Talk:Quran/Archive 3

Request on quoting translations

Can I please urge editors to state which translation they are quoting verses from. Some of the translations (if they truly are that and not just loose paraphrases) seem to be inaccurate, misleading and incomplete (see my recent request on the Islam talk page). I tend to use the Yusuf A. Ali translation, but if any translation is used, then we need to make sure that the original meaning is not lost. Thanks. ---Mpatel (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Changing "According to secular scholars"

The last paragraph under the heading "According to secular scholars" talks about the Sana Manuscripts and link to a site that contradicts the very contents of the paragraph. The paragraph says that Dr.Puin's findings matched the reports by Islamic scholars on variations found in the Qurans held by Abdallah Ibn Masud, Ubay Ibn Ka'b, and Ali. In the previous section, it also states that these changes differed mostly (citation for other accounts of differences in word changes are needed in such a sensitive subject) only in orthographical and lexical variants, and that these three are recorded as having accepted the Uthmanic version. So a link to a site which states that Dr. Puin's findings contained abberations from the Quranic text which worried Muslims is in complete contradiction to the paragraph which states the complete opposite.

I will remove the link and rephrase the paragraph.

Please DON'T remove the link. It's information. Zora 20:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, the sentences that hold a possibility clause, like "mostly" needs to be revised to hold a defenitive clause because this renders the article prone to interpretations. If this article is to be cited as a knowledge source, then it should contain known facts. If there are considerable variations reported by scholars in the copies once held by Abdallah Ibn Masud, Ubay Ibn Ka'b, and Ali reported in authentic Islamic sources or historical documents, then these citations should be referenced to justify the use of "mostly", otherwise I believe the sentence should read, variations consist "entirely" as opposed to "mostly". If anyone disagrees, then please state so. I will wait for your suggestions before making this change ---mistknight 14:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the section should be rephrased BUT -- just to put you in mind of the full complexity of all this -- Dr. Puin's work was extremely controversial, as there was no way of knowing in advance that his work would confirm earlier Muslim scholars. I think I have stored somewhere a link to a very worried and belligerent letter to an English-language Yemeni newspaper in which the writer says that the government never should have allowed the infidel scholar into the country and that since everyone knew that the Qur'an was perfect and unchanging, the very inquiry was blasphemous. Something like that. Indeed, I believe the scholars and the Yemeni government tried to keep the whole matter fairly quiet until the fragments were safely photographed and the scholars were out of the country.

So far as I can tell, there is a large gap between popular perceptions, in the Muslim world, and the actual complexity of Islamic scholarship. Frex, the statement that the version of the Qur'an used most widely today was established by scholars in Cairo in 1922 provoked howls of outrage from one Muslim editor here at Wikipedia, who insisted that the Qur'an was perfect and unchanging. He clearly didn't know anything about the long history of Quranic scholarship, traditions of recitation, etc.

If the section is confusing, it's confusing. The reader is the final test of whether or not something works. So let's work on it. Zora 20:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

But if the reference to Dr.Puin's publication in the article is authentic ("Observations on Early Qur'an Manuscripts in San'a", Puin, in The Qur'an as Text, ed. Wild, Brill, 1996), which states that the variations he found agreed with the orthographic and verse count changes that were recorded by some Muslim scholars between the Uthmanic version and the Companions' versions, it would be incorrect to link to a site which says his findings revealed significant changes which troubled the Muslim communitee, regardless of weather his presence in Sana' was welcomed or not, the site states a fact that contradicts a seemingly legitimate reference in this article. Furthermore, the site DOES NOT give references to Dr.Puin's publications, or explicitly say this knowledge was obtained directly from Dr.Puin, finally the site's contents are extremely questionable, if you observe the english articles, it would be very unlikely to consider a site with an article titled "QURAN: The source of hate, violence and Islamic terrorism" as a source of ANY legitimate information on the Quran, I believe my removal of the link was justified mistknight 21:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

It would have been much much better if we had some acedmic site rather then this one . Any ways , as was written here , the differences consisted almost entirely of orthographic and verse count variations . That isnt considered to be a difference at all . As diacritical marks were added b/c non arabs had diffficulty reading quran . In the present times , arabic, persian & urdu is still written without vovels , that is uncomprehendable to a non native , but native speakers can easily read it . The problem was that when Quran reached Persia , it was being read in 7 dialects , & was without dots/diacritical marks .AS a result , non natives started reading it very differently . Persians/non arabs needed to have these changes b/c persian/turkish/urdu have more sounds than arabic , and these sounds are only differentiated by dots .

The number of verses are still not fixed , there are official verses that end with ة , & there are verses that end with ط . Either you take ط as a comma , or a ful stop , it doesnt change the meaning .

So DR. Puin's work is actually confirming that Quran is perfect & unchanging ( Diactitical marks werent revealed , everybody knows that ) . How/why would it ( the differences ) trouble the Muslim communitee ....I have got nooo idea . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 22:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Changing "The temporal order of Quranic verses"

I don't yet have time to make this change, but I will reconstruct this section ASAP. This section clearly alludes that Muslims have come up with the concept of abrogation to solve the problem of seemingly contradicting verses, this is not the case. Not Muslims, but the Quran itself ordains the concept of abrogation. In Al-Baqara 2:106 "If We abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We will replace it by a better one or one similar. Did you not know that God has power over all things?" This clearly takes the abrogation to a whole new level, not Muslims, but the Quran itself has explicitly mentioned the presence of abrogated verses, whereas this section clearly gives an impression that Muslims have come up with the concept of abrogation to solve the problem of contradictory verses. As to which verses are abrogated, as far as I know, this is a controversial issue between Muslims. mistknight 22:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

That verse is referring to the abrogation of previous Scriptures (Bible, Torah). Some Muslims, however, extend it to mean verses from the Qur'an itself. 71.141.127.117 07:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That's correct as the preceding verse shows. A better translation for "verse" in the above quote would be "message".

Who declared the Yusuf Ali translation the "official" Wikipedia translation?

I just noticed that someone had added a notice to the top of the article saying that all quotes would come from the Yusuf Ali translation. Huh? Who decided this? I believe that most English-speaking academics who use translations prefer Arberry's. Zora 22:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

That was me. Actually, it was not meant to be dogmatic; just that I was sick and tired of people apparently 'quoting' from the Qur'an without giving a translation source. Now that people have noticed it, perhaps they will start quoting properly. Anyone can use any translation they want to, but there should be a reference of some sort. Ideally, a translation whose meaning is as close to the original Arabic would be ideal. ---Mpatel (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: "a translation whose meaning is as close to the original Arabic" -- ... And therein lies the problem. :)

There is no authoritative version beyond the Arabic, and (putting it bluntly) not only is not, cannot be such a version. This is not a normal document.

Consider, for instance that the verse (109:6) usually translated along the lines of "To you your religion, and to me mine" can also, and quite persuasively, be rendered, "To you your lifestyle, and to me mine." AND "To you your reckoning, and to me mine." AND "To you your Way, and to me mine."

Four, count 'em, four simultaneous meanings, each requiring a separate English rendering. Notice, though, that all the meanings are complementary, and all four resonate in the (perhaps hypothetical) "final" meaning. Now this problem is not an isolated incident, and not to be confused with a "crux" at 109:6; this multiple-complementary-meaning thing happens pervasively throughout the text. (Example: "ayat" doesn't just mean "verse of the Qur'an," but also "sign of God," "miracle," "evidence," and "communication.")

I'm all for people citing which version they're quoting from. Some translations are manifestly deficient. But as for a settled English translation that offers "meaning close to the original Arabic" -- good luck. One Arabic speaker told me that reading any English translation was like listening to Beethoven played on a bass drum. The more Arabic I learn, the more I remember that comparison. BrandonYusufToropov 17:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yup , I share the same "Beethoven on bass drum" feeling while reading translations . The feeling that made me study Arabic . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 18:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, please read carefully what I wrote. I said it was not meant to be dogmatic - just there to get people's attention to the fact that some people claim to be 'quoting' when they are in fact not (and if they are, to at least give a reference) . Like I also said, ideally, we should get "a translation whose meaning is as close to the original Arabic" - ok, I realise that is near impossible. I accept that. I'll remove the notice if that clears up any confusion. ---Mpatel (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed the Yusuf Ali tag at the top. I've given a few quotes from YA. ---Mpatel (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I also think Yusuf Ali is a not a bad choice to cite from since he is accepted by a large part of Muslims. In particular I think we should cite from Muslim translators unless there is a special reason for not doing so. 29 Jan 06

Conceiling References

Quranic commentaries by Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat is unprecedented in the history of Islam. However, even after several trials to update the article page I have not been sucessful to add the mentioned references, because the whoever the maintenor of this page, quickly removes those references. The references are fully conceiled effectively in order to prevent the view of the Holy Quran by the Ahmadiyya Mulsim Jamaat. The commentaries are exhaustive, the references include:

• Tafsir by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in Urdu (4 Volumes - Abridged)
• Tafsir-e-Kabir by Mirza Bashir Ahmad (5 Volumes)
• Tafsir (Haqaiq-ul-Furqan) by Noor Uddin Bhairvi in Urdu (4 Volumes - Abridged)

That seems unfair... why should they not be represented? --Striver 17:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, two of the refs are in Urdu.

--rutariq True. however, the other references are in arabic only as well. 17:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

We've pretty much let anybody link anything to this article, but it seems to me that we should start being a bit more selective. Otherwise we are going to have ten thousand links. I'd suggest that we start by linking only to classic tafsir, or articles about them. Zora 17:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

--rutariq Being selective is one thing, however, being impartial is another. The reference I request for addition in "THE" only extensive reference available across the Net. The commentary of the Quran is that very reason that differentiate this community Ahmadi from the other 72 sects of Islam. 17:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Then why not let them have non-urdu one? Having the classical ones are great, but modern ones have theit place to, dont you agree? Further, should'nt the view of everyone be represented in the translation and tafsir section? Sure, it will be a long list, but it is the Quran we are talking about, so it should not surprise anyone.

--Striver 17:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, put the English ref back. Clearly the links section needs some pruning -- that is, someone willing to click thru on every link and check the quality of the website. Right now, this article is in the same state that the Islam article was a year ago -- a plethora of links, mostly submitted by self-advertising groups. That isn't the way to produce a qualtiy list. Zora 18:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

--rutariq Again, someone eventually removed that reference to Tasir-e-Kabir by Mirza Bashir Ahmad (5 Volumes). Even other Urdu links such Maudoodi's commentary links are still there. In my opniion, this is clear demonstration of being biased. Since the link I had been trying to post several times, is the most extensive commentary work available on the Internet, I think putting any other link while excluding this one is an act of injustice. 16:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Some work on it whould'nt hurt :) --Striver 18:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

--rutariq Check out this index section with Quranic commentaries.

bad editing/format

This article needs a lot improving, it has way too many grammatical, formatting, layout,font and linking mistakes.

Usually, if they're minor fixes, it's easier to do them yourself than to tell someone else exactly what you think is wrong and have that person fix it to your standards. If you think the article needs a total rewrite, do it yourself and post it as a temp page before replacing the whole article. The other editors can't write to order, particularly when it isn't clear what mistakes you see. Zora 00:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

request for advice

People have singled out three different translations of the Qu'ran: A.J. Arberry; Abdallah Yusuf Ali; and Ahmed Ali. I have not yet read the Qu'ran and would like a reliable and well-regarded translation. I would appreciate any advice. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

My vote is for the Arberry. That's the one I have. Arberry has an ear for English poetry/prose; the other translations go "clunk". Zora 21:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I would vote for Pickthall although the others aren't far behind. Yusuf Ali is also good. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Shi'a view

http://al-islam.org/tahrif_quran/ --Striver 13:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

From what I've been reading in Momen, that is true now but it was not always true of the Shi'a. Zora 10:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

http://al-islam.org/al-tawhid/misconceptions/misconceptions.htm --Striver 08:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

What has this got to do with the Qu'ran? Zora 10:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Links

We've been letting folks add links as they please, and the links section is getting very long. The links should be pruned. What sort of principles should we use in deciding which links to keep and which to drop?

I'd like to suggest that we limit translations to four or five main translations into English, keep the tafsir section but ONLY link to classic tafsir (not recent ones), keep the academic links, prune the search services to two or three, ditto the audio files, and remove the rest. I don't like to see various Islamic groups using this article as a link farm to pull people to their interpretation of Islam. We ought to try to stay away from that, IMHO. Zora 08:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Some suggestions from me

• "Quran in Arabic" is now in translations section. Quran is in Arabic and how this link is here ?
• "Exposition of the Holy Qur'an" in translation section is not translation but commentary of verses.
• Link to www.aswatalislam.net in audio/video section can be made to one.
• "Quran in XML" is not appropriate in tafsir section.
• "Study The Quran in-depth" link in tafsir section can be moved to "Quranic studies" section.

Soft coder 10:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

All those seem like reasonable comments to me. Remove the Arabic, remove the Exposition, combine links, remove Quran in XML, and move the Study link (though we may decide to remove it later). Is there anyone who objects? Let's wait a day to be sure. Not everyone is in the same time zone. Zora 10:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Cant we just use a link to wikisource for the Qur'an itself? --Victim of signature fascism Please join SIIEG and teach them NPOV 18:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Spelling

Now I hope this isn't in the article, if it is, sorry for the waste of time. Does anyone know why it usually transcribed as Qur'an instead of Koran? I realise that this isn't a wikipedia thing it's just that "qu", in English anyway, nearly always makes a sound as if it were "kw" like quiet is pronounced like "kwiet". Did this transcription come from French or Spanish or something? It's just that Qu'ran seems to be so much more used I was wondering why it is like that. - RedHotHeat 18:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Arabic "Qaf" is best transcribed as Q, even though usage of the Q phonetic "space" is different than in English. ("K" letter in Arabic has a whole different sound, and does not appear in this word.) There is no "O" in Arabic. This is the more correct transliteration, but "Koran" is still common in book titles and headlines. BYT 18:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

length of Quran

can somebody tell me, how many syllables are there in the Quran, and how long a period is intended by "an eigth of a reading of the Quran" (viz., how long does it typically take to recite the entire Quran?) dab (ᛏ) 15:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It takes about 30-35 hours to recite the entire Qur'an, although the speed at which the qari' recites can make that time longer or shorter. It will tend to be on the higher end of that range if it is recited during tarawih prayer, which requires that the Sura Al-Fatiha be recited hundreds of times. joturner 21:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

thanks, that is interesting, maybe we should note it in the article. dab (ᛏ) 11:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I finally checked on that Kazan date

I found a website, with what seemed like impeccable references, dating the first typeset Qur'an to 1694! O woe is us, we have been propagating misinformation. I corrected that section and added a link to the site. I also moved the sentence re large and small paras earlier. It seemed slightly out of place where it was. I'm not sure it fits in the new location ... suggestions for rewrites? Zora 03:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This (under the background tab) makes the claim that the first printed Quran was in 1537/1538. Pepsidrinka 03:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that looks even better than the site I found. I'll add it, and change the info again. Thanks! Zora 03:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Qur'anic Zoology

Would somone please tell me why the second book of the Qur'an is called "The Cow." As somone who is just starting to study Islam, this is very confusing to me and no one seems to have any information on it.

I also heard somewhere that Muhammed hated dogs. Is this true? Speaking as a dog-hater myself i would like to know a little bit more on that topic as well.

Signed,

An anonymous person, trying to get a better understanding of Islam.

69.243.5.186

The name of the second chapter (Translation: "The Cow") comes from verses 67-71 which involves the slaughtering of a cow (or heifer, which is a young cow).

And remember Moses said to his people: "Allah commands that ye sacrifice a heifer." They said: "Makest thou a laughing-stock of us?" He said: "Allah save me from being an ignorant (fool)! (2:67, Yusuf Ali)

They said: "Beseech on our behalf Thy Lord to make plain to us what (heifer) it is!" He said; "He says: The heifer should be neither too old nor too young, but of middling age. Now do what ye are commanded!" (2:68, Yusuf Ali)

They said: "Beseech on our behalf Thy Lord to make plain to us Her colour." He said: "He says: A fawn-coloured heifer, pure and rich in tone, the admiration of beholders!" (2:69, Yusuf Ali)

They said: "Beseech on our behalf Thy Lord to make plain to us what she is: To us are all heifers alike: We wish indeed for guidance, if Allah wills." (2:70, Yusuf Ali)

He said: "He says: A heifer not trained to till the soil or water the fields; sound and without blemish." They said: "Now hast thou brought the truth." Then they offered her in sacrifice, but not with good-will. (2:71, Yusuf Ali)

In addition, the name of the chapter also relates to the Jewish practice at that time of worshipping cows, as mentioned in verse 51:

And remember We appointed forty nights for Moses, and in his absence ye took the calf (for worship), and ye did grievous wrong. (2:51, Yusuf Ali)

Of course, the second chapter talks about subjects that don't relate to the cow as well.

About the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) disliking dogs, I have never heard that. However, that does not mean it's not true. I do believe that many Muslims today don't like dogs because they are unclean. joturner 21:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. The reply was very helpful and explanatory,and you have answered a question that has been plaguing me ever since i the first time i picked up the Qur'an.

69.243.5.186

Regarding dogs, There are considerable difference of opinion in major 4 Madhabs(Schools of thought). To know how their views vary, see this link [1]--Soft coder^Talk 04:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Dead links

There are a lot of dead links in the References section. Someone should work on replacing them with updated URLs or URLs from archive.org (or just removing them). Kaldari 08:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Proselytization

We have instituted a strict "no proselytization" policy at the Islam article, but have failed to enforce one here. We haven't policed the links at ALL. I'm suggesting that instead of allowing every dang sect and sheikh to link to this article, that we limit links to academic ones. In ENGLISH. The link section is growing like cancer. If anyone knows of any link directories to Quranic studies, we could link to the directories instead of to the various sectarian sites. Zora 18:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm going to sound like a broken record here, but once again there is no need for instigation Zora. You said -

I'm suggesting that instead of allowing every dang sect and sheikh to link to this article, that we limit links to academic ones. In ENGLISH."

I won't go on and on about how you are typecasting people. Instead, I just want you to realize that that kind of comment is unacceptable on Wikipedia. joturner 20:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what "kind" of comment is unacceptable, or why objecting to links to translations in URDU is so wrong. Zora 22:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually am not sure which links you were referring to because it doesn't seem like any of your recent edits have related to the Related Links section. However, that was irrelevant in my objection to you typecasting editors as "sheikhs" and people from "every dang sect" (clearly that was not meant in a positive way). Again, I don't mean to go on and on about this, but you asked. See Wikipedia:Civility if you need a further explanation. You certainly could say what you need to say (including the "in ENGLISH" part) in a nicer manner. joturner 23:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I was not calling the editors "sheikhs". Sheesh! Sheikh seems to be a title awarded to any Muslim scholar/speaker/teacher by his devotees. There are thousands of them speaking and publishing. There's a problem in singling out a subset of them as notable enough to be featured as Qur'an commentators. (Of course, we haven't done any singling -- we've let anyone add any "sheikh" to the external links.) Rather than try to do quality control, which is inherently divisive, it would be better to limit links to academics and venerable and safely dead scholars, like Suyuti. As for saying "dang", that's an expression of frustration. Not obscene. It is bowdlerized. I reserve the right to say "dang" of anything, including the Buddha, the Virgin Mary, President Bush, and Francois Mitterand. Relax. Loosen up. Use slang and have fun! (That dang Zora) Zora 23:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree although want some clarification on it. I will try to list what I think should be allowed.

• DMOZ ([2]) -- so that people can find sites of lesser notability if they want.
• English translations: the big ones, Yusuf Ali, Shakir, Pickthal, etc. all the way down to even the Khalifa one and QXP I think. The "wiki" Qur'an type ones probably shouldn't be linked. Also, choose the pages that are easiest to browse and have the least non Qur'an material on them. Also make sure they are stable sites not likely to go down. If we have reliable sites there is no need for redundancy. Academic sites would be best... but, do we have any that easily lay the translations and are stable?
• Other translations: That Chinese PDF is really cool... but, this is the English wikipedia... I'm all for having a nice copy of it in Arabic linked somewhere, that's the original language... but Chinese is completely non-essential.
• Tafsir: I'm all for removing this section and putting it on tafsir... only the important ones or scholarly links.
• Minutiae: Christoph Luxenberg's research isn't that big of a deal in terms of the Qur'an that his book deserves two reviews here. Nor is the Atlantic academic.
• I think most all of the bottom links should be removed. None are very good or of enough academic note to be listed above the millions of sites out there.

I'm going to do some pruning and we'll see where that ends up. gren グレン ^? 20:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There, I pruned a lot. I left audio because I figured it could be interesting and I have no idea what is good or not and what should be pruned. The www.aswatalislam.net/ site might be enough. I don't think I removed any single translation, just sites that didn't add anything to the other sites. I removed the skeptical and pro Qur'an views. None were really notable and you can find a whole litany of them on the DMOZ. In this way we aren't favoring anything that's non-notable. I removed the academic section because it wasn't academics that represented the whole Qur'an. Luxenberg can go on his page or on Houri or wherever... but not on the main Qur'an page. I think that's about it. I suppose I could ask what do you think? (and, of course if a number of people disagree revert for discussion on this or whatnot. I was just 'being bold') gren グレン ^? 20:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a good cull to me. I should reorganize the references section so that all the refs are in the same format, and organized alphabetically by author. Zora 22:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Most of "civilized" World

Discussing the post-Muhammad conquests, the original article stated that the Muslims conquered most of "civilized" world.

This is encyclopedia. Merely putting quotation marks around it does not give an excuse to use an inaccurate and politically charged word. Neither was the word informative, as an uninformed reader would have no idea which territories the Muslims conquered and which ones they have not. Muslims conquered most of the Middle East, Northern Africa, some parts of Central Asia and Europe. They did not conquer the Byzantine Empire (not, at least, until Turks came along, which is outside the frame of time of the topic); Italian cities, Western Europe, or East Asia, which was arguably the center of civilization at the time.

Just the facts, please. Saltyseaweed 21:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That was the correct thing to do. joturner 21:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Housekeeping

I put the book list in order and I moved the pictures around a bit, so that they don't clump. I made some smaller; they're all the same width now, which seems "calmer" to me. We still have long long stretches of text with no pictures. Seems to me that more pictures would liven things up.

One final chore -- someone, back in the mists of time, linked all the Qur'an quotes to a site called Islam101. Seems to me that it suffices to give the quote and the translator's name -- the link isn't required, and constitutes advertising for that site. Zora 01:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we should have a link to a site, so if someone wants to read the verses preceding the quoted verse, or the verse after, they can do so without having to search real hard. What about using the USC-MSA site? Pepsidrinka 02:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I can't say that I like the MSA version of Islam, but their collection of sources is useful. I use their hadith search a lot. Zora 03:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Christoph Luxenberg

I wonder, why is the Christoph Luxenberg article not linked to on this page? In fact, there are there hardly any links to the article. I happen to have read his book, and even though the author has received quite some criticism himself, I think his proposed method can be a fruitful tool in critically analysing the Qur'an.

Perhaps a paragraph about textual criticism on both this page, and the page about textual criticism, could be included. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 09:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

We had the links, but someone -- either Pepsidrinka or Gren -- removed them. I wasn't completely comfortable with that, but decided not to make a fuss. They were a spotty lot, since a great many of the academic journals aren't available online, or are viewable only if you pay lotsa $$$ for a subscription. But putting his book in the list of further reading seems like a good idea. In fact, that list hasn't really been vetted. There are some dubious books there. Zora 11:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Having just looked through the article history, in my defense, it was not me. Pepsidrinka 14:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected! Or rather, I lie in the dust, corrected :) Zora 20:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

can someone tell what a person is called when they can recite the whole Qur'an of by heart thanks, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.184.47 (talk • contribs) .

They are called a Hafiz. I answered this on your talk page too. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

AE's revert

AE, I don't care how long ago the changes were made. Articles that get lots of vandalism can drift without anyone realizing it. If all you look at is the latest diffs, you miss things. Should we read the whole article each time? There's not time in the day to do that with frequently vandalized/changed articles.

Someone had added clunky, pointless prose at various points, removed some critical material, and in places added pro-Muslim arguments in the middle of academic/critical material. I removed all that, and I didn't expect it to be controversial. A blanket revert, based on "these changes have been there for a while, so you can't change them", is inappropriate. Zora 23:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I saw what they had added to the criticism and I removed that; see the difference between my version and yours. I was careful to remove that information first. About your revert however, information like Also, scholars and academics point out that English translation requires large changes in the wording in order to maintain the specific meaning and explanation. is important because it shows how the meaning can change between language versions. But I will clean that up so it isn't redundant. Also you reverted to an older version and again added the picture that Quadell removed. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Why allow him to censor the picture? The votes have been running in favor of KEEP. There is certainly no consensus to remove. None of the opponents seem to have any effort to produce a comparable picture, which is the compromise everyone will accept.

As to restoring circumlocutous and clunky prose -- WHY? I think it would be sufficient to say that translation is inherently difficult and link to the translation article, which covers the subject nicely. No need to repeat the substance of that article here. Zora 23:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Zora we need atleast one or two sentences here about translation differences. I didn't restore them I moved them into their own paragraph so it doesn't become redundant. About the picture as Quadell is the photographer, I think he can remove it. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I will submit to the fact that the removal of the picture is quite surprising. We had a sufficient number of votes in favor of removing the picture, especially at the end, so I think the removal isn't too far from public opinion. And this is not exactly censorship. As Quadell stated, he's not removing the picture for censorship but because he does not want one of his pictures to be the subject of controversy. I doubt he has a problem with the picture himself; it seems as though he just wants the dispute over it to end and be forgotten. joturner 23:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Joturner, your side is LOSING, so all of sudden the losing side is "public opinion"? There are more votes to keep, but the losing side has gotten "sufficient" votes? And it's not "exactly" censorship, even though you want to remove it because it shows a woman in a sleeveless top and shorts? Look, we've already agreed to replace the picture if you can get one that's PD or under a Creative Commons licence. Why aren't you working on THAT? Zora 04:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I love your over-emphasis. I said "isn't too far from public opinion," which acknowledges that removing the picture isn't the public opinion. But I don't think keeping it is either. About finding a new picture, it's not as easy as it sounds. When I thought this particular folio was still in Washington, DC, I offered to go take another picture. Obviously I, and many others, have made an effort to find another picture. But for something as rare as this, it is no surprise a suitable replacement cannot be found. Another thing Zora, don't rewrite history. I did not remove the picture. a.n.o.n.y.m didn't remove the picture either. The photographer did. I never said I wanted the picture to be removed from the article because the woman was sleeveless. Ever. I'm starting to sound like a broken record, Zora, but I need to keep repeating myself because you keep rubbing this censorship thing in the faces of those who want to remove the picture for other reasons. That, to me, seems like an inability to come up with a decent argument.

Lastly, I would like to reiterate that Wikipedia is not a democracy. You can say that if were for the picture, I would be saying differently, but the fact of the matter is that although we don't have to honor the photographer's wishes, it certainly would be an honorable thing to do, especially because many people agree with him. joturner 06:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I reworked the translation section slightly. I think a para LATER in that section is now extraneous and could be removed -- just spaced out and didn't do it. I trust that the revised version will be acceptable to the Muslim editors, as it stresses the difficulty of translation and points to the practice of Jewish and Christian scholars. Zora 04:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"We had a sufficient number of votes in favor of removing the picture." Uh...how so? Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but this is not a blanket warrant to disregard the will of the majority and impose your own viewpoint when your opinion is in the minority. The "keep" majority has been very fair in offering to remove the picture as soon as a suitable replacement is found...if no comparable picture exists, then this enormous, exquisitely drawn folio is even more exceptional than I had realized. But I suspect you will be able to find something. Babajobu 07:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)