Talk:Quran/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

External links

How come the open source project Al-Quran isn't listed in the external links; both Muslims as non-Muslims and academicians use and referrer to this site. Can somebody with extended permissions please add it, thanks. --Xhmee (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Section 2.2 - Compiling the Mus'haf

Second paragraph:

"Five reciters from amongst the companions produced a unique text from the first volume, which had been prepared on the orders of Abu Bakr and was kept with Hafsa bint Umar."

All writing about this I have seen say that the uthman version was compiled from combining multiple existing quran versions. Not copied from one original one previously made by Abu Bakr.

So this is disputed that the Uthman quran was a direct copy from an original Abu Bakr quran. If that was true it would not be called an Uthman quran, it would be called the Abu Bakr quran.

But the sources which detail the creation and compiling of the Uthman quran, clearly say that several differing versions of the quran were collected together, and combined into one quran which became the Uthman quran (today's quran).

2/2/2013: A parnthese needs ot be moved. This is the text as it is:

"In about 650, as Islam expanded beyond the Arabian peninsula into Persia, the Levant and North Africa, the third caliph Uthman ibn Affan ordered the preparation of an official, standardized version, to preserve the sanctity of the text (and perhaps to keep the Rashidun Empire united, which became known as the Uthman Quran)."

t should read as such:

"In about 650, as Islam expanded beyond the Arabian peninsula into Persia, the Levant and North Africa, the third caliph Uthman ibn Affan ordered the preparation of an official, standardized version, to preserve the sanctity of the text (and perhaps to keep the Rashidun Empire united), which became known as the Uthman Quran." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.242.138 (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Jesus in the Qur'an and Muslims' contradictory beliefs

Muslims believe in a great contradiction regarding Jesus! They see him as 'just' a prophet, yet, the Qur'an describes his "virgin birth" and that Jesus will return to judge everyone on Judgment Day. Correct? Certainly, this belief should elevate Jesus over Muhammad in Muslim's minds, yet it does not. Let us also consider that out of the three Abrahamic religions and their main representatives: Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, only Jesus never killed anyone! "Thou shall not kill is a Commandment from the One GOD of everyone on Earth as is "Love one another. - Ben Hirt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.11.183 (talk) 12:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you've fallen into Synth. Repent! Hcobb (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Synthetic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C28:194:520:1A03:73FF:FE0A:68ED (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH, or synthesizing multiple sources for original research. Furthermore, the original poster needs to read WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and check multiple translations of the commandments: "murder" is used in most and regarded by most scholars as a more accurate translation than the more indiscriminate "kill" (you're killing countless bacteria right now, and unless Jesus didn't have an immune system, so did He). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ben. According to the second paragraph in the article on Islam, Muslims consider Jesus a prophet. But in the Qur'an it speaks of his virgin birth. Contradiction? Yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.87.168 (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

How is a belief in a virgin birth contradictory with belief that Jesus was only a prophet? The same myth is attributed to Zoroaster, and the Zoroastrians believe that the founder of their religion was only a prophet as well. "Virgin birth" does not in any way indicate any sort of deification, only (at most) that the birth was miraculous (or perhaps a mutation). If you found a verse in the Quran that said that Jesus was God, then you'd have some argument that Muslim beliefs are somehow more contradictory than any other worldview, but you do not. It's honestly as ridiculous as saying "Christians say that Jesus is God, but it says in the Bible that the man who baptized Jesus was beheaded by Herod, so clearly, Christians have contradictory beliefs." Wikipedia is not the place to crusade against beliefs you don't agree with (especially with such unresearched and uncontemplated attempts), nor is it a general discussion forum. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

To-do list.

It seems to be very cluttered/long. I was wondering if anybody who knows what's going on with it could perhaps make it smaller? --Kawaii-Soft (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, some sections of the article are disproportionally long such as the:schools of recitation- section. Do you have any suggestions? Kiatdd (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Content subsection

I improved the sub-section:content a little bit from a book which I added to the references (chapter 4 of that book is about this subsection). There is great deal of writing about this subject which is not reflected in this article. Kiatdd (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Text section

I removed two sentences from the section “text” that was copied from encyclopedia Britannica [1], one of them was “Muslims believe that Muhammad, on God's command, gave the chapters their names” contradicts the previous sentence that says: chapter names are derived from a name or quality discussed in the text, or from the first letters or words of the chapter. Besides because it wasn’t mentioned in the page Sura and because it seems that some chapters have two or even three names. Another removed sentence was also from Britannica: “The actual number of verses has been a controversial issue among Muslim scholars since Islam's inception”, does this mean that verses have been deliberately added or removed from the Quran? This doesn’t seem to be the case and again conflicts with the 3rd paragraph in the section Compiling the Musaf as it seems that there is agreement that the Quran doesn’t have varying editions. Rather the variation in the verse counting seems to be due to differing numbering systems. There was also a large table of statistics that I removed and summarized, what's the significance or application of counting the words in a book? Kiatdd (talk) 07:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Compilation

The previous 3rd paragraph in the introduction was about compilation which was discussed in the section “compiling the Mushaf”, I merged it with the corresponding section, to make the page less fragmented and make the introduction more readable. And in the section compilation I added a few word about sana’a manuscripts. I deleted several mistakes: (a) it doesn’t seem true that uthman added diactrical marks, actually if a manuscript has diactrical mark it is automatically dismissed as an ancient quran. (b)the efforts in compilation was done to preserve the Quran and guarantee its survival, not to guarantee the survival of caliphate, this has been mentioned in almost all references. (c) the term “mushaf” was repeated several times, I deleted them, because the word simply means collection, manuscript, book, etc and using English equivalents is preferred in English wikipedia and renamed the section “compiling the mus’haf” to “compilation”. See page Mus'haf. Kiatdd (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

writting and printing

I rewrote the section, the current content gives a short introduction to the history of various scripts usage in the Quran and history of printing. I added two images and added a picture gallery to show scripts. I will be thankful for any feedback. Kiatdd (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of section from Jewish Encyclopedia

This was posted at my talk page:

" Hello. This edit of yours is problematic [2]. First, removing sourced content should generally be discussed on the talk page of the article. Second, deleting a section with the argument that you do it because the authors are Jewish (or any other religion or nationality) is extremely inapppropriate.Jeppiz (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC) "

This interpretation of my edit is incorrect. I was reading the article through and saw this sentence: "... portions of the Quran reflect significant excitement in their language, through short and abrupt sentences and sudden transitions." This is a very strange way of describing text written 1500 years ago, since there is no accessible context to the manner in which it was written, compiled, and rewritten, and what the literary fashions of the time were. A scholar might be able to characterize with honesty "excitement" in that kind of prose if written in the past 20 years. So I googled the authors listed and found that neither of them are scholars of Arabic or Islam at the time. All this was before I checked the source, which showed that it is from the Jewish Encyclopedia, of which the authors cited were editors.

Looking up the Jewish Encyclopedia, it is about Judaism, with not much significant coverage of Islamic history. Again, none of the authors are scholars of Islam or Arabic, much less the Middle East around the 7th century, qualifications which I would consider basic to being able to make that kind of judgement (before even taking peer review into consideration). So then I wondered what wiki editor might have added that paragraph. The next sentence, "... carefully maintains the rhymed form, like the oracles," gives a non-disambiguated "oracle" link with no obvious reference to the type of oracle anywhere else in the text. Therefore I felt I could safely assume that the editor who added the paragraph did not do much cross-referencing of their own, so there was likely not some deeper context or credence to the J.E. article that might remedy my objections.

Finally, after all that, and I promise that this is the exact sequence of thought that I had, I looked up the time period and political context in which the source, the Jewish Encyclopedia, was written. At the turn of the 20th Century there was not the kind of fierce political battlefield that exists now between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East. However, Gottheil was one of the founders and key proponents of modern literal Zionism - that is, the return of the Hebrews to the holy land in literal contemporary Palestine. So while the political firestorm over Israel would take another 50 years to erupt, one would have to consider at the time that such literal Zionism would require displacing a large group of Muslims, Christians, etc. to be viable. From this I concluded that on top of all considerations of improper or sloppy scholarship (which is fine for a small article in a large unrelated compendium), there was reason to suspect a political bias.

For all those reasons, I thought (and still think) it was appropriate to delete the paragraph outright. My edit summary had limited characters, however, so I just put my most damning conclusions: sloppy scholarship and political bias. This was apparently misinterpreted as a superficial judgement, which is somewhat understandable.

If on reading this, however, you still do not think deleting that paragraph was obviously appropriate, please let me know. Otherwise, re-delete. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

There is definitely an overuse of the Jewish Encyclopedia as a source on this encyclopedia, no doubt because it is easily accessible. The work is old and many of its articles are laughably weak and in light of more recent scholarship. However, I think you should review Gottheil's qualifications. Gottheil was already established by 1900 as a scholar of Arabic and comparative literature within Middle Eastern languages of such early pieces. For example see "An Arabic Version of the 'Revelation of Ezra'" in Hebraica, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Oct., 1887), pp. 14-17 and "The Judæo-Aramæan Dialect of Salamās" in Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 15 (1893), pp. 297-310. Instead of removing such literary criticism, why don't you add other views? There are many. Also, a suggestion in an edit summary that you removed the content because "it's written by Jews" does not seem at all germane; if I made that comment, I would apologise to you. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I won't discuss about the intentions of those unfriendly writers, at least no in this talk page. They have mentioned somebody’s quote in their reference, a narrative from al-A’sha, which claims that Quran is a form of poetry. I can only agree that the work is not really high quality research, relying heavily on primary sources. But their view about the style of the Quran is relatively acceptable, I just replaced that section with a more accurate description of the style of the Quran by another writer. Kiatdd (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

My good Allah - Hideous translation by JM Rodwell - This one instead?

There is an awful translation of the Quran on the internet by JM Rodwell. I suggest you may choose this Muslim-faithful Quran instead: , Quran Noble Quran Meaning in English Khan and Hilalee pdf. Allahu Akbar! 109.189.67.107 (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Hilali & Khan is the Salafi translation, with heavy biases of Salafi interpretation edited in. Not only that, H&K is the clunkiest English text of all, well-nigh unreadable. No thanks. The most popular English translation in the English-speaking Muslim world is the one by A. Yusuf Ali, which is provided by Wikisource. Allahu akbar! Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 March 2013

Salaam

I believe this wikipedia page could be improved much better. I just started to read initial few lines and realized that. For e.g., it says that "Al-Qur'an, is the central religious text of Islam, which Muslims believe to be the verbatim word of God (Arabic: الله‎, Allah)".

Here i personally believe that it should be stated as a FACT rather just saying Muslims believe in it. Al-Quran is a FACT, so when the reader reads, he/she should NOT think that it is something which is believed by Muslims as it's a second step. First step is to put forward the ABSOLUTE AUTHENTICITY of the Al-Quran itself. Isn't it?

Whole article should be READ again to make it better. Thanks.

Syadmustafa (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Request violates policy on neutral point-of-view. Bear in mind that Christians and Jews hold the Bible and Torah in similar esteem. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 May 2013

117.197.21.40 (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. No request made. Please see WP:Edit Requests for help with this template. --ElHef (Meep?) 15:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Inimitable?

Are there any scholars of Islam who are not Muslim? I find it to be a conflict of interest that Muslim scholars make claims about the supposed miraculous nature of the Qu'ran in terms of its supposed unmatched literary quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.198.29.15 (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Grammar

Quran#Recitation#Variant readings "therefore several recitations remains acceptable" should read "remain" Bogeemon (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

THERE WAS A COMPLETE QUR'AN IN FORM OF TEXT BOOK BEFORE THE DEATH OF HOLY PROPHET.

I BASED MY ARGUMENT ON THE FOLLOWING......

1. IF THE QUR'AN IS NOT IN FORM OF TEXT, ALLAH WILL NOT SAY....IN CHAPTER 2:2 AND IT READ....THIS IS THE BOOK, WHEREIN THERE IS NO DOUBT, A GUIDANCE FOR THE MUTTAQIN. THIS IS THE BOOK....THAT IS REFERRING TO THE QUR'AN AS A TEXTBOOK NOT IN A PIECES OF BONES, STONES AND SOME SKINS.......BECAUSE ALLAH CREATED LANGUAGES AND THE VOCABULARIES, SO HOW CAN SOMETHING THAT IS NOT IN FORM OF BOOK WILL BE REGARDED AS BOOK.

2. Q:11:1....(THIS IS) A BOOK WHOSE VERSES ARE PERFECTED AND THEN PRESENTED IN DETAIL FROM (ONE WHO IS) WISE AND ACQUAINTED.

3.THIS DAY I HAVE PERFECTED FOR YOU YOUR RELIGION; AND COMPLETED MY FAVOR UPON YOU AND HAVE APPROVED FOR YOU ISLAM AS RELIGION. 5 :3.

4. Q:5:67....O MESSENGER, ANNOUNCE THAT WHICH HAS REVEALED TO YOU FROM YOUR LORD, AND IF YOU DO NOT, THEN YOU HAVE NOT CONVEYED HIS MESSAGE.ND ALLAH WILL PROTECT YOU FROM THE PEOPLE. INDEED, ALLAH DOES NOT GUIDE THE DISBELIEVING PEOPLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.222.211.72 (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedic, historical treatment of the Quran that uses secondary sources to provide facts and analysis. The Quran is a primary source and any of your conclusions based on its is original research. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Koran Contradictions

PLEASE POINT OUT THE FOLLOWING WHICH READERS CAN THEN REFER TO...

There are many video films which specify contradictions in the books text. In fact the youtube website lists from a related search - 'About 16,200 results'. A search result pages from this famous site using the spelling of 'quran' is : 'http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=quran+contradictions&nfpr=1'. The listed files feature lectures amoungst its links, while others show references to various official koranic texts. An example result of referenced contradictions is - 'http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq-gzYZ6PG8'.

No. These are not remotely acceptable sources. As I said on your talk page two hours ago, you need to read WP:RS again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• but as a matter of public scrutiny isn't it useful for an info source?

We write encyclopedic articles here. If you want to use these frankly garbage sources then, really, you're better off somewhere else. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I think those sites are liars, for it is written in Quran that "If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it much contradiction." (Nisa 4:82) There is only one contradiction, but it is not in Quran but in Quran mus-hafs, it is that the words are written right-to-left but the numbers are written left-to-right, and hopefully I will fix this contradiction sooner or later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Veyselperu Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veyselperu (talk • contribs) 13:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources of Quran

"If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it much contradiction." (Nisa 4:82) Veyselperu (talk) 10:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Lede

William M. Connolley: "Inflammatory"...may have not been the best word that I could have picked, but obviously the idea was to not start off an article with something that its adherents would find annoying if not offensive. "Holy" must have showed up when I reverted the addition by Tritomex—and since there is no similarly-titled section in the article on the Bible, then I wouldn't advocate for one here (and I didn't notice it's presence until you mentioned it). In the same vein, it seemed more neutral that the Bible article did not include dissension in its lede—and it seems more neutral to not include dissension in the Quran article's lede. The topic is dealt with adequately in the body of the article. The whole topic of religion (including atheism) is obviously personal and sensitive, and there seems no reason to begin any article with allegations against any group's deeply held convictions. If the dissenting opinion has any truth to its claims, it could certainly withstand allowing the advocating side to first state its case before tackling the topic some paragraphs below the lede. Accordingly, I'm editing that sentence out of the lede. Regards,Desertroadbob (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I like your removal of the Guardian source, but the change left a fringe point of view (see WP:FRINGE) in the lede without any context. I've added a claim and a reference to Donner in McAuliffe's The Cambridge Companion to the Qur'ān in order to add this context ([3]). The reason fringe views need context within the lede is because people who do not know anything about the subject may just want a quick summary and so read just the lede. However such people have no idea whether a view is fringe or not, so if they read and the only point of view they get concerning the authenticity of the Quranic text is that some people believe is has no distortion or corruption, then that is the only point of view they will know, without even knowing that it is a fringe theory. It is better to maintain non-fringe, mainstream points of view and then add the fringe theories within the context of the mainstream, so that readers do not misunderstand the state of scholarship on the topic.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think the current version is also fine.--Tritomex (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• I don't think so..., Atethnekos said:

"major textual variations and deficiencies in scripts mean the relationship between the text of today's Quran and an original text is unclear"

Are there "major" textual variations in the Quran?

Kiatdd (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as I see the current wording properly reflects the reliable source used as a reference. --Tritomex (talk) 10:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The source does not say that there are major textual variations whatsoever, it is merely saying that there are variant readings. The variant readings of the Quran do not relate to any textual variation (see section variant readings [4]). The fixed and stable text that we have today is not because God intervened nor it is a fringe theory, it is the result of efforts by Muhammad's companions who memorized and collected the Quran in the form of a book 14 centuries ago. The dogma that God has preserved the Quran is not a fringe theory, it is simply a religious dogma. It was inappropriately inserted in the lead section by someone, I removed it and it was re-inserted by the same editor. Kiatdd (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Kiatdd, who nicely laid out the rationale that underpinned the reason that I also removed the introduction of dissent into the lede (although I earlier focused on other aspects). There seems to be almost unanimous agreement among scholars that there has been no substantive change in the text of the Quran since the issuing of the book by Uthman. There is speculation among some about changes that may have occurred in the compilation. And any changes by Al-Hajjaj have even less support for being substantive; regardless of what Puin said, he is in a small minority and working without much evidence or a developed case at this point. Ironically, the improper insertion into the lede argues against itself: it cites an article which quotes a leading scholar dismissing claims by Puin; Jones says "trifling changes were made to the text". The vast majority of scholars disagree with the recent—and repetitive—insertion into the the lede. It is that inserted assertion that is fringe, and the burden of proof is upon its backers to show it mainstream—or at least other than fringe. The insertion should be removed from the lede.~ Desertroadbob (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Koran Forbids Muslims From Traveling Beyond the Mediterranean

I took an American History class not long ago that used a text authored by Jill Lepore, Encounters in the New World, A History in Documents, copyright 2000, ISBN 0-19-515491-6. On pages 14 and 15, in a discussion concerning who discovered the New World and why, it states that Arabian sailors and Muslims were forbidden by the Koran from leaving the Mediterranean region and that's why they never reached the Americas. I would suppose this directive means anywhere West of Israel, North of North Africa, South of Italy, and East of Spain. But this is guesswork as Ms. Lepore never responded to an attempted contact, and the text doesn't reference chapter and verse for the quotation, which really it isn't as it simply states that Muslim sailors never discovered America as they were prohibited from leaving the Mediterranean. I suppose this doesn't specifically mean that North Africans and Middle Easterners are banned from emigration, it just means that the Koran forbids Islam from leaving the Mediterranean.

Anyone know where in the Koran this is? Any English translation anywhere? Should this be included in the main article? It would be relevant to 21st Century Muslim expansion into the world, as (unless there's been changes to the Koran or its directives) Islam is still confined to its original boundaries. That's what it says in Lepore's text, anyway.--76.212.149.187 (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds highly dubious, given that the Arabian peninsula is not in the "Mediterranean region" and Islam spread to Persia and India within decades of Muhammad's death. Then muslim merchants helped it spread to what is now Indonesia and the East African coast. DeCausa (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw this, too. It may concern how far inland the Koran allows Islamists to travel from the Med. Moorish Spain might be a good example; some Moorish cities were far inland. And, an inventive Muslim traveler could always circumvent Koran directives by carrying a canteen or gourd (whatever the era) of Mediterranean water with him; he would never be far from it. The question appears to be what the Koran really says. If it does say that Muslims are required to remain in the Mediterranean geographic region, then that is important enough to warrant its inclusion in the main article once chapter and verse has been determined.--76.212.152.41 (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

This claim is obviously baseless, there isn't any expression in Quran about Mediterranean. Instead, you can refer to this verse "And to Allah belongs the east and the west. So wherever you [might] turn, there is the Face of Allah." (Quran 2:115) Veyselperu (talk) 05:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No, instead you can refer to the author and ask her for her sources. This is more than just a minor quibble, this is from a text used in American colleges. If this is a baseless insertion in a textbook, then Americans are being taught fallacies about Islam. And, the text references the Med "region," which might not specifically name the Mediterranean itself. The student is led to believe that it does, however, as it references Islamic sailors.

Another example of American college texts: In another History class a passage referenced an ancient battle between two Moslem forces at Siffat. One Moslem force tore pages from their Koran(s) and placed them upon their lances so that their foes could see that they were Moslems. I showed this to my co-workers, as I believed that an exhibition like this would have been met with hostility due to mutilation of a Koran. My co-workers said that they doubted that something like this could have happened, as the prohibition against mutilating a Koran is time-honored.

These are two examples of what Americans are taught in schools, two examples that modern Muslims might not agree with. If there is hostility towards American's misunderstanding of Islamic traditions, it may not be from the American's deliberate actions. It may be from what they read. And I'll include this second text's ISBN as soon as I find it.

And if you are correct, you should have Quran 2:115 placed in the main article yourself. It is not for my reference alone, it's for all those who are curious about what the Koran teaches.76.212.149.195 (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Since Lepore is not a specialist on Islam or Islamic history, the claim should be treated as WP:FRINGE until a better source is found. I don't think it should be in the article at all until then. Zero^talk 02:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

She does seem to be considered a "specialist" on world history, judging by her position and credentials. It's also evident that she has been published and her texts are used in higher education institutions. Her credentials are verified. What she inserts into her text material may not catch the eye of all the students who buy her texts. I mean, really, a small passage in a fairly large textbook, who'd notice?

But it's there, and attacking her worthiness isn't the answer to this specific question. Rather, the identification of her source(s) is. If it is valid, then this information is important enough to warrant its inclusion in the main article. If it's false, then many students who use her educational aids really need a refund.

There's really more at question here than just the Koran's passage, true or not. Tuition's rising in America, it's getting expensive to go to college. Those college graduates who enter politics or other fields that require contact with foreign powers or peoples should be expected to have a firm grasp of who and what they're dealing with. If their education is flawed, then their conduct with those persons could be quite flawed, also, and cause friction.

This is an area of education that America can't afford to "dumb down" in.76.212.149.195 (talk) 02:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The Battle of Siffin, not Siffat. The textbook is The West, Encounters and Transformations, Vol. 1 by Brian Levack and a couple others. The ISBN is 0-321-27632-9. Islam is discussed in Chapter 7, and Siffin is on pages 148 and 149.

The text specifically states on page 148 that the battle ended in July, 657 when Muawiya's forces tore pages out of a Koran and "...held up pages of the Qu'ran on the ends of their spears and appealed for arbitration." Now, compare that with the Wikipedia chronicling of the battle. On the Siffin page the only mention of a Koran being used as a tool for mediation is: "Suddenly one of the Syrians, Ibn Lahiya, reportedly out of dread of the fitna and unable to bear the spectacle rode forward with a copy of the Quran on the ears of his horse to call for judgement by the book of Allah, and the other Syrians followed suit." That's a far cry from tearing a Koran to shreds and skewering its pages on spears. One source says desecration, another no defilement unless the horse's ears were dirty.

Is this important? I believe so as it demonstrates how history becomes distorted according to the source. This is a prime example, there's no better. This aptly illustrates how one people can enrage another without even knowing that they are acting aggressively. Americans are taught in their colleges that Moslems once believed that tearing a Koran to shreds and showing the remains to opposing Moslems would placate the others into peace, yet on an international encyclopedia no mention of that is made, the Koran is simply used as a horse's hat and the opposition is gladdened to see its holy book used to shield the beast from the sun.

Times change, and now with the Internet so does history. Anyone want to change the Battle of Siffin page?--76.212.158.246 (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Would an Established User Please Help

The closing paragraph in the article (paragraph one) is quite misleading, and relies on an apparent misunderstanding from its author. The factual challenge presented is that there is no second copy/version/publication of the Quran in existence. If one exists, then where?

Even between the various sects in Islam, there's no debate on whether or not certain verses or chapters have been revealed in The Quran. The debate between sects stems from differing interpretation on how to apply those verses. While factually "the oldest copy of The Quran" is disputed and shall probably remain a scientific mystery, all copies of the Quran that have been carbon-dated (such as the Samarkan Kufic Quran, and "Sana'a Manuscripts," not to mention various artefacts, including swords, bones, rocks, just to name a few) are not only an exact match in the verbiage used within their respective chapters to the modern-day wide-spread 'Uthmaani Quraan; many of the artefacts date as far back as to the century in which "Prophet Muhammad" lived. Hence, when referring to "The Quran," whether or not you believe it was "revealed by God;" or whether or not someone were to write their own version (an abridgement, a cult novel, manuscript, or otherwise) with the same name, that do not scientifically pre-date the known "originals," all historical facts and scientific policies, thus-far, indicate that "The Quran" that Muslims believe to be "The Unchanged Word of God," has not yet been altered since its revelation 1400+ years ago. Most logical debaters agree that without scientific backing, counter arguments can only be labelled as baseless rhetoric.

Further Research & Reading If we are to speak about historical figures and authorities on the topic, The Quran (as the article outlines) means recitation; henceforth, by definition, the most accurate depiction of the Quran is the memorized version, as passed from generation to generation, over the past 1400+ years. The Quraan as written by Abdullah ibn Al-Zubair during its revelation, and gathered in the same century by 'Uthmaan ibn 'Afaan (as historically recorded in every major Islamic Text including Sahih Al-Bukhaari, and Sahih Muslim), has been memorized by many of "Prophet Muhammad's" companions, (including "Abdullah Ibn 'Abaas and Ibn Mas'ood from whom Prophet Muhammad had recommended to "pay attention to..." as relayed in Sahih Al-Bukhaari). Those who claim to have memorized the Quran must recite it in its totality, correctly, in the same manner that the Prophet Muhammad had recited it, and receive something called an Ijaazah (or verification). While the standard for those whom can issue an "Ijaazah" seems wide-open, the science of reciting The Quran has quite literally been documented letter-by-letter and vowel-by-vowel; henceforth, newly-invented methods or simple mispronunciations can be immediately refuted with textual evidence. The literary writings of Ibn-Al-jazari in his famous poem Al-Jazariah (in which he describes the Hafs-'an-Asim recitation of The Quran) is an example of a literary work that describes proper recitation vowel-by-vowel. Other literary works are numerous, and can be found in abundance in many libraries world-wide, including the oldest known university in the world (Al-Azhar University in Cairo Egypt), and Madinah University Library, Saudi Arabia. Moslem Al-Moslem (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. I can't make out what it is that you would like to change about the article. The last sentence in the first paragraph is sourced and appears uncontroversial, but are you claiming that the source does not support the claim? What text would you substitute and what sources would you provide to support the new text? Please re-open the request when you reply. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2014

I write this in relation to a search i carried out online. I type in the word Quran and was lead to you wiki page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran. I was appalled that instead of a picture relating to the quran, there was an image/painting of a human back and buttocks. I would be grateful if this can be looked into urgently as the topic is regarding a holy book and I am appalled that this is the image that has been depicted. 86.11.224.18 (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It was vandalism done to a template used in the article. I apologize for the offence it caused. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2014

− −

−

− I wanted to add link in the browser and sites for Quran. just wanted to add GlobalQuran.com - Quran very first API provider since 2006.

−

− Ibasit.me (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: No more external links are needed. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (indicate) @ 02:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Broken Link

There is a citation needed for this line in the compilation portion of this article:

The Quran in its present form is generally considered by academic scholars to record the words spoken by Muhammad because the search for variants has not yielded any differences of great significance.

Here is the source: http://books.google.com/books?id=c6hAAQAAIAAJ&q=%22+generally+considered+by+academic+scholars+to+record+the+words+spoken+by+Prophet+Muhammad%22&dq=%22+generally+considered+by+academic+scholars+to+record+the+words+spoken+by+Prophet+Muhammad%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6tgGU5v9F6Kf2QXL1YGoAw&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA

Would someone add it? Thanks

141.217.233.40 (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Is that a reliable source (WP:RS)? It does not seem like Edwin E. Hitti has any reputation as an expert on Quranic textual criticism or early Islamic history. And, for example, the Donner source cited seems to say the opposite (Donner 2006, p. 31–33). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems as though it is a reliable source because Edwin E. Hitti has authored many books on Islam. He is a keynote speaker at many events and has reputable knowledge about islam.

This book seems to have his background in the first two pages of the preview.

http://books.google.com/books?id=hbEEuTMUuX0C&pg=PA283&lpg=PA283&dq=Edwin+E.+Hitti&source=bl&ots=cm5NgZBAR1&sig=qm_F2npxKB_KKouWU5xgX-fQ5Gg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2gYOU9z-F4Pr2AXdl4CQAg&ved=0CEYQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Edwin%20E.%20Hitti&f=false

141.217.233.40 (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not able to contribute to edit the article

Please advise why the article is blocked. If there is who responsible then please discuss here my concerns. abdussalambaryun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdussalambaryun (talk • contribs) 20:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The article is locked because of long-term vandalism on it. If you have a request for a specific change, simply post what part of the article you want changed, what you want it changed to, and why this change should be made. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~), so that your posts are time-stamped. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• first I want to know why I am blocked before contribution, and what is the policy of blocking, as I understand we should not block people that are keen to help and develop the truth. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 10:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

editors editing without discussing here in June 2014

Please discuss you editing so we can work together. abdussalambaryun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdussalambaryun (talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to keep creating new sections for each new comment. Doing so, especially so rapidly, borders on spam. What recent changes do you have a problem with, and why do you have a problem with them? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• if some block all from contribution, then I would like to discuss about the editors here. The other section was about blocking and this is about editors. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 10:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• if most people are blocked then the editors have no right to edit only after consensus or discussing or talking here in this list of talk/discuss. I suggest that editors don't edit until I see there suggestions and I want to discuss with them. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I've told this editor he'll be able to edit the article when his account is 4 days old and he has 10 edits. Dougweller (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

This article needs organisation

The article is not well organised, and does not meet the readers' priorities. abdussalambaryun dated 5 June 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdussalambaryun (talk • contribs) 19:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Just saying "it's bad" doesn't do anything to help with any supposed problems. Do you have any suggestions as to what the structure should be like? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• I suggest to take out of the introduction what Muslims believe of the Quran or any persons believe of the Quran. Focusing on the book and author and first teaching of the book, first language of the book, first publishing of the book, dated, and references that is authenticated. If we want to say what Muslims or Christians or Jewish believe/think/say about this book, then it should be in a separate section. The reader then can choose what to read, and the reader would expect to see reliable references of which Muslims believe/say this or that about this book. Therefore, the structure of this article to start with definition and then introduction and then its sections, each section is focused on few related objectives. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • We need to say what the text is about, yes? What is your definition? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• My definition is mentioned, but I think we need the Quran's author definition, the first 10 verses (Aya) really defines the author and then the book (the 7 of sura Alfateha, and 3 of Sura Baqara) and it describes the Quran's main issue. So I don't see that importance in this article. From my understanding of the Quran, the first 7 verses are the most important verses of the full Quran, as prophet Mohammed said. However, it will be nice if the Quran author gets a chance to note the definition before others in this article we are editing. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The introduction is not simple

We need more simple introduction, I don't see the editor writing in the third voice, usually the article editor is giving his/her opinion. This should not continue, because the Wikipedia is about best writing and references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdussalambaryun (talk • contribs) 20:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What? The introduction only uses third-person voicing. There is never a single use of "I" or "you" in the introduction.

The introduction summarizes and cites a number of academic sources to describe what Muslim beliefs about the Quran. It would only be accurate to describe Muslim beliefs as Muslim beliefs, since Wikipedia lets the reader make up their own mind as to what the "truth" is. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Due to many paragraphs in the beginning there is need for either simple introduction or making a section of introduction that contain the current introduct. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• I prefer simple definition of the Quran in the first paragraph of the article. For example, first of all it is a book of religion, the religion is Islam. It mentions that it is a message from The Creator through a messenger whose name is Mohammed. We need to describe the book as it defines itself (or the way the author defines his book). The first paragraph does not even mention Mohammed the first human and messenger who revealed the Quran. What people believe about Quran is not much important in first two paragraphs, but the editors mention "Muslims believe ...." , let us focus what does the book say about itself. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • If you're suggesting something like, "The Quran is a message from The Creator through a messenger whose name is Mohammed," then no, that is not a neutral point of view. The Quran is also a primary source so we use scholarly secondary sources to make statements about it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• I mean let us put references to the verses that defines the Quran by the Quran author, I don't want to define it in our way or in any Muslims way. I believe that authors define their books not others. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • But Wikipedia articles are not here to simply regurgitate primary sources. It would help if you provided the specific text you want to see in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hi NeilNI, I want to make it simple for the reader. Any article or English writing in the world needs to aim to simplify the reader's work. The writer should not just push information with no organisation. I read the article and would like see clear objectives in each section and clear priorities of parts. When I get better edit power I may be more encouraged. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It would be helpful if you laid out specific wording here first to discuss. To great a change and you'll more than likely be reverted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• The added text suggested is translated (I may need to find best translation) verses of Quran (the most important verses):

(

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, the Lord and Sustainer of the worlds. Most Gracious, Most Merciful; Master of the Day of Judgment. Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek. Show us the straight way. The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray.

This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah. Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them. And who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter. They are on (true) guidance, from their Lord, and it is these who will prosper.

)

The above is the 10 first verses of Quran, and contains the translated 7 verses of sura Alfateha and first three of Sura Albaqara.

Abdusalambaryun (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Suggest amending the first paragraph of the article as below which I exclude what Muslims say.

(The Quran (English pronunciation: /kɔrˈɑːn/[n 1] kor-ahn , Arabic: القرآن‎ al-qur'ān, IPA: [qurˈʔaːn],[n 2] figuratively meaning "the recitation", also romanised Qur'an or Koran) is the central book of the Islam religion, which was revealed by Muhammad the son of Abdallah (the messenger in Islam). The Quran's original texture language is Arabic, and it's verses/parts were revealed in Maka city and Madeena city between year 610-632. Muhammad, is illiterate and according to tradition, recited perfectly what the angel Gabriel revealed to him for his companions to write down and memorize. )

The above information is very important to help the reader understand the book times, names involved, and places. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• • Therefore, the simple introduction contains first the paragraph amended above and then another paragraph saying the important translated verses of the Quran. So the reader will get the real important information. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
    • The problem is Muslims believe that as part of their tradition. Also, Muhammad's degree of illiteracy is historically unclear. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• • • • What sentence you want to remove from my suggestion and what you agree. Let us build together the introduction to make it simple with strong information. I don't want to mention believes but reality. Why you think Muhammad was not illiterate? Is there first proof of that within a land and time that most were illiterate. However, you are not correct about tradition. I only want the Quran to define itself and its ideas, so you need to understand that the Quran States clearly that Muhammad is illiterate. Therefore, I want to mention that it's the Quran book that says that not tradition. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• • • • • Compared to your proposal, I think the present text in the article is fine the way it is. And it's not what I believe about Muhammad's illiteracy (or what the Quran says), it's what scholarly sources say:
        • The Quran describes Muhammad as "ummi",[37] which is traditionally interpreted as "illiterate," but the meaning is rather more complex. The medieval commentators such as Al-Tabari maintained that the term induced two meanings: firstly, the inability to read or write in general and secondly, the inexperience or ignorance of the previous books or scriptures; however, they gave priority to the first meaning. Besides, Muhammad's illiteracy was taken as a sign of the genuineness of his prophethood. For example, according to Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, if Muhammad had mastered writing and reading he possibly would have been suspected of having studied the books of the ancestors. Some scholars such as Watt prefer the second meaning.
        • Remember, this is not "The History of the Quran According to the Quran". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Whilst this is true, the bigger problem with the proposed text is the word "revealed". That is a Muslim belief, and cannot be stated without qualification. An alternative non-Muslim view would be "composed by Muhammad", which Muslims object to. Hence, the current formula to phrase it in terms of "Muslims believe...." is necessary. DeCausa (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

- I think now we are saying what we believe or what other think about the verses. We need to agree on which English translation we follow of the book in this article or which number of translations we will mention to start with as subject. You need a subject text/book to start basing information on, so if we don't agree on which translation the reader of our article will read while reading the article then we have no reference of our English paragraphs. It is clear by educated readers that the Quran says that Muhammad is illiterate and that he is the source for all of revealing its words. The current introduction is based on information of other than the real Quran, so I see no sense to start with others and ignore the subject. We are not discussing history of Quran or thoughts but we need to discuss the Quran text, or what is the Quran book exactly.

The Quran is a book, so it is words and sentences that have meaning, the base of the subject is to start with some of its meaning. When we mention translation books we will need references, so then we start describing that book in English to help readers know about the Quran text and context. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

We're not turning the article into a Quran study or commentary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• usually this article seems now like commentary, saying what others say about it without saying what the author says simply and exactly as what is the Quran?

I know that Wikipedia is not about sources and references, but it is about the describing with the most related real information with sources. Usually what people believe or think or write about others still can be imaginary/false. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources disagree on whether Muhammad was illiterate, see: "It is not known, however, whether Muhammad himself was able to read and write. Muslims generally claim that he was illiterate, although his professional involvement in trade and commerce might argue for some form of acquaintance with written record keeping." (Böwering, Gerhard (2008). "Recent research on the construction of the Qur'ān". In Reynolds, Gabriel Said (ed.). The Qur'ān in Its Historical Context. Routledge. pp. 70–87. ISBN 9780203939604. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); templatestyles stripmarker in |first= at position 1 (help); templatestyles stripmarker in |last= at position 1 (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) See especially: Goldfeld (1980), Der Islam vol. 57, p. 67; Günther (2002), JQS vol. 4, no. 1, p. 16; both which conclude that النَّبِيَّ الْأُمِّيَّ does not imply illiteracy.) --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

- I speak and write in Arabic and I am sure that Quran means by Ummi (word in arabic) the same as illiterate. If you ask any arabic person in any arabic country, first respond is it means illiterate. However, it will be interesting for me to read that strange reference. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think ummi means in Modern Arabic because Qur'anic Arabic is not the same. There are many cases where interpretations of a verse have lead to the change in meaning of a word between Qur'anic and MSA and the dialects. Ogress _smash! 20:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

- Yes what matters is the majority understanding of a word and the majority real sources that are reliable. Ok I will investigate those two sources given, and I am sure there are many reliable sources that explain the word as illiterate. In the end thoughts are like me and like authors of those sources they think the word is not illiterate and I think it is but the majority reliable sources matters. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This Article is about Quran and not Muslims

The interest of the article is to aim to know more about the Quran Book, let us not be distracted by Muslims believes or Muslims traditions. Now we have a book, and this book can be read and understood by any human on Earth, so what will be the best introduction and definition.

Secondly, if we want to write about Muslims believe of Quran then that can be a separate section. There are many information missing on the article that is related to the Quran and still not clear. I think Muslims traditions or believe can be more detailed in another article, because even Muslims have different schools like other religions. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the purpose of this article is to describe all aspects of the subject. Origin, content, history, interpretations, controversies, historical impact on art/politics/religion, etc. The actual content is just one facet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

But also, the Qu'ran has virtually no importance in itself. It is primarily important because of what Muslims believe about it i.e. it's importance comes from being the main religious text of a major world religion. What Christians and Jews views of it are are only of secondary importance. And that's the way the article is currently written, which is right. DeCausa (talk) 06:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

- ok let us prioritise main issues, this article title is Quran and not Muslims, therefore, we start with this important subject. The Quran is important in this article because the title contain only the word Quran. If you want to write an article about The Muslims Quran, then I can understand why you want to write about Muslims believe. Readers of this article are free to choose what is important and what is not, we should not interfere. Therefore, we should write Muslims believe in separate section, other groups/people/individual believes in separate sections. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• The purpose of the article is to describe the Quran first (without confusing more complexed issues or subjects), then describe all other issues/aspects related (but better in separate sections). The article is not organised in its prioritising important issues. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think you're going to get much agreement for this. The intro is supposed to summarize all aspects of the body, not just focus on one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Abdusalamamaryun, you seem to think that the purpose of the article is merely to give a summary of what's in the Qu'ran. But that's not it. The purpose, as with any Wikipedia article, is to give a summary of what reliable sources have said about the Qu'ran. DeCausa (talk) 11:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

- we need to have introduction that has priorities in information. I don't say summary but the purpose is to explain What is the Quran, really? Not What some people say about the Quran? So if we want to do summarising body then the last paragraph in introduction can summarise, where sections are after in details as I mentioned before. The first paragraph should not have what people say about Quran, but what the author says first. You did not answer to organising information. Why there is no agreement? What is the problem with organising and prioritising. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The Quran is a primary source. Wikipedia requires secondary sources (i.e., what scholars say about the Quran) to "explain What is the Quran, really". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

- Wikipedia needs both sources (primary and secondary) to be available for real descriptions and real information. Furthermore, in the Arabic Wikipedia pages, the referencing Quran as primary source may not be needed because the original Quran book is in Arabic language, but in this English Wikipedia, the primary Quran source of English translation is required and necessary to be referenced and available as real information. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No, we don't encourage the use of primary sources because of the risk of the result being original research which is not permitted. The article needs to be based on secondary sources to structure the article and make its main points. Some limited referencing to primary sources, e.g. the Qu'ran, is permitted but that can't shape the article. Please familiarise yourself with the relevant policy: WP:PRIMARY. DeCausa (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The way the article shaped now is not correct, the Quran is about its texts, context, and author, not about Muslims and editors views. I see that editor opinion is clear which is not policy to write editor opinions through secondary sources. Describing both sides sources is important yo clarify the subject. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

section of: relationship with other literature

The section starts with a subsection (the bible) but the bible was not mentioned much and the relationship is not clear between Quran and the Bible. We need to be clear of the main idea of this section that is shows the Quran relations with others and not others relation to Quran. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Suggest: that to have subsection for Bible and another for Tawra separated, and suggest amending subsection (relationships) to become (views of the relationships), or (views of literatures relationship with Quran). Abdusalambaryun (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• The Quran mentions in Sura (1) Albaqara, Aya 75-79, Sura (3), Aya 46, and Sura (4) Almaeda, Aya 13 and Aya 41, that there were people that changed altered the religious text of previous holy books as the bible and Tawra. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• The Quran mentions in Sura (48) Alfateh, Aya 29, that the believers Muslims were described in the religious text of Injil (Gospel), and In the text of the Tawra. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Bible section

It says it needs a citation that the Qu'ran speaks highly of the Bile and Torah. Here you go; Torah--"We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers," (Sura 2:87).1 Psalms--"We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms," (4:163). Gospel--"It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)," (3:3). Also, "And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah," (5:46). 86.43.171.32 (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Those aren't sources for the statement. Per WP:PRIMARY, they can only be used as sources for exactly what it says in the Qu'ran. It requires interpretation to turn that into "speaks highly" (actually says "speaks well" which should probably be changed) and cannot be done with a primary source. A secondary source (and not hadith) is needed. DeCausa (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

the Quran verses are that those holy books are from Allah the only God. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• The Quran mentions (7:157) "Those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write whom they find written with them in the Torah and the Gospel ..."

It can be found in Bible, Isaiah (29:12) " And if the document is given to one who cannot read and he is asked to read it, he will say: I can't read" Abdusalambaryun (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

No. Do some research into various interpretations, don't just choose one. Isn't the word used 'ummi'?Dougweller (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2014

In Bible definitions it was mentioned that"There is no single "Bible" and many Bibles with varying contents exist". its worth mentioning that; there is only a single copy of the holy Qur'an with the same context being read and memorized by Muslims. Bader725 (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request; moreover, on a subject like this, such a change would also need consensus, before being added to the article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Intro misleading

In the intro currently it says "However, some significant textual variations and deficiencies in the Arabic script mean the relationship between the text of today's Quran and an original text is unclear" . I think this is misleading. The source says "Most variants are minor, but some are significant and involve not just vocalization but completely different words". It also says that these variants are based on pre-Uthmanic traditions. The purpose of the compilation of the quran at Uthman's time was to unify the writing of the quran (also in the source). This was within 20 years of Muhammad's death with many of those who heard it directly from him still alive. I believe that putting that in the intro without the proper context is misleading.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It's an interesting issue. Well, Donner does not say that all of the variants are based on pre-Uthmanic traditions. He says that some were claimed to be based on pre-Uthmanic traditions, but he does not affirm this claim. As Donner says, there is a two-part lack of clarity: "many questions remain regarding the relationship of the ʿUthmānic text to both the revelations of Muḥammad’s time and to the Qurʾān of today." (pg. 32) Then he considers the variants you mention and he concludes: "The full import, however, of these variants for our understanding of the ʿUthmānic text and its relationship to the revelations as they existed in Muḥammad’s time is still not clear." Finally he considers the deficiencies in the early script and says: "it opens the possibility that the fully vocalised texts that were eventually prepared could have contained erroneous vocalisations, further clouding our perception of the relationship of today’s vocalised text to the revelations of Muḥammad’s time." That is, we just don't know exactly what Uthman's text was, and a fortiori we don't know exactly what Muhammad's text was.

There has been a lot of work since 2006, but Donner's conclusion has only been confirmed by it. The work of Keith Small and his Textual Criticism and Qurʾān Manuscripts (2011) has been well-regarded and gives the very same conclusion, even explicitly citing and agreeing with Donner (p. 179). François Déroche, who is probably the most well-regarded now (as Walid Saleh says: "First of all, this monograph leaves no doubt as to who is the leading scholar in quranic studies: François Déroche" [5]), makes the issue more problematic: He's concluded (Qur’ans of the Umayyads, 2013) largely on the basis of codex Parisino-petropolitanus and the Sana'a palimpsest that the Uthmanic text was not a standard as it is reported in tradition (p. 35 & 139), and agrees that the manuscripts (and lack of manuscripts) show that we just don't know about transmission: "As it [the Sana'a palimpsest] is alone in its textual tradition, it is unfortunately impossible to evaluate the way in which it was transmitted in various copies and to compare the results with what can be observed in the case of the canonical rasm" (p. 137) and that to answer all the questions of transmission we "require to have the material from this period published in a more systematic way." (p. 15) --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Region's Islamique / Region's Now- Islamique

Region <Bruxelles-Brabant> not heard of Wallonia but to Flandre.

( or, move it to the real topic:

Flandria, Belgium, Brussels, Wallonia 

Islamism, anti-Islamism, Arabism / Anti - Arabism, fascism / anti - fascism, racism / anti - racism)Iederzujnhui (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

What? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure if this was a language issue or what but I can only make out some European low countries areas and some mentioning of Islamic and Arabic issues/racism/criticism/anti-ideological issues, please state clearer what it is you would wish done and why, I understand the language barrier myself but it makes it hard to interpret what is being said — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandeepSinghToor (talk • contribs) 07:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Finest Work?

In the first paragraph of the page, the following sentence needs further thought:

It is widely regarded as the finest piece of literature in the Arabic language.

This phrase is:

1. An opinion, not factual.
2. Highly biased because of the religious ideology surrounding the book itself.
3. False according to other sources. I did not see any specific sources on-line to add for this. However, my limited Arabic understanding and some non-Muslim Arabic speaking persons i know personally disagree with this statement.

How can we trust a sentence when 3 of the four sources are written by Muslims and 2 of the 4 are so obscure they are currently unobtainable?

Is there a way we can either move this sentence from the intro or just delete it entirely?

It reads poorly for an encyclopedia and those without religious affiliation would agree with the removal and disagree with the statement's premise.

Unless i hear compelling reasons otherwise i will remove this sentence after 48 hours.

--Riddleme (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

By coincidence I took a note on the same thing and support removing the statement. I don't believe it adds any neutral, informational value to the article. 2001:708:10:10:F2DE:F1FF:FE54:62C4 (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The religion of the writer is not a reason. However, I'm concerned by the lack of an explicit citation. Three books are named without page numbers, and one long article is indicated without even its title. Where in these sources is the statement actually made, and what do they actually say on the subject? I support deleting the sentence until this problem is fixed. Zero^talk 13:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's not a proper reason on its own, but it's still a weasel worded sentence that should be presented more fairly and objectively. Who considers it fine, and why? 2001:708:10:10:F2DE:F1FF:FE54:62C4 (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Normally i would agree; however, given my reasons 1,2, and 3 i must contend when ulterior motives are at stake we must be more conservative in approaching the truth without bias. Especially given the tremendous importance of the Quran to the religious studies of the followers. To be a devout Muslim requires the idea that the Quran is superior to all other works of literature in all languages. Would you trust a bigot's opinion on a topic they disagree with over that of an well-versed external observer? Usually no. Additionally, we should not make exceptions to prejudiced notions because it is a religion. However, should anyone provide facts, then yes all opinions could be put aside and i agree completely. Facts are by definition not opinionated and therefore bias plays no role. Since, no compelling reasons have been stated i will remove the sentence. Riddleme (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If you can see pages 137 onwards the subject is discussed there. My initial impression is that this book (one of those cited in the article) does not support the text but actually argues against it. Zero^talk 13:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

well its international use/status and widespread use/reverence would make it a well known work of the Arabic language however stating it is the finest may run you into problems if you don't have large consensus from scholarly sources or factual evidence to back it up as it appears here. However stating it is a significantly known work may do better here as it is one of the most well known world wide and doesn't make a comment on whether it is fine or not and rather that it is just known/famous. NOTE: apologies if what I wrote was offensive as I did refer to the Quran as a 'work' however only used this in lack of a better term and in no way mean any offense to anyone, thanks SandeepSinghToor (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The new sentence is a good fit. Great job, thanks. Riddleme (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Change, textual transmission and corruption

I'll just expand on what I said. So the lede clearly reports a religious view of the transmission of the text: That it is without corruption. The scholarly consensus is specifically that there is some corruption, but also more generally that the transmission is not clear. Including Donner just gives that general scholarly consensus. Removing any mention that the transmission is unclear, and including only a statement that questions remain about some undetermined set of aspects of canonization or some such, does not speak to the religious view which is clearly stated. The scholarly view has to be there to give a context to that religious view, per WP:NPOV. I don't care about the word "however" nor "nevertheless", but there has to be some connecting word or phrase to make it clear that what it being reported is no longer the under the influence of the "Muslims consider" which governs the previous sentence. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

May I suggest that you read our WP:SYNTH policy. It is clear that you're combining "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Otherwise, where does Donner explicitly states that the "scholarly consensus is specifically that there is some corruption" as you claim? His article does not deal with corruption anywhere. So you shouldn't cite it here to imply that it does. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 00:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I have read it, thank you. I've not cited Donner for that claim, nor have I tried to include that claim in the article. Donner's article certainly does deal with corruption, however. That's why he says that the possibility that the plena texts contain errors in vocalization is partly why the transmission is unclear; errors in transmission are one conceptual half of textual corruption (the other being intentional changes). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I think what's needed is a section on Textual Criticism. The article Criticism of the Quran largely focuses on polemics and might be offensive to some Muslims. Let's add a neutral section on Textual Criticizm by contemporary scholars, both Muslims and non-Muslims, modeled on the equivalent pages that exist for the Bible.

Wgw2024 (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2014

please change:

literally meaning "the recitation"

at the article start to be

literally meaning "the recitation"

Muslim-guy (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Please see this source which is present in the first section of the body. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Although isn't there a WP:LEAD issue? I'm not sure the statement that it literally means "the Recitation" is supported by the first sentence in the Etymology section. It says it is a verbal noun (a literal translation would therefore be "the reciting") but then confusingly it talks about "he read". I think the lead should probably be amended to say something like "derived from the Arabic verb meaning to recite" unless the first sentence of the Etymology section is amended to simply say it means "the Recitation" with Britannica as the citation. But I suspect Britannica has oversimplified. DeCausa (talk) 11:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Or is "the Recitation" a verbal noun? (or Deverbal noun?). Out of my depth here....DeCausa (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a big big problem concerning the compilation of the quran

I was just reading the page on the quran and when i got to the compilation between there are two sources of information. The sunni version which is common accepted compilation whereby abu bakr along with zaid ibn thabit started the project of compiling the quran.

And the shia version specifically the twelver shia which they say ali compiled his own book. Note that zaydi shias do not believe in this.

(The problem is that it says shias and some sunni scholars). That's a lie. No sunni scholar of any kind has stated that ali had such a book or compiled a quran of his own. All sunni scholars accept unamously the events stated at the battle of yamammah and its aftermath in sahih Bukhari.

I hope someone who is registered or the usual page watcher can rectify this. No sunni scholar believes in the shia case and this is important because uniformed readers might get the impression that there are some sunni scholars who agree with twelver shias

By the way all the references used for that paragraph in question are all shia scholars

kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betrayerofhope (talk • contribs) 00:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

History of Sufi Commentaries

Should this section be removed or merged with the section History in the article Esoteric interpretation of the Quran as there seems to be a huge overlap ? MPatel ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead image/ image on Quran template

Should there perhaps be a picture of a Quran in the lead; or maybe an image of a Quran in the Quran template ? MPatel ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The trinity

Does the Holy Quran say that Jesus is the son of God and Mary or just a prophet, disciple?Burgerqueen5 (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Not son of God. But prophet and messenger. MPatel ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

See Jesus in Islam. Editor2020, Talk 00:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2015

In Quran, SURA 69. AL-HAAQQA (THE REALITY) 44. And if he(Muhammad) had invented "false" sayings concerning Us, 45. We assuredly had taken him by the right hand 46. And then severed(cut off) his life artery(aorta). Allah killed Muhammad for being a false prophet!!! POISONED to Death--- Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment from which he died, used to say, "O 'Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison!" (Sahih al-Bukhari, V 5, Bk 59, No. 713). Before you accept QURAN as the words of God, please produce True prophets to confirm it. True God has advised to test the words of a new Messenger by True Prophet: Sura 3:81[Pickthal]: When God made (His) covenant with the prophets,(He said): Behold that which I have given you of the Scripture and knowledge. And afterward there will come unto you a Messenger, CONFIRMING that which ye possess. In Quran, Surah 13:7 Mohammad did not perform any miracles. The people are saying that even one sign would be enough to convince them is TRUE prophet, just one miracle but “NONE!!!” And Mohammad would reply: Surah 17:93 Say: "Am I anything but a man, a messenger" Mohammad did no miracles. He did not heal the sick, raise the dead, cast out any demons/Satans, or rule the wind and the waves. Prophet had No More Power than any Normal Man like you.NO ‘1’ Muslim miracle>1400 years until today"= NO "1" Muslim is TRUE PROPHET/MESSENGER in Islam History=Allah/Islam/Quran was just a FAKE Story! Muhammad has agreed that the true prophethood goes with the bloodline of Isaac and not Ishmael whose birthright was revoked by God. Quran 29:27 (Yusuf Ali) "And We gave ISAAC and JACOB, and ordained among his progeny Prophethood and Revelation ..." Regarding Mohammad's own rejection of the false genealogies, Amru bin al-As wrote: 'Mohammed genealogized himself regarding his ancestors until he reached al-Nather bin Kinaneh, then he said "anyone who claimed otherwise or added further ancestors, has lied.'" By virtue of the recital of Muhammad, Abraham and Ishmael did not set foot in Mecca as no warner has been sent before him! Quran 34:44 (Pickthal) "And We have given them No scriptures which they study, Nor sent We unto them, before thee, Any warner." "Ishmael is not the forefathers of Muhammad as no warner has been sent before him". In Quran, Surah 29:27 states clearly that as far as Allah and the Qur'an are concerned, the only True prophets are those related to "Isaac (Ishaq) or Jacob (Yaqoub) Only"; yet Mohammad, according to Muslim believe tradition, is related to "Ishmael" and "Not Isaac or Jacob". =Mohammad himself was FALSE Warner/Prophet/messenger for Islam. Muslims are deceived into believing the lie, those who continue to believe in Islam died in the Lake of Fire. If NO "1" Islam Muslim/Imam or Hadith or Yusuf Estes,Hilali-Khan,Ahmad Deedat,Zikir naik etc/the greatest Scholars in Islam history CANNOT perform/show any 1 miracle or come from Abraham/Isaac/Jacob descend or NO dead body/raised their live body to Heaven by True God=Allah/Islam/Quran was confirmed a FAKE Story 210.19.254.228 (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

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.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  11:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2015

Bold text

39.51.75.144 (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)--39.51.75.144 (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC) ok may polesy KASHIF ASHI 39.51.75.144 (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC) اللَّهُمَّ صَلِّ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ، وَعَلَى آلِ مُحَمَّدٍ، كَمَا صَلَّيْتَ عَلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَعَلَى آلِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، إِنَّكَ حَمِيدٌ مَجِيدٌ، اللَّهُمَّ بَارِكْ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ، وَعَلَى آلِ مُحَمَّدٍ، كَمَا بَارَكْتَ عَلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ، وَعَلَى آلِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، إِنَّكَ حَمِيدٌ مَجِيدٌ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.51.75.144 (talk) 10:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

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. Cannolis (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Quran pages from around Muhammad's lifetime found

See this NPR article.

David Thomas, professor of Christianity and Islam at the University of Birmingham, places the manuscript to "less than two decades after Muhammad's death." Oxford's radiocarbon analysis found that it was written between 568 and 645, up to two years before or thirteen years after Muhammad's lifetime. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

"Quaran" Spelling

Hello. I noticed that many of the articles discussing the Quran are inconsistent with its spelling. Is Quaran (the title of this page)the standard on Wikipedia? Or some other spelling (in which case this page should be renamed), and if so, what is it? I know that sometimes there are national variations in English (British vs. United States mostly), but since it isn't an English word I assume there is a common standard, at least on Wikipedia, right?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.109.181 (talk • contribs)

The word "Quaran" does not appear in the article. The only times it appears on this talk page is when you use that word. This article is titled "Quran" (with no "a" between the U and R), and that is how it is spelled throughout the article and on this talk page. Please actually read the article before making claims about it. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation

According to Oxford Dictionary the correct pronunciation is:

BrE /kəˈrɑːn/  ; NAmE /kəˈrɑːn/

85.193.250.223 (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Birmangham Quran manuscript on the main page

I nominated Birmingham Quran manuscript for becoming a featured picture and it was successfully promoted. Furthermore, I sought to know whether and how it appears on the main page and I received a good response:"Yes, it will [appear on the main page]. Generally there is an 18 month delay, but something like this could (and probably will) be scheduled for date relevance earlier. Eid al-Adha will be in late September, and that would be a decent date to run this. Not because of the verses shown, but because of the Quran's importance in Islam." So, we'll God willing see this old manuscript of Quran on the main page in almost 32 days. Mhhossein (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Help required

I would like help improving this article, if anyone can spare the time. Thank you. :-) -- Veyselperu (talk) 08:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Veyselperu: Hey, I'm seeing your request now, sorry for the delay. What Can I do? Mhhossein (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Quran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150403125133/http://www.almizan.org/new/special/principles.asp to http://almizan.org/new/special/principles.asp

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150723173602/http://almizan.org/Discourses/QD21.asp to http://almizan.org/Discourses/QD21.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150403130853/http://www.almizan.org/new/special/Aspects.asp to http://www.almizan.org/new/special/Aspects.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)