Talk:Quran

Edit request from , 18 October 2011

I have a question, if you learn quran, do you be a terrorist such as Osama bin-Laden. 184.145.12.210 (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done -- You are answering a nonsense question. You have a lack of understanding here. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean asking, and can we remove this or something? Maz640-Wikipedian Extraordinaire (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Bold text BASIC CONCEPTS Of QURAN------------------

1.TUHID{ ONENESS OF ALLAH i.e GOD ALMIGHTY 2.CREATION from NOTHINGNESS i.AL-NOOR.II. ZULUMAT{BLACK HOLES} iii. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslammaslamraj (talk • contribs) 16:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for addition of detail of basic concepts, such as, Creation,Tuhid of.God

Bold text SUB: Wikipedia article "Qur,an" Ref.Introduction The Quran (English pronunciation: /kɒˈrɑːn/ kor-ahn; Arabic: القرآن‎ al-qurʾān, IPA: [qurˈʔaːn],[variations] literally meaning "the recitation"), also transliterated Qur'an, Koran, Alcoran, Qur’ān, Coran, Kuran, and al-Qur’ān, is the central religious text of Islam, which Muslims consider the verbatim word of God[1] (Arabic: الله‎, Allah). It is regarded widely as the finest piece of literature in the Arabic language.[2][3][4][5][6] The Quran is divided into 114 suras of unequal length which are classified either as Meccan or Medinan depending upon their place and time of revelation.[7] { please complete it by adding the following facts] 86 Chapters[surahs]were read to prophet in Meccanian period[13 years] 28 Chapters were read to prophet in Madiniana period[10 years] i.Meccanian chapters teach Creation of All Universe.Solar system Earth,Fertility of Earth. Skies or Atmosphere.etc ii.History of creation of Adam and Eve in full detail. History of all ancient nations and prophets,Creation procedure of humans on earth Long struggle against pagan leaders of Quraish Biography of prophet Muhammad[peace be upon him]Prophet could not read or write. God taught him and He inscribed all of Quran by his hand. and after his death his successor Abubaker inherited his book called Quran.----aslam maslam raj — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslammaslamraj (talk • contribs) 16:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable secondary source instead of original research. We need have additional published works attesting to this information to add it. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

verse-2-114 & 2-115.correct translation& asbab-e. nazul according to Quran

Bold text "The Qur'an possesses an external appearance and a hidden depth, an exoteric meaning and an esoteric meaning. This esoteric meaning in turn conceals an esoteric meaning (this depth possesses a depth, after the image of the celestial Spheres, which are enclosed within each other). So it goes on for seven esoteric meanings (seven depths of hidden depth)."[83]

These two verses are relevant to one another.Prophet Muhammad[p.b.u.h] had left Mecca and reached in Valley of QUBA . a place near Medina and all the Muslims who had migrated were residing there.prophet wanted to start Salat to offer prayers to God, but he was not sure to which side he must keep his face. so to guide him .God said by first verse[114] Such wrong doers are Human being that they try to ruin the two Holiest Temples of God. and they do not fear God Almighty and do not pray. [ these are ; one is in Mecca and other is in Jerusalem ] 115. Unto Allah belong that one which is East and the other in west but now you turn your face toward that one which is very faraway. [Fathamma]There is Allah's countenance Allah is pleased with it. Allah is all embracing ,All knowing Asbab-e. nazul from Tafsir Jalallian[Al-Suyuti]page: 7[115] So there should not be any controversy And note that it was Qibla only for short time.After 18 verses Qibla was Ordered to be old one[ Bait-Ullah of Mecca]----aslam maslamraj — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslammaslamraj (talk • contribs) 16:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable secondary source instead of original research. We need have additional published works attesting to this information to add it. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

WARNING= Quran's MASSIVELY FALSIFIED INFORMATION on wikipedia articles need CORRECTIONS to every part and line: wikipedia' s Quran entries is totally unqualified for inclusion

svp REVIEW ALL ARTICLES ON ISLAM,QURAN,RELIGIONS,GOD, Etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.213.57.190 (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you give some specific examples of what you believe are problems? And maybe turn quit SHOUTING (typing in all caps is like shouting on the internet). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Most likely either an extreme muslim zealot who thinks this article isn't islamic enough, or an extreme Anti-Islamist who thinks this article isn't harshly critical enough. 64.180.40.75 (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

That's baseless and pointless speculation. Fact is this user needed to provide at least some contested content for others to dig into. Wikipedia can't read minds. 94.214.196.189 (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Section 5.2 Ta'wil certain bias.

In this section it states

ta'wil indicates the particular meaning a verse is directed towards. The meaning of revelation (tanzil), as opposed to ta'wil, is clear in its accordance to the obvious meaning of the words as they were revealed. But this explanation has become so widespread that, at present, it has become the primary meaning of ta'wil, which originally meant "to return" or "the returning place". In Tabatabaei's view, what has been rightly called ta'wil, or hermeneutic interpretation of the Quran, is not concerned simply with the denotation of words.

(I would like to state this alone has a certain bias. However regardless of that, this entire section reads poorly and is very hard to understand. I had a mixture of students from my university try and read this paragraph and none of them understood at all what was trying to be communicated. So there are two things that need to be done, Make this understandable by the layman, and to remove such bias. I hope this proves to be constructive criticism of this article.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.43.180 (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's very constructive criticism. Thank you. I can't comment on any 'bias' because I am not familiar with the subject matter (this article is on my watchlist for some reason long ago). What I can say with certainty is that I have read the quoted passage several times now and I have no clear idea on what it is trying to say, either. If you can contribute at all to rewriting this in a more understandable way, then I think that most readers who come across this passage would be very grateful for that. Begoon ^talk 11:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Questionable Neutrality

The article claims "which Muslims consider the verbatim word of God". This is a fundamentalist view and in violation of the wikipedia neutrality policy. Any news site reveals many self-identified muslims that do in fact not believe the quran word for word is literally true.

The article suffers from neutrality issues through and through. (For instance the next sentence claims "It is regarded widely as the finest piece of literature in the Arabic language.[2][3][4][5][6]"; These sources are not meta-studies, and are arguably biased. A companion to a literary work generally praises it for instance.). A great many citations are missing also.

I would propose a revision of at least parts of this article, preferably by someone knowledgeable on the subject. 94.214.196.189 (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's been a while now, someone should step in and take care of this neutrality issue. A better alternate phrasing would be: "which many Muslims consider the word of God"

So: Please change "which Muslims consider the verbatim word of God" to "which many Muslims consider the word of God" 94.214.196.189 (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: The current text is supported by the source. You would need to provide a reliable source which supports "many Muslims". Thanks, Celestra (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Qur'ān is most accurate not Quran

Wikipedia acknowledging Quran rather than Koran is certainly an improvement, but not entirely correct as those who are familiar with classical Arabic know, the name of the holy book of Islam is (القرآن). I am in favour of the most accurate transliteration Qur'ān. Of course if that is found tedious for typing, Qur'an if a better alternative to Quran just adding ' before "a". Quran that we are using is a step in the right direction, but does not reflect the correct title as it completely disregards the آ in the title of the book القرآن. The best way to get around the difficulty is by adopting Qur'ān and making Qur'an, Quran and Koran as redirects to it werldwayd (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This should be addressed at Wikipedia:Requested moves, which would link to the discussion here. Dru of Id (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Request

Would it be possible to add a section with guidelines how the Quran should be handled/disposed of?