Talk:Quran/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Length

This article is way too long. It loads forever in dialup. Somehow it should be condensed with links to larger articles

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.26.76.181 (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism And The Qur'an

Are there Wikipeida articles on criticism and the Qur'an? I see we have serveral on the Bible and criticism. If there are not some should be written by those who study the Qur'an as not a religious document but a book. If there are Wikipedia articles better links should be marked in the articl

The author of the first section on the Qur'an makes the statement that "The present form of the Qur’an is regarded as Muhammad's own words by academic scholars, and the search for significant variants in Western academia has been unsuccessful.[9][10]" Such a statement is highly unfounded and various books scholars do contest it. This articels is simply a sampler: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199901/koran and contains the views of various scholars from both inside and outside of Islam and from various backgrounds on the textual and literary integrity of the Qur'an. I would greatly appreciate if simply a sentence could be added in to this page saying something to the extent of "some scholars are now beginning to doubt this and are siting finds in a Yemeni mosque in 1972" and then a link to this article to. At points, this page seems a little too "fundamentalist-friendly." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.9.220 (talk) 05:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Relationship with other literature

The Torah and the Bible

The Qur'ān speaks well of the relationship it has with former books (the Torah and the Gospel) and attributes their similarities to their unique origin and saying all of them have been revealed by the one God. in 2:285 for Taurah. ]], According to the Qur'ān^{[Quran 3:3] Yusuf Ali}, {{cquote|It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step) , steps by steps in arabic text of verse,

As the article name is Qura'n then at least references of Quranic verses must be as per claim. But here the verses are not reflecting the claims so these references must be omitted to avoid misguidance.

This artcle looks like information about Qura'n and not as per text of Qura'n. thanks

Please refer to our content policies WP:V and WP:OR, which explain that material should be sourced to secondary reliable sources, such as scholarly explanation or commentary. Citing primary sources (i.e. the Qur'an) to make one's own assertions is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and constitutes original research. Hope that helps... ITAQALLAH 22:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Farrukh, please slow down. You are making a lot of edits and inserting tags which you don't seem to know how to use properly. You're also making a bit of a mess of the talk page by copy-pasting large portions from the article. Please explain to me the exact points you want to make, and then I can try my best to insert them in a coherent manner with appropriate sourcing. That will help us move things forward. Thanks. ITAQALLAH 21:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I just want to have the correct Qur'ani ayats references in support of claims. If the ayat doesnot have that claim please remove that reference..like 23 years are not in 17:106, the pages i have provided to you, had only error as per you in one line but u removed all. Farrukh38 (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This is my very first Wikipedia EDIT ever, so bare with. Concerning the comment "...However, many Jews and Christians[who?] believe that the historical biblical archaeological record refutes this assertion, because the Dead Sea Scrolls (the Tanakh and other Jewish writings which predate the origin of the Qur’an) have been fully translated,[93] validating the authenticity of the Greek Septuagint.[94]..." This MIGHT be true IF one is referring only to the Torah (i.e., earliest and most reliable) portion of the Greek Septuagint. It's my understanding that Isaiah, particularly, in the LXX is problematic. For instance, I believe that the entire Hebrew manuscript tradition shows so support for the Septuagint's rendering of "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin."Emerald twilites (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have reliable notable and verifiable sources in this regard then some of this information can probably be added to the article. Peter Deer (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"...However, many Jews and Christians[who?] believe that the historical biblical archaeological record refutes this assertion, because the Dead Sea Scrolls (the Tanakh and other Jewish writings which predate the origin of the Qur’an) have been fully translated,[93] validating the authenticity of the Greek Septuagint.[94]..."

This comment seems out of place in this article as it fails to make the refutation that it claims.

I would follow it with:

Countering this claim, modern scholarship has come to the conclusion that the OT books were rewritten and compiled over a period which is not precisely known but extends roughly from the 13th to 1st Centuries B.C. (C.H Dodd, The Bible Today, Cambridge University Press, 1952, p.33). The Qur'anic assertion of textual corruption is actually confirmed by the 'historical biblical archeological record' which reveals that 'for Qumran, [site of the Dead Sea Scrolls] and evidently for the rest of Judaism as well, there was not yet a single authorative text' (E. Wurthwein, The Text of the Old Testament, trans Grand Rapids, 1995, p.14 - bracketed explanation added]. Furthermore, the Dead Sea Scrolls containing OT material are held by Western scholars to go back no further than the 2nd Century B.C. (Wuthwein. p. 31-2) Therefore, from the Islamic point of view, this gap of many hundreds of years between the oldest extant text of the OT and the time that it was purported to be written down by Moses, for instance, compromises its validity. It should also be born in mind that in the case of the Masoretic text 'There is clear evidence that no qualms were felt in altering the text when there appeared to be adequate doctrinal reasons.' (Wurthwein p. 17).

(If someone with editing priveleges sees this, please add it to the article on the Qur'an, as I will have to wait a little)

R N Harvey Ramon Harvey (talk) 11:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The Koran and the Bible against sexual mutilation

Though the Koran, God’s words to Mohammed, does not quote the word “khitan” (circumcision) once, it forbids excision and circumcision through verses 6: 115 and 16: 890 that exclude everything which does not appear in the book of Islam. Verse 10: 59 is still clearer:

“Did you see the gifts God granted you? You hold some lawful, others unlawful. Did God allow you this?” (10: 59)

Abounding in affirmations of the perfection of creation: 3: 6, 3: 190-91, 13: 8, 25: 2, 30: 30, 32: 7, 38: 27, 40: 64, 54: 49, 64: 3, 82: 6-8 and 95: 4:

“Lord, you did not create this in vain!” (3: 191)

“… no changes in the creation of God, here is religion in its rightfulness…” (30: 30),

the Holy Book seems to echo Paul, the apostle of non circumcision and an upholder, with Jesus and John the Baptist, of baptism by water:

“God put every member in the body as he wanted it.” (1 Corinthians, 12: 18)

The Koran also appears condemning the generalization of circumcision by Abraham as belonging to the old polytheist customs:

“When the Lord tested Abraham by certain words and he had accomplished them, God said: “I shall make you a guide for men.” Abraham said: “And my offspring?” The Lord said: “My alliance does not concern the unjust.” (2: 124)

“…Cursed be he (the devil) who said: “I shall take a certain part of your servants, I shall lead them astray, I shall make them empty promises, I shall order them to cut the ears of cattle and change God's creation.” Whoever takes Satan for master, rather than God, is obviously doomed to loss.” (4: 118-119)

At last, while mysteriously saying the contrary, the wording of verses 2: 136 and 3: 84 seems to put apart Jesus and Moses, both opponents to circumcision:

“Say, “We believe in God, in what was disclosed to us, in what was disclosed to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, the (twelve) tribes; in what was imparted to Moses, Jesus, all the prophets by their Lord. We make no distinction between them and to God we are submitted.” (2:136)

Sura 17 seems to enlighten this mystery through privileging “certain” prophets:

“We gave certain prophets a preference over others...” (17: 55)

Now that we know that the 2nd commandment condemns sexual mutilation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ten_Commandments#Discovery_of_a_trimillenial_falsification), it seems that the Koran prefers Moses and Jesus for their rejection of sexual amputation but that, because of the fate made to his two great predecessors by the supporters of circumcision, Mohammed did not want to forbid it straight out. However, the fact that, like Jesus but unlike Moses, Mohammed ignored what a foreskin is:

“No one has ever seen my foreskin.” (Haddith),

probably has a lot to do in this decision.

reference: Pr. Sami Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh. Shangri-La publications ; 2001.

Sigismond (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 11:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

about for qur'an i ayats references.

salamunalaik, thank you very much for your reply, i posted so much things with references on Qur'an talk page please read those also and reply. Regarding your talk on farrukh talk page, would like to request you please remove the references of Qur'an verses placed for few claims like, 17;106 doesnot have 23 years of revelation period. 10:37 is not saying that Qur'an has different names, but in it the Qur'an is reading of AL-kitab that means the reading of AL-kitab is Qur'an, the rest of nanes are also attributes of AL-kitab and not names of Qur'an as per text of Qur'an. you have quoted translation of abdullah yousuf ali in which few words (step by step) are written which does not exists in the arabic text of Qur'an , even the shkir translation also not have used these extra words. As the topic is Qura'n so the references quoted os qur'an must be used for correct claims. i just request you to follow please wikipedea policy to tell the truth about Qur'an .

Please read my all points on talk page and donot revert please specially correcting the qur'an references.

thanks--Farrukh38 (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Farrukh, please give me some time to look through all of your concerns. Please also realise that there may be multiple citations for one sentence, so it might not necessarily be the Qur'an being used to verify one of the claims, it might be a secondary scholarly source instead. Thanks. ITAQALLAH 23:08, 8 March 2008

(UTC)

ITAqALLAH, please just think are you going to introduce "Qur'an to people or writing "thought of people about Qur'an" suitable title as per stuff of article, "About Qur'an" but for Qur'an at least the text of Qur'an must not verify the claim? thanks--Farrukh38 (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Qur'anic quote needed in the History of the Qur'an section, The Prophet's era paragraph about Muhammad's illiteracy I have found two references:

Surah 7. 157: Those who follow the Apostle, the unlettered Prophet [an-nabiyy al-'ummiyy] whome they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures),- In the Law and the Gospel [...] 158: Say: "O men! I am sent unto you all, as the Apostle of God, to Whom belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth : there is no god but He : it is He that giveth both life and death. So believe in God and His Apostle, the unlettered Prophet, who believeth in God and His Words : follow him that (so) ye may be guided."

Surah 52. 2: It is He Who has sent amongst the Unlettered an apostle from among themselves, to rehearse to them His Signs, to sanctify them, and to instruct them in Scripture and Wisdom,- although they had been, before, in manifest error. [Yusuf Ali's]

By the way, as for the controversy about umiyy meaning unleterred or gentile, Yusuf Ali's tafseer suggests it has to be understood in both ways: he writes about s.52-v.2: "The Unlettered: as applied to a people, it refers to the Arabs, in comparison with the People of the Book, who had a longer tradition of learning but whose failure is referred to in verse 5 below. As applied to individuals, it means that God's Revelation if for the benefit of all men, whether they have worldly learning or not."

As I am not familiar with editing Wiki articles I prefer let you all get the citation in order. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh and this too, there's a spelling mistake in the Recitation paragraph, line 4: 'suar' instead of 'sura' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I have found the needed citation for 'Ummi' in section ===The Prophet Era===. It's 7:157. You may add this link http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/007.qmt.html#007.157 Piala (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and it. Be WP:Bold Lihaas (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

please place the correct translation

please use shakir translation to avoid extra words like (step by step) as under.. you are trying to tell people about Qur'an or proving people concepts about Qur'an? please think about your article and better reword if you can to tell people about qur'an but as per text of qur'an and not as per people undersanding,,, torah section texts were authentic divine revelations given to prophets. According to the Qur'ān[Qur'an 3:3] Yusuf Ali,

“ It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong). --Farrukh38 (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ayats not proving claims must be removed, or title of Qur'an must be changed.

Autobiographi of people should also be use for Quran too because claim must be seen in the referenced ayat of Qur'an other wise must be removed those ayats used for claims which do not proving those claims.wikipedea is not the place where people thought are to be written but truth. wikipedea also says to verify that it means if some body has done a mistake that should not be repeated here in wikipedea. As 17:106 does not have " 23 years" and Quran is a name of AL-kitab as reading and not Quran has many names Please change the name of article from Qur'an to Qur'an as per people and not as per text of Qur'an.

thanks--Farrukh38 (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Qur'an article looks like qur'an as per people understanding.

as per wikipedea verifiablity claim must be verified with reference. claim 23 years Ref 17:106 text of 17:106 وقرانا فرقناه لتقراه على الناس على مكث ونزلناه تنزيلا no word for 23 years.

(Torah), word taorah is written but not that torah is a book of Allah revealed previi am fighting up to my levelously.

‏3:3 نزل عليك الكتاب بالحق مصدقا لما بين يديه وانزل التوراة والانجيل here no step by step is written in arabic

best tafseer brig allah not tafseer by Mohammad in 2:151 ولاياتونك بمثل الا جئناك بالحق واحسن تفسيرا

---

Transliteration Wala ya/toonaka bimathalin illa ji/naka bialhaqqi waahsana tafseeran Literal And they do not come to you with an example except We came to you with the truth and (a) better explanation/interpretation .

---

Yusuf Ali And no question do they bring to thee but We reveal to thee the truth and the best explanation (thereof). Pickthal And they bring thee no similitude but We bring thee the Truth (as against it), and better (than their similitude) as argument. Arberry They bring not to thee any similitude but that We bring thee the truth, and better in exposition. Shakir And they shall not bring to you any argument, but We have brought to you (one) with truth and best in

thats why please improve Qur'an as per text of Qur'an and not as per people understanding in the name of research. thanks Farrukh38 (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

wrong references of verses of Qur'an should be removed to improve this article

Wrong references of verses of Quran which do not have the claims like 17:106 doesnot have 23 years in the arabic text of Qur'an. Quran is in arabic and not in eglish translations. please avoide to write in the name of Qur'an people openions if necessary then have to be written down as per people and not as per Qur'an plz. you have not considered the talk page of Qur'an too.

did not consider the discussion on talk page. Farrukh38 (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Spelling

Unresolved

I've gone through the artIcle and standardised all spellings to Qur'an as per WP:AMOS. I've left the external links alone as I think it may be better to use the actual spelling in the webpage concerned. I suppose the same would apply to quotes in the main text. Comments appreciated. Thanks. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Very good:) I believe this is the correct spelling. Imad marie (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have used the actual spelling for the Qur'an in the Translations section (Further reading) in the refs. Will try to do the rest once I find the energy! MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I think this is a mistake. The WP:AMOS actually says, "For the purposes of this convention, an Arabic word is a name or phrase that is most commonly originally rendered in the Arabic alphabet, and that in English is not usually translated into a common English word." In English, the word for the Muslim holy book is "Koran", and has been for hundreds of years. I also note that in this page there are at least five variations on "Qur'an" used by commentators. It would remove all ambiguity to simply revert to the standard English word, "Koran" (especially as this is an English language article).Nickpullar (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the comment. I think that Koran used to be the standard spelling, but now it is Qur'an. Google yields more for Quran (13m) than Koran (10.3m) (albeit Koran more as compared to Qur'an - 4.7m). Also, many books nowadays use Quran, Qur'an etc. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 09:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: A discussion about this has arised at Talk:Fitna (film)#Koran or Qur'an as well. - Face 12:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mpatel. I'm not really interested in what Google results say about this. The fact of the matter is that the English word for the Muslim holy book is "Koran". If there is a movement to replace an English word with an Arabic word, then that's an interesting topic for an academic treatise, but at present, almost all non-Mulism native English speakers would use the word "Koran", and not any of the species of "Qur'an". All references in this article should be changed to "Koran" and an explanatory note added about the different translitterations which some Mulisms prefer.Nickpullar (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that there has never been discussion about this, so I've posted a message at WikiProject Islam. - Face 12:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"Koran" is highly outdated. Modern academic and mainstream literature uses "Qur'an" predominantly (e.g. Brill's authoritative "Encyclopedia of the Qur'an", Britannica's entry entitled "Qur'an", the "Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World"'s entry also entitled "Qur'an", and so on). Mpatel's changes were spot on. ITAQALLAH 18:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Itaqallah. Yes, some books from Brill's use "Qur'an", but it is not consistant how this word is spelled, sometimes it is "Qur'an", sometimes "Quran" and sometimes "Qur'ān". I understand this relates to the difficulties of accurrately representing Arabic in English. BUT, lots of books from the same Brill Publishers use the word "Koran", eg: Imagining Creation (2007), Women, the Koran and International Human Rights Law (2007), Women and Demons (2003), and Sodom's Sin (2004). So it's just not true to say that there is some sort of settled consensus in academia on this (at least if we go by the source which you used to make your point that there was).
My major point, which has not been addressed, is that native non-Muslim English speakers will use the word "Koran" to refer to the Muslim holy book. In the English Wikipedia, if an English word exists, we should use those English words to describe things. Almost every person who will read Wikipedia does not speak Arabic, but they will all speak some level of English. To use a foreign word when there is an English word available is just perverse. I recommend, per WP:AMOS that the English word "Koran" be used instead of the Arabic translitteration "Qur'an", the spelling of which is not even agreed upon by all Arabic speakers. Nickpullar (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, spellings do indeed vary. Some use Quran, Qur'an, Kur`an, and so on. I don't agree with your attribution to native English speakers (being Muslim or not actually shouldn't matter here). Many do indeed use Qur'an -with or without apostrophes and macrons- especially the academic community, as I've shown above (hence dismissing the notion it's simply a "Muslim preference"). With regards to Brill, I'm primarily referring to those specialist texts written on the Qur'an by experts in the field, like the one mentioned. But I think it's a moot point given its broad general usage in academia.

On that basis, I'd say that Qur'an/Quran etc. is a popular transcription nowadays, perhaps even moreso than "Koran" (which one associates more with the older texts). Whatever the case, AMOS does say that if there's no established primary transcription, which is the case here given the several popular variants, then the standard transliteration should be used (in this instance: Qur'an). It also gives a good pertinent example "If there is no primary transcription, a standard transliteration is used... ...There is no single most-popular transcription for the name of the Prophet of Islam. "Mohammed", "Mohammad", "Muhammad", and "Mohamed" are all commonly used. The standard transliteration is Muhammad."

Furthermore, community consensus is to use Qur'an as this has persisted as the preferred rendition, including in featured articles like Islam, Mosque, Battle of Badr, and so on. So IMO the best thing to do would be to stick to using Qur'an. ITAQALLAH 23:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"To use a foreign word when there is an English word available is just perverse." - erm.. they are both 'foreign words'. The only difference is in how they've been transliterated. ITAQALLAH 23:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

(reset) The fact of the matter is there isn't an English word. Qur'an and Koran are both transliterations of the same Arabic word. Qur'an is regarded as being a more accurate transliteration and seems to be the preferred one (the only one used in my experience, I first came across Koran in Sam and Max Hit the Road). Liam Markham (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm confused. Check the sources online! "Koran" has been used in English since 1615 [Dictionary]. The other derivatives of this word in other European languages are all similar to "Koran", ie, in Hungarian the name of the Muslim holy book is Korán. I know that "Koran" and "Qur'an" are both translitterations from the Arabic, but one of these has been in continuous use by native English speakers for hundreds of years, and the other is new. In fact I go further and assert that "Koran" is not now a translitteration at all, but an actual word in its own right meaning "the Muslim holy book". I accept that "Qur'an" is becoming more widely used, especially among Muslims and academics, but my point is that the vast majority of native English speakers, will type in "Koran" rather than "Qur'an" when they are looking up this word. Perhaps Wikipedia could give some stats to us on how many people type "Koran" verses "Qur'an" in the search box. I'd be prepared to concede if in fact "Qur'an" was entered more often than "Koran", as this would prove me wrong. - Nickpullar (talk) 08:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The Dictionary link also tells us how to pronounce Koran; the spelling Koran in no way matches the pronunciation (but Qur'an does).You also say, ..."Qur'an" is becoming more widely used, especially among Muslims and academics, but my point is that the vast majority of native English speakers, will type in "Koran" rather than "Qur'an"...; what they type in is not too important (they could just be ignorant of the accepted spelling) and the fact that Qur'an is becoming more widely used suggests a more up to date and encyclopaedic usage be adopted. People have also commented on this point here. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 10:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This is pretty terrible. Now I'm being told how to pronounce a word in my own language. I pronounce it "Koran". I don't speak Arabic (and I have no intention of learning) so there is no reason for me (or anyone else for that matter) to have to pronounce any word the way another language does. There are lots of words in English from other languages, and as those words become part of English, they are *anglicised*. There seems to be some sort of Arabic language supremacy going on here, and that's what I object to. No-one actually argues against the point I've made about common usage. You all just tell me that I'm wrong. Well I'm not wrong! I know how to speak and write in my own language, thank you all very much! I do not accept Arabic supremacy. The word in English is "Koran". There should be an explanation that "Qur'an" is growing in popularity, and as time goes by the usage of the word might change, but now, it's not "Qur'an". Can I request an arbitration on this? At the very least I'd like to know what people actually type into the search box. Who knows how to ask for this information? Nickpullar (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just done a search on Amazon, and for the modern books, published since 2000, "Koran" is used about half the time. The other half the time is a variant of "Qur'an": "Qu'ran", "Quran" or "Qu'ran". An a great majority of the earlier books use "Koran". So, this supports my points. 1) There is no settled agreement about how to spell "Qur'an", but there is settled agreement over "Koran". 2) That "Qur'an" (and it's variants) represents a recent innovation. Don't just tell me I'm wrong. Please tell me how I'm making a mistake. I really can't even see that you guys even have a case! Nickpullar (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This comparison between Koran and Qur'an/variants is a bit of a red herring. Who cares whether or not people include the apostrophes and macrons? The basic spelling is the same. As per WP:AMOS, if there is no universally accepted primary transcription (and I'm sure you can at least accept this), then we defer to the standard transliteration - which is Qur'an. All this talk about Arabic supremacy and which word is more "English" is nonsense, with all due respect. ITAQALLAH 17:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Now it's a "red herring". No, it's simple. My contention is that, for native English speakers, the word is spelled "Koran", not any of the other variants. I've even proposed a test which I acknowledge before it's commenced would be difinitive. As to which word is more "English", that is the very point! If it doesn't matter which word is more commonly used by English speakers, why not change to "Koran"? - Oh, it *does* matter :) The standard word (now no longer a translitteration) is "Koran". And surely it does matter about macrons and apostrophes - I would even be happier with "Quran", which at least follows the norms governing English punctuation marks (we don't use diacritical marks of any sort in English - they just get dropped). - Nickpullar (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think your contention isn't well-founded, and I've already provided some authoritative mainstream English language sources which contradict your claim that none of the other variants are used. What's the point in inventing tests to determine which word to use, when AMOS is quite clear that we should be using the standard transcription (i.e. Qur'an) in the absence of a universally accepted primary transcription? ITAQALLAH 17:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There's clearly some dispute (here on WP) about which spelling is correct. But the MoS makes it very clear as per Itaqallah's last comment above. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

But it's just not the case. You guys haven't actually argued for your position. You're just asserting that "Qur'an" is better. The AMOS claerly states that when an English word is available, that English word should be used. My claim (which I'd be happy for you to address) is that the word "Koran" is an English word which means "the book holy to Muslims". On that basis, this article should default to "Koran". I agree with you that this is changing, and that there are more references (especially among academics in Islamic studies that "Qur'an" should be used, but this is a fact to be discussed in the article. I think that it's just hijacking the English language to replace a word with a foreign word without so much as a "by your leave". I do not understand Itaqallah's point about providing references to "contradict [my] claim that none of the other variants are used". I'm not sure where I make that claim. Rather, I claim that even Muslims (or academics in Islamic Studies) cannot agree on which is the correct translitteration ("Quran", "Qur'an", "Qu'ran", "Qurān", "Qur'ān"...). In the face of this disagreement it seems more sensible to use a word about which there is no dispute, and which has been in continuous use in English for over 450 years.
This is what the AMOS actually says: "For the purposes of this convention, an Arabic word is a name or phrase that is most commonly originally rendered in the Arabic alphabet, and that in English is not usually translated into a common English word." You have to show that "Koran" is NOT an English word now.

Nick, I've already said the presence/absence of macrons or apostrophes is a moot point, the general spelling is the same. Presenting it as some sort of "dispute" is just wrong. There is no accepted primary transcription, this discussion alone proves that. The AMOS says to use the standard transliteration, Qur'an, in such cases. I provided to you the example of Muhammad (which is often alternatively written as Mohammed, Mahomet, etc.), and what AMOS says about that. This convoluted discussion about which word is "English" is becoming quite silly. Community consensus has been to use Qur'an, and I really don't see that changing. ITAQALLAH 18:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I'm English and have always been advised to use "Qur'an" rather than Koran throughout my school, university and working life. In fact "Koran" originated as one attempt at translating Qur'an, by George_Sale in 1734. Further List_of_translations_of_the_Qur%27an#English show that "Qur'an" has returned to favour and that "Alcoran" is the original. IdioC (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

---

I see this discussion is no longer active. So far, both here and at Talk:Fitna#Koran or Qur'an, 6 users (MP aka Mpatel, Imad marie, Itaqallah, Liam Markham aka Eyeball226, Hypnosadist, gren AKA Grenavitar) seem to be in favor of using the word Qur'an, while 2 users (Nickpullar, StaticGull) prefer the word Koran. I did not include the anon who stated that the goal of media and academics is the destruction of the West.
I think this is too little to justify a decision on such an important topic. If you have not yet stated an opinion on this matter, and you have one, please state it. Thank you, Face 20:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Three days without posts is hardly grounds for concluding that the debate has died out. Anyway, I wanted to weigh in my reflections that have not been discussed in the previous debate. The film Fitna itself contains a pivotal aspect that should have a central bearing on this issue. In it, statistics are presented showing the growth of the Muslim population of the Netherlands from the beginning of the 20th century through until our present decade. A figure which has risen from a few dozen to around one million people. This fact has several implications. It tells us that the Muslims aren't any longer "them" living "over there" in some other, exotic, far-away part of the world. Cultures are indeed blending, and Muslims and Arabs (or Arab-speakers) are now part of the English-speaking world which before they weren't. The world has shrunk, and traditions and what was no longer has the persuasive power they used to. Politicians, including those involved in the politics of linguistics, now have a different constituency to answer to when voicing their opinions and making decisions. The discussion above, in my view, clearly reflects this in the declining use of the traditional word Koran in favour of versions that try to encompass more of the originality, identity and spirit (or sense) of the term in the culture in which it originates. So. it's a matter of "cultural sensitivity" also. Of course, that also invokes the contentious debate of who shall decide what should be the future of this language/culture/nation. Should people who have only been here a few decades be given an equal voice on par with the native inhabitants with a historical, continuous affinity to those traditions? I believe we see elements of that debate in the above, although not expressly attributed. __meco (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The only way forward i would see with regard to the spelling of the Muslim holy book would be to go to the one reliable source of all things to do with the English Language that would be the Dictionary re-soundly approved to be the correct form of English (not sure which one that is but Oxford English Dictionary or similar) If it is spelt Koran then that must be the word used; Another way to set the standard would be to go to this same article in wikipedia France wikipedia German ECT...if the word used for The muslim holy book is in German/French then the word Koran(English version) should be used; if it is spelt Qu'ran or any version there of in the other language versions then it should be so on the English version for the uniformity of wikipedia.

Consensus in Western academia

The Qur’an in its actual form is generally considered by academic scholars to record the words spoken by Muhammad because the search for variants in Western academia has not yielded any differences of great significance and that historically controversy over the content of the Qur’an has never become a main point. [20][21] Therefore all Muslims, Sunni or Shia use the same Qur’an.

I am not happy with this passage. There are two problems straightaway:

1. What is "the Qur'an in its actual form"? This needs to be defined.
2. The last sentence does not follow on from the preceding sentence. The "therefore" is inappropriate. Also, are there not very small variants in the Qur'an? I believe that Egypt uses one by Asim of Kufa according to Hafs and Abu Bakr and then the rest of North Africa uses one by Nafi of Medina according to Warsh and Qualun. If this is right, this small varient should still be noted, or at least the last sentence should be deleted.

Aside from this, there are Western scholars who have suggested that the Qur'an has changed over time, or even that it was not written until several decades until after Mohammed had died. Such works include:

• M. Cook, Muhammad, Oxford, 1983.
• P. Crone, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam, Oxford, 1987.
• P. Crone and M. Hinds, God's Caliph, Cambridge, 1986.
• M. Cook and P. Crone, Hagarism: the Making of the Muslim World, Cambridge, 1977.
• J. Schacht, Law and Justice in The Cambridge History of Islam, Cambridge, 1970.
• J. Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, Oxford, 1977.

Should there not be some acknowledgement of these people in this article? To say "the search for variants in Western academia has not yielded any difference of great significance" is too strong. It should just say, "the majority of Western scholars believe that there have not been any significant changes since Islam was established". There is no total consensus on this in Western though; there seldom is on anything.

In the "Making Mus'haf" section, this passage is repeated except without the last sentence. It should be in one place or the other but not in both. Epa101 (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I do not see how M.W. Watt can be a good reference for this section at reference 20 when Watt also stated that the story of the Satanic Verses was quite probably true. As the Satanic Verses story suggests that the Qur'an has changed over time, such a belief would be inconsistent with the one that the Qur'an has not changed. Is Watt then a good reference here?

Cook and Crone have come under intense criticism from academic scholars for their views pertaining to Hagarism and the associated views about the Qur'an, as can be seen in the Hagarism article. Again Wansbrough's theory (which I think gave rise to Cook/Crone's theses) is also not generally accepted. Peters is also correct in his assertion that the search for pre-Uthmanic variants has not yeilded anything of significance, as that's what the Encyclopedia of Islam says too.

The Satanic Verses story says that Gabriel immediately informed Muhammad that the particular verses were not part of the Qur'an. Changing "over time" refers to change which diverges from the version accepted by Muhammad i.e. the time after his death up until the present day. While Watt may very well accept the authenticity of the story, it has no bearing on his acceptance that the Qur'an of Muhammad has been preserved up to today. ITAQALLAH 17:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

We need to recognize a fundamental problem that we will always have dealing with academic work. We as non-expert editors tend to pick up books willy-nilly and not notice directions in which the field is moving. Hagarism is 30 years old. Schacht's is 50. As a collective it's safe to say we're not up on the literature and that's a problem. Some of you might remember the controversy over the Liaquat Ali Khan article over at Hagarism. He berated her for not saying her work on Hagarism was wrong. I was lucky enough to discuss (obviously, not citeable source) and what she said to me we all need to realize when dealing with history--especially highly political history as this has become. She (paraphrased) said 'That's not how history is done. You don't say your past work was wrong because the study of history is a progression and you take the parts from past works that work and those trends continue in the literature.' We often take pieces out of older works which aren't necessarily widely accepted, even by the original authors--and I don't mean this just for Wansbrough, Cook, Crone, etc. I have no idea how we will solve this problem to write better articles other than becoming more educated or getting more qualified peer review.

Now, to your points. I think in light of what I said above you'll want to note her article from two years ago. Here's the relevant quote:

Most importantly, we can be reasonably sure that the Qur'an is a collection of utterances that he made in the belief that they had been revealed to him by God. The book may not preserve all the messages he claimed to have received, and he is not responsible for the arrangement in which we have them. They were collected after his death – how long after is controversial. But that he uttered all or most of them is difficult to doubt

I don't mean to use that to shut down your argument--I'm not fully sure what Rippin or Hawting or whomever else might thing. I doubt any of us are up on the Journal of Qur'anic Studies--my library doesn't even carry it. And I don't think she means the Qur'an is a direct collection of quotes nor does she shut down year variations in various things. But, the point is that there is a pretty direct connection between the prophets words and the book. That the idea that this came out of thin air is problematic. ...for what it's worth... gren グレン 20:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a stupid argument as muslim sources themselves say that over 200000 ayats were refused during the compilation of the quran for being made up on the spot. How was the quran compiled ? Nobody here seems to have looked it up. 100 years after the death of the prophet, in a time when people died on average during their twenties, they asked people what the prophet had said. They got over 200000 different responses, and as anyone can verify the book contains hardly 2000 of those. The age realities of the time means that none of the authors of the quran (those writing it down) have seen Muhammad alive. Only 2 of them had a father that had actually seen muhammad alive.

Not to be nit picking, but this page reads like a children's book. Can this please be corrected ? The statement that all muslims use the same qur'an is bullshit. Yes sunni and shi'a are (mostly, not 100%, but I'll agree 99,9%) using the same quran. However, there's also baha'i, ahmadi, and sufi islam, and all of those use alternative versions of the quran, some reject it entirely. Can this too be decently researched and corrected ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.242.233.40 (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A link to the Wikipedia article on this question (Origin and development of the Qur'an) might be useful: [[1]] Richardson mcphillips (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that anybody can subscribe to the idea that a book hasnt changed for this length of time. It is almost a dead cert that it has, one could possibly argue that even on the way down fromn the mountain mohammed would have changed the wording slightly as he was human. As in all things human error always plays apart and over such a long time period you would with out doubt get changes be it in the Bible/Tohra/Koran. If somebody says this is the exact wording because the book says it is the exact wording surly this is totaly absurd; I would ask that there must be Language/Text experts that could show this to be the norm------ You would have an impossible time convincing anyone who is part of the muslim faith of this but it stands to reason that the word of God or not the Koran would have changed and has (Please rember this is a sensitive topic but a non-biased view must be approched).(notice i am English and spelled it Koran)

Photo of worlds first Printed Copy

Link to photos

Let me know if I can include the photo of the Quran which was on display at the Venizia el Islam Exhibition, I will take my name and watermark off the photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arshadhabib (talk • contribs) 00:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Arshadhabib, we always love good images on Wikipedia (or, the commons) and there is plenty of room to add another image to this article provided you are willing to release it under a free license as according to Wikipedia:Image use policy. gren グレン 03:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

A licensed photograph of the first printed copy of the Qur'an would be a lovely and valued addition to the article, and your offer to contribute it is much appreciated. Peter Deer (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Scholars of Qur'an

Can someone here look at Scholars of Qur'an. The page is in dire need of context and the title is not really meaningful. It may actually be redundant with Qur'an-related pages I'm not aware of. Thanks, Pichpich (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Its not It's

A nit, true, but in the section titled "Inward Aspects of the Qur’an" the following line contains a grammatical error: "It's essential idea for Shia as well as Sufism that Qur’an has inward aspects too."

That's "its" no apostrophe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrydarc (talk • contribs) 00:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it.67.150.253.130 (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The fourth line (!) of this article has it's in place of its, and it is an error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.17.121 (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

The criticism section notes: "Some critics reject the Muslim belief regarding the divine origin of the Qur’an". I really do not see the point in this statement. All religious books (eg. Hesiod's Theogony, the Bhagavad Gita, the Book of Mormon, the Talmud, etc etc.) are considered of divine origin only to their devout followers; all others, critics and aficionados alike, can only judge them by their literary and historical merits! Rastapopoulos (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and to take from the thoughtful and detailed piece in Atlantic Monthly only that simplistic and second-hand statement is a shame. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I did the honors :) Rastapopoulos (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

When someone has time there is a lot that could be explained using the Atlantic Monthly article. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

In the future, please don't delete reliable sources if they are relevant and can be easily fixed. Thanks. - Merzbow (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

what you say is true but sentence say more than that they say that it has been concluded based on text analyse.Oren.tal (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert Spencer, the Catholic Encyclopedia, and the Jewish Encyclopedia are not reliable sources on the Islamic scriptures. The only way I see inclusion of latter two is, if we say "Jews criticize" or "Catholics criticize", as each of those groups are very notable and should be readily included.Bless sins (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The views from Judaism and Catholicism would be better in a section "Other religions' viewpoints of the Qur'an" or similar, rather than one headed "Criticism". It is nothing to do with academic criticism, when an academic presents a paper at a conference, problems with it are chewed over and then it is rewritten. The Jews and Catholics are not expecting the Qur'an to be rewritten on the basis of their views! Itsmejudith (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I'm not even sure why we're using sources like Robert Spencer and "mukto-mona.com". ITAQALLAH 19:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Guys, anyone who is either not religious or subscribes to a religious dogma other than Islam would not agree with the Muslim belief regarding the divine origin of the Qur’an; to say that "some critics reject" the divive inspiration of the texts of any religion is a vacuous content-free statement! You can rationally "criticize" a religion for its practices - track record, but not for being a different religion than the one you subscribe to. This is different from the non-religious or atheists who rationally criticize / reject the divinity of all religions / superstitions. Rastapopoulos (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the Atlantic piece. Maybe it can be summarized better, but there's nothing incorrect about it now, so no reason to delete. - Merzbow (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Granted, your wording is much better. But still ... how would you feel about a statement such as "Some scholars, such as John Doe, Jane Smith and Throatwobbler Mangrove, are skeptical of traditional accounts of the Bhagavad Gita on the discord between the senses and the intuition of cosmic order"? Rastapopoulos (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As a sidenote, the eventual aim should be to incorporate any relevant criticism into a more appropriate section (i.e. a "Content" section, or "Interpretations" section) - as criticism sections themselves are not advisable. ITAQALLAH 11:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. A "Legacy" section perhaps? Rastapopoulos (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

And what about Gabriel Sawma's Aramaic reading of the Qur'an theory? Is there a reason why it isn't mentionned here (like it being the view of a too tiny minority...)? There's already an article about it on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the comment "The Qur’an's teachings on matters of war and peace have become topics of heated discussion in recent years...", the following references from the Quran are relevant and should be added;

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html#008.038

8:38-39 tell the unbelievers... fight them until persecution is no more and the religion of Allah reigns supreme.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html#008.058

8.58-60 If you fear treachery from any of your allies, you can dissolve with them equally. allah does not love the treacherous... Muster against them whatever you are able of force and ropes of horses, so that you strike terror into the enemies of allah and your enemy, and others besides them whom you do not know by Allah does...

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/047.qmt.html#047.004

47:4 Therefore, when you meet the unbelievers smite their necks, then, when you have killed many of them, tie the bonds. Then, either free them by grace or ransom until war shall lay down its loads, in this way, it shall be. Had Allah willed, He would have been victorious over them; except that He might test you, the one by the means of others. As for those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will not let their works to go astray.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/047.qmt.html#047.020

47:20 The believers ask: 'Has a chapter been sent down?' But when a clear chapter is sent down and fighting is mentioned in it, you see those in whose hearts is sickness looking towards you as one who swoons at death.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/048.qmt.html#048.016

48:16 Say to the Arabs who lagged behind: 'You shall be called upon to fight a mighty nation, unless they embrace Islam. If you are obedient you shall receive a good wage from Allah. But, if you turn away, as you turned your backs before, He will punish you with a painful punishment.'

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/060.qmt.html#060.008

60.8 Allah does not forbid you to be kind and to act justly to those who have neither made war on your Religion nor expelled you from your homes. Allah loves the just.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/061.qmt.html#061.004

61.4 Allah loves those who fight in His Way lining up as if they were a stacked building.

Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Shiite sura?

I'm not very sure, but I vaguely reminded an Introduction to the Qur´an where it was written a sura, not admitted by Sunni majority, but only by the Shiites. Can anybody solve my doubt?. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.204.192.247 (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Shia and Sunni Muslims both agree that the Quran is complete and no changes have been made to this in now 1400 years. This includes changes, addition, omission etc. The doubt about 'some' about this relates to some fabricated hadith (traditions) that is to be found in both Shia and Sunni hadith collection. In Shi'ites Under Attack (to be found at the Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project). One shall remember that there is some extreme Shia and Sunni sect that hold some sura/aya are missing - these sect a minor sect around the world. --Imdkzmaa (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The authenticity of the Quran is quite unanimously agreed upon in the Muslim community. Peter Deer (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, very conveniently muslims think it's the last and final revalation of "Allah". Told you it was convenient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.200.162 (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm grateful for both of you for your kindness and scholarship. Bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.67.174.130 (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Links to Mecca, Medina etc.

In the Schools of recitation section, there are links to Mecca and Al-Madinah. The first links to Mecca the city, whereas the second links to the province Al-Madinah. Is this correct, or should both refer to the cities (Mecca, Medina), or both to the provinces (Makkah province, Al-Madinah) ? Or perhaps even the third possibility ? Thanks. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be Medina, al-Madinah is simply the efforts of someone trying to be be ultra-cool by pretending that Arabic words only exist in Arabic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.186.140.231 (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Writing and printing

Years ago I had added an information to "The oldest surviving Qur’an for which movable type was used was printed in Venice in 1537/1538" namely "– it has so many mistakes that no Muslim would buy it."

This was deleted because it was considered fanatical.

I suppose that the editors misunderstood my addition. It is not about the holy book, it is about the quality of type setting, not the aestetic quality, but about proper spelling. A written or printed copy of the qur'an must be flawless -- unlike a comment on the discussion page of wikipedia -- otherwise it should be corrected on the margin or distroyed. Since hardly a single line in the Venecian print is correct -- it's mainly the voweling that is wrong -- correction was impossible. Distruction mandatory.

Please restore this information. I can provide a picture, if it is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.130.54 (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the linguistic basis for using Q instead of K in "Quran"?

Why spell it as QURAN in English if it sounds the same if you spell it as KURAN? What is the basis for the letter Q? --KpoT (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

See item number 15 on this talk page. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, i found the explanation at http://ralphriver.blogspot.com/2005/05/quran-or-koran.html Hail the Holy Kwuran! --KpoT (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Lame 132.156.60.200 (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.156.60.200 (talk)

Miracles of the Qur'an

I noticed that there is only a little paragraph about miracles of Quran and even that little paragraph is very biased with this sentence "These claims originate directly from Islamic belief in its revealed nature, and are widely disputed by non-muslim scholars of Islamic history".calling "miracles", disputed claims.

Why There is not even a single example of these many many miracles. e.g. the site I gave had some of them. these miracles consist of following branches

• scientific
• historical
• predictions
• mathematical
• literary aspects

Books can be written from each branch. Please someone atleast include some of them and please refrain from biased anti-Islam edits. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.18.139 (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Mythology?

I was surprised to see this article now listed in Category:Islamic mythology; has the appropriateness of this problematic term to the Quran been discussed? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Levels of meaning - Tafsir

In the section "Levels of meaning - Tafsir", regarding the comment "Commentators erudite in Arabic explained the allusions, and perhaps most importantly, explained which Qur’anic verses had been revealed early in Muhammad's prophetic career, as being appropriate to the very earliest Muslim community, and which had been revealed later, canceling out or "abrogating" (nāsikh) the earlier text (mansukh)", the following references from the Quran are relevant and should be added;

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.106

2:106 None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that God hath power over all things?

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/016.qmt.html#016.101

16:101 When we substitute one revelation for another, - and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages), - they say, Thou art but a forger. But most of them know not.

Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This is interpretive, and requires a supplementary secondary source; especially as understanding of such verses usually vary between scholars. See WP:NOR. ITAQALLAH 22:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Qur’an as a religious text - criticism

In the section "Qur’an as a religious text", some mention should be made of the scholars who disagree that the Qur’an is "the book of divine guidance and direction for mankind and consider the text in its original Arabic to be the literal word of God, revealed to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel over a period of twenty-three years and view the Qur’an as God's final revelation to humanity" and their respective arguments.

[Criticism references have been moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Qur'an]

Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Levels of meaning - Ta'wil - Grammar issue?

In the section "Levels of meaning - Ta'wil" there appears to be a grammar issue. The comment "But he uses another verses and concludes those who are purified by God know the interpretation of the Qur’an to a certain extent" should possibly read "but he uses another verse and ..."

Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

external links

many of the links on here violate of WP:EL and WP:SEH. Which it seems has not been reviewed before addition of links. Further to consistency, seeting the bible page and talk one will not the redundant pages are not valuable, but instead advertising. i have left the links with the most language translations as it seems to fit most.

Also in regard to the "further readings" the guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Further_reading#Further_reading) state "Websites and online publications should be listed in the "External links" section." I have done this first and then gone to the part above about redundancy. All the sites linked to outside wikipedia and were translations. Wikipedia is "not a repository of links." Lihaas (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Numbers in Quran should be fixed with Veyselic Numbers.

Veyselic Numbers are Arabic Numbers, written from right to left. For example; In Veyselic Numbers, number ten is .I

mailto: VeyselPeru@hotmail.com http://www.VeyselicNumbers.com

Depending on Veyselic Numbers, there is a theory that "Should the numbers in Qur'an be fixed by Veyselic Numbers"

Is there a contradiction in Arabic Language, being a BiDirectional Language?...?

Languages such as Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, Hebrew, and Yiddish are referred to as bidirectional (or BiDi) because text is written from right to left, while embedded texts in 'Western' languages and numbers are written from left to right.

Now, can this be called a contradiction, or discrepancy? If so, why do we carry this contradiction into Holly Quran? Since there can't be any contradiction in Holy Quran, can't we fix all the numbers in Quran pages with Veyselic Numbers?

Note: Veyselic Numbers are Arabic Numbers, written from right to left. For example; In Veyselic Numbers, number ten is .I

Quran Nisa-82: Do they not consider the Quran (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.

Now, let me go further: How many is Allah? 1

Then so that Allah is 1, what number do you assign to creatures? -1,2,0.0001? No. 0

Allah is 1. The first number is 1. When you will write 2, in binary numbers, a second number called 0 comes to stage. When there are two numbers on stage, the issue of "who is commander, superior, and who is subordinate, less significant" comes to stage. Since (according to Holly Qur'an) right hand side is more superior to left hand side, the zero has to come to left of 1 in the lining. So we must write as binary two (decimal ten) as 01 (Opposite of usual !!!).

As a summary: When you'll write ten in decimal numbers (and two in binary numbers), 1 must be at the right, and zero must accept the greatness of 1, and zero must stand on the left. We must write 01 (.1)

I call this Veyselic numbers.

The Satan is represented by zero, the Caliph (Adam Aleyhisselam) of Allah may be represented by 1. Then when these two numbers come together, they must be written as 01. Most significant numbers must be on the right, least on the left. Numbers must be written from right to left.

Now: It is too hard to change all the numbers in the world. But I have dream! The correct numbers, Veyselic Numbers, can be used in Qur'an pages. Qur'an can finish the fight of which is superior; Right or Left Satan must bow in front of Caliph. All numbers in the Qur'an pages can be corrected with Veyselic Numbers. This is a symbolic fight, between Caliph and Satan, between people of left and people of right. Qur'an cannot be bidirectional, bidirectional is contradiction. In fact numbers are added to it afterwards. Arabs could not resist Hindus, made a big mistake, and make their language bidirectional.

Creatures must prostrate to Allah. Satan must accept the graetness of The Caliph of Allah. 0 must stand at the left of 1. If zero decides to try to pass to the right of 1, it will burn. It burns, as Satan is created from fire.

Let us clean the "Bidi" from Quran pages. Let us change all the numbers so that they START FROM THE RIGHT, not left. Because the current situation is not right. I belive sooner or later Holly Qur'an pages will be corrected with Veyselic Numbers, inshallah.

.I

These are the right comments and right questions I was searching for, for a long time, thanks Allah. Also thank you.

The subject gets deeper, so it requires more attention.

Now:

I respect a lot to Abu Haneefah, I am also Haneefee in madhab. But if I did not misunderstood, I have to oppose to his idea that "Allah is Waahid(One) must not be taken in numerical sense". (Mathematics: The science of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols. Numbers: Basic element of mathematics used for counting, measuring, solving equations, and comparing quantities.) You say we affirm Oneness in two ways. I agree thoose ways you mentioned. I think, there may a third way that "Allah exists!", meaning that "What is the count of Allah, or how many ilah(s) exist(s)?" "1" What I try to do is to prove is that there are some mathematical explanations to Islamic concepts. How? Let me preceede:

In binary numbers, there is only two digits: 1 and 0.

Lets read the 112/1-2. Surah(Ikhlas). It says: Say: He, Allah, is One. Allah is He on Whom all depend.

I am saying that, Allah can be symbolized by 1, all the others(creatures and not-created things) may be symbolized with zero.

1 is an odd number, while zero is an even number.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApkbbKbg63ygTKbDbOdpx.rty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20061211012246AAdFGT9

Lets read 51/49. Surah(Zariyat). It says: Ve min kulli şey'in halakna zevceyni leallekum tezekkerun. And of every thing We have created pairs: that ye may reflect.

All the creatures are pairs, i.e. they are even, not odd, like the number zero.

Now imagine that there is one and only 1("Ehad"), and many zeroes("Kesret"): The zeroes cannot exist without the one(Samed). The zeroes must be on the left of 1(According to Veyselic Numbers), meaning that they prostrate to Allah. A zero burns, if it refuses to stand on the left of 1 and tries to go right (Remember, zeroes on the left disappears in "Arabic Numbers").

So in summary, I say that; 1 (which is an odd number) represents Allah, 0(which is an even number) represents creatures(including Satan), Binary two (or decimal ten) must be represented as 01 (Or .I) which I call Veyselic Numbers.

---

Brother Yahya says:"The problem with this argument is that you are including Allah within the set of "all things that can be counted." By doing so, you have implicitly declared that Allah has a similarity with countable things." I thinnk I am not. I read recently that Abu Haneefah says that "Allah is a "thing", but not resembling to other things." I say that " Allah is countable, His count is 1, all other the other things count to 0 without Allah".

I continue: Numbers are entities of mathematics, mathematics is a science(ilim), all the "ilims" belong to Allah, and Allah's "ilim" is beginningless. When no creatures exist, the ilim of Allah existed, and Allah knew that he is the One.

"you would have to make one of two claims: 1- the number one has always existed, or 2- Allah acquired a new attribute after the creation of the number one."

I make claim 1, number 1 always existed. But. Number One is not a partner of Allah, number One is Allah Himself, which is Al-Waahid ul Kahhar.

I do appreciate your effort to correct my faults. Please continue.

Brother Abuhajira, I did not forget you, I'll try to answer all of your questions when I first find time. But for a quick summary:

• Theory is mine.
• Veyselic Numbers are different than Arabic Numbers only "in order".
• "Haasha" I do not say that there is contradiction in Qur'an, I do not judge revelation. I say, we humans ourselves put contradiction in the "writings", to the "pages" of Qur'an "books".
• I believe that Qur'an is divine.
• I will try to fix the "BiDi" on Qur'an "pages" until someone proves me that I am wrong.

Evidences that numerical 1 can represent Allah (Celle Celaluhu)

---

First, I want to answer all of your sayings with one sentence: "Kul huwa Allahu Ehad". If you consider it with care, it is not mentioned as "Al Ehad", but only Ehad. Now other evidences as follows;

Header: Evidences that numerical 1 can represent Allah (Celle Celaluhu):

a) 1 is read as wahid in Arabic, and one of the names of Allah is Al Wahid.

b) The answer of question "How many is Allah?" is 1

c) 1 exists, Allah also exists. (1>0) (How about 2,3,4? Refer to i) )

d) 1 is singular, each and every other counting numbers are plural, Allah is singular.

e) 1 can mean as unique, Allah is also unique.

f) Counting and measuring are different. You can not measure Allah, because Allah is infinite. But the number of Ilahs is a limited number, 1, and the only ilah is Allah.

g) 1 is half of two, that is correct. If (hasha) there were another ilah other then Allah, then Allah would be half of the two ilahs, but there are not two ilahs, so, that suggestion is false.

h) Allah has no partners, and similars. But for creatures are not equal to each other, some of them are superior to some other. The superior ones are closer to Allah than the other. For example the Caliph of Allah. Because all the superior adjectives and names belong to Allah. From this respect, since men are superior than women, they are closer to Allah. If we assign numerals to men and women, we must do that like men=1, women=0. Evidences to it are as follows: Qur'an (4-34). 1 is odd, 0 is even number. Women are even because they can bear child. The Caliph of Allah is male. in Qur'an grammar, Allah uses male gender for himself. It is used female word "Saaheebaten" in ayet(72-3).

i) Allah is Wahid, 2,3,4 > 1, how do you explain this? As follows: You have to write the number in binary form, and from right to left. Take 2. It is equal to 01. The rightmost 1 symbolizes Allah, having value two(1 times 2 to the power 1). Likewise, all the numbers can be written in binary and from right to left. There is always a 1 at the rightmost place. For example 8, it is equal to 0001 (in Veyselic Numbers).

j) 1 is odd, 0 is even. 0 is nothing when it is itself. But when it comes next to 1, it obtains a value. Also when it comes next to 1, always even numbers occur. Creatures cannot exist by theirselves, they need Allah, and also they are even(they are pairs). Only the caliph of Allah is unique, is odd. The one that needs nothing is Allah, who is Samed.

k) 1'st reads as "first". One of names of Allah, El Evvel, means The First. If there is no number other than 1, 1 is also the last, like El Ahir.

l) El Afuvv is related with sins and faults, Es Settar is related with clothings, Er Razık is related with "Rizk", likewise El Wahid, Ehad is related with numbers.

m) According to the hands that creatures are created with: The Caliph (Adem aleyhisselam) is created with two hands. Qur'an says so. So if we number the two hands like 1 and 0, we can guess the following: Iblis is created with hand number 0, the angels are created with hand number 1, and the Caliph is created with hands 1 and 0. Hand 1 is most likely the right hand(yemiyn). Before Adem(aleyhisselam) teach the angels and Iblis that Iblis has a lower degree than each and every of the angels, they did not now it. If we want to explain it in terms of numbers, there were 0 and 1's but they did not not know which is greater than which. A person with two hands, two eyes and who is capable of distinguishing "Hayr"(goodness) and "Sher"(badness) is needed to distinguish and categorize them. That person is The Caliph of Allah, who is created with two hands. When Adem(aleyhisselam) told them their names(degrees), he said that: Angels are odd, 1, they do not have two genders, and they are in the side if "Hayr". Iblis is 0, even, Jinns have two genders(male, female), and iblis is even in that Iblis looks like "Mumin"(believer), but he is "Munafik", inside Iblis is "Kafir"(infidel), and being Kafir, in fact, his name is "Sheytan"(Satan). He said that One is greater than zero. ( 0 < 1 ). And after that angels are commanded to prostrate to Adam: "Behold! We said to the angels, "Prostrate to Adam": they prostrated except Iblis. He was one of the Jinns," (Qur'an 18/50) If we try to explain it in terms of numbers, 1's are commanded to prostrate to 2. This solves the issue that "Why, being a jinn, Iblis, is kept responsible to an order given to angels?". The answer may be as follows: 1's are ordered to accept greatness of 2, 2 has already dictated that 1 is greater than 0, so, 0 is also obliged to accept greatness of 2. Quote: Originally Posted by Abdul Sattar God is one and there is no God except him - that all you need to know. No need to assign numbers. He assigned Himself NAMES. Call Him by His names and learn about those names. your brother Abdul Sattar If I'm not wrong, one of the names of Allah is also a number, El Wahid (and also "Ehad"). Quote: Originally Posted by abuhajira When we say Allah, indeed the word Allah does not become the Ilah itself. However the word Allah becomes the "proper noun" that when used in any language or context refers to our Khaliq ALLAH. This is not case with the number 1.

Yes but I am stating that "1" can refer to a proper noun, which is "Ehad".

As a conclusion; When you type Ehad with letters you get "Ehad", when you type Ehad with mathematical symbols you get "1" Quote: Originally Posted by abuhajira Allah Most High is One, not in terms of the number, but in that He has no partner. “One” is used sometimes to indicate half of two, this is the first [counting] number of the numerical system. That is the meaning of “one” in terms of the number one. Sometimes “one” is used to mean that an entity has no partner, no equal, and no peer in its essence or attributes [and that it is unique]. [According to this meaning], Allah is “one” in that He has no partner, no equal, and no peer in His essence or attributes Abu Hajira Ok brother Abu Hajira, lets say that I am using number 1 according to the second meaning.

The item m) is very important for me. The Caliph is denoted by 2, which is 01 in binary Veyselic Numbers. I will say something more about this issue in the future.

VeyselicNumbers Are you saying "La mevcude illa huwe"?

---

Salaam,

Duality of ilahs? Hasha no one can say or prove that. La ilahe illa Allah. That is it.

But if you say that "La mevcude illa huwe", I object it, because; (Hicr-15/85): Ve ma halaknes semavati vel erda ve ma beynehüma illa bil hakk. And We did not create the heavens and the earth and what is between them two but in truth.

If we accept the existence of creatures, and want to assign them a number, it is most likely zero. Because zero is nothing without a one. If 1 exists and says that zero exists, then it exists. Also zero is an even number, so that the creatures because they are created as pairs.

Also; (51/39) And of everything We have created pairs that you may be mindful.

Pairs and opposites can be represented by 2 numbers, 1 and 0. For example male=1, female=0, day=1, night=0,big=1, small=0, white=1, black=0, right=1, left=0

Also Caliph has been created by two hands. According to me, Allah has two hands. Hand number 0, hand number 1. Allah has two hands but he is one person. Also Caliph has two hands but he is one person.

Here comes the important point; Symbolically the believers are keeping their right hand superior, meaning that they are 01, on the other hand infidels are keeping their left hand superior, meaning that they are 10 . As I said, it is symbolically.

Also all the numbers can be expressed as binary.

When we express numbers in decimal form, number ten is the ten fingers in two hands. If we are writing ten in decimal, I am insisting that we must write it as 01 It is much too hard if not impossible to convert the numbers, but it is easier to correct the numbers in Holly Qur'an's pages to Veyselic Numbers.

I hope this thread will be a starting point insaAllah. My purpose is every time you see a number ten in Qur'an pages, it will irritate you by making you remember that Satan opposes to prostrate The Caliph.

mailto: VeyselPeru@hotmail.com http://www.VeyselicNumbers.com

09:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

All that is great but it remains original research WP:OR and can't be included in wikipedia.--Xevorim (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request to initials section

Please allow me to edit the "initials" section. Thanks.

Sabbasi1 (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Sabbasi1

Dear Sabbasil, may I suggest you say here what change you would like to make, as this can be a contentious article and it is much better to discuss and agree changes on the talk page and only change the article when we have consensus for change. ϢereSpielChequers 14:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Written down while Mohamed was alive?

From what I've been tought, it took 30 to 50 years for Mohamed's teachings to be written down.

Dear Letriste, thanks for your query, I think the lead already covers this, but if you have a source that covers this then lets discuss it here. ϢereSpielChequers 19:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm just wishing a source was provided for such a claim, as it seems dubious... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Letriste (talk • contribs) 18:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole last paragraph of the lead currently demonstrates POV.

• Scholars differ over whether the Qur'an was written down in Muhammad's lifetime. Surely this isn't a big deal, though, as it's common for ancient texts to survive via an oral tradition.
• "The Qur’an in its actual form is generally considered by academic scholars to record the words spoken by Muhammad..." - What's this doing in the lead? Surely it should be in the article, probably in a section on textual criticism, and some recognition of the breadth of opinion about this claim should probably be made. (e.g. many scholars would claim that Uthman's standardisation involved destroying variant copies - that view should at least be addressed).
• The last sentence "Therefore all Muslims, Sunni or Shia, use the same Qur’an." is tautological, which fits with the pov "feel".

A simple Google search for "variant textual traditions of qur'an" gives the top three results as variations on the sorts of views that are silent in this wikipedia article ([2], [3], [4]). The second one provides reference to a version of the Qur'an that actually cites variant readings in it's margin, which is published by a major middle eastern publisher. The third source is an Islamic website offering rebuttals to those sorts of claims. Here's the important bit - If there's an Islamic website offering counter-counter-counter-arguments against a claim, then, that's evidence that there's a discussion going on... which means that the Wikipedia article should - being WP:NPOV - acknowledge that wider debate. Petemyers (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes Qur'an has several versions (called Qira'at-literally readings). And almost all Muslims accept that fact and all Muslims accept all Qira'at, so I think there is no POV there. The statement that Sunni and Shi'i Muslims accept the same Qura'an is correct, and relevant, because historically there was a dispute about whether the Shi'ite Qur'an is the same as the Sunnite's, insemnated by Goldziher's investigation of two Sura's that he thought to exist in the Shi'i version but not the Sunni. His views have been discredited, but the myth dwells, and many poeple (Muslim and otherwise) still think that the Shi'i Qura'an is different. Now, back to the Qira'at or readings, the difference between them are very small to be concidered totally different texts as totally different. Hakeem.gadi (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hakeem.gadi, yeah the differences in manuscript transmission are always very small... that's the way that copy errors occur in manuscript transmission. But the article here is worded in such a way as to make it sound like there are no copy errors. Obviously, copy errors don't imply that the original text cannot be discerned, but if we're agreed that there is transmission variation, meaning that some discernment needs to be exercised, then the current way the lead reads is slightly misleading - that's why I suggested it has POV, because many Muslims I've spoken to would like to assert that there are no copy errors at all, and therefore no variant readings (regardless of the fact that they're negligible and can be easily reconciled). Petemyers (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The present Islamic dogma is extremely strict in requiring Muslims to indorse the belief in the integrity of Qur'an down to the point, and that is why %99.9999999999999 of Muslims insist that the transmitions, oral and written, are 'perfect renderings' of the prophet's reading (minus some abrogations). This dogmatic view is very important and should be mentioned and given ample space in the article, as it is very operational in how Muslims view their religion and how they view other religions as well. The historical and linguistic criticism (Understandably, mostly coming from the West) should have its place as well. There are mounting evidence that Qur'an had its share of evolution like any other text.

While the major concern in an article like this is the 'devout Muslim's interventions, as they are usually loaded with emotional impulses. I would also like to warn against the intervention of the anti-Islamic westerner who would have impulse in the opposite direction. ;-) Hakeem.gadi (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hakeem.gadi... Look, I'm simply calling for article to be balanced in it's representation of the various views. There are sources that show there is discussion/debate over the textual transmission of the Qur'an. There are also sources which show there is discussion/debate over the claim made in the lead, of all places, that the Qur'an was completely written down in Muhammed's lifetime. There are Western and Eastern sources on both sides of those discussions. The article, currently, only presents one viewpoint, and says nothing at all about Qur'annic textual transmission - in fact the article says more about textual transmission of the Torah and the gospels than it does textual transmission of the Qur'an. That is unbalanced, and therefore POV. What's more it's also non-sensical that those claims about the other scriptures are in this article, because, the Qur'an itself doesn't talk about the textual corruption of the Torah and the Gospels... the Qur'an affirms them as sources. Hakeem.gadi - please don't insinuate that I have an anti-Islamic Western bent. I have not suggested that you are biased in any way. I have said that the text of the article currently displays POV. Accusing or implying that other people are biased is another level altogether, and not Civil, as it doesn't assume good faith. So, please let's not start on a discussion that goes down those kinds of lines eh? :) So, I would ask you to engage with my reasons in discussion that I've put forward for why the text of the article currently demonstrates POV... that it doesn't properly reflect the range of views on the Qur'an. Petemyers (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a point to be made about the discussions regarding the Qur'an being written down during Muhammad's life time. Traditional Muslim sources are, at least as interpreted by Muslims themselves, more or less unanimous on the textual transmission of their scriptures.

Those who dispute the traditional perspectives are merely skeptics - that is they don't have a counter narrative to offer. That is not to say their views aren't important, but they shouldn't be given undue weight.VR _talk 06:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

To Petemyers: Relax! Have you read my post? I didn't accuse you of any bias. I just pointed out some of the biases that can affect the article's accuracy. I am totally in favour of including both views. I think what got you carried away is an implicit assumption that I am defending the traditional Muslim view. Well I am not. I only value accurate presentation of facts. Hakeem.gadi (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

To Vice regent: You are totally wrong in saying that skeptics do not have counter-narrative. From an objective point of view the Qur'an is not an exception to historical manuscripts that had there shares of scribal glitches. (flowers for all)Hakeem.gadi (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hakeem... I said that your comment seemed to imply bias on my part. Which, reading back over three times, I still think it did! Anyway, I did stick a little smiley face in my reply, and hopefully we're all still friendly. I think there are two immediate problems here that need to be addressed -

1. The view that the Qur'an was written down in Muhammed's lifetime should probably not be stated - as plain unreferenced fact - in the lead. It should be moved into the main part of the article, and a more balanced presentation of the views should be put there.
2. It should probably be moved into a new section on textual criticism, which should cover the breadth of positions on this issue.Petemyers (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hakeem: if the skeptics have a counter-narrative, could you kindly inform me of it. I already know of Patricia Crone and that her views have considered as too far by vast majority of scholars.

Petemyers: that the Qur'an was written down during Muhammad's life does seem to be a fact agreed upon by mainstream scholars both Muslim and Western. There are other views, but they are not as widely held. At least this is how I look at it, though you can correct me if I'm wrong.VR _talk 06:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

VR - Part of the problem with the original lead was that it made that claim unreferenced. Search for "when was the qur'an written" in Google, and the first page of that search[5] as of 30th Nov 8:20am (UK time) says that "After the death of Muhammad, the text of the Qur'an was written down in the caliphate of Abu Bakr." Now, that might not be right... but it's a view that's obviously widespread enough, and available enough, to be returned by the top entry of the largest search engine in the world. Now, anecdotally, I used to work in the East End of London, and in my work I spoke to many Muslims about their faith. It was a great privilege to do so. But most of the Muslims I met took the view that the Qur'an wasn't completely written down until after Muhammed's death. Obviously that's the same experience of the person who started this thread as well. This could be a wrong opinion... but it is an opinion that's not hard to stumble across. Therefore the article should at least address it. Petemyers (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, you have a point. I guess now the issue here is whether we consider scholarly opinion, or the popular or both or neither in the lead. The link you have provided above doesn't seem very scholarly, since it doesn't give any references nor any analysis. (By contrast if you look at Watt, he very carefully examines historical sources, with a detailed analysis). So how about this: we can assume that the Qur'an was mass produced in present form by the time of caliph Uthman, can't we? Regarding prophet Muhammad, we can certainly claim that it was "transmitted" from him to his followers in its entirety. Of course, this still doesn't accommodate the views of those that think the Qur'an was fabricated by Muslims a century later, but then again, their view isn't widespread.VR _talk 22:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi VR. Just a couple of possible misnomers/, "the issue here is whether we consider scholarly opinion, or the popular or both or neither in the lead" - well, so far we have no proper references, scholarly or otherwise, for either opinion. We obviously need to collect some refs. "we can assume that the Qur'an was mass produced in present form by the time of caliph Uthman, can't we?" - err, no. That's not what I've heard. My understanding is that Uthman standardised the editions of the Qur'an... now there is lots of debate over whether there were different versions before Uthman, or not... but something which is more universally accepted, is that Uthman pulled all the different written bits together. So it wasn't mass produced in present form until Uthman. Petemyers (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what I meant with regards to Uthman. That during his time, there was one Qur'an, written down, exactly the same (except for insignificant differences later) that we see today. Also, can you find some sources that claim multiple versions of the Qur'an?VR _talk 05:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I gave 3 above - ([6], [7], [8]) Petemyers (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I took a cursory look at the sources, and at first glance, they don't appear reliable. Perhaps you could provide more scholarly sources?VR _talk 05:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The sources given by Petemyers are in NO way reliable or even have a any scholarly basis. Please provide scholarly source if not then anybody can make a website and taking it as a source. Also, the sites seem extremely biased making them even less of a reliable source.

Ok... this discussion isn't moving forward much. Let me put it this way - can you please provide some sources that it *was* written down in Muhammed's lifetime. Petemyers (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What about the references currently used, especially the first two? Would you like me to verify them?VR _talk 02:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The references I provided themselves contain many references at the same kind of level (~same time, and also encyclopedic sources) to the ones you've pointed to Vice regent... and one reference to an actual published edition of the Qur'an with footnotes. So, I struggle to see how the references are "in NO way reliable or even have any scholarly basis".

Look. This discussion began with someone questioning the very strong assertion that was originally in the lead that the Qur'an was written down in Muhammed's lifetime. In it's original form, that claim did not give any references. I took up the discussion, and simply pointed out that there is some debate among sources about when the Qur'an was written down. Getting people to just look at the sources took ages. And now the sources have been looked at, they're been dismissed very forcefully, when they seem to be on the same kind of level as the sources provided for the other pov.

Now... I'm not saying that one view is correct, and another is wrong. I'm not saying that a particular pov should be removed. I'm simple saying that there is a pov that should probably be represented in the article: which I've come across lots personally... which obviously that original poster had come across lots personally, and which there are sources to verify. There shouldn't be a strongly worded assertion in the lead, when there's legitimate discussion to be had about a particular point. Petemyers (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Petemyers, you may be right, or not. But you need to realize that these sources can't be accepted in wikipedia. If you want, we can take this discussion where there are policy experts, if you don't believe me. If this debate is to continue, we need to accept sources like "William Montgomery Watt in The Cambridge History of Islam" and reject those like bible.ca.VR _talk 22:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

VR, this is getting a little tiresome! It sort of feels like you're not engaging with what I'm saying. Maybe I'm not making myself clear, let me be more explicit. Those pages have a range of sources on them. The point that I just made was that I was originally flagging up some sources that evidence that there is a particular view in existence, and that particular view even has some scholarly thinkers who hold it.

• (Cyril Glassé, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989, p. 324, bold added)
• Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'aan, United Kingdom: Al-Hidaayah, 1999, p. 199.
• (Adrian Brockett, `The Value of the Hafs and Warsh transmissions for the Textual History of the Qur'an', Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Qur'an, ed. Andrew Rippin; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988, pp. 34 & 37, bold added)

As it is on the specific issue of when the Qur'an was actually written down, I don't have any source material to hand on that issue. I just wanted to register two things: (a) I've heard differently to what the article presents as fact in the lead, and, (b) The article needs to reflect some wider pov's, including a wider variety of positions on textual transmissions, probably. But if I'm going to have to do all the source hunting myself, and discussion is going to be this protracted... then I haven't got the energy or inclination for a full-blown discussion about it. :) As I've said - repeatedly - I don't even have a view as to which is the right or wrong position... I've been simply trying to point out that there is a broader range of positions than the article currently lets on. If you are really keen to follow this up, then contact me on my talk page. :) Petemyers (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I am some what confused the main article implys that the book was written down in Mohammads life time and has remained unchanged or is exactly how mohammed repeated parrot fashion the word of God right up to 2009/1387---- Just from the thread above it is quite apperent that there is some doubt in both western/eastern society that it was written in his life time & it also shows from the thread above that both western/eastern society agree the book was changed/standadised(changed) in the era of Caliph Ut. Just from the thread above it would make sense that the wording of any article be shown to say that it is belived by those who follow the muslim faith Blah Blah BLah however contrary to this ECT...This would be the best Non-Biased view to be taken through out the article.