all because it's not relevant to Muslims or Islam as a whole who as they are a religious group consisting of multiple people and thus languages. The fact that Muslims speak different languages is a given and thus an unnecessary point to be made; i would probably say the same about Christians. It should only say "Arabic" as the liturgical language as that is relevant and exists between all Muslims. Because anyone can be a Muslim, the rest has no purpose in my opinion.AlHazen (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest try asking for change for the Template:Infobox religious group. The infobox clearly says (Languages) so this area is not only for liturgical language but common languages of the religious group. That is how it is used on every major religious group article. Emailaddressemailaddress (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323, AlHazen, Emailaddressemailaddress, I see a consensus of three (including me) to one to limit the number of languages. Please see this edit. Infoboxes need not be exhaustive, and this list was way too long and should only list the big ones. I have no opinion on whether I left the right ones, though it seems fair to me. I also removed some redundant and not so applicable references, including to a UNHCR report on another matter, articles from Brittanica, and a rather odd unlinked article in Norwegian apparently related to Ethnologue, but without proper bibliographical information. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Requesting inputs
Greetings,

Adequate and nuanced overview for even non– Muslim audience is expected out of the articles Muslims and Muslim world. Whether the articles are achieving that purpose adequately? Requesting and expecting proactive participation in providing inputs from non–Muslim audience too along with Muslim users.

Since the article Muslim world is tagged various improvements it can not be submitted to formal review process still I feel the article deserves more inputs for content improvement.

Requesting your visit to the articles
 * Muslims and
 * Muslim world
 * and provide your inputs @


 * Talk:Muslims/Archive 8 and
 * Talk:Muslim world

Thanks

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 06:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Claims about India
According to the article: India is the country with the largest Muslim population outside Muslim-majority countries. The source cited for this is: This 2019 article says that there were "185 million Muslims in India". But it does not compare the Muslim population of India with other countries, and so does not support the statement it is cited for.

has added another statement: & it is also the country with the most Muslims in the world. The sources cited for this are: In short none of this is supported by the citations cited for them. -- Toddy1 (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) . This 2022 article says that India has 250 million Indian Muslims.  But it does not compare the Muslim population of India with other countries, and so does not support the statement it is cited for.
 * 2)  This 2021 article says that "Now, the country’s population is over 130 crores and the Muslim population stands at around 25 crores. So there are more than 100 crore non-Muslims in the country".  But it does not compare the Muslim population of India with other countries, and so does not support the statement it is cited for.
 * 3)  This says that in the 2011 census, India had 172.2 million Muslims.  It also says that if the Muslim population of India had grown as much as the population of India, there would have been 262 million Muslims in India, and suggests that "there are at least 90 million Indian Muslims who have not been registered by the Indian authorities."  The article does not say that India is the country with the most Muslims in the world.
 * 4)  This says that "The country has 20 to 25 crore Muslims along with Christians and other minorities".  This 2022 article does not say that India is the country with the most Muslims in the world.
 * 5)  This article says that India has 25 crore Muslims. The article does not say that India is the country with the most Muslims in the world.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2022
39.40.63.119 (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos  23:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)