Talk:Quran

why not criticism section?

Criticism of the Qur'an

this article violates npov —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.174.128 (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Because it offends Muslims and its wrong .. the critisizm has its own page .. Athiests dispise the bible but the bible has its own page and athiesm has its own page .. SAME GOES WITH ISLAM AND ITS NAY SAYERS . THIS IS A RESPECTABLE PAGE TALKING ABOUT GOD AND MUSLIMS WONT ACCEPT TO ADD THE RAMBLINGS OF SOME RANDOM SO CALLED PHIOLOSOPHERS IN THIS PAGE ALONGSIDE THE WORD OF GOD .. ITS OFFENSIVE AND SOMETHING VERY FRAGILE ! Highdeeboy (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Qur'aan nowhere says that it is the literal word of God. It is rather a Message of guidance (Verse 2.2) from God (Verse 4.82) conveyed through His Angel Messenger to Prophet Muhammad -- Guide us to the Right Path, Allah!Sofqur (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Taking offense to your personal convictions and/or beliefs being challenged NEVER justifies censorship, not even within the context of a single article. I still agree that it would be best to have a separate article devoted to criticism though, but for entirely different reasons, and not because people might be offended. 81.204.102.163 (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I still think a criticism section should exist here. Whenever main articles spawn dedicated sub-articles dealing with one specific aspect of its topic there exists a short summary section on the sub-topic within the main article, with a section hatline referring to the spawned article for more in-depth discussion. __meco (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Khadijah left out of Wiki: Qu'ran article

There is no mention of the Prophet's wife, Khadijah being the first convert to Islam as well as the dictator of the Qu'ran itself. Many would argue that it was prophets who wrote the book, however one must consider the bias stance against women in the countries of origin. According to the Qu'ran Khadijah was there when the Prophet had his first revelation and was with him for 22 years after,where he had many revelations during this time. She was a woman of wealth, therefore she was educated; whereas the Prophet was neither, he was poor and from a tribal land, where book smarts are not priority. She spent her wealth to spread the word of Islam, she faced initial persecution as well. They loved one another deeply, so much so that the Prophet took another wife only after her death. After her death, the Prophet placed her in the rank of four perfect women, with the sister of Moses, the mother of Jesus, and Fatima. To leave her name out of Wiki: Qu'ran is an injustice to her and all women. It undermines their importance in society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosesake (talk • contribs) 17:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Historicity of the Quran

Have any archaeologists and (secular)/(impartial) scholars attempted to assess the historicity of the narratives and messages in the Quran, a la Israel Finkelstein's treatment of the Torah? Just curious. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Some Of the Picture in this Page (Quran) is not and will not acceptable to any Muslim ,Please remove that.

Some Of the Picture in this Page (Quran) is not and will not acceptable to any Muslim ,Please remove that. Precisely In the Section of "History " under the topic of " The Prophetic era " The picture shows our BELOVED PROPHET. please remove that . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymabadar (talk • contribs) 07:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the pages on Wikipedia is not to appease the subjects, its simply to present the facts. 81.141.102.68 (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I also support the removal of 'Non Acceptable'Picture from this page. I will read the guidline more deeply. Bauani (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Image use policy#Moral issues, it does not unfairly demean or ridicule the subject, isn't unfairly obtained or intrude into a subjects private/family life, it follows guidelines. 81.141.102.68 (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Baxoy, 17 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please remove the picture file from this wiki (i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Muhammad-Majmac-al-tawarikh-1.jpg). The reason for this request is the impermissibility of depicting the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) or Angels in pictures. Since this is a wiki that describes the Holy Book Qur'an, it would be within reason to request that it stays within the boundaries of the requirement of the religion. We appreciate your help. Many thanks.

Baxoy (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see the above discussion. Wikipedia is not censored. Please see Help:Options to not see an image. :)

 Not done^Avicenna_sis @ 16:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

External links

... almost as soon I was done with the edit.

User:Supertouch (a "Veteran Editor II" as his page says) has removed the links without so much as a peep, as dismissive of my work and my reasoning for including the links as not to warrant a single message or warning or template flagging or even a reason in the edit summary.

Textual Matter:

I. Here is the text of the four links which I added:

• Online Quran Project includes over 100+ translation in over 20 different languages.
• Tanzeel::Holy Quran Project text and translations (in 34 languages, some with multiple translation editions); two classic arabic interpretations; audio streaming of recitations by multiple classic readers; with synchronized verse auto-highlighting (in arabic and translation); continuous synchronized audio and text streaming; display options; integrated user interface.
• Quran Explorer Qur'an recitation and translation in Arabic, English and Urdu; audio streaming of recitations by a selection of multiple classic readers; synchronized verse auto-highlighting of arabic and translated text; continuous synchronized audio and text streaming; display options; integrated user interface. Site also include a Hadith explorer resource and search.
• Qur'an site of al-islam.com Text and audio streaming of Al-Qur'an (two classic reciters); choice of four classical interpretations (Ibn Kathir, Al-Tabari, Al-Jalalayn and Al-Qurtubi) in Arabic English French German Indonesian Malayo and Turkish.
• Audio library of The Qur'an Large collection of MP3 recordings of complete recitations of the Qur'an. All recordings are in the Public Domain. More than 100 recitations available to stream or download via bit-torrent.

II. Rationale for adding those links, and my message to that editor

My rationale for adding the links is spelled out at my subsequent message to him/her, which I added to his/her Discussion page. Here is a reproduction of the full text of the message:

" What gives you the right to remove someone's work? At the article on the Quran you have removed the external links that i added to various Quran resources available on the Web. I had added links to four resources, each with different features and facilities, and you removed them in one fell swoop, without so much as a warning or request for comment or clarification - or use of numerous editing templates available to you to indicate objection to this content.

I can offer multiple rationalizations why several links are in order.

(e.g.,

• variety, as each offers different classical interpretations, different recitation recordings and different display and usability facilities.
• redunduncy, in case of one resource becoming unavailable,

• i believe the sites i added offer superior quality and usability to the single link that was there
• There are multiple external links at each of the following articles: the King James Version, the New King James Version, the New Testament, the Tanakh (having no less than six links to online Tanakh text resources - and that's just one section of the external links), and the Bible (having three external links)

Yet you do not go there and with one sweep delete external links. This seems not only partial but heavy-handed

• You have posted nothing on my discussion page, to indicate the rationale and need to remove the external links I added. Which makes your deletion of my work unexplained unannounced and rude.

• You are depriving readers of very important resources that represent a lot of work, including my own work adding them to the Qur'an page.

• The more the merrier, in this context of the encyclopedia, whose purpose it is to Encycle (surround) as much as possible of the information and resources available.

• This is not your personal playground to trample on other people's work, arrogantly and dismissively without a word, or to impose the kind of limitations you would like to see imposed on a particular religion or religious holy book.

Scriber (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)"

I find this kind of behavior too restrictive on the quality of information I was seeking to add and unnecessarily dismissive and discourteous of me (or any other user, or indeed potential beneficiaries of those links) particularly coming from a "Veteran Editor II" of Wikipedia.

I hope to hear from User:Supertouch on this matter and to restore those links - and why he would not do the same on the bible-related pages (and who is a better judge of the quality or need or relevance of those external links I added anyway).

In order not to have to turn for a Third Neutral Opinion or further arbitration on this matter.

Regards,

Scriber (talk) 10:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Scriber, I do not see anything wrong with Supertouch's removal of the numerous links. The Online Quran Project that is already linked is very extensive, containing many translations. Some of your links were problematic, such as linking to what appears to be solely non-English pages. --Ari (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This is incorrect, Ari! The Quran Explorer, the Tanzeel Quran Project and the al-islam.com quran site clearly have bilingual and multilingual interfaces.

And while we're at it, put the shoe on the other foot. Imagine a group of veteran muslim editors telling a jewish user what links to Talmudic or Tanakh resources are relevant or irrelevant to the Torah. It just would not be right for them to make the presumption. Instead, I would expect the matter to be scrutinized by wikipedia admins or mods that would know the subject more closely, namely muslim admins or mods. --Scriber (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Scribe, your above comment illustrates a misunderstanding you seem to have of Wikipedia when you claim a part of this article as "your work" and especially your heading on my talk page: "What gives you the right to remove someone's work?"— refer to WP:Ownership. A quick read of WP:EL should help you develop an understanding of the proper usage of the external links section. I quote from WP:ELYES:

What should be linked 1. Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. 2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work, if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria applies. 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

This is not quite the issue here. You are pointing out the way I phrased my response which was in a voice of frustration, seeing the addition disappear the very moment I was done working on it, and about to look at it and fine tune it. --Scriber (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Not one of the links you have added contributes to an understanding of the Quran, they are simply links to the Quran itself, its recitation and and its explanations. Your rational as stated does not provide any sound basis on which to keep these links: variety, redundancy, quality and multiple links hardly constitute a basis for adding links to an article. Furthermore, at least one of these pages is in Arabic — WP:EL states: "...external links to English-language content are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia..."--Supertouch (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"Its recitationa and explanations" do not contribute to an understanding of the Quran? This is self-contradictory.

Perhaps to a disinterested perspective it makes no difference. The links offer different options for diacritics and different readings (tilawas) which are divided into different types with different emphasizes be it for study, recitation or prayer. The sites I added also offer various editions within sets of foreign language translations which would be of much interest to Muslims and students of qur'an in terms of comparative analysis of the translations.

You have still to explain why and how not one of the links offer something new to the lone link that was there (the OQP) when it is clear just by putting them side by side, that the OQP is grossly lacking in features and facilities offered by the Four links I added. Recitations and styles of recitation are as important to Muslims as styles of singing are to opera singers. You can check that for yourself.

Likewise the sets of diacritics used, the interpretative texts and the divergent translations by different translators in classic editions in many languages are important comparative tools particularly for the non-arabic speaker and the multi-lingual users of the subject matter.

I cannot presume to determine what is relevant, important or unimportant when it comes to online resources on the Torah, the Tanakh or the Talmud, nor would I presume to label online resources for jews or christians as spam.

As it were, what you call borderline spam is entirely non commercial, no ads, entirely in the public domain. No corporate or sectarian plugging in here. It is just a plain vanilla set of resources each with a different subset of facilities and features. The variety and choice is of use to muslims and non muslims alike, ie those who are interested in the subject matter.

I suggest we appeal to some arbitration by any Muslim wikipedia administrators or moderators (do they exist?), and since you are a veteran moderator here, I ask you to provide me with help on that.

Your perspective on the usages of these resources is deficient at best and cannot be pass proper judgement on the utility of those FOUR links to a Muslim, of whatever native language - or indeed to non-muslim students of the qur'an.

I would like you to elucidate how I can go about making my case for the relevance of those links in order to have my edit re-instated. It is pointless for me to posture by reverting / undoing your edit - since you'll probably pull rank and seniority.

But that would not be impartial or fair to the subject matter at hand. -- Scriber (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the Quran, while I am not opposed to external links to individual books of tafsir, it inappropriate on this particular page—perhaps putting an external link at the page for Tafsir Ibn Kathir to an on-line version of that book would work but not on this page. A suitable external link would be, for example, to an on-line version of al-Itqan a book that explains what the Quran is and its various disciplines. A major point you failed to address is the issue of language — external links should be in English.--Supertouch (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I added this discussion to Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Qur'an.--Supertouch (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Permit me to repost my edits to my response to you, where my rationale is more elaborated.

Also, please note these are not links to Tafsir!!! These Are links to the Mushaf offering various functions (eg, to display translations, tafsirs, diacritics, play audio, and control the appear and flow of the text!) They are above all sites of the Quran , each offering a slightly different subset of those functions ! Here's a better proofread and better organized re-coup of my earlier response:

"Its recitations and explanations" do not contribute to an understanding of the Quran? How can explanations not conrtibute to understandings of the Qur'an?? This is self-contradictory.

Perhaps to a disinterested perspective it makes no difference.

You have still to explain why and how not one of the links offer something new to the lone link that was there (the OQP) when it is clear just by putting them side by side, that the OQP is grossly lacking in features and facilities offered by the Four links I added.

But here are my reasons for the relevance and utility of those external links:

• Recitations to Muslims are as valued as say , Beatles covers or Bob Dylan covers are to fans of those artists. To draw on another analogy The different recitations are like different stage productions of classical dramatic works. Each production offers different angles, qualities and so on. They are of aesthetic and devotional value to the Muslims. The Open Quran Project offers no audio recitations whatsoever.
• Recitations and styles of recitation are as important to Muslims as styles of singing are to opera singers. You can check that easily.
• Audio material is important to those reading the quran particularly the elderly, or those with short attention spans, those trying to learn how to read it, and how to pronounce it. Not only are audio materials available but in one or two of the Four links, audio streaming is available also in languages other than arabic.
• More importantly, there exist different styles of recitations, (formally called Tilawa, and a concept not foreign to jewish recitation of jewish scriptures) There are different schools and types of recitation, and since the Qur'an is literally called the Book to be read (aloud) Recitation and its styles is Central to the devotional practices of reading the Qur'an. Indeed the injunction is that whenever possible to read it aloud and as correctly as possible. The provision of recitations in their variety, is important in that aspect of Quran study that involves learning how to read and intone the verses aloud, the timing and intonation are but to elements of this practice. It is not some esoteric thing it is cross-sectarian and a widely well-known matter.
• Thus, the links offer different options for different readings (tilawas) which are divided into different types with different emphasizes be it for study, recitation or prayer. The sites I added also offer various editions within sets of foreign language translations which would be of much interest to Muslims and students of qur'an in terms of comparative analysis of the translations.

• The sites to varying degrees offer controls on the sets and subsets of diacritics to display which have grammatical implications and consequently have an important bearing on the meanings of the verses' content. Diacritics make all the difference in grammar, pronounciation and meaning in Arabic. The Open Quran Project again is lacking in this department.3

• The sets of diacritics used, the interpretative texts and the divergent translations by different translators in classic editions in many languages are important comparative tools particularly for the non-arabic speaker and the multi-lingual users of the subject matter.

• I cannot presume to determine what is relevant, important or unimportant when it comes to online resources on the Torah, the Tanakh or the Talmud, nor would I presume to label online resources for jews or christians as "borderline spam." Such a call should be made by a domain expert in the subject at hand - perhaps, as i wrote before, one or more Muslim admins / mods - if they exist!!!

As it were, what you call "borderline spam" is entirely non commercial, no ads, entirely in the public domain. No corporate or sectarian plugging in here. And this can be easily verified. It is just a plain vanilla set of resources each with a different subset of facilities and features. The variety and choice is of use to muslims and non muslims alike, ie those who are interested in the subject matter.

I suggest we appeal to some arbitration by any Muslim wikipedia administrators or moderators (do they exist?), and since you are a veteran moderator here, I ask you to provide me with help on that.

Your perspective on the usages of these resources is deficient at best and cannot pass proper judgement on the utility of those FOUR links to a Muslim, of whatever native language - or indeed to non-muslim students of the qur'an.

I would like you to elucidate how I can go about making my case for the relevance of those links in order to have my edit re-instated. It is pointless for me to posture by reverting / undoing your edit - since you'll probably pull rank and seniority, and also I would lose my editing privileges. And ultimately it would not be impartial or fair to the subject matter at hand nor would it be of service to users of those resources who find them here - should my position on the utility and relevance of those links be proven correct! In other words, everyone stands to lose from stubborness either on your part (with more expertise) or on my part (with my lack of it). So do please help me get some of those links up there. Vet them, inquire about them, ask other more knowledgeable admins about them, and tell me how to proceed. Thanks! -- Scriber (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think a good translation site is in order. Perhaps the one with the most reliable, most accessible, and highest-quality translations. Anything more than one or two translation sites would probably be overkill. I've seen articles such as this get way bogged down in excessive external links, so it would be a good idea to only pick the best from the above to discourage a linkfarm from developing ThemFromSpace 16:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)