Talk:Quran/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2019

In the paragraph discussing the inimitability of the Quran, there's the following sentence: "So the suggestion is that if there are doubts concerning the divine authorship of the Quran, come forward and create something like it" It is not a quotation, so shouldn't it be reworded to not appear as if the article is directly addresing the reader on Wikipedia here and now, but instead as something like: "So the suggestion is that if there are doubts concerning the divine authorship of the Quran, the reader should come forward and attempt to create something like it"? Or "So the suggestion is that if there are doubts concerning the divine authorship of the Quran, the inability of any given person to create something equal to the Quran should dispell them". As is sounds a bit out of place, and unencyclopedyc 82.158.78.249 (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. The statement, in any form, amounts to editorializing, an editor's personal interpretation of a quotation that readers can easily judge for themselves. Therefore I have removed the sentence completely. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This article contain disrespect as well as dishonesty on Muslims faith .

In this article there is an distorted image Of Muslims Holy Prophet Muhammad(Peace be upon him)which is a serious disrespect on Muslims faith.There should be no photos, sketch or any sort of graphical manner of Muslims holy prophet and the last Prophet. Also it is mandatory in any kind of language , whenever someone mention the last Prophet they have to say PEACE BE UPON HIM along. If u cant respect Muslims faith, then Do not bother to talk about their believes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabeeriyo (talk • contribs) 17:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

We will discuss faith issues according to our rules. Yours are only binding on believers. This will continue until you take over, and put a stop to all this free thought nonsense.

You should realise that most people - 5 out of 6, worldwide - do not think this Mohammed was a prophet. Giving him an honorific like ‘peace be unto him’ (PBUH) would indicate adherence to that belief.

If you insist on an honorific, we could say ‘supposed a prophet’. You would write it ‘Mohammed(SAP)’. 77.69.34.202 (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Pro-Islamic Bias

Some of these articles about Quran are absolutely biased. I mean, some like the article on Wahy, basically agree with Islamic mythology. I am a Christian, and comparing articles about the Bible with articles about Quran leave no doubt in my mind. These articles are way too lenient and written with no scholarly views. Anyone want to help to rewrite them? --76.64.129.14 (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

To be rewritten, they need reliable sources which offer these scholarly views. We can't reflect our own views on the topic. Dimadick (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The ‘compilation’ section clearly states critical views of the Koran. The descriptive sections seem to state what people believe, rather than advocating the belief. I don’t see the problem. Could you give specific examples of the problems you see in Wahy, and others? 77.69.34.202 (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2019

I think the image showing the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) should be removes, as it is against the Muslim reliogion to draw images of the prophets. It si offensive to any Muslims reading this article, so please remove it, thank you. 86.5.250.219 (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Wikipedia is not censored. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

About quran sarif

What is the actual meaning of quraan in hindi ? Kanaksweet786 (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Romanized, romanized, romanized

Romanized is mentioned several times in the opening. Quran, Qur'an, Kor-AHN. Obviously there is a problem with scholarship here. I don´t even think "Allah" is latinized this way either.

And the sheer backwardness and noise of "Ahle Kitab Hadith" sects (people of the corpus of Hadith(external writings))" (a colletive term for the sects criticised in media) is not helping.

And this collective term should probably be mentioned to identify these aswell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:FE0:C700:2:83A:DD15:C3F7:C6F (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Remove Image displayed in the article contains the illustration of Prophet Muhammad (Salallah-o-alih-e-wasalam)

The image showed in the article Muhammad (Salallah-o-alih-e-wasalam) Holding Quran is unethical and no one is allowed to draw image of prophet Muhammad (Salallah-o-alih-e-wasalam). It is disturbing the emotions of Muslims. So I request to remove this image ASAP, other wise there will be a campaign in Muslim countries to ban wikipedia because it contains blasphemy according to islam religion.

Here is the reference regarding blasphemy in Islam is punishable and against the Islamic rules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_blasphemy Sfkazmi (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Violation of WP:NOTCENSORED. Such restrictions apply to Muslims only, and Wikipedia is not Muslim nor are most editors of enwiki. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Take any further discussions relating to this to Talk:Muhammad/images. Melmann (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2019

Image showed in the article is against the islamic point of view and it is hurting a huge community of Muslims. So i request you to remove this image. Wikipedia says it is uncensored so according to this point of view no one in these times has seen Prophet Muhammad Sal-allah-o-alihe-wasalam so no one can illustrate image of Prophet Muhammad Sal-allah-o-alihe-wasalam. This illustration is dependent on imaginations so i challenge the illustration. And remove this as soon as possible. Zubair Riaz 8835 (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per WP:NOTCENSORED. Your argument is incoherent. Please do not continue reposting declined requests or enforcement action may be sought. Melmann (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2019

The picture (which is not even ethical) displayed in the page, which is a serious disrespect and insult to Islam and Muslims, is requested to be removed and replaced with some picture of Quran (which would be appropriate as well). Also, it is mandatory to write PBUH after the name of our beloved Prophet (PBUH).So please don't think rationally and respect other religion's believes as well.According to wikipedia: Islam is the second largest religious group with 1.8 Billion adherents making up 24.1% of world's population and this is a very disturbing and heartbreaking sight for all of them. You can ask any Muslim if this picture should be used or not? You will get the same answer. Please make this edit before it gets too late, because I believe wikipedia also wants peace for others and for themselves as well. Amuslimbeliever (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per WP:NOTCENSORED. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for a summary of discussions about this. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

There are three requests for the same thing just above, Amuslimbeliever; please stop now. And don't post threats here ("make this edit before it gets too late"). Bishonen | talk 19:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2019

In the second paragraph, the word Bible should begin with an uppercase letter.

> Unlike the Bible, it is (thought to be) not simply divinely inspired, but the literal word of God. Willgiddens (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Sceptre (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

sources missing regarding the alledged first manuscript dating to the time of abu bakr...

neither the sources of islamic tradition are given nor scientific sources... this is not the standard of a scientific encyclopedia but a degeneration to a believer's platform... if the sources are not added the passage should be deleted. HilmarHansWerner (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2019

MatthewWILSON45 (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)poopy stinky

 Not done @MatthewWILSON45: You have to actually fill out the request, preferably in the format "please change A to B because (reason supported by sources and/or policy)" or "please remove X because (reason)" or "please add Y because (reason)." This isn't some ticket to let you get around the article's protection, it's a means for you to communicate with those who can. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2019

there are false facts i need to change 5.61.122.158 (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and reliable sources to support them, and someone will add them for you if they are appropriate - or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. -- Begoon 13:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Image of Prophet Mohammed

Whoever has locked this article, i request you to please delete the image of Prophet Mohammed because it is forbidden in Islam to draw any portrait of anyone as such, so please delete the image of Prophet Mohammed which is totally false. Sajida.begum77 (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Not done: per WP:NOTCENSORED. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for further explanation concerning this matter. Thank you. -- Begoon 13:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2019

+Category:Arabic-language books 37.42.20.37 (talk) 09:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done Masum Reza^📞 09:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

...and undone... thank you, but the page is already in Category:Quran, which is a sub-category of Category:Arabic-language books, so I don't think that's necessary. See Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing pages, which explains ".. if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C.". Thanks. -- Begoon 09:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Begoon: Thanks, I should have noticed that Category:Quran is a sub-category of Category:Arabic-language books. Masum Reza^📞 09:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Meh - I'm not a huge fan of the wikipedia category system, it's a mess, and it needs to be replaced with a proper system of queryable attributes to allow true functionality and sensible searching - but I could wax on about that at great length, and it's not getting replaced anytime soon, if ever, and this is off-topic... It makes sense, though, things being as they are, to follow the norms and not to include items in parent categories. -- Begoon 09:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Muhammad in the Nuremberg Chronicle on a throne, holding the Quran

i`m disputing the viability of the picture , Muhammad in the Nuremberg Chronicle on a throne, holding the Quran adds nothing to quality of this article.

Please provide a rebuttable agreement or remove the image that is unnecessary photo that is irrelevant to this article SPQR10 (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Although I generally am fine with including artistic representations of Muhammad in articles, in this case it's a bit like including this image in the Twa article. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

It is requested to remove the picture where it is written "Muhammad in the Nuremberg Chronicle on a throne, holding the Quran".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.89.144.171 (talk • contribs)

This image adds nothing to the article and I removed it. Zero^talk 13:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Prophet-Muhammad-Quran.pdf

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020

The recently added "science" subsection under the "relationship with other literature" section simply consists of a list of claims of knowledge of modern science in the Quran. All of them are cited to a single source from a site that's openly about converting the reader to Islam, and the items themselves are almost direct copies of the short descriptions of the articles on the page, with only minor changes to phrasing. The subsection should be removed. Chapatsu (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

 Reverted –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020

The "re-creation" section is just a short blurb seemingly about a recent digital edition of the Quran which almost certainly isn't notable enough to be mentioned in the main Quran article, and which also includes a PDF of it which is up for deletion. The section probably ought to be deleted. Chapatsu (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Why does this article miss sections?

So, this article has no authorship section and no composition section. All it does is recount the traditional Muslim beliefs about the Quran, which are important, of course, but we also need a section about the scholarly views of the authorship of the Quran, its composition, the source material behind it etc. --RIPMamba (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Quran Kufic script.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Respect and vortuous manners while describing Quran and Islam

I am very pleased with the thorough, thoughtful and knowledgeable publishing and edits in this page. But I request the administrators and those with the power to edit to please just add a simple (Peace be upon him) where the name of the prophet Muhammad is mentioned. That is how we respect our prophet in the Islamic world and will be pleased if you respect that world of ours. Thank you. Alauddin 19 (talk) 11:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

This violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy, so no, that's not going to happen. And how it's done in the Islamic world is irrelevant. --142.214.241.234 (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:PBUH. El_C 01:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2020

i want to Add some on quran article. i want to add Quran that people can find Quran to read thats it. Abdur rahman kaif (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Available in Quran#External links. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

"which Muslims believe to be a revelation from God (Allah)" statement

I'm surprised to find such a statement in Wikipedia. Shouldn't the contents of this article originate from verifiable sources? Whether or not a wide percentage of muslims believe that or not is irrelevant. If such a thing is not backed by hard evidence and therefore is not scientific, how does it belong in a wikipedia article? --Jubeidono (talk) 09:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jubeidono: That sentence doesn't say whether or not it is, it just says that's what Muslims believe.

Are you trying to tell us that Muslims don't believe the Quran is a message from Allah? Ian.thomson (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson I believe this statement to be true. All I am saying is what people "believe" about the quran does not belong in an encyclopedic article. With the same reasoning, some people could go on to edit Donald Trump's article to add "some people believe Donald Trump is unfit to be president". You open pandora's box if allow statements about what people believe about something. Except if it's in the form "scientists believe x to have originated in y (citation with source)." in which case the reader can follow up and understand why this scientists believes that to be the case by reading the paper. But this statement has no citation and is therefore arbitrary in my opinion.Jubeidono (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I would argue similarly about some statements in articles about Michael Jackson and Freddie Mercury despite agreeing with those statements (i.e. that they are widely regarded as being the greatest entertainers in the history of music.) Jubeidono (talk)

@Jubeidono: Should we exclude that Christians believe Jesus is God from that article? Should we exclude that atheists believe God doesn't exist from that article?

Frankly, your argument is even more ridiculous than those two suggestions because the Quran is notable only because Muslims believe it to be a message from God. If they didn't, Islam wouldn't be a religion. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes I would argue that those statements should also be excluded (About Christians believing Jesus is god). In my opinion there should be no article about god because there's no scientific evidence for its existence. Wikipedia should be about things backed by evidence. But I understand if others disagree with my thesis. Jubeidono (talk)

Ian.thomson I would appreciate it if you strike through your comment about my arguments being ridiculous, I find it offensive and it goes against wikipedia's rules for civility.Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility How ironic that your user page mentions civility. Jubeidono (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The belief of something can be subject of scholary investigation. For such, we have folklorists, anthropologists and also partly psychologists. Something like "Trump is a good president" is an opinnion, not a belief as such. Religious beliefs are noteable for encyclopedias. Thee is, for example, also an Encyclopedia of the Quran. However, it does not deal with the belief from the "inward"-poit of view (The Quran is the word of God), but describes it from the "outside" (it is believed by Muslims to be the word of God). This does neither mean, "it is" nor "it is not". Their belief only matters within their belief-system. Personal beliefs are less relevant for encyclopedia-entries, except for folkloric studies or when personal beliefs have a great impact (this might be important especially in animistic beliefs or the spread of inofficial beliefs who shaped a society as we see how Sufism affected the spread of Islam among Turks. These are not subjective personal believes, the spread through cultures is a fact. Opinnions like "some people dislike X" or "a person beliefs that Y" are not relevant. You can check notability guidlines to determine, when a subject becomes notalbe. The belief that Jesus is a god, or that Muslims believe the Quran to be a book by a god, are basic beliefs of religions, with encyclopedic relevance. The scholarly approach is determined by the research investigating cuture and history and therefore facts in the fields of anthropoligy, religion studies (not to confuse with "Biblle studies" or "Quran studies" there religous priests/shaiks interpretate their religion following the assumption that their religion is "true" and deducting new information from it, instead of just reflecting the actual belief of people), (partly) psychology and studies of culture.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess that's a fair point.Jubeidono (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

"change thw writer of Quran from Muhammad to Allah" 42.201.148.163 (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Not going to happen, as there's no WP:RS to support this and we instead maintain WP:NPOV RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

actually hes right change it. All spurces even mentioned in this article agreed that Muhammad didnt wrote the Quran

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2020

change period = 609–632 to period = 609–Qayamat(unknown) 2409:4042:250A:6EF7:E863:6485:ED84:CDDA (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: As with the request just before this one, that wouldn't be neutral. Rummskartoffel (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Number of verses vary according to Qiraat

Qiraat contains different letters, words but the ```amount``` of verses in the Quran is still the same. Could the editor please cite their proof? If unable, please write the amount of verses as 6236 as this is the common knowledge of Muslims, thank you. - anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.143.242.122 (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

It may not be amiss here to acquaint the reader, that there are seven principal editions, if I may so call them, or ancient copies of that book; two of which were published and used at Medina, a third at Mecca, a fourth at Cufa, a fifth at Basra, a sixth in Syria, and a seventh called the common or vulgar edition. Of these editions, the first of Medina makes the whole number of the verses 6,000; the second and fifth, 6,214; the third, 6,219; the fourth, 6,236; the sixth, 6,226; and the last, 6,225. But they are all said to contain the same number of words, namely, 77,639; and the same number of letters, viz., 323,015 (Sale Preliminary discourse 3) JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I note that Quran#Text and arrangement does indeed write the amount of verses as 6236 (Kufic recitation used from 1924 Cairo edition onwards). JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the OP is trying to say that the number of verses varies according to where they are divided, not according to the Qira'at, as the article currently states. I'll change that.VR _talk 03:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The number of verses vary for a multitude of reasons including but not limited to the Qira'at. The idea that there is only one Quran is a recent doctrine, possibly not even 100 years old?. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that would indicate that the number of verses depends on the qir'at? VR _talk 19:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I have redirected seven principal editions to Seven qira'at as the ahruf variant Quran editions were destroyed by the Caliph?. I consider the source above reliable. In any case I'm not a great fan of info boxes using one line for something that deserves a paragraph. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2020

Please change File:Quran stand.jpg to File:Quran cover.jpg in the infobox of the article as it would be better for the article.Thank You.192.142.149.126 (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the current image isn't ideal since the focus of the image isn't all that clear. However, your suggested replacement isn't a very good picture for other reasons (cut off, glare, etc.). I'd suggest starting a new talk page section to see if anyone else has a preference first, especially for the lead image of a fairly major article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis:

You can change File:Quran stand.jpg to File:Qur'an and Rehal.jpg in the infobox if you have any concern about the previous suggested image as in this picture Quran can be seen clearly opened on the Rehal which will be better choice for the article. Thank you.192.142.183.221 (talk) 09:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems much better.  Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Criticism section should be removed

The criticism section is ridiculous. The mentions in it reflect opinions of individual person and not that of a group or an organization or another religion. We are talking about the main part of Islam. and criticism should not be included from individual opinions. Wikipedia is not a website that reflects opinions of individuals.

Not only that the criticism says that Quran is formed from Bible and Hebrew which is also not true. As Muslims believe in those books too. Quran mentions those stories not the same. Quran is very different from other old books as claimed here.

I agree. It reflects opinions of individuals only. Which is ridiculous. It should be removed. This article is subject to vandalism and it should be semi protected. Ahmad Muhammad Aftab (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Exactly my claim. This is hatred by adding opinions of few specific Islam haters who are very controversial. Unfortunately Islam related articles on Wikipedia are subject to extensive vandalism and you can't really do anything about it

Criticism section should be removed Bilal majid 123 (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The criticism section should be extended and include spelling errors of the Koran and the fact that there didn't even exist any Koran text during the lifetime of Mohammed. It's an arbitrary text compiled by Zayd ibn Thabit, if the Hadiths are correct. That's also the reason why Mohammed never mentioned "114 suras" or taught the "complete Koran" to a single person. It just didn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdnanDE (talk • contribs) 13:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ahmad Muhammad Aftab:. Please read above. The info box is pretty sparce. Perhaps you might suggest a non-controversial addition there. Assuming you become unblocked, this would require you to have respect for Wikipedia:Five Pillars. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Length of the Criticism of Quran section

The most debated issue about the Quran i.e. its criticisms find no more than 2-3 lines of mention as a section! Not even a mention on the most intense criticism i.e. around violence as well as hatred towards other religions. It's scientific shortcomings are hardly notable compared to some of the other religious texts. It is due to motivated framing such as this that Wikipedia is suspected of being influenced by activist agendas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.66.97.114 (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, espeially the Islam-related articles seem often to be written with activistic motivation. Some sources do not even cover up all the claims made and it is hard to remove all biased contents as a private person. If you suspect something to be wrong, be bolt and check the reference given or make some changes yourself and explain the reason for edit, so registered Users will be able to understand the purpose behind the change. Thanks for noticing the issue with this article. I also noticed some over issues know, for example, the "compilation-section" is written mostly from a Muslim point of view, as if there was no better academic approach made.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, there is so much criticism, it has its very own page. --HyperGaruda (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: @HyperGaruda: @103.66.97.114: ...Linked to...#Criticism section should be removed. JorgeLaArdilla (My apologies to @175.143.242.122: @Vice regent: for accidently pinging). JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

"Final testament" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Final testament. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 4#Final testament until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 05:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

"Final Testament" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Final Testament. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 4#Final Testament until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 05:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021

“such as commanding to *strike* disobedient wives” This is false, people may criticise Islam because of that verse but in reality that verse doesn’t exist and I can give you evidence of that.

“...And if you sense ill-conduct from your women, advise them ˹first˺, ˹if they persist,˺ do not share their beds, ˹but if they still persist,˺ then discipline them ˹gently˺.2 But if they change their ways, do not be unjust to them. Surely Allah is Most High, All-Great.”

Here you clearly see the verse says to “discipline them”.

https://quran.com/4/34

If you ask any scholar in Islam they will never tell you that you’re allowed to “strike” your wife, in Islam if you leave a mark on your wife or break bones she can divorce you immediately this is well known.

People use Wikipedia to get information and giving information that Islam allows Muslims to strike their wives will only call hate crimes.

Please change it thank you. 82.14.145.237 (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done. I've linked the relevant Wikipedia article about this verse. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move involving the article on the second surah

On 30 December 2020 the page on the second surah was moved by @JorgeLaArdilla: to use a naming scheme consisting of the index of the sura, then some rendering into English of its name, and then a transliteration of the Arabic name for this surah. A little over a week ago I added a move request to the page to return it to its previous name, since the pages for the other 113 surahs were not also moved to use this scheme and thus there would be a glaring incongruity as far as naming schemes went. I was told by @AstroLynx: to inform those who watch this talk page of the proposed reversion (which AstroLynx and one other user have expressed support for). mahir256 (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The image of sura At-Tin is not complete as there is a missing last verse from the image, pls delete or put the full sura of At-Tin, thanks

At-Tin (the fig), 95th sura of the Quran.

The image of sura At-Tin is not complete as there is a missing last verse from the image, pls delete or put the full sura of At-Tin, thanksWaleedAhmadAddas (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Please don't portray sura's that are no complete i.e. missing verses etc.. pls attend to this request, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.112.161.92 (talk) 06:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You are right. There is missing one line. This is rather misleading, as the images presents itself as if it is showing the surah. One can not show you a poem and skip verses either. The image is not of high quality and seems to be self-made anyway. I think removing this could be done without any trouble.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you VenusFeuerFalle for this revision, appreciated. WaleedAhmadAddas (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I thank you for mentioning such mistakes. It is important we correct them as much as possible.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Denominations of Islam?

I don't know if it has already been discussed or not. Anyway, I am placing it here for further discussions. In the lead section, the article reads:

"Supplementing the Quran with explanations for some cryptic Quranic narratives, and rulings that also provide the basis for sharia (Islamic law) in most denominations of Islam, are hadiths—oral and written traditions believed to describe words and actions of Muhammad."

Though well referenced, I think the use of such words as 'denominations' in the case of Islam is derogatory in the sense that it has specific connotations for Christianity. Of course the followers of Islam are divided into numerous groups and sects based on different interpretations of core texts and ideas just like any other, but there are no denominations in Islam like that of Christianity. This is clearly an Orientalist reading of Islam. I am not suggesting that this reading is entirely wrong or something. But it is parochial. And of course a clear misrepresentation of Islam. I think the word 'denomination' can be replaced by some other neutral words and phrases. It is necessary to make a distinction between two great but different traditions. Such a distinction does exist regardless of the existence of plethora of Orientalist references denying it so. Mosesheron (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Change denominations in Islam to sects in Islam? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

it is also a thing that people in some things use to do things and stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.191.4 (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Q6:159 Sects and denominations: Verse (6:159) is known for forbidding sects and denominations. "As for those who divide their religion and break up into sects, thou hast no part in them in the least: their affair is with Allah: He will, in the end, tell them the truth of all that they did."<ref name = "Quran 4 U"/>

@JorgeLaArdilla: Sorry I didn't notice your reply. Yes it could be done but I am not sure if that would be the perfect alternative. I have become kind of hopeless about it lately seeing its usage in almost every article. Seems English speaking world has gladly extended its meaning to understand different schools of Islamic thought (as we referred to them in early days, at least the major ones) as well. We "owe" a great deal to our beloved orientalists for that. Mosesheron (talk) 10:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Uhm, yes a quick question, but isn't Studies in the Orient, Studies in Islam etc the guidline for Wikipedia? What else should be do instead? Use "Islamic terminology" instead? And for conspiracy theories we use conspiracy terminology and refer to scientists as "sleepers"? What exactly is the objection about an "Orientalist reading"?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: There is none, from the strict point of view especially because Orientalist reading of Islam is vetted by (Western) academic community. And I too acknowledge that we have to present things as objectively as we can (despite the fact that many decolonial scholars relate objectivity with modernity and coloniality but that is naught for they are probably conspiracy theorists). Perhaps that is what you were referring to in your reply. That’s fine. No objection towards that, even though I wholeheartedly reject Orientalist narrative of Islam. The problem is that it has become the de facto narrative for presentation of Islam at global scale which I do not find entertaining. In it lies an epistemic subordination of other valid narratives that find no place in Western academia. Maybe time is not ripe for what I am saying now, especially not when Islamic world is still intellectually unprepared to defend their case against Western philosophical imposition and have not much to offer to the rest of the world in scientific and philosophical terms. Maybe we would accept some of their narratives in an alternative universe where Western rationality is much less valued and where Hellenistic mode of life does not determine human objectivity. Best wishes. Mosesheron (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mosesheron: and what narrative would you prefer? I mean, we are talking in English and prefer the English language here. And "denomination" is how different groups of belief within a specific belief are called. I am a Turk myself and now that eurocentrism does not always makes sense within the Islamic cultural narrative. But neither does much of the post-modern Islamic narrative. For example the entire Sunni-Shia dispute is more accuratly portrayed by Orientalists than by Muslim scholars who more than often limit the dispute to a disagreement of a successor for Muhammad. However, I understand, when we write in another language, we must adjust our way of thinking to the over language. I made some mistakes myself, for example by translating parts of the Turkish "Cin" article (jinn) to German or English to German, without realizing the term "jinn" has an entirely different meaning. Some goes for "demon". Similar, we use "denomination" because it is the English term. The Christian connotation simply derives from the fact, the most English speakers use their language for Christianity. So despite the long lament about "Western-Centrism" on a Webpage in Western language, I do not get oyur point. Maybe you could make it clearer? Furthermore, when I read Wikipedia in Arabic, I see even much worse "Arab-Centrism" than any European language Wiki ever I read has come up with. I think noone is free from bias. But I do not see any trouble here or why it is "derogatory". Maybe you could make it clearer.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: I am aware of the fact that we are talking in English and it is English language Wikipedia. I have no objection towards different usage of an innocent term. The picture however is bigger than what you have depicted above. I will not go into the details of debate over narrative and counter narrative, although that is neither apologetic nor irrelevant, and thus will try to confine myself to the usage of the term in question. I used the word “derogatory” in the sense that it has potential to create misunderstanding in the Islamic world. You raised the issue of “Arab-centrism” in Arabic language Wikipedia which I find entirely unrelated here. How many people in the world apart from the Arabs read the Arabic version of Wikipedia? On the other hand, English Wikipedia, despite being a “Webpage in Western language” is having tremendous impact upon millions of people from non-English speaking world, myself included. It is constantly defining their life. In my humble opinion, now it has become a civilizational concern to reconsider some questionable aspects of English language Wikipedia in order to make it more amenable to people from other cultural and religious background by critically presenting their own stories based on native scholarship as far as it concerns them in place of a local and colorful Western presentation. Perhaps we need to create a balance here, else it will become a neo colonial tool in the end. We are advancing towards a borderless world once again where we cannot let ourselves be defined by a macro narrative imposed by a certain segment of population. In this new world, no one should have a monopoly over a certain narrative. And if the West fails now to broaden its outlook towards other civilizations, it will be duly noted in history. Your earlier comment referred to conspiracy theories and scientists, but science itself is not value neutral and is perhaps the greatest excuse the West makes in suppressing other views. This may sound ridiculous given science's importance in human life, but it's true. Seems I am going in the wrong direction. Anyway, I just wanted to “make a distinction between two great but different [religious] traditions” which was indeed an innocent call because, in the end, we all know, “such a distinction does exist”. Best wishes. Mosesheron (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

"I am aware of the fact that we are talking in English and it is English language Wikipedia. I have no objection towards different usage of an innocent term. The picture however is bigger than what you have depicted above. I will not go into the details of debate over narrative and counter narrative", so why is a long text following this? So you just made up a discussion here without any serious intention? Please consider that thi sis not a forum, but to discuss the quality of articles only. Please make yourself familar with WP:TALKNO. With best regards--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: I believe everything I have said above has a bearing on the use of the word "denomination" for different branches and schools of Islamic thought here on English Wikipedia. I may have went a little too far, but I am feeling hurt seeing that you are saying I "made up a discussion here without any serious intention". Thanks for the reminder anyway. Mosesheron (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: Let me summarize few things for you. All I wanted to say above implicitly is that Muslim sources writing in English rarely refer to Shiism or Sunnism and the like as denominations of Islam. This is clearly an Orientalist narrative, which I say it again is not necessarily wrong. Rather it is an imposed local description of a global faith on an international platform. It is a situation where a certain narrative, here the Orientalist one is prevailing over another (generic Muslim narrative) which has got nothing to do with objective presentation of Islam or Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It is up to the community to decide which one to accept in the end. And if the community feels it is okay for the term to refer to both the faith, then I think I am wasting my time. Best wishes. Mosesheron (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2021

In the section "Compilation and preservation". The final line of the first paragraph says, "After Abu Bakr, in 644, Hafsa bint Umar, Muhammad's widow, was entrusted with the manuscript until the third caliph, Uthman ibn Affan, has requested the standard copy from Hafsa bint Umar in about 650." The "has" should be removed, since the tense doesn't make sense grammatically. Xemkis (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

All set, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Non-promotional link

The Quran: A Complete Revelation by Sam Gerranis is free book, non-for profit to understand the quran better.--AdillAdell (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2021

In the section "Criticism": "the Bible was not translated into Arabic until the after the completion of the Quran" 109.175.155.97 (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done That was a mighty fine edit request. Even a nice link to the section. I appreciate it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2021

I would like to add that false prophet will be thrown in lake of fire and sulpher as written in Bible Book of Revelation 20:10.Flocks should find a gratitude in finding a solution that who is the false prophet. 106.66.36.210 (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done You appear to be proposing simple uncivil vandalism that is irrelevant to the topic. IronManCap (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

History of Qur'an

Seven people compiled it in the form of quran - Hazrat Zaid bin Sabit and other six persons are - Hazrat Abu Bakar Siddiq, Hazrat Usman, Hazrat Ali ibn Abu Talib, Hazrat Ubai Ibn Qaab, Hazrat Abdulla bin Masood and Hazrat Muavia Ibn Sufiyan in the presence of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). But Wikipedia says it happened after the death of prophet (pbuh). Which is wrong. Copies of Qur'an which is compiled in the presence of prophet are available in Cairo and tashkand till today. Al Marathi (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Grammar

In the Criticism section you've got:

Christopher Hitchens states that Islam as whole, both hadith and the Quran, are little more than a poorly structured plagiarisms, using earlier sacred works and traditions depending on what the situation seemed to require.

This should be:

Christopher Hitchens states that Islam as a whole, both hadith and the Quran, are little more than poorly structured plagiarisms, using earlier sacred works and traditions depending on what the situation seemed to require.

Or:

Christopher Hitchens states that Islam as a whole, both hadith and the Quran, is little more than a poorly structured plagiarism, using earlier sacred works and traditions depending on what the situation seemed to require.

If we consider "Islam as a whole" to be singular, the second suggestion is correct.

Also, the first paragraph in this section is unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyTrojans (talk • contribs) 09:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2021

Could this edit be reversed? The text is more or less incomprehensible, the section heading does not apply (it is not a summary of the contents), and the subsection does not fit at all in with the rest of the section. If Al-Ikhlas is to be mentioned, it would not fit in there, and it would at best be a short summary in another paragraph linking to the main article. 157.157.113.52 (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done. The entire section was unsourced and included a potentially contentious claim. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2022

As salaam alaikum. Please note that when the question presents, "who wrote,...." something, this is an inquiry of WHO is the AUTHOR? In the case of the Quran, the hand of no man, neither Prophet Muhammad (SAW) nor the companions wrote the Quran. (See surah Al Baqara, ayah, 185; surah, Ta Ha, ayah, 1-4). It is belived that Abu Bakr arranged the chapters of the Quran under the instructions of Prophet Muhammad (SAW), who was instructed by Allah.

To attribute the writing of the Quran to Abu Bakr, is an error that misleads from the correct knowledge and truth. Humbling sharing. Pharaoh19 (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The article says that Abu Bakr "compiled" the Quran, which is not the same as saying that he wrote it. Zero^talk 02:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Kloran

@Iskandar323: May I ask why you don't think Kloran could be confused with Koran? There's literally just a one-letter difference. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think 'one-letter difference' is the guiding principle. It is a totally different word in terms of both meaning and cultural genre, and also pronounced entirely differently. Disambiguation is only needed where there is a substantive risk of confusion in the first place. In this instance, as an analogy, it would be like be disambiguating 'bile' or 'Babel' on the Bible page - the first a letter away, the second a vowel away. Obviously the list goes on. The number of words with different meanings just a letter away is bottomless. Second to this is that in the first place we are only even talking about it being a letter away from a secondary spelling. 'Koran' is all but disgraced as a spelling in academia, and popularly enjoyed its heyday in the early 1800s and is now dominated both by Qur'an (the actual accepted transliteration these days) and Quran. So it is a one letter difference from a disgraced spelling of Quran, which itself is already a compromise from Qur'an. So at this point we are now three spellings away from the orthodox spelling. Finally, I just don't think there is any risk of confusion. I think people know what the Qur'an is, and don't know the other name or its meaning. I'm sure the pageview analyser would confirm the same. It is an ostensible disambiguation that in fact distracts and confuses more than it assists. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2022

Where it lists the language as “Classical Arabic”: perhaps change “Classical Arabic” to “Classical Arabic (Full Text)”, followed by “Old Hijazi Arabic (Underlying Consonantal Text)” on the next line.

Thus, instead of:

Classical Arabic

Have:

Classical Arabic (Full Text)

Old Hijazi Arabic (Underlying Consonantal Text)

The purpose of this change would be to acknowledge the fact that the underlying consonantal (pre-diacritic) skeleton of the Quran reflects the Old Hijazi Dialect spoken by the Quraysh at the time of Muhammad, peace be upon him.

This fact is actually already mentioned on both Wikipedia’s “Old Hijazi Arabic” page and its “Classical Arabic” page (the latter mentioning it in the second paragraph under its “History” section), so it is would only make sense to mention it in this article as well, for the purpose of consistency between articles.

For further reading, the following source is available:

“Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi Origins to its Classical Reading Traditions” by Mr. Marijn van Putten

73.207.3.240 (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm no Arabic/Quran scholar, I just watch this page and am the first person to respond. That said, is it a consensus in the scholarship that Quranic Arabic is Hijazi, or just a dominant argument (see e.g. van Putten & Stokes 2018)? The other issue is, what does "underlying consonantal text" (UCT) really mean in terms of how we would classify the written language of a text (especially one in which the UCT arguably not distinctly written at the time (see Hijazi script), and not distinctly spoken since). A similar issue occurs in other Semitic texts like those in the Jewish tradition (and note Hebrew Bible doesn't list UCT in the infobox), and should probably arise in other ancient abigudas. It's definitely worth expanding upon in the text body, and needs to be expanded upon as a separate Quranic Arabic section within Classical Arabic, but I don't know if it's appropriate for the leading infobox, unless you have other sources that might suggest that Old Hijazi Arabic has been refined enough that the scholarly consensus is that it's definitely the UTC of the Quran (if such a thing can even be definitively claimed). SamuelRiv (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Compilation and preservation section

In the paragraph which describes Caliph Uthman ibn Affan's commissioning of a standard version of the Quran it says "Thus, within 200 years of Muhammad's death, the Quran was committed to written form". Looking at the date of 'about 650' should this be within 20 years? 212.159.76.165 (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done, but I'll be looking into it some more maybe in the next few months. All the citations need page numbers and could use quotes from those pages in the meantime, which would make all the verification a lot easier. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The article is misleading. There are multiple versions of Quran currently in use in West Africa, North Arfica, Sudan, Yemen and rest of the middle east. The article is narrow minded towards the Saudi Arabia version and does not even acknowledge the existence and does not do due justice to other Muslim communities in the world. https://www.answering-islam.org/Green/seven.htm

Misinformation section

I think it would be a good idea to include a 'misinformation' section, where it brings up certain popular pieces of misinformation which are usually taken from verses taken out of context, and explain the context and why the piece of misinformation is wrong. A good example would be the Qur'an 'encouraging violence against women' or 'having sex with children'. —Polynilium (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this is rather about interpretation than about the Quran itself. Interpretations of the Quran can be listed in the specific article (like "tafsir") or articles about such topics (like Islam and violence) can talk about how the Quran speaks about such subjects. Yet, it is too specific for a broader entry about the Quran itself. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

That is not exactly fair, as it is all interpretations. We should keep it as ambiguous as the Quran does have lots of verses that are not exactly direct, or put them on the criticism of Islam page. ZetaFive (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Interpretations of the Quran should be under the article Quranic hermeneutics. Misinterpretations do not seem to be featured in that article's contents (though I haven't read it fully), but that kind of thing might be more appropriately incorporated into Criticism of Islam and/or Criticism of the Quran (if misinterpretations are not adequately represented in those articles, you should add it or direct this concern to the appropriate Talk page -- I would not recommend starting a new article on misinterpretations, because that's basically a counterpoint article to criticisms, which is itself a counterpoint article to this main article; this kind of POV fork of a criticism section is something to generally be avoided if possible, so forking the fork should just be a no-no.). I agree that given all these sub and sister articles, general misinterpretations do not belong here. If the appropriate subarticles are not adequately referenced in this article now so that the reader knows where to go for such information, that's definitely worth changing. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Lack of formal language in the Criticism section

The Criticism section mentions "Despite calling itself a clear book, the Quranic language lacks clarity.". Firstly, the claim is not formal as it presents itself to be punctual / factual when it is in fact a claim. Alternative could be that "X argues that despite calling itself a clear book, the Quranic language lacks clarity" or such.

Additionally, when going to the references supporting this claim we find, that

1. The source "Leirvik, Oddbjørn (2010). Images of Jesus Christ in Islam: 2nd Edition (2 ed.). New York: Bloomsbury Academic. pp. 33–66. ISBN 978-1-4411-8160-2." does not have anything to do with the claim.

2. The source "Wansbrough, John (1977). Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation." is no longer avaibile and is therefore not verifiable.

I'm not saying remove the criticism - instead, it must be written in a less punctual / factual tone since it is a claim. Additionally, the sources must be updated. Awwabien (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

This article is biased and appears to be influenced directly or indirectly by Saudi Arabia Government

There are different pristine versions of Qurans that are in circulation in Western Saraha (like Morocco) and Algeria, Yemen and Sudan/Somalia that have more than 5000 differences among each other as well as from Saudi Arabia's Egyptian Quran. Those versions are believed uncontaminated by the Muslims in those countries as they were transmitted quite early during the initial years of the spread of Islam. This article only recognizes the Saudi Arabia's version canonized in Egypt as late as in the last century. The one sided view of Saudi Arabia's government should not be the view of Wikipedia. Gauddasa (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gauddasa Do you have some good sources (e.g., academic articles) for this? And specific sections of this article that you think are unbalanced and how they should be corrected? I must admit that in the discussion of the Birmingham manuscript that the Huffington Post is cited for Lumbard. I would expect more academic sources, ideally peer reviewed. Erp (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean to say, the article is biased in favor of this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_edition Now look here https://easyquranstore.com/product-category/readings-and-narrations/ You can see multiple narrations and readings. The readings differ because original written forms did not have diacritical marks required to distinguish certain consonants and different vowels. So while this is a well known general knowledge and scholars keep single book containing ten variations like this one https://easyquranstore.com/product-category/readings-and-narrations/ten-readings/ , I do not understand why this wikipedia article is ignorant about it. Yes, Quran sent by Allah is one, but these variations are fact of life and historically important. Let me clarify, the divine version of Quran is One, no doubt about it. The physical versions are many and collective assets of humanity. So the Wikipedia article is true when it says there is only one Quran but this idea should not be stubbornly extended to physical Quran. In the meanwhile I'll look for peer reviewed historical articles in European languages that shed light on difference between the various readings and narrations. Because of Saudi's promotion of their own canonized reading over last 50 years, I doubt if recent studies on these differences exist but older studies should definitely exist. Gauddasa (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauddasa (talk • contribs) 13:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Extreme skew in distribution of citations/references

In the citations (references) section only (about) 20 references are from period before year 2001 in contrast to about 120 references/citations from period between 2001 to 2022. In other words more than 80% of the material referenced was created in the last 20 years. This would have made sense for nanotechnology but it is not normal for a tradition that is more than 1400 year old. There are 0 references from (directly or translations of) books about the Quran written in the period between 800 CE to 1300 CE, considered as the Golden period of Islam. This huge skew in distribution towards very recently published references severely erodes the credibility of the entire article. In my previous talk above, I had suspected political involvement and this observation does no good to refute that. Gauddasa (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

That is a feature, not a bug. Outdated sources are of little to no use. Per Wikipedia policy, Age matters: "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years." ... "With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. However, newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt." Dimadick (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

In Islam the most authentic and foundational sources of information are the Quran and the Hadiths and the most authoritative interpretations are those written by early Islamic scholars (those before say 1500 CE). So Islamic religious scholars (Muftis and Aalims) consider older references more authoritative while the modern scholars in non-Islamic university settings would prefer recent scholarship. I believe Wikipedia should represent both academic approaches as they differ strikingly, but it is ok, this will not happen unless the Muftis and Aalims participate in contributing to the Wikipedia articles themselves. Thanks for the reply. Gauddasa (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Transliteration

Could someone please add this file, Qur'an transliteration, to External links or other appropriate place in the article. This DMG transliteration is very useful. Thanks. 5.43.66.10 (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, done. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Compilation and preservation

The article states that "the present form of the Quran text is accepted by Muslim scholars to be the original version compiled by Abu Bakr". Is this also the view of academic scholars? If yes, it should be mentioned. If not, it should be mentioned. Moreover, in my reading, the section fails to mention changes made within the first 20 years after Muhammad’s death. Islamic scholar Abu Dawud al-Sijistani writes in Kitab al-Masahif:

"Many (of the passages) of the Quran that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama… but they were not known (by those who) survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman (by that time) collected the Quran, nor were they found with even one (person) after them".

In addition to that, I find this sentence out of place: "Thus, within 20 years of Muhammad's death, the Quran was committed to written form". It has already been pointed out as an anachronism. I suggest it be deleted entirely. What do you think?

Finally, I would like to address this paragraph:

"Although most variant readings of the text of the Quran have ceased to be transmitted, some still are. There has been no critical text produced on which a scholarly reconstruction of the Quranic text could be based. Historically, controversy over the Quran's content has rarely become an issue, although debates continue on the subject".

I won’t comment on the first sentence. However, the second one, I simply do not get what means: "There has been no critical text produced on which a scholarly reconstruction of the Quranic text could be based". Am I the only one who finds it ambiguous? In its current form, the third sentence strikes me as simply mistaken; an enormous part of Islamic history has been controversy over how the content of the Quranic scriptures should be interpreted. Disagreements that, just talking about Sunni Islam, have led to the split into the four main schools of thought: Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi’i and Hanbali. Apart from controversy over the interpretation of the text, I know several early Islamic scholars opposed the inclusion of Surah al-Faatihah as a part of the Quran, for instance Muhammad’s own companion Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud.--Marginataen (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The QREF (Quran reference) gadget does not work correctly

Someone changed the syntax for the Quran Reference 'qref' gadget so that all qref instances no longer work correctly. When anyone clicks on a Quran reference you will get the first line of the chapter. The syntax that works correctly is qref | x:y . Sadly, because editing of the Quran article has been shut down, no one can fix the qref instances here. If someone can give me permission to edit the article, I can fix the qref instances.

— Assignment last updated by QamarBurtuqali (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@QamarBurtuqali: But Template parameters are looking fine to me.Zsohl^(Talk) 08:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Zsohl : No, the qref gadget does not work correctly.

For example, click on "Quran 56:79" in the Quran article; it will display verse 56:1, not 56:79. QamarBurtuqali (talk) 11:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali

I have created qref template, and I know, all parameters are correct. It seems, your internet connection is slow when you are opening quran.com. You can also try clearing browser cookies and cache. Zsohl^(Talk) 13:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Zsohl : I can assure you that the qref gadget does NOT work correctly on my 2 year old

computer with Safari. On the other hand, the qref gadget DOES work correctly with Google Crome browser on my computer. Apparently, the qref template is quite sensitive. I tested syntax for qref in my sandbox. The syntax x:y for qref works perfectly in my 2 year old Safari browser and I tested this syntax on several other computers and worked perfectly. Did you change the qref template recently? QamarBurtuqali (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali

Do Muslims believe that the Quran is the only revelation to Muhammad?

Do Muslims believe that the Quran is the only revelation to Muhammad or is it that some Muslims claim that there were oral revelations outside the Quran similar to the Rabbinical Jews who that two Torahs were given at mount Sinai, one written and one oral? Thanks. 2A10:8012:17:CDC6:D4BE:6846:F946:C85A (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Muslims believe that Quran is the only revelation to Muhammad, besides Quran there are sayings of Muhammad other than the Quran that called "Hadith" that helps to expand the teachings of the Quran. Taseer007 (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Hadith Qudse are considered to be revelation to Muhammad, the verbatim word of Allah, and these particular "Qudsi" hadiths are given a special status between the Quran and normal hadith texts. QamarBurtuqali (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

General page layout

I think the content of a text should be considered before its social significance. NGC 628 (talk) 08:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Addition of a paragraph about Surah al-Ikhlas because it is the second most important surah of the Quran after al-Fatiha

I added this paragraph:

Surah Al-Ikhlāṣ is second in frequency of Qur'an recitation, for according to many early authorities, Muhammad said that Ikhlāṣ is equivalent to one-third of the whole Quran.

قُلۡ هُوَ ٱللَّهُ أَحَدٌ
ٱللَّهُ ٱلصَّمَدُ
لَمۡ یَلِدۡ وَلَمۡ یُولَدۡ
وَلَمۡ یَكُن لَّهُۥ كُفُوًا أَحَدُۢ‎

Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “He is God—One ˹and Indivisible˺;
God—the Sustainer ˹needed by all˺.
He has never had offspring, nor was He born.
And there is none comparable to Him.”

—Surah Al-Ikhlāṣ 112:1-4 —The Clear Quran English translation

Seyyed Hossein Nasr (2015) stated in his commentary of Surah al-Ikhlas: "This surah is second only to Surah al-Fatihah, in Muslim devotional life and ..." In addition, he writes: "According to many early authorities, the Prophet said that this surah is 'equivalent to one-third of the whole Quran', which is understood by some to mean that the message regarding the Oneness of God is one-third of the Quran's message." I summarized Nasr's two sentences and provided a citation with a number page.

User @Zsohl deleted the paragraph on 17 November 2023, only saying in the history page "Al-Ikhlāṣ is not require to mention." What does he mean???

I have reversed @Zsohl's deletion (17 November 2023). In my humble opinion, no qualified editor should oppose the addition of the above paragraph. If anyone opposes the paragraph, I invite discussion here in the Talk Page.

QamarBurtuqali (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali

I have removed it because it was overwhelming the article with too much information that is not needed. This paragraph should be on Surah Al-Ikhlāṣ page, which is already there, not under worship heading of Quran article.

Other sections of the Quran of choice are also read in daily prayers.

Above sentence is sufficient, as only Al Fatiha is mandatory in salah. So you don't need to mention any other surah. If this action is permitted then someone will mention any another short and frequency recited Surah.

These information should be on their specific article, not on this page. And before reverting my edit, you should have discussed this first. Zsohl^(Talk) 09:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It is important to present Surah Al-Ikhlas (in the section Quran/Significance in Islam/In worship)

because it is unique and very significant for two separate reasons:

1) Surah al-Ikhlas is second in frequency of recitation.

2) Muslims believe that Surah al-Ikhlas represents “one third of the Quran.”

The paragraph I have contributed (above) is constructive, written from a neutral point of view,

and non-controversial among scholars of Islam. The paragraph is brief and has due weight

within the 24-page wiki Quran article. Moreover, the paragraph has due weight within

the In worship section (because of the two reasons given above).

User @Zsohl has given us his personal opinion that my contribution is “not needed.”

WP:Ownership of content lists an example of odious Ownership Behavior

when “an editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it ‘unnecessary’.”

I urge @Zsohl to review WP: Editing Policy and WP:Ownership of content.

I disagree with @Zohl’s personal point of view, thoroughly,

and I am no longer willing to discuss the issue with @Zohl.

@Zohl can pursue WP: Dispute Resolution.

QamarBurtuqali (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali

This is not a dispute, it is still a discussion and this article is not owned. You have to be bold, but not reckless while updating the article. And I know Wiki policy. I never engage in edit wars and that's why I didn't revert your edit again. I will seek third party opinion and don't mind whether my opinion is accepted or rejected. Zsohl^(Talk) 10:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)