Jump to content

Talk:Quran/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

6666 Ayat

The Qur'an consists of 114 surah (chapters) with a total of 6236 ayat (verses).

İf this is true than look to the sites or from google try your search with this key words! "6666 Ayat Digital Quran"


How can Digital Quran can be wrong!!! How can they sell their Product with saying "Easy navigation through 114 Sura and 6666 Ayat."


Status, re: Large Qur'an Picture

I have contacted the smithsonian and the gallery where the picture was taken, they are working on getting us a replacement picture. Other than this picture thing what needs attention in this article? What I mean is where do we turn our collective attnetion now as far as this article goes?
Kode 00:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing much more, maybe small edits. Good work on trying to get the image :). How is the Smithsonian going to get it to us? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Good work, Kode. Obviously, if they can get a pic with a person at the margins, that would be better. For some reason I'm feeling like a man would be preferable. ;-) Thanks. Babajobu 00:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
A picture would be nice, although I don't think one with a person in it is preferable. I think that whatever the Smithsonian decides to give us, if anything at all, would (hopefully) be appropriate, neutral, and worthy of being included in an encyclopedia. joturner 00:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, not to reopen a can of worms, but without a person there the enormous scale of the folio will not be evident. But yes, we'll take what they give us. Babajobu 00:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I recall an earlier suggestion that a simple measuring device would be the best option, perhaps I can get them to include a yard stick on the edge or something, then we can crop it out if we decide against it.Kode 02:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Anything next to it is fine for scale. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

And I'll repeat my earlier comment that the human figure is how we intuitively judge scale, which is WHY advertising, architectural renderings, archaeological pictures, etc. typically include a human figure for scale. Just make sure that the human is shown from the back, is male (dang it), and is conservatively dressed. Zora 02:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

A woman in a burqa would be okay, too. Babajobu 02:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Let's not push it. We could ask for these additions for scale, but we should be happy with whatever they give us. And Babajobu, we're talking about the United States here; I'm doubting they'll easily find a woman wearing a burqa in public in the United States. And then one that's willing to be photographed... I'm not going to bet the ranch. joturner 02:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know, it sticks in my craw too. Zora 02:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
If a man has shaven facial hair, is Jewish, ate pork within the last 20 days, or is an Iraqi war veteran, will that present a problem? Perhaps we should send a list of requirements to the Smithsonian. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Please, we understand (and I agree with) your sentiment, but I have chosen the path of tolerence in this case. If everyone was as understanding as we all think we are this whole mess wouldn't have come up at all, but some people have their prejudices. In this instance the consensus is to acquiesce. We're just trying to be sensitive to other's beliefs. Diplomacy is about compromise and that's all I'm trying to do here. So how about helping instead of exacerbating the situation?
-Kode 23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course. That is fine. Anything next to it is fine for scale and not having something next to it is also fine. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ms. Cory Grace a Rights and Reproductions/ Digital Assistant of the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery and the Freer Gallery of Art has recieved our request and ok'd our use of the picture (a round of applause or sending her some flowers might be appropriate) which means I have successfully cut through most of the bureaucracy and the pictures that they have are being moved to their public ftp site in a folder titled "Wikipedia". So, we'll have pictures to choose from in a matter of days or weeks. In a sing song chant like voice imagine me saying, "I've got better pictures coming." Also, some one removed the current pic from the page, again... Ye gods how many hoops I've jumped through... -Kode 19:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. It's amazing how the whole process of contacting the Smithsonian was shot down within a day of it being proposed in early January, and here you have proved that it could work. Thank you. Pepsidrinka 20:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
in the defense of others I am a research librarian so I'm willing to bet I was given special consideration as an insider of sorts. Other people might not have gotten the same personal responses I've gotten from the people I've contacted. (^_^) Kode 00:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The attempt to get a new picture from the Smithsonian was not possible at the beginning of January because when I called them, they informed me that taking photos inside the Freer and Sackler Galleries was prohibited. To then ask for a picture of one of the pieces of art on display would not have been a good idea. I'm sure Kode's position (or the way it was presented) helped to overcome that. joturner 00:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Article Bias

How does the word "infidel" fail to appear in this article? Nothing is said about infidels in the Qur'an? You don't think what is said about infidels is important to a modern understanding of Islam? Come on. Haizum 17:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm waiting for the fallacious argument that uses the Bible/Torah as a context, but I'll go ahead and preempt that by saying it has nothing to do with the logical assertion that suggests "infidels" should appear in the article at least once. Haizum 17:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The section on Sharia law doesn't even contain the word infidels. Come on. Haizum 17:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Infidels only appears 4 times in the Jihad section. Come on. Haizum 17:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of things that are mentioned in the Qur'an that aren't mentioned in this article. The word peace, for example, is not in the article. Although I do agree that more information about the content of the Qur'an could be given, that does not demonstrate bias. joturner 21:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
A "plot summary" of the Qur'an may be in order, just like the article on the bible (I believe) covers the actual contents of the books. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Stylistic attributes

A point for you to consider, should this section have it's own page? It is one of the bigger sections, and I'm sure we could add a lot if the section were split away, perhaps more examples of the rhyming and repitition of phrases and we can centrally locate the evedence for Divine Inspiration that's scattered all throughout the Islam section. I'm no expert, but I think the entry may flow better if the examples we have currently were moved off the main page, but I'd hate to see them removed. Thoughts?
-Kode 20:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please leave them there -- and leave OUT the evidence for divine inspiration. That may be appropriate for Friday sermon, but it is not appropriate for a secular encyclopedia. Zora 03:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

A User's Problem

I logged in to this article - like, I'm sure, many others - wanting to know "What does the Qur'an actually say?". By the end of the article I was none the wiser. I understood the importance of reading it out loud in classical Arabic, I understood the stylistic character of the book (between prose and poetry), and I understood the controversies over its origins. But I was no wiser about what it actually says.

Like many people reading the world news right now I wanted to know some important things, such as:

1. What does the Qur'an say about violence? When if ever does the Qur'an say it's justified? 2. What does it say about Infidels? How are they to be treated? 3. What does the Qur'an say about women? 4. What does the Qur'an say about slavery?

Could the article be re-written to give more information on these issues?

Those are hard questions. The Qur'an is a collection of verses and rules delivered over the course of twenty years, and assembled out of chronological order. Muslims have been arguing for centuries about all those questions, and others. It is not the place of Wikipedia to rule on scriptural exegesis. Please read the book in question and perhaps look at some of the material in the references and external links. Then decide what YOU think. You may also want to look at the articles on Jihad, Islam and other religions, Religion and slavery, and Women in Islam. Zora 04:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you are avoiding the question with your response. I (and many, many others I am sure) look to Wikipedia to grow into a true encyclopedia. As such, I would expect that any topic related to a subject may very well be addressed by someone within the Wiki community. It will make for a very long article I am certain but this is one place where authors are not limited by paper or column inches. I, too, would recommend that a person read a work in question but this is not a book one picks up and understands in year's of study and a guide to these issues would certainly be helpful.Es330td 02:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

these are the doctrines of dar al-Harb (House of War) and dar al-Islam (House of Submission). The goal of Islam is to spread all over the world (dar al-Islam), preferably establishing some kind of sjaria. The goal to get there is called jihad. Dar al-Harb (depending on a narrow or extensive definition of dar al-Islam) is an territory where this not the case. So, that's why there is now so a fuss about in Europe (=dar al-Harb), because in the end islam wants to subdue the rest and to impose their rules

Blubberbrein2 12:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I came here looking find some of these answers also. Perhaps they are not suitable for the main article, but I was at least hoping for a link or sub-article that expanded on this subject, much like the Bible has Internal consistency and the Bible. Wmansir 21:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be prudent to include a section or a seperate page on "conteporarily controversial issues and the Qur'an" or something along those lines, but -- at the risk of finding myself on the receiving end of the wrath of Wiki fans -- the fact of the matter is that there are too many people with opinions on the subject and not enough people with genuine knowledge about it. A less popular but more useful choice would be to expand the "further reading" area to specifically include a section on reputable books by reputable scholars which address these issues. --66.216.130.125 14:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Three cheers for Kodemage

  • Hip hip hooray!
  • Hip hip hooray!
  • Hip hip hooray!

Dang but that's beautiful calligraphy. I'm glad to see it back.

I have one small request -- since there's nothing there for scale, is it possible to get the exact dimensions, to put in the caption? Zora 17:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kodemage. Maybe the smithsonian gives dimensions of it too? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Nice to see the picture without the flash in the center of it. Thanks Kodemage. Pepsidrinka 18:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes; what they said. joturner 20:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Transliteration

Why is the transliteration of this word from Arabic into English written in a form that defies English phonetics? Qur'an is simply unpronouncable in English. As an anglophone I'm left bewildered as to how to pronounce the word. If "Koran" is innaccurate, then perhaps "Kuran" is better.Loomis51 23:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ on the ability to pronounce the word Qur'an in its intended form. Maybe I say it more often, but every piece of the word is reable in English. The Qur part should be close to what you think it should say in English; it's different for Kor because there is less emphasis on the vowel and more emphasis on the Q and the R (note that vowels are basically non-existant in Arabic). The Q is often preferred over the K because it gives the word a bit of the qw sound although the w part isn't emphasized significantly. The apostrophe is used to signal a glottal stop (essentially a pause which is somewhat heard in O'Conner and clearly heard in uh-oh); that part is often neglected when saying the word. The an part sounds more like the on in con rather than the an in sand. Also, the vowel in an should be extended a bit to sound like a slightly longer ooon (hence the ā used in the secondary transliteration). I hope the clearifies things, but I do agree that a clear pronounciation guide is needed for the word. Others, feel free to correct me if I was incorrect on a part of the pronounciation. joturner 23:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Joturner on your attempt to clarify the issue. I accept that "Koran" and "Kuran" are imprecise transliterations of the actual word. However, the problem remains that "Qur'an" is not pronounceable in the English language because it defies English phonetic rules. In English, the "QU" combination must be followed by a vowel in order to be pronounceable. When preceded by the letter Q (and I understand that this is exceptional in the English language) the letter U is not considered a vowel. The QU combination is nothing but a consonant. Thus the syllable "QUR" is, according to English phonetics, unpronounceable in the English language. As it is a rule that each English syllable must include a vowel to be pronounceable, perhaps a second U is in order, as in "QUU'RAN".

I therefore suggest, that in order to be pronounceable in English, while observing as closely as possible its original Arabic pronunciation, the word should be spelled: "Kur'on"Loomis51 02:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, you're making up your own rules for transliteration. It is true that there are many systems of Arabic transliteration, and it's still in question which one Wikipedia will adopt, but your ideas are completely nonstandard. I see Qur'an in all of the recent academic works on Islam. Zora 02:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Zora, I realize that my ideas are nonstandard, and I'm open to whatever criticism you may have to offer. I'm not here to pick a fight. Nonetheless, I maintain that despite its common usage, the syllable "QUR" is completely unpronounceable in the English language as it defies the basic rules of English phonetics. In English, the letter Q is always followed by the letter U, and together they form a consonant. (The only exception to this rule seems to be the word "Iraq"...an anomoly which I cannot explain) Add that to the rule that every syllable in English must contain a vowel, and the result is that "QUR" is an unpronounceable syllable.

Like I said, I'm not here to fight, I'm merely an English speaker who is not familiar with the Arabic language, but would like to learn as best as possible how to pronounce the name of the Muslim Holy Book. Telling me it's pronounced "Qur'an" is of no help to me, and, I would imagine most other English speakers. It merely leaves us bewildered. I would like to thank Joturner, however, for helping me to understand somewhat how to pronounce the word. If you, Zora, would like to add anything that Joturner may have missed, please feel free. I'm here to learn, not fight.Loomis51 21:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

As a native speaker of english I have no proublem with the sylable "qur", it's non-standard but it's hardly unpronounceable. The letter Q has a distinct sound. I asked a group of children, who are at the age of learning to read, what sound Q makes and they gave me some kind of ~kwuh~ish sound (I tested this, working at a library on childrens night as I am, otherwise I wouldn't use the example.) The hardest part is the glottal stop, I just can't do it. I have to try hard to avoid spitting and it feels akward to continue the same word afterwards.
However, those people that I know in the Arab community around here tend to use "Koran". Although that may just be for ease of typing / spelling and for black muslims it there may be some other signifigant reason. Maybe we can get a sound clip of a native Arabic speaker pronouncing the word correctly and add it (I think I've seen this in other articles.) near the top? Is there a well defined middle of arabic accents like American English's Midwestern Accent? Anyone here unafraid to commit their voice to public scrutiny? -Kode 01:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea Kode! Good luck.Loomis51 21:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that Salafis prefer a Saudi accent, while an Egyptian accent sounds more "cultivated". I dunno -- that could just be Egyptian chauvinism. In any case, picking one Arabic accent over another is going to be controversial. Zora 06:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyedited list of translations

I tried to put all the text into the same format, and dropped the honorifics for translators. If some translators or commentators get a Dr., Maulana, or Sayed in front of their names and others don't, we're not being fair to the ones without titles (who may have them, but the titles are not noted). Best to drop titles entirely. Zora 20:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Divine origin of the Quran

Various people had worked over that section until it was (IMHO) a bloated meandering mess. I cut it back to something that I think is more readable and comprehensible. I also removed the claim that the Qur'an says that Muhammad was illiterate -- that's a common reading of the passage, but I have read several books and articles that challenge it. Some commentators believe that the Arabic should be read as saying that it was Arabs who didn't have a sacred book, not that Muhammad was illiterate. Even if the illiteracy claim is common, it shouldn't stand as uncontested truth. Zora 23:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about this. Please read Al A'raf 157-158. To my knowledge, Sunnis, Shias, and even Sufis hold that the prophet was illeterate based on these verses. So it would be accurate to say that about 98% of Muslims believe that those verses hold no hidden meanings. But I'd like to know more about your view on this. mistknight 13:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The illeteracy claim is "concensus of ummah" . The "other pov" is that he wasent taught ( by anybody in this world ), but he was taught by God & his angels , so he isnt iliterate , but not literate either ( according to common worldly standards ) . I wonder how "wa rasoolihin nabiil ummiyi" ( and the messenger prophet who is illeterate ) can be translated to something other than what is very obvious . There is not even a slightest mention of arabs or any sacred book .
Btw there is too much scepticism in the article . Cant we have a single line that isnt followed by a reminder that non-muslims dont believe it . I think everybody knows it ( thatswhy they are non-muslims . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 20:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
^ I agree about the scepticism part --Jibran1 18:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
^ Working on it -Kode 01:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Abrogation

The abrogation section seems to indicate that verse abrogation was summed up by Muslim scholars to solve the issue of seemingly contradicting verses. I will correct this to include the verse that gives abrogation credentials from within the Quran itself. Which verses are abrogated and which are not is a controversial matter, abrogation is not. mistknight 13:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well abrogation is considered a bit controversial , since the verse that is quoted as a source uses the word "ayah" , meaning "signs" . It doesent say anything specfic about verses of Quran being abrogated . There are a lot of scholars who think that this verse refers to "previous books" that were abrogated by Quran . And the verses that are considered to be abrogated , almost always fit perfectly with each other , when they are seen in reference to context , Like the famous verses about Alcohol . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 20:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not too sure about that. The verse roughly says "We do not abrogate an Ayah(verse/sign) or cause it to be forgotten, unless we later bring a better one or one like it....". Ayah, to my knowledge, has never been used in the Quran to denote previous messages (Torah/Gospel). So if we look at the other two meanings, it makes no sence to say that a sign was abrogated... What does that mean? The only other conclusion would be that Ayah means verse. I can't see any other meaning than that, "whichever verse we abrogate or cause to be forgotten (by Muhammad), we will come with one like it or better than it...". Unless I'm missing something, this is the only meaning the verse could have. mistknight 14:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
(Sorry if this is answered somewhere down below , I am replying in hurry) . One example is 2:40 . There might be others too. F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 13:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That verse re "replacing" what is taken out is believed to refer to the Satanic Verses and not abrogation, at least by the commentators who accept Ibn Ishaq's story. As for the view that "there is no real contradiction" -- well, that's one view. There's also the view that there IS abrogation. Finally, there's the secularist view that this is a mishmash of different versions of different texts given at different times and it's no wonder that there are contradictions. We can't privilege one view over another, so perhaps we need to expand a bit on "contradiction." Zora 21:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

By allowing commentaries to take over the Quranic verses' literal meaning, the gates would be open for anyone to use any commentary that he wishes to interpret the meaning of a verse, no matter how far off they are. Although we cannot overlook the importance of commentaries, it is always safest to take the meaning of the verse to be the literal meaning of the verse, that would be the most undisputable way to go. The verse, weather it is taken by some to refer to the Satanic Verses or not, does not fit that meaning. If we accept the Satanic Verses as a possible meaning, we could easily dismiss it since the Satanic Verses themselves are not part of the Quran (i.e. not revelation), when a "verse" is replaced by another "verse", both verses are revelation. If on the other hand this story is false, then a reference to it in the Quran cannot be present. Regardless of what commentaries say, the verse cannot be referencing the Satanic Verses. Abrogation is indeed the literal meaning of the aformentioned verses. mistknight 13:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
As to the "contradiction" pov, this view would fall short if we confirm that the Quran does indeed proclaim the law of abrogation. It would be truly illogical to take a "possible" (and as I have shown above, a flawd) interpretation of the verse to nullify the literal meaning. Perhaps I need not remind everyone of the reprocussions of doing that, the Trinity is a pretty good example of the results. I believe that these Quranic verses need to be cited when talking about abrogation, and less emphasis be laid on the "contradiction" pov. mistknight 13:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"Suras" al-wilaya and al–nurayn

I think a see also here would be appropriate as Striver had added, but qualifying text ("alleged Shi'a suras," "forged suras," or something like that) could be added next to the link:

"See also" isn't an endorsement, it just means it's a related topic (Bible for example says see also Bible conspiracy theory). Incidentally, doesn't Tahrif have the allegation backwards? Anyway, probably both suras should be merged into one article with redirects from the individual names; I don't think one often gets referred to without mentioning the other - whatever applies to one applies to both. Esquizombi 06:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE! THESE SURAS ARE FORGERIES. SHIA MUSLIMS DON'T BELIEVE IN THESE SURA'S. NO BODY BELIEVES IN THEM. --Aminz 07:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying they are real or that anybody believes in them; reread what I wrote above. Forgeries do have a place in an encyclopedia. Esquizombi 07:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality??

There are many times in this article, that I notice a very obvious slant towards criticism of Quran, and in general Islam. I may be wrong in my judgement, and it may only be a matter of perception. But no matter how much I try to convince myself, I just cant seem to find this article completely neutral. I notice a sly bias.
'*shrugs*'.. I've read this article at separate occasions, and each time I am left with an impression of a critical nature of Islam.
If needed, I could possibly find specific instances in the article. --Jibran1 17:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to add an NPOV tag, or make radical changes to the article that could be controversial, then I suppose it would be needed. Can the criticism be both obvious and sly, though? Anyway, criticism should be present in a NPOV way; if the article really is biased, then it should be addresed. Esquizombi 19:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Please do present your examples, we'll do our best to address them. Or, fix them yourself, be BOLD. Worst thing that happens is you're wrond and they get reverted. Don't be afraid to be wrong, we're only human after all. (well, except me, I'm a pope) -Kode 01:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora's latest edits

Someone, I don't know when, added sentences like "Sheykh al-Albani is the greatest authority on hadith" and claimed that one particular translation of the Qu'ran was the best one to use. I deleted those. I also deleted some honorifics, like Imam -- we don't use them, as they're POV. Finally, I removed several sentences dealing with the earliest known Qur'an -- I'm not sure WHAT is accepted these days. One editor -- Jilbran -- had corrected them to say that there was a text with a third of the Qur'an -- however, the sentences concerned the earliest complete Qur'an. Since I don't know what the latest scholarship is, I think we can leave that out. I have a feeling that the "late formation" scholars are in retreat after the Sana'a findings.

A new editor recently started an Origin and development of the Qur'an breakout article which consisted of text from this article plus a lot of material intended to show that a conservative Sunni view was the only correct way to look at the matter and the academics were wrong. It's a POV fork and I haven't had time to work on it. However, I hesitate to propose it for deletion, since it is possible that we might need a breakout article and the title isn't bad. It would be nice if some Shi'a and secular editors could do some work on the article and try to balance it. Zora 08:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's just roll with it and work on the new article, worst comes to worst we can always undo anything. -Kode 01:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Number of ayat

An anon changed the number to ayat to 6,666 -- I think that this is a Christian allusion, to the "Number of the Beast", which is a bad thing. I found a Muslim site that enumerated five ways to count the ayat, so I added that, rather than just restoring the old number.

Also, we had two sections on the translation of the Qur'an, one of which was stuck under language. I deleted the extraneous one -- no need to have two. All the material in it was covered in the next para! Zora 02:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I never heard of the types of verse count given in canadian site. That was an extract from some book, I don't know how authentic it is. Meccan and medinah are used to classify suras according to revealation. Also when I counted the verses in sura article, it is 6236, this was the total that used to be in this article. I remember previously I have checked the no of verses in sura article with an actual Quran and found that correct. 6236 is not there in canadian listing.--Soft coderTalk 10:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the most popular version of Quran currently has 6236 verses. I tried searching google with each number and "Quran" and I got nearly ten thousand entries for 6236 and for all other numbers it was below thousand. --Soft coderTalk 11:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was too gullible, then. I'll change it. Zora 05:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


Number of Ayaths in the Quran is 6236.

---

Well, it depends. Shia Muslims count "Bism-Allah Al-rahman Al-rahim" as a verse in all 114-1(Sura 9)+1(Sura naml) sura's while sunni Muslims only consider the "Bism-Allah Al-rahman Al-rahim" of the first sura to be part of the sura (e.g. Yusuf Ali translation:

Sura 1:

1. In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

2. Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds;

3. Most Gracious, Most Merciful;

4. Master of the Day of Judgment.


Sura 2-114: are not so

e.g. Sura 2:

1. A.L.M.

2. This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah.

3. Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them;

4. And who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter.

5. They are on (true) guidance, from their Lord, and it is these who will prosper.

A shia Quran may read:

1. In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

2. A.L.M.

3. This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah.

4. Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them;

5. And who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter.

See tafsir Ibn khatir [1] for further information.

--Aminz 09:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

If you have a source on that (the link you provided doesn't work for me), that probably should be added to the article. joturner 01:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Origin and development of the Qur'an

I have reduced the amount of information in this section because we now have a seperate article to contain the entirety of this section. Please double check that I haven't left anything important out. -Kode 00:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have elaborated on this section; new discoveries should always be used to either support or undermine opposing views. IMHO, the discovery of the Sana' manuscripts has greatly undermined claims of a slow scriptural development and weakened the argument for a collection of miscellaneous scripts, since the Sana' manuscripts greatly resemble the Quran present today. mistknight 18:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

What ever information you wish to add should be added to the main article Origin and development of the Qur'an. We split that section off because it was becoming large. -Kode 19:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Mistake in the article...

Allah isn't "The God" in Arabic, that would be "al-Ilah" Allah is a specific name to what Muslims believe to be the only true God. Muslims believe that: La Ilah illa Allah, which translates to: No God but Allah. It would be silly if they repeated "No God but the God" wouldn't it? I'll take that minor error off. MB 18:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Acutally "No god but the God" dosen't sound incorrcet, but if it's inaccurate please change it. In my religion part of the first rule is:"There is no Goddess but the Goddess and She is Your Goddess."-Kode 19:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that's a mistake. Either works fine. It may sound silly to you, but "no god but the God" is indeed used at some mosques to emphasize that the god Muslims worhsip is supposed to be the same god Christians and Jews worship. joturner 21:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Red Crescent's edit

Alcoran gets 48,600 hits in Google, even when I tell the search engine to only look for English-language pages. I think that this is enough to justify keeping it. It is not used now, but it will be found in older books. RedCrescent, please, slow down. Your edits are not helping us write an encyclopedia. Zora 04:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"Coran" is the French word. Maybe that is why Google comes up with that number. See here [2]. Maybe it should go there, but not here. It's confusing! RedCrescent 04:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I told you, I searched ONLY English-language pages. I am familiar with the word because I do proofread old books (18th and 19th century) for Distributed Proofreaders. Just because you don't know the word doesn't mean that it wasn't used. Zora 04:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
But even if that is true, only Quran and Koran are used today. There are other old forms too, but they are not listed. I promise you 100% that no one today has ever heard or needs to hear "Alcoran". RedCrescent 04:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
What about people like me who DO read old books? I proofread them, I own them. Many books more than one hundred years old. Please, how is that phrase hurting you? Are you here just to get in arguments? Zora 04:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Because then you should list all the other old terms, it will get confusing. If we only use the two most common words, that is better. Most people do not read books that old, so it is your "point of view". This is supposed to be neutral. RedCrescent 04:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
And "Coran" is mainly in French, so that even gets more confusing for people. RedCrescent 04:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Leave it there. It's not confusing, and it already says "less commonly" so it's properly qualified. Since it's listed last most people will glance over it. However, some one who's confused about the term alcoran and uses wikipedia search or google search will be aided by it's inclusion. -Kode 00:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
"Coran" and "Alcoran" are two different terms. "Coran" is French, while "Alcoran" was a previously common English transliteration of the Arabic term. For an example, see this PDF. I believe it's beneficial to include the term, and I see no harm that it may do. RedCrescent, if you feel it's harmful in some way, please elaborate your position. quadratic 05:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Question: dosen't "al" translate as something like "the" in english? Thus "al coran" == "the coran"? -Kode 16:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, see also algebra, alchemy and alcohol to name but a few. For great justice. 20:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Completeness of the Qur'an

I have happened upon some information which suggests that there may be revelations missing from the Qur'an. The question I have is, where should I put this information? Here in the main article or would it be more useful to put it in Origin and development of the Qur'an? Look at 87:6 and 2:106 within the Qur'an for some support if you wish. -Kode 21:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The 1st verse you provided talks about abrogation, abrogated verses are still present in the Quran, so this does not talk about missing revelation. The second part of the verse talks about verses that God willed be forgotten, but the verse goes on to say, "We will bring one(verse) better than it or like it", this would suggest that revelation was preserved one way or the other. The other 2nd verse says, "We will recite to you, so don't forget, except that which God wills...." (87:6-7) which would also suggest the same meaning. Verses that were forgotten by Muhammad, from the Quran's POV, have been preserved. mistknight 22:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you're refering to the so-called Satanic Verses, Kodemage. There are also hadith, sourced to Aisha and Umar, saying that parts of the Qur'an had been lost. Umar said a donkey ate the part justifying stoning of adulterers :) There have also been stories, believed by some early Shi'a, that parts of the Qur'an supporting Ali's claim to the caliphate had been suppressed. Contemporary Shi'a don't necessarily believe that. We should put all that in the breakout article. I just haven't had time. I'm stretched too thin. Zora 22:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I have here in The Encyclopedia of Religion By Mircea Eliade where she gives 3 reasons that part of the Qur'an may have been lost.
  • Usually either Surah 96 or 74 is excepted as the First Surah to be revealed by Muhammad. It is possible that he had revelations before he revealed these. It is possible that Muhammad being human and imperfect did not fully comprehend the significance of the first revelations.
  • The Qur'an mentions and allows for there to be revelations which were forgotten(87:6-7), replaced (2:106 && 16:101), and Divine changes (22:52), or eliminated by Satan's influence(22:52f).
  • Tradition Allows for incompleteness. Ulthman even says that he his task was difficult and that he is unsure if every revelation is recorded. Muhammad and his wife and companions have been known to refer to surahs that are currently unknown.
This all seems like a good reason to include some information on the completeness of the Qur'an. -Kode 23:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Mircea Eliade was a he -- Romanian, I think. He studied myths, not the Qur'an specifically, and I don't think that he's accepted as an authority on Islam by any of the academics I read. Also, Muslims believe that the first revelation was an overwhelming experience, not to be forgotten or set aside.

The Qur'an mention is interpreted variously, either as a reference to the Satanic verses, or as creating the doctrine of abrogation.

The hadiths re incompleteness, however, should be mentioned. Do you have the exact cites? I am swamped with work and not sure that I will have the time to do the research. Zora 23:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 12, page 165-6 under the Heading "Completeness of the Qur'ān". My version is copyright 1987 so it may not be the latest edition. -Kode 01:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, links to the actual hadith at the MSA Hadith database. Do you have the collections and the numbers of the hadith? Zora 04:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not have any links to Hadiths relating to completeness, I've never heard of the MSA Hadith Database. I has just doing some research on the Origin and development of the Qur'an at the Library where I work and I found the section of the book I listed above. It's a hard copy book like entity I was looking in when I found this information. I agree that Eliade may not be an expert on Islam but he is a scholar of General religion and thus should not be dismissed out of hand. Note, I haven't added anything to any article yet, so I'm still doing research. -Kode 22:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Hadith database: [3]. Look for a hadith said to come from Aisha in which she says that the recorded Qur'an is just part of the actual Qur'an, and one from Umar in which he says that a donkey ate some of the Qur'an. Zora 23:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not having any luck working this Database, if you have a minute and can link to those Hadith here I'd appreciate it. Also, with 3 sources I'd feel confidant in adding something to either this article or the Origin and development of the Qur'an.

Regarding the Statement in the Intro

Yes, Wikipedia has a policy on neutral point-of-view. But NPOV does not mean giving every point of view an equal amount (a lá the U.S. Senate) but rather giving every point of view a proportionate amount (a lá the U.S. House of Representatives). The view expressed by Muslims is held by roughly 1.4 billion people. The view expressed by these philologists is, as one of the sources says, held by a "handful" of people. The latter view most certainly should be mentioned, and it is, but it does not need a mention in the intro. joturner 19:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and from a blog source too. It's a pretty small argument and doesn't belong in the introduction. It's also good to keep the introduction short as possible. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that both points of view must get included, however this view of the philologists, as joturner has pointed out, is a minority view, and its place is in the 'Origin and Development of Quran'. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight
I'd like to point out that these Philologists may be an minority, but they're not an extreme minority which is what Jimbo is talking about in the NPOV link above. Infact in the article Origin and development of the Qur'an about 2/5 the article is devoted to non-muslim points of view, of which these guys seem to be the only ones. -Kode 23:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The statement below makes my case for me--CltFn 01:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
All that is is a letter by an ignorant person to a newspaper, It proves nothing. -Kode 23:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Jeez, that's years old. What it does prove is that the man-on-the-street Muslim doesn't know anything about the development of the Qur'an as admitted by Muslim scholars. Like some American Christians who believe that the Bible was written in English, or that the King James Version was divinely inspired. Zora 23:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Insight into the nature of the problem

A letter written to the editors of Yemen times is of interest[4]

Conspiracy against Islam: Muslims being cheated:

ASSALAMUALAIKUM. I do not know whether this would be read by any Member of Parliament. I hope it is. I would like to draw your attention to an article that appeared in Jan 1999 in The Atlantic Monthly published from USA titled “What is the Koran” The article refers to the manuscripts of the Koran discovered in 1972 during the restoration of The Great Mosque in 1972. These manuscripts are now with The House of Manuscripts, Yemen. It is surprising that only two scholars till date (both non-Muslims and both Germans) have been allowed to look at these manuscripts. They have already taken 35,000 microfilms which they have taken to Germany. The whole aim is to prove that the Koran has not been retained in its original form. They have already published articles to this effect in several journals. I quote from the article:

(To date just two scholars have been granted extensive access to the Yemeni fragments: Puin and his colleague H.-C. Graf von Bothmer, an Islamic-art historian also based at Saarland University. Puin and Von Bothmer have published only a few tantalizingly brief articles in scholarly publications on what they have discovered in the Yemeni fragments. They have been reluctant to publish partly because until recently they were more concerned with sorting and classifying the fragments than with systematically examining them, and partly because they felt that the Yemeni authorities, if they realized the possible implications of the discovery, might refuse them further access. Von Bothmer, however, in 1997 finished taking more than 35,000 microfilm pictures of the fragments, and has recently brought the pictures back to Germany. This means that soon Von Bothmer, Puin, and other scholars will finally have a chance to scrutinize the texts and to publish their findings freely — a prospect that thrills Puin. “So many Muslims have this belief that everything between the two covers of the Koran is just God’s unaltered word,” he says. “They like to quote the textual work that shows that the Bible has a history and did not fall straight out of the sky, but until now the Koran has been out of this discussion. The only way to break through this wall is to prove that the Koran has a history too. The Sana’a fragments will help us to do this.”) Please ensure that these scholars are not given further access to the documents. Also please rebury them or if they are not exact reproductions, please burn them. Allah help us against our enemies . Abul Kasim fbap0241@nus.edu.sg

It will be great when they can show that the quran is a complete fabrication. Then maybe we can put Islam to rest. I hope the books come out soon.Cestusdei 03:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Created vs. uncreated

This section reads a bit strange to me at the moment. From what I know the original Muslim community did not discuss the issue - it was brought up by the Mu'tazilah who asserted the Quran was created, and this was then refuted by traditionalist scholars as part of the wider dispute against them. As it stands, the section implies things happened the other way round. Is this worth changing? Zeroone 02:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Kodemage, I reverted your edits - the created/uncreated controversy has nothing really to do with the development of the Qur'an, except insofar as it provided a strong reason to believe that the transmission from Muhammad's mouth to the Uthmanic rasm was absolutely flawless. The root of the controversy had a lot more to do with the incorporation of Greek philosophy into Islamic theology, and in particular questions of the ontological status of the Qur'an as it related to tawhid.

Cltfn, again you're trying to use the intro para to attack the Muslim conception of the Qur'an's origin. That's just not even-handed. We have to be fair. Zora 09:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Zora, The Origin of the Qur'an and wether it is Created or uncreated are in exorably linked. The very idea of discussing the Origin of the Qur'an lends it self to talking about created or un-created Quran. The idea that the Qur'an is Uncreated and Eternal has no other appropriate place to be discussed except within the discussion of the Qur'an's very origin! -Kode 22:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The ideas are linked, but if anything, the idea of the uncreated Qur'an, which became a flashpoint in the struggle between ulema and caliph, and the battle between traditionalists and rationalists, had a strong influence on beliefs re the origin of the Qur'an. That is, there is a great deal of material in the Muslim sources to indicate that not all material was included in Uthman's recension, that there were variations in the text of the Qur'an before Uthman, etc. All that has to be ignored or explained away by proponents of the uncreated Qur'an. That's how we get stories like the version kept by Hafsa, which was compared to the version prepared by Uthman, and lo!, they were just the same. So putting the uncreated Qur'an theory UNDER the origin theories is a reversal of the real chronological relationship. Wow, hey, we already have an article on Mihna. Take a look at that.
If you're confused, other readers would be. This section needs to be rewritten and linked to Mihna. Zora 22:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Zora, excellent, you agree the ideas are linked. This article is not arranged chronologically, it is arranged by topic. The larger topic is Origin of the Qur'an, part of that topic is the discussion that the Muslims believe the Quran to be un created. The chronological order may have been reversed, however since encyclopedic articles are not usually arranged chronologically (except for articles on events or people) we have to accept that the chronological order may be skewed and address that in the text. Perhaps with a link to Mihna.

I see you again, I see you again CltFn! Zora got a reason! Take it easy mate! -- Szvest 10:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the sourced insertion in that section. To be "fair" , Zora, would be to include all POVs. The article as it is right now is not balanced at all.--CltFn 11:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Cltfn, that bit re the uncreated Qur'an would belong in the Uncreated vs. created section -- however, it's not worth including. Bernard Lewis is not an expert in the development of the Qur'an. His speciality was the Ottomans. I think you might be right to emphasize that this became an issue later, but there are better quotes for that. Perhaps there's something in Kennedy's book on the Age of the Caliphates. The issue came up in the context of Greek philosophy and was emphasized out of all previous importance by the conflict between the caliph and the ulema. Zora 11:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

How many of Bernard Lewis's books have you read? He is probably one of the most balanced overall western expert on Islam that i can think of. Yes,there are more quotes around, which I am compiling for the article right now, you will be happy to hear. So stay tuned. --CltFn 12:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
When it comes to Islam, Lewis fits into a specfic camp of scholars who can easily be defined in opposition to the Esposito type of scholar. He tends to get into political scholarship moreso than just vanilla history... his 1990 article was apparently first to coin "clash of civlizations" before Huntington picked it up... I mean, the fact that he uses that language kind of tells you he's not going to be accepted by all. He is a respected scholar and isn't someone we can just trash like Ali Sina but... but, he is not a scholar of early Islam as Zora said... he may very well have a footnote in that... say Crone or Cook... but, their theory, however widely read, has not become widely accepted... because, there is a lot of ambiguity and not really knowing what happened. So, can you check out his footnotes? If he cites an early Qur'an scholar give me the information and I'll see if I can check it out from my library and cite it if it's a worthwhile source. But, don't throw out "he's balanced" as if that solves our problems... he's relatively right while Esposito is relatively left... but, they are both important in their respected camps. gren グレン 14:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Article Size

I just noticed the Warning that this article may be too long, does any one have any ideas we can utilize to reduce the size fo the article? The warning suggests breaking out large sections, such as what we've donw with Origin and development of the Qur'an. Are there any other sections which it is desireable to give their own page? -Kode 23:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Details of recitation can go onto recitation page -- don't we already have one? But we can also ignore the warning. Nothing will happen if we ignore it. Zora 11:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the 32k warning dates to back in 2001, when people's browsers were beginning to crash at textareas of this size. Now, the criteria for article length should be readibility, unrelated to technical issues. Most FAs are longer than 32k, but there is an upper limit; 40k is still fine. 50k is longish. 60k is definitely too long. 70k is horrible. At 35k, this article is unproblematic. dab (ᛏ) 11:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Alright then, I just wanted to make every one aware, 32k letters is a lot of text, but you're right most FA's are longer. I'm a big fan of lots of small to medium sized hypertext linked articles. -Kode 18:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Original research by 82.124.250.35

I've added the Original research template to a comment this user made in this section. If a reference is not provided I will delete it. TydeNet 10:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just removed the template as the added text has been removed. Cheers -- Szvest 15:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

The Bible doesn't have violence?!

Jesus didn't seem to be to keen on killing people. He never did it himself. The quran never says to love your enemy or your neighbor for that matter.Cestusdei 03:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There is one place in NT which I do not exactly remember but here is just one example from Torah:

10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. 16However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy [a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God. 19 When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees of the field people, that you should besiege them? [b] 20 However, you may cut down trees that you know are not fruit trees and use them to build siege works until the city at war with you falls.

--Aminz 03:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That is from the Old Testament. It was also focused on one time and one group of tribes. Islam advocates violence on an ongoing basis against everyone who is not Muslim (dar el harb). The Old Testament has nothing like that. Jesus himself never killed anyone even when they killed him. Muhammed could not say that.Cestusdei 03:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, my argument is simple: "warfare disqualifies Muhammad as God's spokesman only if it also disqualifies Joshua." You should either reject both Judaism and Islam together or accept them together. OT was revealed by God, don't you believe that? Jesus, I believe, was very peaceful as you said. Christianity has its own criticisms. You may want to have a look at criticism of Christianity. --Aminz 03:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I should add that based on my knowledge your sentence:"Islam advocates violence on an ongoing basis against everyone who is not Muslim (dar el harb)." is ,I believe, a misconception of Islam. --Aminz 03:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

We believe in progressive revelation. Over time God more fully revealed himself to us. In Jesus we have the fullest self-revelation of God. I see the Old Testament in that context. So it is not necessary for us to stone people any more. Islam seems to be unable to understand that. Partly due to the fact that it is not revealed by God and partly because it mimics the actions of Muhammed its founder. Christians can be very introspective and self-critical. I don't see that in Islam. Muslims don't seem to ask themselves questions about whether something is wrong in their religion. Instead they tend to attack those who do ask that question. I judge religion by the God it worships. My God is a loving Father who gave us his only begotten Son to die on the cross. We claim God is love. The quran does not. In Islam God is master of slaves. In Christianity he is the Father of sons and daughters. Which is greater? Christianity hands down.Cestusdei 03:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If it is a misconception then it is one shared by the vast majority of muslims and their scholars. Something for you to work on.Cestusdei 03:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Cestusdei, Thanks for your comment. I disagree with almost all of your sentences. I don't want to dispute with you over here since I have a meeting with my advisor tomorrow and need to go back to study. But if you would like to know in what sense I think Christians are better than Muslims: I think Christians are very active in converting people and to help them to get to know God. I appreciate their good intentions and honesty in all this. Muslims are less much active. On the other hand, Christians, those I have seen, were easily ridiculing other religions (Islam, Buddhism and even among their own sects...) I think Muslims are much better than them in that respect. Take care, --Aminz 03:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Cestusdei, try reading a book by Ziauddin Sardar, called Desperately Seeking Paradise. It's a chronicle of his experiences with various schools of Islam. He's a Muslim, he's critical, and he's very funny. That might change your mind a little about just WHO Muslims are. There's also a blog called alt.muslim, for progressive Muslims, that is sometimes silly and sometimes nice. They had an article recently by an Australian Muslim who joined a local ecumenical group and participated in a pre-Easter footwashing ceremony. Washing the feet of some of the homeless to whom they've been ministering. Yes, there are truly angry Muslims out there -- and kind and loving people too. Zora 03:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I would be delighted if Muslims became progressive. In my nation we get along well with other religions. All are free here. That is not the case for Christians in Islamic countries. Aminz knows how Bahai's are treated in Iran and Copts in Egypt. Muslims who convert can be killed. It would seem the majority of Muslim don't object to this. That simply has to change. Freedom of speech and religion are inviolate. People should be treated absolutely equally regardless of religion and be free to change to whatever faith they want without fear.Cestusdei 03:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with almost all you said. I believe the Muslim community needs a reform and indeed is experiencing a transition period. All you mentioned makes sense but so what? Is that by itself is supposed to prove that Muhammad is not the messenger of God? Is that by itself is supposed to mean that the religion of Christianity is better than the religion of Islam? Here is the problem. Had the Christian critics have good intentions, I would have loved to agree with them. --Aminz 03:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If you look above you will see the main reason to reject Muhammed and his alleged revelation. It is incongruent with the God who reveals himself fully in His Son Jesus Christ as a God of love.Cestusdei 00:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Didn't I tell you? Your intention of criticizing Islam is not to help them improve themselves. I don't like to continue discussion anymore. You have your own POV and I have mine. Peace --Aminz 00:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Without criticism they won't improve themselves. That is the problem! They won't even consider criticism or self-reflection. Instead the kill the messenger and ignore the message. This means things will never change and the war will continue. I certainly don't intend to ever be a dhimmi. Muslims need to stop blaming everyone else and closing their ears. They need to listen.Cestusdei 04:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Various editors have been inserting links again. One of them was for a meditation site, which was put into the translation section. We also had several sites offering e-versions of the exact same translation. Seems to me that they're offering "FREE QUR'AN" in an attempt to hook the reader into the POV of the site.

I pruned the duplicate links and then re-ordered the translation links so the one that seemed the most neutral to me, like the Sacred Text Archive, were on top, and the more POV-mongering sites are moved to the bottom. Other editors will probably wish to vet my work. Zora 19:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the free quran advertisement. I don't think this is an ad site. Also this site should be added to give balance: http://answering-islam.org/Quran/index.htmlCestusdei 02:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Syriac qeryānā lectionary, etymology of the Qu'ran

Cltfn, that Britannica cite does not support your addition of the Syrian word as if it were THE source. The Britannica article says merely that there may be some connection with the Syrian word. The connection may well be that they're both derived from similar tri-consonantal roots; they're both Semitic languages, after all. I removed the word again. That would go under a discussion of Luxenberg; it should not be the first thing in the article! Zora 02:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Haha, come on CltFn... if we had a section on the etymological root of the word Qur'an we would start out by talking about the verb qara'a and the three roots... and then we'd cite Britannica as saying "there is "probably also some connection with Syriac qeryana, “reading,” used for the scriptural lessons in the Syrian Church". Because, there is some connection. Look, there are a lot of good critiques of Islamic sources out there. Very interesting stuff worth reading. But please, learn how to incorporate it properly and neutrally. Scholars realize that their theories aren't truth and we must incorporate that as well. Truth is unknown in these cases. gren グレン 06:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Gren and Zora. ,Qu'ran is a word derived from the Syriac qeryānā "lectionary. In its origin, the Qu'ran is a Syro-Aramaic liturgical book, with hymns and extracts from Judeo Christian scriptures directed toward transmitting the belief of the Syrian Christians as contained in their sacred scriptures to the pagans of of the arabian peninsula in the Arabic language. At its beginning, the Qu'ran was nothing more than a translation of Judeo Christian liturgy and beliefs which was altered and added to by later Arab generations . When you read the Qu'ran , you cannot help but notice that it presupposes belief in the Scriptures. The text functioned merely as an inroad into Arabic society.
The story is simple really , the Syrian Christians were spreading their evangelical mission to lands near and far , like Armenia or Persia and as far as the borders of China and the western coast of India, in addition to the entire Arabian peninsula all the way to Yemen and Ethiopia. And in order to proclaim the Christian message to the Arabic peoples, the missionaries used a mix of their own literary language and their own culture; that is, to Syro-Aramaic and local dialects which were gradually evolving into what is now classical arabic. The Qu'ran was born as a written Arabic language, but one of Syrio-Aramaic derivation.
The Arabic culture is peculiar in its intellectual dishonesty that tries to take credit for things which it does not deserve credit for . It did the same thing with the mathematics spreading from India to Persia. By the time it got to the Arabian peninsula , the story became "the arabs invented it " Almost any foreign culture that would spread into the arabian regions , immediately would get reframed as something that was invented by the Arabs.
It is glaringly obvious , once you step back and look at the big picture. --CltFn 12:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Cestus, you didn't give any reason for removing that free Qur'an link. Why did you do it? We're not supposed to link to commercial sites, if it can be helped, but they're giving stuff away for free. I wouldn't object to links at the Bible or Torah pages giving away free books either. But perhaps you see something there that I don't. Could you explain? Zora 04:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think (if anything) we should link to CAIR's free one... they give away a really high quality free Qur'an. I forget who the translator is... but, it's very well done. I think the best way to solve this would be if DMOZ has a directory of Free Qur'an places.
But, I think this is an interesting issue. We want to avoid annoying dawa involved in the process, but, if it actually is a reliable place I don't see why a Free Qur'an place shouldn't be linked... If there was a free Hot Tamales site... I'd sure as hell want it linked from Hot Tamales. (granted, this logic may not apply when it comes to radioactive waste.)
Right, and... needless to say... this goes for free Bibles, Vedas, etc... we should have this be cross religious... if other religion articles disagree then we shouldn't have Islam as the only one that will allows such links. gren グレン 08:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Another poster removed similiar links. This is an article not an evangelization project. If someone wants a free quran they can google it easily enough. There are sufficient links as it is although there are to few that are critical.Cestusdei 03:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I checked the Bible article. There are no ads for free Bibles. I intend to remove the ad from this article. If someone wants a free one they can find it online easily enough. The article is not the place for it.Cestusdei 04:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It's no more evangelization than linking them to online copies of the Qur'an. Our goal is to give people access to free / reliable / quality information. You will have to explain better why this isn't the place for it. Is it the place to link them to full copies of the Qur'an either? Is linking the ISBN of Ayn Rand books evangelization too? I don't think calling it evangelism makes the point nor does saying they can google search it. Most of the information in this article can be found from google. Want to explain again? gren グレン 04:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I will even draw a picture if it will help. Muslims consider giving away qurans to be evangelism. Wiki is not obliged to help them. There are plenty of other places someone can go for it. There are plenty of links to the quran online already in the article.Cestusdei 02:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Anons (whom I guess to be the proprietors of various search sites) have been taking out some sites and inserting others. One site is claiming that another site is a conspiracy by Christian propagandists [5]. I've cut the search sites down to two, both hosted at universities, both free of advertising. If any other editors can think of other sites that are useful, bring it up here and we'll talk about it. Comment by other editors re the criteria to be used in choosing search sites would also be nice. Zora 20:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's my thoughts: While the article on the Bible does not offer a link to free bibles (Which arn't that easy to find, I was trying to get one and all I found were free rosarys(sp?); I ended up getting one from some wandering Mormons.) we should include a link to at least one source offering a Qur'an. The reason we should do so is the simple fact that this is a western version of the encyclopedia and the Qur'an is much harder to get hold of here. Before I learned of the offerings of free Qur'ans I went out into RL and tried to purchase one. Not only do the shops not carry them the people working at the shops gave me dirty looks and were often rude. (I live in the midwest, just off the bible belt.) I have infact recieved a free copy of the qur'an from the freequran website, as well as some other literature about islam that was thrown in for free. I do agree that any site we link to should be thouroughly vetted and completely commercial free. Links such as those to universities and non-profits would be preferable. -Kode 14:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If a site for free bibles is added to the bible article then I won't object to the free quran one. However, I will object otherwise. You can google for a free quran easily or get the Saudi embassy to send you one.Cestusdei 03:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You know something, I just don't know what to do. The link to a free Qur'an was useful to me, however it walks the fine line of being an advertisment. I'm still pretty new to wikipedia, is there a person we can ask about this? Or if not is there a procedure for asking the community? -Kode 00:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
One procedure for asking for input from the community is the Village Pump (policy). I've received some very helpful answers there. However, I'm not sure that we have to take it that far.
We have one user, CestusDei (Cestus, by the way, is a combination of boxing glove and brass knuckles, per one site -- it's a weapon; CestusDei seems to be saying that he's a warrior for God), who objects, seemingly on the grounds that it promotes Islam and he won't let anyone promote Islam if Christianity isn't also promoted. This strikes me as hypersensitivity. So what there's something in one religious article that isn't found in another? I'm not objecting because there are no "Free Dhammapada" and "Free Collected Works of Dogen Zenji" links in Buddhist articles.
CestusDei also seems to think that just reading the Qur'an is liable to infect someone with Islam. I've got a Qur'an and I've noticed no signs of infection. Indeed, I'm sure that there are a lot of Muslims who wish that just reading or listening to the Qur'an would be persuasive, but it isn't. There are millions of Muslims who have read and listened to the Qur'an whom everyone would agree aren't very good Muslims. Ditto for the Bible. Ditto for any scriptures. I would guess that CestusDei may be coming from a Protestant Christian POV in which exposure to the Bible does have just this magic effect, but outside 19th century religious novels (I have a whole shelf of out-of-print Susan Warner evangelical tearjerkers), this effect does not seem (to me) to operate.
WP is all about giving away information, and I can't but see free Qur'ans as part of that process. Free Bibles too! As long as the "free" part doesn't include having earnest guys in ties show up at your door trying to convert you. Zora 08:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I am Catholic not Protestant, note the latin name. I have 3 free qurans and didn't have to go to wikipedia to get any of them. Just google. Muslims do use this as a means of proslytism. That is not what an encyclopedia is for.Cestusdei 04:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

But that's not the point. You don't have to go to Wikipedia to learn aything that's on Wikipedia (at least if we really follow no original research). The issue is does this make some relevant source of information easier to access? So, yes you can google it... but you can google Qur'an and get better works on that Qur'an than our article. gren グレン 06:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any problem with access to qurans. So there is no reason to put the link in the article.Cestusdei 02:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an; translations and such

--The Brain 23:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


Unneccesary language in intro

I've edited this sentence:

"...and the culmination of God's revelation to mankind as revealed to Muhammad, the final prophet of humanity, over a period of twenty-three years through the angel Jibril (Gabriel)."

to:

"...as revealed to Muhammad over a period of twenty-three years through the angel Jibril (Gabriel)."

We should also mention that nowhere in the Qur'an is it clearly said that Muhamamd is the final prophet, although Muhammad himself is quoted as saying this on a number of occasions.

Nevertheless, these concepts about Islam are not necessary to the introduction. It's okay if readers still don't understand some things about Islam by the time they get to paragraph two.

It doesn't matter if they are major beliefs of Islam. They're not necessary to understand the Qur'an.

Additionally, the language here - "the culmination of God's revelation to mankind" - is overly dramatic.Timothy Usher 02:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is mentioned that Muhammad is the final prophet.
"O people ! Muhammad has no sons among ye men, but verily, he is the Apostle of God and the last in the line of Prophets. And God is Aware of everything." (Surah Al Ahzab: 40)
And of course it's important to keep this information in because it is an important Islamic belief that the Qur'an is the final culmination/revelation to mankind revealed to the last prophet for humanity. It's like saying what the Bible is without christian belief over it. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Do read again. It says he is the "Seal of the Prophets" [Quran 33:40]. That this means final prophet is interpretation, and pretty debatable at that. The Qur'an does not shy from reiterating key doctrines at every opportunity, yet this ambiguous phrase is mentioned precisely once.
In any case, the final status (or not) of Muhammad has nothing to do with the Qur'an.Timothy Usher 02:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
That makes your interpretation a criticism of Islam. Many things are said once and clearly. Your criticism that it isn't mentioned does not mean you can change the Islamic belief or the perspective of the Qur'an. "Last in the line of prophets" is what it says and that clearly means final. Even if you don't think so, it is still a major Islamic belief and necessary for the Islamic perspective on the Qur'an. The sentence makes it clear that it is a Muslim belief. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
No, it doesn't clearly mean that. "Seal" here is the literal translation. And again, it being a Muslim belief isn't the point, because this article isn't about Islam - to which the intro is linked, and makes your points quite plainly - but specifically the Qur'an.
Since you mention the Bible, here's the introduction:
The Bible (Hebrew: תנ״ך tanakh, Greek: η Βίβλος hē biblos) (sometimes The Holy Bible, The Book, Word of God, The Word Scripture, Scripture), from Greek (τα) βίβλια, (ta) biblia, "(the) books", is the name used by Jews and Christians for their (differing but overlapping) canons of sacred texts.
No one saw fit to add, "Christians believe the Bible to be the perfect word of God as inspired by his Son, Jesus Christ, who was sent to save all of humanity from their sins," a sentence which, while hypothetical, aptly illustrates a tone common to many of your edits. It's underlyingly prosyletizing and overtly unencyclopedic.
Further, though I'm given to wordiness on talk pages, count the clauses:
1) Muslims believe that 2) the Qur'ān is the literal word 3) of God (Arabic Allah) 4) and the culmination 5) of God's revelation 6) to mankind 7) as revealed 8) to Muhammad, 9) the final prophet 10) of humanity, 11) over a period 12) of twenty-three years 13) through the angel Jibril (Gabriel).
That's far too many.Timothy Usher 02:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually no it isn't at all. That is a basic belief of what the Quran is. The bible article uses an even longer introduction to mention what the Bible is. The only difference is that bible as a word can refer to other things. Further, if you read the source you gave me for that Sura translation you'll see that one of the three translations clearly says that last prophet bit. But even if it didn't, it would still be a major Islamic belief and would belong in an article about Islam. In an encyclopedia people want to clearly know what the belief of the religion is such as the Qur'an being the final culmination. If you feel that the language is overly dramatic then try changing the language, don't remove important beliefs . --a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course I've read it. Shakir's translation is more interpretive in this regard. You should look into this controversy a bit more. It's not as settled as it seems you'd like to think. The main support for the finality of Muhammad's prophecy is in Hadith, not this verse.
It is as you say a major Islamic belief, and one which many have given their lives for questioning (see Baha'i. However, what has it to do with the Qur'an? "culmination...", fine, that's at least about the Qur'an, but the final prophet bit is about Muhammad - and again is made immediately clear upon clicking the relevant link.Timothy Usher 02:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't care for this criticism. I have looked into the controversy enough, and this is really not the argument here as you know. The reason again is because it being the final culmination from the final prophet, this needs to be said. If you feel that the language is overly dramatic then try changing the language, don't remove important beliefs. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 03:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The argument is that the purported finality of Muhammad's prophecy has nothing to do with this article about the Qur'an. This is not (or should not be used as) a forum for general exposition of Islamic beliefs except insofar as they directly relate to the Qur'an. The place for such a presentation is called, appropriately enough, Islam.Timothy Usher 03:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
It does because the final revelation came from the final prophet. You have to remember the important belief over the prophets in Islam and the divine scriptures that they brought. As I said, you can change the tone a little or try to clarify the bit you are having a problem with. However, removing a belief just like that is wrong. If you can find a way for rewording that bit then try it. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 03:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is this:

  • 1. Timothy, I understand your argument though I don't know enough arabic to judge what "khatam an-nabiyin" could mean. I added the POV tag to the Seal of the Prophets because I was not sure about that article. But as for here, please note that "Islam is nothing but a series of interpretations from Islam and likewise Christianity is nothing but a series of interpretations from Christianity". Islam of each of us is nothing but a particular interpretation of Islam. As there is no interpretation of Islam in which Muhammad is not the last prophet, your belief is un-islamic.
  • 2. I believe having "the final prophet of humanity" is important. I can quote many Qur'anic verse (e.g.:

"...And they say: "Surely he is possessed!" But it is nothing less than a Reminder to all the worlds. " (68:51-52)

--Aminz 03:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, as I've been saying to Anonymous editor, this is not about Islam belief generally, only about the Qur'an. And what has that verse to do with him being final?Timothy Usher 03:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I mentioned I am not sure about the possible readings of "khatam an-nabiyin". Seal of the prophets is one reading. Please note that it MAY be possible that your reading of the verse is an invention that now fits what is written. Or it maybe on the other hand a discovery. I don't know. Can you prove it to me? I think in any case, if one uses the Seal of the prophets, I will not object (but remember the a similar argument was brought up when I was discussing the words "humbled" and "being in state of subjection" with Pecher.)
The second argument was only about Muhammad "sent to all mankind". --Aminz 03:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, okay. I'm not going to tell you that I know what was meant. It's not an article of faith for me to arrive at an immutable interpretation. However, this argument doesn't belong in this article, as it's only about one verse, which has its own article. It's about the way Muhammad is seen in Islam based mostly on [[Hadith] (where this is quite clear) and to a very small extent on this one verse. It is very difficult to see that any mention one way or another is appropriate to the *introduction* of this article, Qur'an.Timothy Usher 03:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It is written in the article that " Muslims believe that the Qur'ān is the literal word of God (Arabic Allah) and the culmination of God's revelation to mankind as revealed to Muhammad, the final prophet of humanity, over a period of twenty-three years through the angel Jibril (Gabriel)."

I believe this sentence is both factual and neutral. Why? Because this is the only thing mainstream Muslims believe. Bahai's don't consider themselves Muslims. If there were several Islamic sects having that belief, It was better to write the sentence as"Mainstream Muslims believe that the Qur'ān is the literal word of God (Arabic Allah) and the culmination of God's revelation to mankind as revealed to Muhammad, the final prophet of humanity, over a period of twenty-three years through the angel Jibril (Gabriel)." But not now. In any case, the sentence is factually correct.

We have used seal of prophets in Muhammad article. It was a better place to use seal of prophets, but here we can just report the main Muslim belief.--Aminz 03:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You are utterly missing the point, which is that this article is about the Qur'an, not what Muslim believe about Muhammad, which is only relevant insofar as it relates to the Qur'an. An exegesis of one verse does not merit a statement of general belief *about Muhammad* in the introduction.
I think saying Muhammad was the final prophet implies Qur'an is the final message. Moreover saying Muhammad was sent to all mankind implies it is a covenant between God and all mankind. We can instead say "Muslims believe that the Qur'ān is the literal word of God (Arabic Allah) and the culmination and the final of God's revelation to mankind them revealed to Muhammad over a period of twenty-three years through the angel Jibril (Gabriel)." + somewhere adding the covenant between God and all mankind(though God's revelation to mankind does this job to some extent but not as saying Muhammad was sent to mankind does).
I think the current sentence is prettier.--Aminz 04:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
That's precisely the problem. It's high-flying religious rhetoric.
"I think saying Muhammad was the final prophet implies Qur'an is the final message." Then say that, and leave Muhammad purported finality out of it.Timothy Usher 04:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Further, the sentence is not *remotely* neutral. It reads like a religious tract, and by design.Timothy Usher 03:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry can you please explain more. Being NPOV, as I understand, means the opinion of all scholars should be included. --Aminz 04:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
It's already explained above. Please read.Timothy Usher 04:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

So, please correct me if I am wrong: All your objection is due to the complexity of the sentences and not their content. --Aminz 04:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, if I have understood correctly, Timothy thinks the sentence "Muslims believe that the Qur'ān is the literal word of God (Arabic Allah) and the culmination of God's revelation to mankind as revealed to Muhammad, the final prophet of humanity, over a period of twenty-three years through the angel Gabriel (see Jibril)." is too long and complex. It should be broken up into a couple of sentences. I am not a native speaker so, could you please go ahead and break it up into a couple of sentences. Thanks --Aminz 05:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an English language article

Anonymous editor, as this is an English-language article, Jibril should be in parentheses, not Gabriel. It's bad enough that we have these POV forks to begin with. The name for this angel in English is Gabriel.Timothy Usher 03:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, please stop editting (and edit warring) from above, and address this issue.Timothy Usher 03:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Those aren't exactly POV forks and you're the only one calling that. If an article grows too big a main article for that religion's view is made. That is the same for Jewish articles and those of other religions, but you only call all the Islamic ones that. Anyways the main article of that religious perpective is given first. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't think it's so simple as to call them POV forks. Judeo-Christian tradition easily morphed into English. Therefore Gabriel is standard English used by Christians and Jews for the Jewish and Christian conceptions. Since Muslim immigration is much more recent there is definitely a difference. When I hear Jews and Christians speak they say Moses, Gabriel, Jesus, etc. Most Muslims I hear say Musa, Jibril, 'Isa, etc. So there is a very real difference in nomenclature in the English speaking communities between the religions. Also, scholarly articles constantly refer to them with Arabic transliteration rather than with the standard English. They are the same people (and angel)... or basic concept of that... obviously different in the texts... so, it isn't so clear to me that Garbiel is referring to the angel that talked to Muhammad. However, it is clear that Jibril is. This is a very interesting question and I don't think it's great either way because it does seem like forking and marginalizing Islamic content to relatively unknown names in English. So, I think the best way to handle this is how we have been... Jesus has a section, "Jesus in Islam" linking to 'Isa. This is how it's been for a while and I wouldn't call that edit warring or a clearly solved issue. But, we can talk somewhere about it. gren グレン 04:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What! "it isn't so clear to me that Garbiel is referring to the angel that talked to Muhammad. However, it is clear that Jibril is." !!!!!!!!!!! --Aminz 04:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, gren. I'd love to. Where can we discuss it?
Jibril is the same root as Gabriel. Arabic translates Gabriel as Jibril. There is no question of identity.Timothy Usher 04:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Re Isa, Isa should redirect to "Jesus in Islam", not vice-versa.Timothy Usher 04:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


Timothy, it is good to have Jibril first since people will usually click on the first item and in case of having Jibril first, they will be directed to Gabriel in Islam. --Aminz 04:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, I hope you don't mind that I've moved your comments, so I can respond without moving Gren down. That's exactly the problem - the fork forces us to choose one or the other every time we link, or include both using unwieldy parentheses, even where translations aren't really necessary. Take a look at Gabriel and Jibril - the former already includes most of the information in the latter. It would hardly be an issue to merge them. The main effect of the fork is not to reduce length, but to prevent readers from seeing how he's presented in other Abrahamic traditions, treating them instead to a "smooth ride" through Arabic-language titles created and editted overwhelmingly by Muslim editors.Timothy Usher 06:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand it's ambiguous and there are some problems with it. But, overwhelmingly in my experience Muslims and scholarly sources on Islam in English say Jibril... do they not? Well, I did just look at Islam: The Straight Path by Esposito which in the index had "Jibril: see Gabriel". Islam : Religion, History, and Civilization by S. H. Nasr only has "Gabriel archangel" in its index. Islam for Dummies only has Gabriel. Unveiling Islam (which isn't really academic) uses "Gabriel (Jibril)" and Jibril says "see Gabriel". Oxford History of Islam uses only Gabriel. So, apparently I had a mistaken idea... granted that's more popular literature than scholarly... but, I suppose I shouldn't assume that I'm correct about scholarly since I surely wasn't about the usage in those books. I think the Arabic should still link to the "XXX in Islam" because Arab Christians are much more marginal in English speaking areas. gren グレン 19:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

So, Maybe we can rename the page "Jibril" to "Gabriel in Islam"? --Aminz 07:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

IMO, views of different religions should be in different articles. That is sort of POV-forking, but it's legitimate POV-forking, akin to having different articles devoted to different scientific theories. This is why we have Torah and Pentateuch, for example. If Jibril says little over and above what is said in Gabriel, then it is clearly the article's deficiency, but hardly a reason to merge it into Gabriel. Pecher Talk 08:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Hah, I'd tend to agree. Although, if we merge it all back into Gabriel we could also merge Islam and Christianity back into religion. Talk about POV forks! gren グレン 22:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
There is such an article, called Abrahamic religion. The only reason sub-articles are needed is because the main one would be too long. This is not the case in Gabriel. In fact, there are conflicting views given in Gabriel, as Jews (I presume) would not agree that Gabriel foretold the births of John the Baptist and Jesus. This article has three sections, for the three major traditions. Islam is the only one with its own, Arabic-language title (it seems we agree on this at least?), and as observed adds very little to the main article.Timothy Usher 22:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I believe Jibril is a POV fork for Gabriel. We should merge the two articles together. --Aminz 22:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it should be merged and I agree with Gren. Not everything is based on the christian figure either. An article that discusses the figure in Islam is needed and the best name for it is the name in Islam. Jibril is a name just like Gabriel is a name. The figures have enough difference that they can be seen as different. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Have you bothered to read the article Gabriel? As you say, not everything is based on the christian figure - if you read it, you'll find that it isn't. In fact, the Christian section is the shortest of the three.Timothy Usher 22:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous editor, but there is a practical issue here. I think using two different words for "Jibril" and "Gabriel" will form the idea in the mind of the reader that these two are different. For example, for the case of "Allah" and "God", people think Muslims are worshipping "Allah" and not "God". Then some hostile people towards Islam spread the belief that "Allah" is not "God" but Satan, a jinn... . You may have heard about these. Most of typical Non-Muslims are ignorant about Islam and will believe in such things and then now we will have a tough job to prove that No, Allah is God. The belief that Muslims are worshipping a different God is widespread in US while Maimonides, a very famous Jewish rationalist believed Allah and God of Israeil to be the same. The reason I am struggling to use "God" instead of "Allah" in Islam related articles and using "Jibril" rather than "Gabriel" is to avoid such misconception among Non-Muslims. Please help us changing all these arabic names to english ones. At the end, it will turn out to be the best for Muslims I believe. thanks. --Aminz 22:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Aminz, I think you're absolutely correct. As we discussed on my talk page awhile back, it is all too common to hear the bogus claim that Muslims worship Allah instead of God. The approach here inadvertantly but dramatically contributes to such misunderstandings. It is vital for readers to know that we are debating elements of and within a common tradition.Timothy Usher 22:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
For example, I was really shocked and depressed to see gren's argument: "it isn't so clear to me that Garbiel is referring to the angel that talked to Muhammad. However, it is clear that Jibril is."! The only possible interpretation of this passage that I could think of was that Satan's angle is Jibril. :( --Aminz 22:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
That isn't the case here Aminz. Timothy's argument, once again with his pov, has the implication that the only reason Gabriel is important in Islam is because it is the same figure as in Christianity and he wants to do the same thing with the prophets. Sure it's correct from the Islamic perspective that the two are the same, but that does not mean that an article of Jibril that talks about his importance as a figure regardless of who Gabriel is, can't exist. Same with God. Allah swt is important enough to have a different article different from the God one. Important figures can exist separately as articles just as they are for each religion. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
"Timothy's argument, once again with his pov..." Is that really necessary?
"the only reason Gabriel is important in Islam is because it is the same figure as in Christianity [and Judaism]..." - but that's true. Muhammad was not saying, some random angel named Jibril appered to him, but rather that the well-known angel Gabriel (Arabic Jibril) appeared to him. The identity of these figures is he very foundation of Islam's claim to legitimacy as the continuation (or "culmination" if you prefer) of Abrahamic religious tradition.Timothy Usher 23:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous editor, all I am writing here is nothing more than my own POV. I accept that we must have the articles "Allah" and "Jibril" since 1. The article of God becomes too long 2. Many people will search for "Allah" in the wiki and are interested to know about God in Islam. I should think about a better idea.
But as to your argument, Allah is important in Islam is because it is the same figure as in Judaism/Christianity. I tend to agree with Timothy for two reasons: I bring one Qur'anic argument and one Biblical argument. Again my arguments are based on my own understanding of the verses.
Biblical argument:
Deuteronomy 13" 1If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; 3Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul."
An important prophecy of Muhammad in the Bible according to Muslims:
Deuteronomy 18: "18I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 19And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. 20But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. 21And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? 22When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."
The Qur'anic argument(I think we may find better arguments but these are what comes to my mind now) :
"Say: Will ye dispute with us about God, seeing that He is our Lord and your Lord; that we are responsible for our doings and ye for yours; and that We are sincere (in our faith) in Him?" (2:139).
Please also note that Qur'an over and over says that Qur'an is a confirmation of previous scriptures and that Jews had the covenant to help and assists God's prophets.--Aminz 23:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
That's not my argument here. The argument is that Jibril is important enough to an own article even without knowing anything about the Christian/Judaic figure Gabriel. Timothy has said the only reason they should be written about is because of the non-Islamic figure and therefore Jibril is not important enough on his own to write about. If the Gabriel article exists or not doesn't matter, the angel known as Jibril is himself important enough to have an article. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no "Christian figure" Gabriel. Gabriel is an Abrahamic figure, or if we simply must choose, a Judaic one. Please, read the article Gabriel. Christian views are the shortest of three sections, as it should be, because Gabriel is only said to appear a few times.Timothy Usher 23:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous editor, of course your argument makes sense and I can't dispute it. I have a personal POV that we need to avoid arabic name as much as possible just because of possible misunderstandings of some Non-Muslims. I can not prove my situation but will strive towards my POV. If you oppose, I will not take it personal but I only ask you to close your eyes over these changes. --Aminz 23:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to change this pov. We already write both article names to make it clear and it works. I'm replying to Timothy that moving Jibril to Gabriel or Gabriel in Islam is incorrect. That the Gabriel article exists or not doesn't matter, the angel known as "Jibril" is himself important enough to have an article. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Would it be alright, then, to remove the duplicated (as it is) information from the Gabriel article, in favor of a link to the forked version? Since as you say, the Jewish and Christian concepts of Gabriel are important enough to have articles in their own right? Indeed, is link even necessary, Gabriel and Jibril being different figures, as you say?Timothy Usher 00:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I never said that at all. I said that Jibril on his own is important enough to have an article. The point that he is included on the Gabriel does show that they are the considered the same figure. If there was as much importance and interpretation given to Gabriel/Jibril in another religion and the name was different I would also like to see that as an article. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I have a request: Can we at least always use the arabic words in parentheses? --Aminz 23:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
It's usually more important to give the perspective of the religion the word is used in but that can be done in some cases. The english word in brackets makes it clear for all the times the perspective is given first. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Having been following this debate, I feel compelled to introduce my two cents. The fact of the matter is, some Arabic terms have been assimilated, to a certain extent, into the English language, while others haven't. Hud and Yahya haven't. Allah and jihad have. Now, [[[Jibril]], in my opinion, is one of those grey area ones. It is not exactly obvious to some that Jibril is the same as Gabriel, though more so than other terms are. In my opinion, we could go along with Aminz suggestoin of having the Arabic term in parenthesis, but lets wikilink the Arabic term and not the English term. If the reader wants to learn about Gabriel in a more broad aspect he/she can click the Gabriel link from the Jibril article. Pepsidrinka 00:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's remotely a grey area. Allah and jihad, sure, but pretty much no non-Arab-speaker knows Jibril unless they have speifically studied Islam.
Also, as the current Islamic view section in Gabriel is entirely duplicated in the forked article, we should delete it in favor of a brief capsule summary and a link.Timothy Usher 00:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes the section can be made shorter with the link left on top. That is usually done for these types of articles. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Can we have the article "Jibril" but redirect it to the Gabriel in Islam section of Gabriel article? That is, if someone searches for Jibril, he/she is redirected to Gabriel in Islam? By doing this, we both have and don't have the Jibril article.--Aminz 00:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of sourced etymology

Anonymous editor, you should not be repeatedly removing other editors' sourced material without showing up to discuss it on the talk page. Not even a brief explanation in your edit summaries. Please explain.Timothy Usher 07:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason is that intro is not the place to have this detail. We need to have another section for this. Moreover, I would like to hear more details about the connection. Intro is not a good place I believe. --Aminz 07:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Your new section is good. Thanks.Timothy Usher 08:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
However, I asked Anonymous editor. He's the one who's been reverting, and should discuss it on the talk page. Given his responsibilities as an admin, one might understand why his time would be more valuable than ours, but if so, I'd suggest he ought to back away a bit, or prune his watchlist.Timothy Usher 08:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't like that edit either and that was why I created a new section. I see now you are trying to push your POV in action. Why don't you please discuss it in the talk page? "Do not judge others that you may not be judged." --Aminz 08:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't get what you're saying here. What do you mean?Timothy Usher 08:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Why did you remove "and the culmination of God's revelation to mankind" and ", the final prophet of humanity," from the article? --Aminz 08:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
See the generous discussion of these issues above.Timothy Usher 08:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Timothy, I was part of the discussion, wasn't I? I was not convinced by your argument. My last comment was:"So, please correct me if I am wrong: All your objection is due to the complexity of the sentences and not their content. --Aminz 04:24, 28 April" I didn't get any answer from you. So, I concluded I have not misunderstood you here. --Aminz 08:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
See the created, uncreated part. Qur'an being eternal is not the belief of all muslims. Your sentence is no longer factually correct. --Aminz 08:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The long sentence in the intro

"Muslims believe that the Qur'ān is the literal word of God (Arabic Allah) and the culmination of God's revelation to mankind as revealed to Muhammad, the final prophet of humanity, over a period of twenty-three years through the angel Gabriel (see Jibril)."

I think though this sentence is long, but it is easily followable. "Muslims believe that the Qur'ān is the literal word of God (Arabic Allah)" is by itself a complete sentence. "and the culmination of God's revelation to mankind" is complete in meaning, "as revealed to Muhammad, the final prophet of humanity," is complete in meaning, "over a period of twenty-three years" is complete in meaning, "through the angel Gabriel (see Jibril)." is complete in meaning.

Since there is no need to jump back in the sentence and each of its parts have independent meanings, I think this is a good compact sentence though it is a little bit long. --Aminz 07:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

By any orthodox approach to English language style, it is not a "good compact sentence", but its very opposite. Count the clauses, as shown above. If you don't like Pecher's addition, remove it, but don't (despite your edit summary) make the passage still longer.Timothy Usher 08:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
And there is no legitimate reason whatsoever to state here that Muslims see Muhammad as "the final prophet of humanity"; reserve such points for Muhammad article. Pecher Talk 08:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't want to make that particular sentence longer. Having a new sentence causes no problem. Do you really believe that the intro's should be always at that size? --Aminz 08:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
But you did, Aminz, check your diff: [6]Timothy Usher 08:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I mistakenly reverted it back to the wrong edit. I apologize if you have made the same mistake. --Aminz 08:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I think your most recent version is fine. Again, thanks for the Etymology fix.Timothy Usher 09:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you too. But I think it would be better to substitute the word "culmination" with something else. This maybe a Muslim POV, but is not according to my POV a Qur'anic POV. Any suggestion? --Aminz 09:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


My suggestion: Having "and a confirmation of previous God's revelation to mankind as revealed to Muhammad" rather than "and the culmination of God's revelation to mankind as revealed to Muhammad,". This is Qur'anic POV rather than Muslim POV. How is this? --Aminz 09:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


Pecher, please read our discussion above regarding your point. --Aminz 08:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Verses about converted non-believers by force

Anon, you reverted my addition without discussing it in talk first, and I have restored it. Your reason, given in the edit summary, was:

we have an article about this ed, criticism of Islam which goes into this detail

However, there is no link from the article to Criticism of Islam; furthermore, the section I added was not about Islam as a whole, but specifically about Qur'anic verses. --Uncle Ed 19:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly but the article discusses all these issues on one place to keep the pro and anti arguments over issues away from this. Each verse can only provide a single aspect and criticism of that aspect. We just don't have enough space to discuss all the arguments over one criticism. This is why Zora, I and other editors have made sure the article focuses on the actual arguments over the origin, status, and the beliefs over Qur'an of Muslims and secular scholars rather than each single issue including criticism and interpretation of it. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I added a link to Criticism of Islam to "See also", so if agree to take out the section there will be a link for readers to follow, but I still think a few of the verses should be mentioned in the Koran article with a {{main}} reference to the other article. Readers want to know if verses like these are really a part of the Koran; and if so, how Muslims traditionally have interpreted them. --Uncle Ed 19:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course. Yes it's addressed in Criticism of Islam because it is a common criticism not only of the Qur'an but commonly of all of Islam. I think the link with a shorter description is a good compromise. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an created/uncreated ; eternal

Not sure if the section is NPOV. We have the sentence: "some Muslims (most notably the Mu'tazilis) reject the notion of the Qur'an's eternality." here. As we know the school of thought of Mu'tazilitis and Shia's are very close. I am not sure about the Shia view of Qur'an, I should ask, but the idea of Qur'an uncreated or eternal does not seem familiar to me (which maybe due to my ignorance). If Shia Muslims have a view close to Mu'tazilitis in this matter, the statement "The most widespread varieties of Muslim theology consider the Qur'an to be eternal and uncreated." will not be factual. --Aminz 00:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that we remove this section from the Qur'an article and move this discussion to the Origin and development of the Qur'an article. I have read from at least 2 Islamic sources that they believe the Qur'an is Eternal and Uncreated, I do not know hoe to tell which branck they identify with and the sources do not mention it. -Kode 00:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no personal objection --Aminz 00:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I completely disagree. This is the Philosophy of the Qur'an (and Islam) not really its origins and development. The important part aspect of this debate is deciding if it's eternal or not changes how you interpret the text and how you view the God of the Qur'an. The whole Mu'talzilite argument was that if you said the Qur'an was eternal then it was competing with God and thus you don't have tawhid.... I can see that it merits a mention in origins but the main importance of this debate is philosophical and not really about how the Qur'an came into being. gren グレン 06:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree too. However Aminz was not referring to the section, he meant the three words in the intro. I disagree with removing "uncreated, eternal word of God" because it is a major Muslim belief. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I wasn't only feeling comfortable about the three words in the intro. --Aminz 20:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

my POV: "Qur'an POV / Muslim POV"

I am sure "They regard it as the culmination of God's revelation to mankind" is a Muslim POV, but is there any relevant Qur'anic verse? Maybe, but I haven't seen any. I think if we compare Qur'an with Bible, Muslim POV goes for the Qur'an; but if we compare the Qur'an and the previous revelations as they were revealed to the prophets, I am not sure we will be able to find any Qur'anic support that Qur'an is better. On the other hand, we have:

No distinction between Qur'an and other revelations:

[Quran 2:136]" Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the Prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered."

No distinction between Muhammad and other prophets:

[Quran 2:285]: The messenger (Muhammad) believeth in that which hath been revealed unto him from his Lord and (so do) the believers. Each one believeth in Allah and His angels and His scriptures and His messengers--We make no distinction between any of His messengers--and they say: We hear, and we obey. (Grant us) Thy forgiveness, our Lord. Unto Thee is the journeying.

I think this sentence is better to be modified/removed (?) --Aminz 00:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a great point. The Qur'an does not state that the message has improved or changed in any way, anymore than it states that Muhammad is the last prophet. Well-spotted, and well-changed.
I've added links to the USC text to your comments above.Timothy Usher 03:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Also, thanks for the adding the usc links.
The above is only my own POV. I am not, by any means, an interpreter of Qur'an. --Aminz 05:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice change on Intro

Anonymous editor, your recent change to the intro is wonderful. You broke up a complex sentence, and moved the more important point ahead of the lesser one.Timothy Usher 20:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was a very good change. Thanks Anonymous editor. When I was editing that sentence I had the feeling that I have made the sentence very complex. --Aminz 20:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

New section: Description of Qur'an according to Qur'an

I think this is a good addition to the article. The Qur'an describes itself a lot. We can have a new section for that. Any feedback? --Aminz 20:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"Is the order of Sura's divinely inspired"

I think this should be what a typical Muslim believes. A very few may not care about it. But I believe the boundary of Sura's were specified. --Aminz 01:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, I think you're misunderstanding the passage. We're talking about the order of the Suras within the Qur'an, not the order of verses within each Sura. Do Muslims believe that this, too, was divinely inspired? I'd find that strange, as this has led to controversies regarding context and precedence. Conversely, it's hard to see what benefit would be gained from the rearrangement.Timothy Usher 01:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we can prove from the qur'an itself that it should have been specified which verses belong to which suras and the order of verses within each sura. I tend to believe that the name of the sura's was also specified. Nothing more, I think could be proved from Qur'an.

I also have a personal argument that the two first sura's were at least specified. 1. The first sura (opening) is completely different from other sura's. It is more like a prayer. It is indeed an opening. 2. The second sura begins with:

1. A.L.M. This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah.

This is a summary of the book. I think this is a good start.

But in any case, Timothy, that sentence talks about the Muslim POV. There MAY be some minor views that I am not aware of; but I think this is the POV of at least most Muslims. It may be a POV that Non-Muslims do not agree with (like the title "Al-Amin"). --Aminz 02:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a cite? I'm not saying you're wrong as to what Muslims believe, but it seems rather odd considering the circumstances surrounding its compilation. Is Uthman likewise considered a prophet?Timothy Usher 02:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I searched interent and found these (sources may not be reliable):

Positive views:

"Sunni Muslims (the majority Muslims), believe that the words recited to Mohammed and related by him were in their current form at the time of Mohammed's death. This form, even in the ordering of the suras, was divinely inspired. The earthly Koran is a copy of the heavenly Koran." [7]

Negative views:

"Although there is agreement concerning the arrangement of the verses being divinely inspired, there is a difference of opinion concerning the order of the chapters. The stronger opinion seems to be that the arrangement of many chapters was also divinely inspired, although some chapters were placed through the ijtihad [inference] of the Companions. For instance, it is reported that the Companions placed Surat al-Tawba after Surat al-Anfal, through their own deliberation, as they did have any information concerning this from the Messenger (upon him be peace)." [8]


From wikipedia (previous versions): "Uthman's version, organized the suras roughly in order of length (excepting the brief opening surah Al-Fatiha), with the longest suras at the start of the Qur'an and the shortest ones at the end. More conservative views state that the order of most suras was divinely set. Later scholars have struggled to put the suras in chronological order, and at least among Muslim commentators, there is a rough consensus as to which suras were revealed in Mecca and which at Medina, with distinctive characteristics observed within these two subgroups. Some suras (e.g. surat Iqra) are thought to have been revealed in parts at separate times." [9]

--Aminz 02:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if the phrase deserves to be removed. As the above link says at least "arrangement of many chapters was also divinely inspired" (I think this includes chapter 1 and 2 at least). Maybe we can fix this using weasel words. --Aminz03:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, these come in handy. It deserves a better treatment, but this will take a little research. In the meantime, perhaps a weasel phrase with a {{fact}} tag can serve as a reminder for someone to add to it later?Timothy Usher 03:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

6666 Ayat

The Qur'an consists of 114 surah (chapters) with a total of 6236 ayat (verses).

İf this is true than look to the sites or from google try your search with this key words! "6666 Ayat Digital Quran"


How can Digital Quran can be wrong!!! How can they sell their Product with saying "Easy navigation through 114 Sura and 6666 Ayat."

6236 verses is in agreement with total in sura article. --Soft coderTalk 12:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Beliefs

Where can I find the Muslim equivalent of the Beatitudes, the 10 Commandments or the Sacraments? I guess those would be in the Qur'an.

Does the Qur'an encourages certain kind of behavior? What are the rules in Islam?

I remember segment from a Barbara Walters special, where she interviewed three Islamic lawyers and they said that their law states that the jews bring bad luck for other countries (or something similarly discrinatory to jews). From what I understand now, Mahoma and the Qur'an incorpore both Xtian and Jewish tradition to Islam (remember: I'm a very ignorant person) isn't that a bit contradictory with the beliefs of those lawyers?

I hope not to ofend anyone.--T-man, the wise 04:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


Ok, I need even more help... Due to nowdays Code of da Vinci-influenced hype, some amateur research of mine and my ignorance of this culture I've come to dangerous conclutions that I beg somebody here to right.

I haven't read the Apocalypsis myself, but I'm afraid that the description that documentals made of what that book calls "the beast" (the anti-christ) fit some of Mahoma's characteristics. I need your knoledge to take that mad idea out of my head.

WARNING: IF MY WORDS CAUSES YOU ANY STRESS STOP READING, FORGET IT, DO ANY OTHER ACTIVITY AND FORGIVE ME, I'M JUST AND IGNORANT BUM TRYING TO LEARN.

This is the common ground:

  1. The beast is supposed to be the oposite of Christ: the anti-christ. This doesn't nessesarely means we are talking about Belsebu, Lucifer or any of those. As far as I know, the character might be the anti-X because he is kinda opposite and the beast because of the power it has. That thought is where I find some relief from my theory, so politicaly questionable to even think.
  2. John said that the beast will born wealthy, and will move around power circles... just like Mahoma.
  3. John said that nobody will identify the beast as such and it will be loved, and popular... just like Mahoma was. And that's kind of the scariest part, nobody could even dare thinking about insinuate this because such action would be considerated so politically incorrect and that poor bastard would suffer the consecuential rage of an entire religion spread world wide. (nothing like the anonimacy of the internet). Another convenient move Mahoma did was embracing Xtian and Jewish belief besides his own messages...Why? Jesus message was the opposite, and between lines, in almost every miracle his point was that he was God. Jesus main point as a prophet, besides be peaceful and don't fight for territorial stuff, was that he was God. At least that's what I actually thing due to my limited knoledge.
  4. Mahoma's message goes 180° againts Jesus' message: Mahoma worked honestly to be materialy wealthy while Jesus rejected material stuff, Mahoma fought for his country while Jesus said "give God what belongs to God and give the Caesar what belongs to the Caesar", meaning that we shouldn't mind bully nations (without them, we are left with our own bully governors, anyway); Jesus loved every soul the same, while Mahoma had several wifes (nowdays now one man could not satisfy the sexual, emotional and spiritual needs of more than one woman...sometimes not even one); Mahoma was your classic Hernan Cortez, Napoleon, Alexander the Great or CAESAR sterotype of conqueror leader while Jesus like Ghandhi or maybe Lincoln was all about pease and not fighting (jesus even rejected power, he could have easyly go to the Ceasar and convert him just like christiand later did with Constantine, think about it)....And the contrast goes on and on. Thesis - Anti-thesis.
  5. the number thing, 666... what was mahoma doing about that time? Also: the D---l, the anti-X and the false profet. Xtians and jews consider Mahoma a false prophet, the biographic persona that his disciples portraid 300 years after his dead spreaded a message that goes 180° agaist the masage of Jesus, making Mahoma a reverse Crist, an anti-x. And finally well Allah, is obviously not the devil, he is The One, God; but devils are known to disguise themselves ad gods to play God's role and get venerated. If the idiotic bull I'm trying to take out of my head and discard as nonsense is reasoned, Mahoma's version of alah (but not original alah, in this case, which I have no problem to believe that is actually the very same as the one I call God) could be the Devil. So you have the evil trinity.
  6. By proclaiming sacred a city that was already sacred to the other 2 titanic religions that had previos history there, he created the biggest point of confict in human history: Israel. Why would he do that, if he was so wise he would surely know what he was doing. Why there, why would Islam leader would ask his people to consider the temple of other religions a key place. Why? He knew what that place means to the jews and marked it as Islam territory...Why? (of course there is the posibility that Catholism is evil and wants us to think Islamist are the bad guys)

Please don't take me too seriously. I'm honest, but I want people to correct me rather than convince enybody. I don't want to convince anybody, I want somebody to convince me that I'm wrong and learn to appreciate the beautiness that I ignore, but I'm sure your religion has. i --T-man, the wise 14:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sin is God hence the Crescent. Don't be fooled by ignorant Imams.

Sin the brother of Shamsh is God of Arabia!Yessou El Maseekh

Is this intended for me? I don't want my ideas to be heard, I rather want to correct them. Not knowing the values proposed by this religion or where to search for the correct understanding of it is easy to get confused. Uh, and also I didn't get what you meant with the Sin thing. What's an Imams?--T-man, the wise 06:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sin the god of the Moon. An Imam is an islamic cleric/scholar. It didn't pertain to you at all.Yessou El Maseekh

Gabriel vs Jibril

In the initial paragraph we keep going back and forth between Gabriel and Jibril. The article for Jibril was just merged with Gabriel, however I believe we should use the Arabic name with a link to Gabriel#Gabriel_in_Islam. Can we discuss this so the name becomes finalized.

Should we refer to the Angel which the Muslims believe revealed the Qur'an to Muhammed with the western name Gabriel or the name used by Muslims themselves Jibril, even though the two names would link to the same article?
-Kode 23:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Jibril is just the arabic name for Gabriel. It is used in Arabic Bibles. Muslims believe the same angel, known as jibril by Arab Jews and Christians, talked to Muhammad. I don't think any change is needed. --Aminz 00:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
p.s. Hebrew g corresponds to Arabic j (and consequently, g does not occur in Standard Arabic).Timothy Usher 00:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Number of languages in which the Qur'an has been translated

I think it would be interesting to have the total number of languages, or even better, a List of all the languages in which a qur'an translation exists. Does anybody know this? --Blauerflummi 22:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Mistake in the picture detail

Assalamu'alaikum,

A fragment of ayat in the picture next to "Schools of recitation" section is from Sura 33: 72–73, instead of 73-74. In my opinion, instead of just put a fragment of ayat, which I'm afraid that the meaning would be interpreted differently, why don't we put a full Sura Al-Ikhlas? Sura Al-Ikhlas only consists of 4 ayat. So, I think it would be enough in one picture. Thanks.

Wassalamu'alaikum

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quran/Archive_4&oldid=1146603452"