Talk:Quran/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between Feb.2005 and Oct.2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Qur'an/Archive03; see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Quran, Koran

Hi, I just replaced all of the references in articles (that weren't direct quotations) to "Koran" with references to "Qur'an". There are, however, a ton of articles that speak of the "Quran" without the "'". Does anyone think it matters to change them? And if so would people be willing to each do, say, 10 articles? Whatlinkshere&target=Quran --Jacobolus 11:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind. I switched them all --jacobolus (t) 03:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know why Koran is now the less-preferred spelling? Since it's a transliteration from a non-Roman alphabet, how does it matter? Is it something about being more phonetically closer? --JimWae 09:05, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

I think the ' in Qur'an might represent a sound not shown in Koran? Is it Ayn? I forget :/ I moved that page to Slavery in the Qur'an since that is proper naming conventions and I am going to look through it since it seems... well, suspect. gren 20:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually it's NOT the preferred spelling - not in the general English-speaking world.

The word Koran is a perfectly good alternative. It's in fact more often used and more easily recognized by the general public, which is after all the audience for this encyclopedia.

I hope this isn't going to degenerate into another one of those "if you aren't one of us, you can't talk about us things" - ushered in via a name controversy. Try to transcend your own narrow grouping and think of a larger social unit than your own, can't ya? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:53, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Aw, Ed... it's a question of register. The BBC uses "Koran" in its news reports and "Qur'an" in its background documents. The Britannica, in its scholarly encyclopaedic articles, uses Qur'ān. Us here, hamstrung by character set issues and walking a narrow line, well, we use Qur'an. (These guys, of course, are using their 1st amendment rights.) –Hajor 00:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Koran has always been the preferred spelling, Qur'an doesn't even sound english.. (sign your name, please)

Koran is NOT the preferred spelling and it is not the correct spelling, the word is spelt Qur'an or Quran. As with all words in our language there is a correct and incorrect way to spell a word. I could spell Bible as Byble, and if a lot of people use it and it becomes the way a lot of people spell it, that doesn't make Byble the correct spelling, it just means there are a lot of ignorant and lazy people who can't be bothered spelling properly. Futhermore, the "Q" is used because in Arabic Quran is spelt with the equivalent letter Q (and not the equivalent letter K), the sound produced is a glottal Q sound and not a soft K sound. Also the word "Quran" has a meaning, in Arabic "Quran" means "to recite", on the other hand "Koran" isn't a word at all and has not meaning. Could Wikipedia please remove "Koran". ___

"Qur'an" — or "Qur'ān" — is the preferred spelling because it uses the most accurate (accepted) transliteration of Arabic. Arabic has both a letter "q" and a letter "k," and so does English, so why use a "k" for a "q" when writing it in English? In addition, Arabic does not have a letter "o." The letter waw is both a "w" and a "u." The apostrophe is also an important part of the transliteration, as it is a letter in Arabic. And on another note, the spelling "Koran" tends give a different (and incorrect) idea of pronunciation than does "Qur'an." Emiellaiendiay 07:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

"Entitites and events ... confirmed by science..."

Re:

Some Muslims claim that the Quran contains much information about entities and events that has been confirmed by science and technology many years after the Qur'an was revealed, and take this to constitute further evidence that the Qur'an is indeed the true, eternal word of God.

... though I most powerfully and potently believe, I hold it not Wikipedia to have it thus set down. Hard to imagine defending a description along these lines of any other religious text, and I foresee a series of editorial conflicts on the impossible-to-resolve-objectively question of whether this sentence is justified by specific Qur'anic passages, and if so, which ones. Waste of time, and certainly such predictive passages, as remarkable as they are, are are not central to Islamic theology. (Placement of this passage in the article, however, suggests to the contrary.) May I vote for deletion? BrandonYusufToropov 14:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Qur'an appearance

The page should have something about how the Quran looks on the outside and how/why it is highly decorated

Qur'an desecration

I put SectNPOV because what schools of Islamic law state this? We cannot just say "Islamic law says" is this Shia (which major imams)? Sunni (which major madhhabs? and if you could cite sources that say this. We cannot just get away with saying "Islamic law says" and we do that far too often. gren 20:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

No argument from me; I just wanted to consolidate all the Guantánamo material into one single article. I'm looking forward to seeing the experts come in and clear the point up. –Hajor 20:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Clearer now (see below), yes? I'm removing SectNPOV. BrandonYusufToropov 00:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Rulings on handling Qur'an

http://www.geocities.com/~abdulwahid/muslimarticles/adaab_quran.html

http://www.themodernreligion.com/basic/quran/etiquette.html

http://www.sunnah.org/msaec/articles/respecting_quran.htm

Use of derogatory remarks, etc; in respect of the Holy Prophet. Whoever by words, either spoken or written or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. — Pakistan Penal code: Offenses relating to religion: Section: 295-C

DISRESPECT TO THE NOBLE QUR'AN

Hadhrat Ãšmar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) narrates that Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) said, 'Allah exalts many people by means of this book (Qur'an) and He also degrades and disgraces many others by means of the same.' (Muslim)

Hadhrat Jaabir (Radhiallaahu Anhu) reports that Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) said, 'The Qur'an is such an interceder whose intercession is accepted, and a disputant whose dispute is upheld. Whoever keeps it in front of him, it draws him to Jannat, and whoever puts it behind his back, it hurls him into Jahannam.'

In the light of the above Ahaadith, we learn that the position of the Noble Qur'an is exceptionally high by Allah Ta'aala. Therefore, it is essentially important for Muslims to show full respect, love and devotion for the Noble Qur'an. Insha Allah, in doing so Allah Ta'aala will elevate us in this world and in the Hereafter.

It is mentioned that once a person who was a great sinner had found a piece of paper on the floor on which an Aayaat of the Qur'an Majeed was written. He picked it up and showed respect to it. Allah Ta'aala was so pleased with this act in showing respect to His words that Allah Ta'aala forgave him.

Unfortunately, today the true love and respect for the words of Allah Ta'aala is lacking. We notice today that countless number of pamphlets with Qur'anic Aayaats are distributed as though they were some cheap cinema handbills, which so often end up on pavements, or filthy public toilets. Collection tins with Qur'anic Aayaats are placed in Kuffaar shops and handled by them. Muslims are prohibited from touching even one Aayaat of the Noble Qur'an without Tahaarah but alas the words of Allah Ta'aala have now become a cheap calendar decoration which after one year is thrown into the bins.

We earnestly plead to all Muslims, "Please do not print, buy or sell stickers, booklets, calendar pamphlets, etc. with Qur'anic Aayaats on them as we will be assisting in showing disrespect to the words of Allah Ta'aala."

May Allah make the Noble Qur'an a means of our guidance and make it an interceder in our favour on the day of Qiyaamat, Aameen. -- Jamiatul Ulama

Those are good sources for modern viewing of the issue I suppose, I think there is another side that isn't so strict that might deserve to be shown. I am wary of having Wikipedia just reflect Dawa books and not better scholarship. I think we could use classical views as well. gren 22:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Just as relevant (perhaps more so) is the popular insistence on the Qur'an's special status. This may give you a sense of the depth of feeling:

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2003-10/21/article07.shtml

Sunni ruling on desecration of Qur'an

(yes, it's that serious dept:)

It is necessary to have evidence of two reliable witnesses corroborating each other before a Khazi (judge) shall be required to question the witnesses. Thereupon the witnesses will have to make statements describing the words uttered or the acts done which constitute apostasy.

Apostasy can be committed in two ways: (1) by uttering expressly by tongue that he is (or has become) a Mushrik , a polytheist (i.e. one who associates others with the One God and considers them to be worthy of worship) or, by saying something which is bound to connote in its meaning a denial of the existence of God, for instance to say that God has corporeal (physical, material) existence just like any other corporeal object, or (2) by the performance of an act in which one cannot avoid the clear conclusion that it is tantamount to 'kufr' (infidelity, denial of Islam), for example, to throw away with contempt the holy Qur'an or any part of it or even a single word of it; or to throw it in the fire in an insulting, contemptuous manner; or to throw it in such a place as a garbage dump where there are filthy, dirty and repulsive things; or in a spittoon etc. These acts would be blasphemous and constitute apostasy.

- from 'Abd al-Rahman Jaziri, Urdu translation, Munzur Ahsan Abbasi, Kitab al-fiqh Ala' al-Madahib al-Arba'ah, Lahore, Pakistan, Ulama Academy, 1985

You have quoted a boatload of information now help to integrate it into the article and don't blanket "Islamic law says" give the sources of who says it like you listed for me, but in a manageable form for the article. It's not an issue of do I believe you or not, it's an issue of that section has a severe modern traditional Sunni POV and therefore you can quote or cite the texts in the article that lead you to what it says. Wikipedia:Cite sources this is what I'm talking about... not every Muslim makes the claim that you can't throw out a Qur'an... or that you have to have performed Wudu first what you imply there is that every single Muslim carries the exact same view on this issue. gren 02:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Gren, if you think a specific citation is important, why don't you take a pass at integrating some of the material I have provided here into the article, since it's your query, ok?

The fact of its illegality is certainly not disputed, though, so please do not put that header back in the section.

Before you edit: Let's think twice before adding an "on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand" mini-series to this article. The practice is universally condemned by jurists and the vast majority of Muslims, as I have set out above.

It's like saying the Constitution mandates due process. ("Hmmm... Can you cite a recent Supreme Court decision specifically confirming that point, please? Do ALL politicians believe in due process? Surely not every American citizen makes the claim that due process is required in legal proceedings -- what about the minority view that it's a pain in the neck and not worth the bother?") BrandonYusufToropov 09:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The root of this is saying, "Islamic law states". There is no "Islamic law" that rules all Muslims, there are various attempts at jurisprudence and they may agree (and on this issue they do agree that it's bad to destroy... and to a lesser extent that you must have performed wudu or you are an apostate if you destroy. But, to say Islamic law states, is an untrue statement that is trying to cut off any others and place the mainstream as "the true Islam" and here on wikipedia there is only what most people believe... none of them are true or false. So, you have what most people believe, don't make it seem like it is the only view. gren 19:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

An ex-soldier's POV

For what it's worth, I was a US soldier for five years. I don't think ANY holy scripture should be desecrated. If interrogators can't get info from recalcitrant prisoners by nice treatment (or even rough treatment), so be it.

One of the best psychological weapons of war is to release POWs from time to time, and let them tell TRUE stories of how fairly they were treated. This is the best way to demoralize political opposition to one's campaign. The opposing campaign can't play the human rights card.

In the Vietnamese War, the tiger cages of the south were:

violations of human rights, and thus despicable in and of themselves
a stupid and impractical PR mistake

I won't say which is worse, but after the war, the winning side massacred half a million people, so draw your own conclusions.

I believe we are all responsible for what we do. So we should do GOOD things, which benefit others. (Like the Koran says, right?) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:14, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

hear, hear. not very on-topic here, of course, but I am glad to be reminded that there are fair soldiers on either side. As a fair soldier, though, I imagine I would be all the more angry with the fools, or worse than fools, that bring shame to my own side. dab (ᛏ) 08:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure the same sentiments would be expressed by a good percentage of the (remaining sane members of the) US intelligence community. To descend from ethical questions and issues of shame, down to the merely pragmatic level, this is apparently a really lousy way of gathering intelligence. If your goal, however, is the suicidal one of unifying the civilian populace against your campaign ... this is probably the very best way to go. BrandonYusufToropov 19:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

You have made too many assumptions here: remaining sane members, this is probably the very best way. I can only guess at your meaning.

Are you criticizing the intelligence community, i.e., they'd have to be crazy to do X? And are you assuming that Koran desecration was a prescribed tactic the interrogators used?

Sigh. That's they problem with a lot of liberals. They're so into their point of view, they assume all their readers share it. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:25, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Was I assuming the desecration was a prescribed tactic the interrogators used? Given the number of different times it has shown up on the record... yeah. (Did you read the article you cited as Koran desecration?)

You're under the assumption, presumably, that the multiple reports of this desecration are the result of:

a) stark coincidence

b) a conspiracy on the part of the media (which has somehow turned curiously obedient in the past week and a half)

and/or

c) delusional behavior on the part of the Red Cross, which took the extraordinary step of outing the White House by publicly citing a pattern of disrespect toward the Qur'an.

If you opt for a), presumably you believe it was also a coincidence that personnel at Gitmo stripped people naked (so they couldn't pray clothed, as required by Islamic law) and deprived them of water with which to perform wudu (also required by Islamic law). Lots of complaints about these things. How many coincidences are you willing to ignore? When is a bad apple the product of a bad tree? Where did these non-Muslim interrogators get all this information about which actions, precisely, would inflame and degrade Muslims? The Weekly World News?

Do I think the intelligence community was crazy to undertake this? No. "Stupid" is the word I would choose. "Crazy" would exempt them from moral accountability.

Nobody wants to believe his country does bad things. That desire to imagine the best in our nation, however, does not prove our country is innocent when evidence points to the contrary. BrandonYusufToropov 01:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

You left out (d) mischief-making by the prisoners or their friends outside: just make an accusation, then sit back and watch the fur fly. You seem to reagard the captured enemy fighters at Gitmo as being as innocent as the falsely accused banker in The Shawshank Redemption.

Did it ever occur to you that someone might lie about the US to gain a PR advantage? Or have the enemies of freedom taken a secret oath always to tell the truth? (Lying and murder usually go hand and hand, wake up.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:00, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that each and every one of the following reports was the result of a propensity for boyish pranks?

n 2003, an Afghan former prisoner told the Washington Post that U.S. soldiers tormented him by throwing the Koran in the toilet.[4] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/13/AR2005051301377.html)

* The BBC reported on December 30, 2004 that the former Guantánamo prisoner Abdallah Tabarak maintained that "American soldiers used to tear up copies of the Koran and throw them in the toilet."

* In a book review dated January 16, 2005, the Hartford Courant reported that five British detainees, after their release, claimed that they "had seen other prisoners sexually humiliated, had been hooded, and were forced to watch copies of the Koran being flushed down toilets." (Compare: Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse)

* The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on January 20, 2005 that there were complaints concerning guards who had "defaced their copies of the Koran and, in one case, had thrown it in a toilet."

* The Miami Herald reported on March 6, 2005 that three Guantánamo captives — Fawzi al Odah, 27, Fouad al Rabiah, 45, and Khalid al Mutairi, 29 — "separately complained to their lawyer that military police threw their Korans into the toilet."

* The Miami Herald also reported on March 9, 2005 that Guantánamo Base staff insulted Allah and "threw Korans into toilets."

* The New York Times reported on May 1, 2005 that "Mr. al-Mutairi said ... a protest of guards' handling of copies of the Koran, which had been tossed into a pile and stepped on, a senior officer delivered an apology over the camp's loudspeaker system, pledging that such abuses would stop."

* Credible reports also arose that "in August 2003, 23 Yemeni detainees reportedly tried to commit mass suicide after a guard stomped on the Koran."

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/18/1434259

I respectfully disagree that with your contention that these and other mainstream reports of Qur'an desecration were individual, coincidental instances of "mischief-making" meant to allow bored servicement to "watch the fur fly" -- and I simply cannot believe that my reasons for disagreeing are not yet clear to you.

I would reiterate to you that the Red Cross, about which you have been curiously silent, does not normally go public and blow the whistle on governments. It has, as a matter of public record, done so in this case. Someone was giving orders. The Red Cross intervened (successfully) in order to stop those orders. BrandonYusufToropov 21:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

False dichotomy. It's not an either-or. You assume that either (a) all the reports were made up or (b) none of them was made up. See excluded middle.

Look , I can tell you're pissed off about something. But your assumption that the anti-US forces are the good guys and would not lie, is childish - even petulant.

None of which has anything to do with an article about the Holy Koran. Or about actually following its precepts. My Iraqi-American friend has a lot to say about this sort of hypocrisy. Just get real, okay? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:09, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

On further reflection, I'd rather not use Wikipedia as a forum to debate which of us can claim the moral high ground. Let's try to fix the mess together, instead of wasting time blaming one another. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:15, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. BrandonYusufToropov 09:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

It was aired tomorrow on ARY one world ( A Pakistani private news channel ), an interview with a Pakistani released from Goantanamo . He said this Quran desecration stuff has been going on for a long time . It happened at Baghram ( Afghanistan )too . The US soldiers used to throw Quran in human feces buckets . Though he also said that some of the solders who did this with Quran did the same with Bible too . May be it was few solders , may be the whole intelligence , I dont know . Important thing is that Americans should understand that the more they do stuff like that , the more they create people like OBL . There R many muslim countries that R trying their best not to create another one of his kind . But then how to stop Americans . They made the first OBL ( I wonder how many people in US actually know this ) , & they R doing their best to create more of his kind . Farhansher 20:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you need to be 'a liberal' to see a pattern emerging here. US exempts prisoners from the Geneva Conventions. US exempts its citizens from ICC jurisdiction. US torture by proxy. — condemnation of such selling out of "Western values" should not be a "party line" thing, let alone reserved for 'liberals'. Sadly, not 'much moral high ground' in sight here, on either side :o( dab (ᛏ) 10:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

You struck out

not ALL prisoners, just "stateless ones" captured out of uniform. If they wear uniforms or can claim membership in some country's army, then G.C. applies.
ICC was created specifically to target US citizens; it's a crock; look who's on the UN human rights commission: the world's biggest violators
you're confusing your definitions of torture, ignorantly or deliberately. Rough treatment falls into at least 3 categories: permitted interrogation/control methods, prisoner abuse, and actual torture.
Sadly, liberals want to give terrorists the same rights as US citizens, while most of the world doesn't even enjoy those rights.
It all adds up to a campaign to destroy America. Keep it out of Wikipedia, or write about anti-Americanism in the anti-Americanism article, if you can follow NPOV. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:06, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

replied to your talk, Talk:Qur'an is probably no place to discuss the destruction of America (which we agree is happening, only, I argue, from the inside out). dab (ᛏ) 09:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Hear hear. Ed, you're ranting about patriotism after claiming to have realized that this is not the page for such rants. Let's not, ok?BrandonYusufToropov 11:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Dab and Brandon, you are both right. And thanks to whoever fixed the sub-heading.

Brandon and I have a vigorous debate going on at talk:Ed Poor. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:30, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Major revision

Someone had re-done the section on textual criticism in a way that I felt quite misrepresented Western Quranic scholarship, and I had promised to rewrite it. I finally got a round tuit, and while I was at it, re-organized the entire article. I deleted very very little, and added a few short sections that filled gaps, at least as I saw them.

I've spent hours on the re-organization and I've pooped out on filling in references. Frex, I need references for Fred Donner. I'll get to that as soon as I can.

I'm hoping that this re-org will not be controversial, since it mostly re-shuffles what was there previously. The only major changes are in the textual criticism section.

There are probably all sorts of typos and mistakes, and I would very much appreciate community help in fixing them. If I've erred in the direction of POV in any section, I imagine that I'll be told about that too. Zora 03:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Uthman ibn al-Khattab? There's no such person... - Mustafaa 03:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, too tired to check names. Zora 03:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd really like a reference for "As early as the caliph Uthman ibn al-Khattab, only a few decades after the prophet's death, many passages of the Qur'an had become obscure..." Apart from the name being wrong, is this actually clear? It does not follow from the anecdote in the next sentence, certainly. - Mustafaa 03:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

That's a memory of some of the Quranic exegesis I've been reading, I'll have to look up the reference. Zora 03:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

"However, there are seeming inconsistencies in the Qur'an. Wine-drinking is allowed and forbidden, more than four wives are allowed and forbidden, etc." Where does it say in the Qur'an that either of those are allowed? Rather, there are passages which don't presuppose that they are forbidden - which is not the same thing at all. - Mustafaa 03:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

That is a better formulation. Could you fix it please? Zora 03:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

"Some Muslim scholars say that if the Qur'an had been collected by the order of a caliph, it would never have been relegated to the status of a keepsake for one of the prophet's widows" - kind of vague wording, innit? - Mustafaa 03:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

That's a rewrite of a sentence that was in the original. I didn't get references, and I probably should have done so. I can only plead fatigue. I wanted to get the main outlines of the revision up, so that others could help me work on them, rather than plugging away on it for another day or two, alone. I appreciate your criticisms and beg you to feel free to fix anything that needs fixing. I find that I usually agree with you. I'll squawk if I don't. Zora 03:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Mustafaa, for wrestling this ungainly section to the ground, and thank you Zora, for helping. I had meant to revise this for some time and gotten distracted. All the more important now that the Qur'an is front page news and this is an even more high-visibility article than normal BrandonYusufToropov 11:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Zora. I'm still sceptical about "As early as the caliph Uthman ibn Affan, only a few decades after the prophet's death, many passages of the Qur'an had become obscure, as Arabic had changed so much, so rapidly. It is said that Uthman and his scholars consulted the Bedouin of the desert when they were unsure of their reading of the Qur'an, as the Bedouin had preserved the Arabic language more tenaciously." It simply doesn't make sense that Uthman ibn Affan - who had learned his native tongue well before any of these upheavals - should have found these passages any more obscure than the other people of the Prophet's time did. A much more plausible explanation of such consultation would be that the language of the Qur'an was more complex than the daily language of Quraish to begin with; it is commonly believed that (with Arabic as with Ainu) an unwritten literary standard had already been established in pre-Islamic times, and it is known for certain that the dialects of the various Bedouin tribes did not coincide perfectly with this standard. - Mustafaa 18:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

When I think about it, you're absolutely RIGHT. People who were alive when Muhammad was alive, and understood his revelations then, wouldn't have completely forgotten everything twenty years later. I will have to hunt down references to Quranic language. In the meantime, we need to remove any references to Uthman and just say that after a few generations, not decades, Arabic had changed greatly. I think you would accept that, yes? Zora 21:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

"The language rapidly changed in response to this new situation, losing complexities of case and obscure vocabulary. Several generations after the prophet's death, many passages of the Qur'an had become opaque to ordinary Arabic-speakers, as Arabic had changed so much, so rapidly".

Is there any reference about this . I mean a lot of non-arabic vocab must have been included in the language , but a language doesnt have to change its grammer . & the the previously used vocab doesent becone that much forgotten . The very same Arabic is still taught in Arabian peninsula , I have friends in Indian sub-continent & Asia-pacific regions who can read/understand Quran & speak the same to Arabs or understand the same from Arab channels .We have got a thousand year old poetry by Amir Khusro in Urdu , at a time when the language was being born . And the poetry is still understandable ,still having the very same grammer , though with some very little changes in some vovels . Farhansher 07:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

It has been a while since I've read much about Arab linguistics, but I understand that literary Arabic -- as to a great extent defined by the Qur'an -- has diverged greatly from the various Arabic dialects/vernaculars. Educated people learn speak and write literary Arabic, which is the language used for TV broadcasts and the like. So it's not surprising that Muslims educated IN literary Arabic in various countries would be able to communicate with each other. They'd be less likely to understand the guy on the street in Cairo or Baghdad. But I could be wrong ...

For a while I had a Tongan girl living with me while she went to university. She had spent many years studying IN English in one of the better Tongan schools, and her formal English was good. But she had a hard time with ordinary conversation and especially with slang. I think this might be the same sort of thing. Zora 14:42, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Well ...yea.. I do agree there might be a difference b/w street arabic & literal arabic . But the line I quoted says

Several generations after the prophet's death, many passages of the Qur'an had become opaque to ordinary Arabic-speakers, as Arabic had changed so much, so rapidly

As I said b4 , Amir Khusro hasent become opaque to me after 1000 years . For outsiders....well may be

Farhansher, take a look at this webpage [1]. It makes the very interesting observation that many Arabic-speakers ignore the existence of colloquial Arabic and insist that fusha is the only REAL Arabic. Zora 10:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Abrogation

I've been looking into abrogation online, and to be honest, I'm having trouble understanding why any of the most widely cited instances constitute abrogation. (see eg [2] [3]). For instance, why exactly does 2:234 abrogate 2:240? They don't contradict each other, as far as I can see. Anyone have any ideas? - Mustafaa 21:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I haven't had time to look at the sites, but I do think your rewrite an improvement. Thanks for the help. Zora 22:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is an EXTREMELY contentious topic that we are, I think, best off mentioning briefly here (i.e., much more briefly than now) and simply shunting off to another article, Qur'anic abrogation for further development.

The subject cannot possibly be dealt with here in depth without drawing partisan bickering, and attempts to identify examples often turn into shouting matches.

Critics of the mainstream view are fond of pointing out that actual examples of abrogation are inevitably open to plausible challenge, and the argument is an ancient one. (See links below.) So far as I can tell, there is no list of abrogated verses that everyone accepts.

I too scurried immediately to 2:234 and 2:240, wondering if this was the one that would jump out at me as obvious, but I could simply find no reason to consider one as abrogating the other.

For non-mainstream arguments, which are worth reviewing, see especially this superb overview:

http://www.geocities.com/forpeoplewhothink/Topics/Abrogation_in_the_Quran.html

And this more partisan, but still impressive, hike up the mountain:

http://www.quran-islam.org/89.html

Remember that "ayat" does not necessarily mean "verse of the Qur'an" -- it can mean "miracle" or (perhaps most pertinently) "previous revelation" (e.g., Taurat or Injeel).

Peace, BrandonYusufToropov 12:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this is definitely a can of worms, and indeed looks to me like a rather unconvincing doctrine. However, I don't see how we can mention it any more briefly than the two sentences currently devoted to it here. - Mustafaa 16:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Qur'an and science

An anon editor inserted a section on the Qur'an containing all of life and science. I reverted it for now, but I think perhaps we ought to mention this, if only to head off other enthusiasts.

I've been reading academics on the Qur'an, but I gather that there's a whole world of dubious Qur'an exegesis out there, dedicated to proving that it contains all scientific wisdom, that it can be interpreted numerologically to prove this or that ... a Kabbalistic approach, or so it seems to me. Perhaps a short section, a para, and a breakout article?

I'd start it, but this is something about which I know little or nothing. Zora 01:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The numerology stuff is mostly specific to some rather odd new sects, and belongs more in Rashad Khalifa than here; it might merit a one-sentence mention. The science stuff has a better reputation; it's a popular theme of da`wa literature in recent years. It might well be worth noting briefly. - Mustafaa 02:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are indeed some striking prefigurings of modern scientific findings, as well as an intriguing thread coursing throughout the text on the relativity of time, which is an odd topic for seventh-century Arabia. However, this material is a) controversial and b) unrelated, as far as I can tell, to matters of faith and practice.

As I've mentioned before, I would not place the scientific parallels here, or even reference them, as they're likely to be perceived as distracting and biased. They're not what the Qur'an is about. The numerological claims are in another category entirely, in that they are rejected by huge majorities of Muslims; I'd vote for skipping them simply because they make Islam look like a three-card-monte game. (Not the case with the scientific parallels, which are quite difficult to explain, if only for their sheer number.)

There are also a number of apparently accurate historical predictions, the most famous of which is the prediction of Byzantine victory against the Persians in the surah entitled The Romans. These, too, however, are frequently appealed to in Muslim apologetics, and this would run the risk of being perceived as proselytizing. My preference would be to skip all of this stuff, or, failing that, to link to a new article along the lines of Reported Miracles in the Qur'an, though I predict such an article would get very messy indeed very quickly. BrandonYusufToropov 12:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Piss Koran?

Can anyone verify yet the new artwork entitled Piss Koran? I just found a page on it in Wikipedia: Piss Koran. Flatbush 22:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's a reason that page is up for deletion... - Mustafaa 23:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pietistic edits by anon

A new anon editor worked a bit on the Qur'an article, modifying text re comprehensibility of literary Arabic vs. colloquial Arabic, adding bits re beauties of Quranic prose and value as guide to life. I reverted those edits.

The first, because it contravenes everything I've read about the Qur'an and Arabic dialects -- even though it also exemplifies a phenomenon noted by various linguists, that is, Arab insistence that literary/Quranic Arabic is the only REAL Arabic, and consequent averting of the eyes from colloquial Arabic. Though .... hmmmm ... it might be useful to spell that out in the article, so that this doesn't come up again and again. This is the second time.

The last-named edits, because they were pietistic and POV. If there were no other comments re the reverence Muslims feel for the Quran, these edits might have been useful, but I think there's sufficient material there to indicate reverence. Zora 22:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Devabration's edits

This article is meant to be acceptable to all, Muslim or non-Muslim; it should not be a pious tract. Devabration, your additions were too POV to keep. Sorry ... please try again, perhaps on a less charged topic. Zora 06:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

POV or non-POV, Debravation's edits are copied from Qur'an Complex, which is copyrighted text ("All Rights Reserved for the King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Qur'an"). Please respect the relevant laws. - Mustafaa 19:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting

An anon editor recently added a link to a site with "free Quranic software". The site also seemed to have commercial software, and it wasn't clear to me that the Quranic software was all that useful or popular, so I deleted it as being an advertising link. Hmmm, well, the anon tracked me down and sent an email to my RL email account, pointing out in an aggrieved tone that he was giving away the Quranic software. I sent him a reply, which bounced -- "Shatly" was using an invalid address. This was sure a strange interaction. For the record, I don't think it should be site owners linking their sites -- it should be impartial third parties who have found the site useful. Preferably editors we know, who are clearly not sockpuppets. Well, that's my take on it. Zora 00:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Assuming the site had no advertisements and was all free software... I see no direct problem (yes, that is a rather odd thing to happen though). However, I think there is a good question in all of this... there are is good free software that for things like Adhan alarms... should any article link to that kind of thing (which is useful to a Muslim) but... not really encyclopedic in the sense that Qur'an or hadith software is? (but, definitely a no to advertisement sites). gren 01:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zora, I am new to Wikipedia, so I am just learning to use this system. So, Sorry for any mistakes from my side.

I have given a valid email address to Wiki, but I have disabled email in preferences. I have now enabled it.

Regarding the Quran software link I have added, It is a free and useful tool for learning the Quran. This site is ranked No 1 for "Quran Software" search in Google. Besides displaying Arabic translation and 3 different tranlations for the recited verse, it has also word by word meaning for 30th part of Quran. I thought this might be of interest to the visitors of Quran page.Shatly 01:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shatly, thank you for coming here and speaking to the rest of us. I'm much less puzzled and distrustful than I was.

However, I don't think you've convinced ME that your site should be linked. Of course you think it's great software and a useful site. But do other people think so? I admit that top google ranking is an argument in favor, since that's based on links in other top-rated sites. But there isn't a satisfied user urging inclusion ... Gren seems to be leaning towards inclusion, I'm against. What do other editors think? I'll go with the majority.

While you're here, Shatly, there are LOTS of Islamic articles that need work <g> People fuss endlessly over Muhammad, Qur'an, and Islam, but there are many "smaller" topics that aren't treated at all -- especially in Islamic history and biography. Lots of poets, theologians, jurists, musicians, historians, etc. need better bios. Zora 20:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

if the software is free and useful (is it platform independent? if not, mention the platform it runs on with the link), why not? I mean, we don't need to link to it, and sooner or later somebody cleaning out the links will remove it again, but as you say, we have more urgent problems than that. but somebody actually try out the software, I would hate to have us link to spyware, or to some blatantly indoctrinated pamphlet. dab (ᛏ) 21:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, it is best to include this link (Free audio recitation software of Quran(Windows version only)) in Audio/Video section if others are in favour of this.

As Zora mentioned, there are lot of work pending in other Islamic sections, I will see how I can contribute usefully in these area.Shatly

but why in $DEITY's name do you need software for audio quran recitation? Why don't you just publish the mp3's for download? That seems just excessive bloat. And what audio files do you use? Ones you found on the internet? In that case the whole thing is utterly redundant... (I cannot look at your software, as I do not have windows) dab (ᛏ) 09:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ah, I say, why don't we just link to Quran recitation MP3 files (if they are any good - any opinions?)? These can be used by everybody, and your software is linked to from that page. dab (ᛏ) 09:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious, is your reciting software anything like a karaoke machine, you know, with a hopping dot on the text showing what is being recited? I would think that was quite funny, actually :) dab (ᛏ) 09:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the mp3 files seem quite good quality, compared to our other link. Let me link to them, then. dab (ᛏ) 09:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Ayat and Wikipedia

Is it appropriate to have articles specifically for Ayah 1, Ayah 2, Ayah 3, ... Ayah 6000.... etc. ?

There is a VfD discussing this as a precedent - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses. 2 July 2005 14:53 (UTC)

Is someone proposing to do this? (note that, of course, ayah!=surah). - Mustafaa 4 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)

this is utterly pointless. Invest into writing decent articles on individual suras, first. Notable ayats may deserve a section of their own in their respective suras' articles. dab (ᛏ) 4 July 2005 18:13 (UTC)

Standard referances

Is there a standard format for referencing a passage in the Qur'an. I just merged Dhul-Qarnayn and Zulqarneyn and put a link in Al-Kahf. Is the line "According to sura Al-Kahf 18:94-100 ..." reasonable? I know Al-Kahf is 18 but the number certainly helps you find it on this articles list. MeltBanana 6 July 2005 19:50 (UTC)

Speaking only from personal experience, I have seen this format most commonly in English texts:

18:94-100

And this format among Arabic writers (in Arabic, which I won't try to duplicate here):

Al-Kahf 94-100.

I have also seen:

Surah 18 (Al-Kahf), 94-100

In the example you offer, I would write:

"According to Surah Al-Kahf (18:94-100)..."

Hope this helps ... BrandonYusufToropov 6 July 2005 20:08 (UTC)

Picture on the bottom

Please delete the "lady". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.187.92.231 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 9 July 2005

Please explain why. I agree it's not the best picture there could be but it is not disrespectful and it rightfull shows that Qur'ans are put on display (at least in the west) for their beauty. gren 9 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove it. Sure it have been vandalized many times, but no one has offered a valid reason to remove it. Jwissick 04:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

It does look a bit unwanted if not offensive.I don't think its absolutely necessary to have a woman dressed in a manner contrasting to what the Qur'an says near to a picture of the Qur'an.It sure hurts the sentiments of those who love the Holy Book Nabeelmoidu 06:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

What's next? Posting guards at the Smithsonian to make women to wear burkas if they want to see the Qur'an? People are offended by the Piss Christ image, yet we leave them and others. If she was wearing a tube top or bikini, then I could see the point... but she is dressed conservitivly. I say leave it. Jwissick 06:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The human figure in the picture is useful, as showing the scale of the Qur'an page. While I am not in favor of wantonly offending people, I also really don't feel I have to bend over backwards for people who have hair-trigger sensitivities. Nor should Wikipedia. Zora 07:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Link to submission.org

Altafuzzaman added a link, pointing to the United Submitters website (Rashad Khalifa's group). I erased it, because I felt that leaving it where it was really wasn't fair to someone just coming to this article for info. That's such a minuscule sect, not really representative of most Muslims. However, that reminds me that we need to revise any sections of this article relating to Qur'an Alone Muslims, as we now have somewhat more information about them. (I found a site maintained by a Bosnian dentist, linking to a bunch of other Quran Alone sites -- does seem to be an interesting if utterly disunited bunch of people. The Bosnian dentist defends slavery, as it is allowed by the Qur'an, and thinks all the Qur'an Aloners should make hegira to some place where they could live together in communal harmony <g>.) Zora 08:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

There should be one link to Qur'an alone on the page and from there they can find out what they want about the wide (yet not deep) variety of people who reject hadith, etc. They are an interesting group and not "Qur'an Alone" like it used to be but more "Qur'an alone" -- since that's their main religious philosophy rather than their religious identification. I think it's a very interesting group because you can have reformists who say without hadith if we follow what the Qur'an says we'll get western-liberal-democracy-with-moral-values and then you have the one supporting slavery as you mentioned and a whole boatload in between. It has also spawned many new translations of the Qur'an, some trying to be more literal and some more or less incorporating Tafsir into the translation. You have the Khalifa translation, ones done by (or related to) people at free-minds, the various branches of the Qur'an as it explains itself project. Bunches of little grassroots groups armed with Arabic lexicons trying to get the Qur'an into the hands of the people. I have no idea what (if any) effect they are having, but it's interesting to me. I also don't know if they are "removing the bias of hadith and tradition from the Qur'an" as they say or doing apologetic translations. In any case that's enough of that and... we shouldn't let fringe groups get too big for their boots... they have their own pages. gren 08:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

false suras

Should this be included?` http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/forgery.html

--Striver 16:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes it should! Thank you for bringing that to our attention, Striver. Shi'a are constantly being accused of having a different Qur'an. I thought that those accusations derived from the old traditions re the variant versions of the Qur'an kept in defiance of Uthman, one of which was Ali's. But it seems that the Sunni accusations derive from a different source entirely! This should be explained, certainly. I am not feeling well, but I will get to it later today, or tomorrow. Zora 19:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure :)

--Striver 22:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

"Muslims believe" questioned

Anent the 2nd sentence in the introductory paragraph of this article: many who self-identify as Muslim do not accept every word of the Qur'an as having been derived as stated. Would it not therefore be more accurate and NPOV to change the first two words so as to form the following sentence:

It is a tenet of Islam that the Qur'an is the literal word of God and the culmination of God's revelation to mankind, revealed to Muhammad over a period of 23 years through the angel Jibril (Gabriel).

An alternative substitution for the first two words is: "Islam holds". Myron 10:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

So what is the difference between "Islam holds" and "Muslims believe"? A Muslim by definition is somebody who believes the tenets of Islam. Since I think your suggestion is equivalent to what is there already, I do not positively object to it, of course. dab (ᛏ) 14:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

My point is that someone who identifies as "Muslim" because of family background may not actually be devout, or practice or even believe in much or any of the religion. Thus some people claim a religious affiliation despite total lack of faith. I thought the rewording I offered might satisfactorily cover such contingencies, rather than imply that everyone who calls him or herself a "Muslim" necessarily believes exactly what is stated in the sentence in question. I wanted some discussion about this before making the change. Myron 15:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that "Islam holds" is the better wording. Although Dbachmann is right in that the word Muslim means a follower of the tenets of Islam, in today's world the word has taken on a different meaning with the millions of basically secular Muslims living in the West.Heraclius 15:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

well, then I argue they cease to be Muslims. "secular Muslim" is an oxymoron, since Muslim is simply the participle to the verbal noun Islam (Muslim:Islam == Faithful:Faith). You can have an Islamic cultural background and be secular, but you can hardly be a Muslim and secular, any more than you can be a Christian and secular. Anyway, the point is moot, I don't want to dispute anything; I'm just saying that I am happy with both versions ;) dab (ᛏ) 11:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Islam holds != Muslims believe

Mpulier changed one sentence in the first para to read that "Islam holds ..." instead of "Muslims believe ..." I changed it back. I think it very likely that there are Muslims who consider themselves good Muslims, but do not believe that the Qur'an is the eternal uncorrupted word of God. That is, they may take the same attitude towards their scripture as Christian liberals do towards theirs: a human creation, even an inspired creation, but inevitably filtered through the culture at the time of revelation.

Grenavitar, another editor who has been quite active in various Islamic articles, points out that Islam is an abstraction, which can't say or hold or do anything. People who call themselves Muslims, and who may or not be accepted as Muslims by other "Muslims", say various things, which they insist are "the true Islam". Any time that we put "Islam says" in a Wikipedia article, we're falling into a POV, in this case a POV regarding what Islam "really" is.

I'm not sure that we've rooted out all the "Islam says ..." (or any other religion says, for that matter) from Wikipedia, but it certainly seems like a good adage to keep in mind. Zora 04:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zora.

I agree with your edit. I think I also agree with Grenavitar's point that Islam is an abstraction, assuming Grenavitar also had in mind the idea that one can only call oneself a 'true' Muslim if they adhere to all the principles laid down in the Qur'an and Sunnah. I'm not convinced that there are 'Muslims' who believe that the Qur'an may not be uncorrupted though; if there are any such people, I would not really call them true Muslims, according to my previous sentence. Of course, there are 'Muslims' who actually corrupt the Qur'anic text to suit their own agendas (some groups in US, for example). Anyway, I'm not going to go deeply into this particular discussion, as I see your point that we should root out "Islam says...". --Mpatel 07:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

There is merit in the above. Yet, carried to the next level, blanket exclusion of such figures of speech as "Islam holds/says" would also preclude "according to the White House", "guns or butter" and even "blanket exclusion". :)

Practically speaking, to avoid confusing a literal-minded reader or sparking a debate over "what Islam 'really' is", how about replacing "Muslims believe..." with "It is a tenet of Islam..."?

"Tenet" carries a more particular flavor than the more encompassing "doctrine" and the new sentence I am proposing would be literally true. That is, while it may be difficult to define "Islam" with mathematical precision, surely centrality of the Qur'an is indisputable. This second sentence of the instant "Qur'an" article merely adds detail to the first, explaining, in a way, what "holy book" means.

"Muslims believe..." is POV, since, as Zora agrees, some may not believe this particular tenet exactly as stated. It would be POV to declare such people as non-Muslim or as not "true Muslim" (which is a logical consequence of the current wording, at least for the literal-minded). I'm making the change. Let's see if it flies. Myron 08:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure which is best... I think I preferred Muslims believe... because, it can easily have the implication of most or some Muslims believe... you don't have to be talking of Muslims as a whole, you can be talking about a group of individuals. When we get into what are the tenets of Islam I think it's a problem... because, a basic tenet of most sects is typically the seal of the prophet... which is precisely why the Ahmadiyya have such problems in Pakistan. This subjects warrants further discussion but I just want to make sure that we do not start defining who is Muslim... for the great part it is self-identification... but, if a large number disagree with self-identified Muslims being Muslims (like Qur'an alone and Ahmadiyya which are controversial) then we can report that a majority of Muslims view them as schismatics. Definist articles create problems because... Islam isn't what it used to be... and won't be what it is. gren グレン 09:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Apology - I edited without reading all the talk page

When I changed back to "Muslims believe", I hadn't realized that there was talk page discussion on this topic. I should have read it, and commented, before pushing ahead.

I think that we're all on the same wavelength in not wanted to define what Muslims must believe about the Qu'ran in order to be Muslims, it's just a question of the wording to use. We could say, "Most Muslims -- nay, all but a postulated minority of extremely liberal Muslims -- believe that the Qur'an is the word of God." But that's long, and I'm not sure that the "postulated minority" would fly. If I knew that name of ONE prominent Muslim modernist who took the "revelation passed through human understanding and a specific historical context" approach, we could just name him/her, and then the minority would no longer be postulated. Myself, I'm not sure that there are any Muslims who have publically advocated such an approach. I don't think it's because "Islam forbids", I think it's just because there are so many Muslims ready to riot and declare fatwas in "defense" of the Qu'ran that it would be a bold bold Muslim who took such a position. But ... there could be such a bold one. I'm still learning about contemporary Islam.

We get into quibbles about the wording because we're trying to pack too much into just a few words. Perhaps we should try "unpacking" things a little. Zora 11:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Well... I'm not sure what "revelation passed through human understanding and a specific historical context" means exactly... because... I'm not sure that's so radical. This is not to say that Muhammad was inspired instead of the Qur'an being divine revelation... that is the miniscule minority view. But, Fazlur Rahman talks about the importance of context of 7th century Arabia and the society it was given to. I think that's the same approach of Asma Barles and Amina Wadud... they talk about how it was given to a patriarchaly society.... which is why one of their books is title "unreading patriarchal interpretations in the Qur'an"... or something along those lines. Gradualism that Qaradawi talks about deals importantly with the context of Muhammad's society... so, that statement doesn't seem too radical... not sure what you meant. gren グレン 12:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Citing Qur'an

Is there a proper way to cite the Quran? I've seen several diff. ways but typically I've done "chapter number.verse number.line number." freestylefrappe 20:39, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Desicrating Qu'ran

Hi, I'm a conceptual artist. The latest piece of insallation art I'm planning involves something that could be described as desicrating the Qu'ran.

Any advice? I'm not worried about causing offence, as the shock-factor will be integral to the piece, but I am worried for my safety. What is likely to happen to me? I won't be sentenced to death or anything will just I for treating a book in a subjectively "disrespectful" way? It is only a book after all, and my property since I will have bought it. Any thoughts? Obviously I'm also an atheist, so I'm not worried about Allah coming to "get" me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.70 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 13 August 2005

As far as I'm concerned, the Qur'an is just a piece of paper. There are many pieces of paper you could "desacrate" in interesting ways, and no one would blink. So clearly you ARE interested in doing something that hurts someone's feelings. Well, why? It's not a NEW idea -- it's been done to death. Epater les bourgeoises has been old hat for half a century at least. Do something beautiful. It's harder. Zora 04:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Can I kindly remind editors to be careful about what they write (especially on discussion pages) - '...not worried about causing offence, ...': what are you even doing here ???!!! Beware of fatwas flying in your face dude... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.133.7.38 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 14 August 2005

Haha, well, the shield of anonymity is a start... but, I don't think that's really a threat... I presume you were joking? gren グレン 12:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I would recommend you assess your own purposes... if you are trying to shock then you may achieve your goal and their may be public dislike of your work and it may be considered distasteful. If you are incredibly famous then you might have more of a risk of getting hurt... but, the chances are about as slim as you dying in a London bombing... gren グレン 12:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Me, threatening ? - no, not a threat, just remembering what happened with the Rushdie affair, that's all. As accurate as you were about the analogy of the bombings, Grenavitar, it was a little distasteful and insensitive. And for goodness sakes, sort out the spelling, anon1: it's 'desecration' ------anon2.

"Haha, well, the shield of anonymity is a start... but, I don't think that's really a threat... I presume you were joking?"

In fact, yes I was joking. And I also expected a lot of rabid death threats and fatwa warnings. In other forums, I have actually been threatened with death for making irreverant comments. A nice surprise from the wiki community, then.

Still... I think there is something very wrong with Islam. If I did something shocking to the Bible, there would certainly be a lot of outrage, but nothing would likely happen to me. If I did something to the Qu'ran? I would almost certainly be hunted down by Muslims and killed unless I went into hiding and hired bodyguards. Rushdie is a case in point. All he did was give Islam an "unflattering" treatment.

Anyone who would kill over words on pieces of paper is not only idiot but someone infected with a seriously toxic and intolerant belief-system.

I am not a fan.

Neither Gren nor I are Muslims. Now if you want to get me ranting and foaming at the mouth, threaten to destroy a rare book. However, the most generally effective, attention-riveting tactic is threats to hurt children and cute animals, as film directors well know. Zora 03:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

it's desecrate for crying out loud [4]. Maybe you should do an "installation" about dyslexia instead. Did you know, incidentially, that you could be broken on the wheel for desecrating a Christian wafer, back in the 15th century? For, like, stealing a cookie? Wow, there must be something seriously wrong with those Christians. dab (ᛏ) 21:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Minor changes 2005-08-26

I've made a "secular scolar edit" to the text, Changed alot of "Western scholars" to "Secular Scolars" since every non muslim researcher should be included, not only "western". I've also changed some superlatives sentences like "made a bold statement" etc.

Importing the Quran and Hadith

Hello, I have successfully imported all of the Quran (Arabic and English) as well as Bukhari and Muslim haidth into a Wiki running on my server. I have two questions.

1. What is the best way for me to transfer from my wiki to this wiki? As there are thousands of pages. Each verse of the quran and each individual hadith is created as a "Template" so they can easily be imported into other Articles. What are the pros and cons of this strategy?

For example, see http://x.xivix.net/index.php/Quran_Al_Fatihah

2. Is there a way to protect the content of all of this from change? These are direct Arabic transcriptions as well as long agreed upon translations. My concern is that this text is not meant to be changed or edited and I fear that some trolls will do just that.

If anybody wants to help me with this, please get in touch with me on my talk page.

For more examples, see http://x.xivix.net/index.php/Quran

http://x.xivix.net/index.php/Category:Bukhari

http://x.xivix.net/index.php/Category:Muslim

Lastly, please discuss this here instead of on my site. --Majestiq 03:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

We don't want any of that in Wikipedia. It would welcomed in Wikisource, but it may be there already. Talk to the folks at Wikisource. Zora 05:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

That would be excellent for wikisource, presuming the translations are in the public domain... do you have any information on that? Also, talk to people there about naming... because, it's good to be sure about how they do things. gren グレン 06:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Several different interpretations of the Quran, including the original arabic, can be found at the English Wikisource. freestylefrappe 18:15, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Addition of quran.org.uk

An anon editor just created a new category of link, General, and put quran.org.uk into it.

I'm somewhat uncomfortable with this. Putting the category at the TOP and including only one link seems to give this link a prominence it perhaps does not deserve. I had a look at the site and I'm not completely sure that it's inclusive or complete. But I am really really not sure.

Could other editors, especially Muslim editors, please comment? Zora 21:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC) ---

(Say) Watt?

In the "Criticism" section of the main article there is an obsequious quotation from W. Montgomery Watt. If the word "criticism" is understood in the conventional sense of "passing severe judgment," then Mr. Watt's words would more properly belong in the "Sycophancy" section.

Who wrote the above?

Whoever you are, are you suggesting that Watt isn't a "critic" in the sense of "textual criticism"? If so, I'm afraid I must disagree. [5] BrandonYusufToropov 18:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

"Who wrote the above?"

At the risk of decapitation by the religion of peace, I deem it prudent to remain anonymous.

I should check -- is this anon the same one who added the "Criticism" section in the last day or so? That was completely superfluous and I removed it. We give links to various free e-books of the Qur'an, and readers can read them online, or download them, and make up their own minds about how useful or readable the book is. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to judge it for them. Zora 18:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Zora -- section works much better without it, I agree. Anonymous -- I promise not to behead you, and please do note that you'll get a lot further with substantive edits on WP if you choose a (pseudonymous) username, set up an account, and explain why you want to change articles. That's what the talk pages are for, not unidentified graffiti. BrandonYusufToropov

English Wikisource Quran...vandalism

The Quran is no longer accessible in any recognizable translation on Wikisource. If you search for "Quran" you will not find anything. If you click the Wikisource link from a Sura, and then click the next link on that page, you come to a translation that purports to be a grouping of the many translations into one. While interesting, this is ridiculous. I propose reverting/restoring all original copies of the Quran on wikisource. You'll also notice the Arabic text, previously available on English wikisource, to my knowledge, is no longer there. freestylefrappe 00:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Robert Spencer link

I removed it again. He's an extremist, notable only to extremists, and his work is simply not credible criticism. I'm not one to suppress rational criticism of the Qur'an, or of Islam -- after all, I own about four of Ibn Warraq's books. But unless Robert Spencer manages to get a lot of media buzz, he's not notable. (I would know -- I read the New York Review of Books, New York Times book reviews, and Arts and Letters Daily.) Zora 06:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Not notable? He is currently number 15 on the NYT best seller list and has been in the top 15 for 7 weeks. He is also best seller #66 on Amazon. JihadWatch.com is currently number 18,489 on alexa (A very high traffic rating). He is also currently doing talk show interviews all around the country. Ibn Warraq reviewed it and called it "A clarion call for the defense of the West before it is too late.". It is even outselling the Quran. He is most certainly notable. Jwissick ^(t)^(c) 14:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of notability, his views are not focused on the Qur'an but rather all of Islam. I agree with Zora about his work not being credible criticism. He does not skepticize at the intellectual level but rather focuses all his efforts on his personal animosity and bias against Islam. He just covers his extremism. He really is not that credible and selling books does not mean his link needs to be added to an article about the Qur'an. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

As the foundation of Islam is the Quran, this book is relevant. His new book dwells on the Quran quite a bit. You both claim his work is not credible. Have either of you read his new book? If so, then prove it is not credible... Jwissick ^(t)^(c) 20:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Even according to the book summary it talks more about fundamentalism. This book does not specifically focus on Quran material but rather Islamic fundamentalist society as a whole. Why does adding a link to spencer on the Qur'an page seem important to you? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Created vs. uncreated

AE, I wasn't making this stuff up. Perhaps it needs more references but it's such a huge chapter in the history of Muslim thought that I didn't think that detailed documentation was necessary. Look at the article for the Mu'tazili. The created Qur'an, under the Caliph al-Mamun, was official doctrine for a while, and many members of the Sunni ulema were killed or jailed for dissent. Zora 20:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I've read Reza Aslan's book, and I don't recall that he said anything about Mosaic law. Perhaps I've forgotten -- could you cite the passage where he says that? Zora 20:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you have also forgotten, Zora, that Reza is used as an example only in the sentence which refers to "some contemporary thinkers" overall. The statement did not refer to him alone. I still clarified it though. Enjoy. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I still don't get it. How does a comparison between Shari'a and Mosaic law relate the status of the Qur'an? That's just not clear to me. Perhaps you're thinking of some source I haven't read. Zora 21:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, for example, there is a clear similarity between stoning for adultery in one of the 613 Mosaic laws in the Bible and Shari'a law. How does it relate? Well, while most Christian critics will confirm a Bible as a divine text, they will criticize the Qur'an for not being divine due to these laws. Well here is a similarity that counters some of this criticism. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Um, what you're getting at is the idea that the Torah and the Gospel are just corruptions of the message of the Qur'an and that similarities in laws prove this? And that because there are similarities, it means that the Qur'an existed before the 7th century, so that it could be inaccurately copied?

Is there a source for this argument in some Muslim writer? Or is this just something that is so common that there's no need to source it? I haven't run into it before now.

I must say, it's an argument that would only work for someone who was already convinced that the Qur'an was divine and uncreated. The sceptics among us would just say, "Well, Muhammad spoke from his own knowledge of the world, which included a sometimes inaccurate understanding of what Christianity and Judaism taught." I don't think that stance precludes being a believing Muslim, BTW. Zora 22:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"what you're getting at is the idea that the Torah and the Gospel are just corruptions of the message of the Qur'an" - What? That was not implied anywhere. I was saying that showing similarities between two divine texts can give a Muslim argument that if one text is considered divine, so is the other. This has nothing to do with countering the the accusation the Muhammad "copied" the texts; look at the paragraph that this is in. For a source see [6]. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I still don't get it. Why should similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an prove anything? I'm a Buddhist. I admit spiritual utility to both texts, but I don't consider either "divine". I could put both texts through an Emacs program that mixes texts to produce a new text (I'm blanking on the name). Would the resulting mixmaster version be divine because it was similar to both "divine" texts? That sentence just doesn't make sense. Zora 04:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Look Zora, it's a common Christian and critic argument (I know this). You may not see this as a Buddhist, but it does not mean it doesn't exist. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 11:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and the stoning argument is actually a rather slippery one. Stoning is in the Shari'a and not in the Qur'an. Umar insisted that the Quranic text requiring stoning had been lost [7]. (The article is arguing against this interpretation, but it gives a review of the hadith involved.) He insisted that he remembered it well enough to impose the penalty, if not well enough to reproduce the text. This is the sort of tidbit from Quranic studies that the perfect and uncreated Qur'an folk tend to gloss over. Zora 04:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

If these laws are not in the Qur'an, then why do we have that whole "laws" in the Qur'an criticism to begin with Zora? If it has nothing to do with the Qur'an, then why is that thing about "Islamic Law" there? All 2-3 sentences about it should be removed then. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 11:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)