Talk:Al-Fatiha

Arabic Text

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why was the Arabic text below removed from the page? Its really hard for arabic learners to read the handwritten text shown on the image.

1. بِسْمِ ٱللَّهِ ٱلرَّحْمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ
2. ٱلْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ ٱلْعَـٰلَمِينَ
3. ٱلرَّحْمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ
4. مَـٰلِكِ يَوْمِ ٱلدِّينِ
5. إِيَّاكَ نَعْبُدُ وَإِيَّاكَ نَسْتَعِينُ
6. ٱهْدٱلْمُسْتَقِيمَ
7. صِرَ ٰطَ ٱلَّذِينَ أَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِمْ غَيْرِ ٱلْمَغْضُوبِ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلاَ ٱلضَّاۤلِّينَ

✓ Done. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Al-Fatiha Foundation

I understand that some editors dislike the content of the Al-Fatiha Foundation article, but it is a legitimate article and the disambig is necessary. "Offensiveness" is a POV concern and we cannot hide haram topics from Wikipedia readers. Please do not remove the disambig again. Thanks. Babajobu 13:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Then, why not a nice Disambiguation page? 193.146.45.126 19:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Because there are only two relevant articles, and a significant majority of people looking for "Al Fatiha" will be looking for this article, not the gay rights org. Babajobu 15:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I removed the link today thinking it was vandalism - and this change was subsequently reverted. However, I think this article should reconsider having a disambiguation page and also contemplate rephrasing the disamb link.

Firstly, it is not at all unusual to have a disambiguition page with just two links (there are many examples - [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] etc....), so this shouldn't be an issue.

Also, it is bound to offend muslims by having a gay and lesbian organisation link at the top of a page likely to have a large muslim audience. I suggest that we rephrase the disamb link at the top to -

"al-Fatiha" redirects here. For other uses, see Al-Fatiha (disambiguation).

[8] and [9] use a similar disamb link phraseology and link to a disamb page having only two links. I assume my suggestions would be popular amongst editors here given the good-intentioned removals of the link. Wikipidian 06:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism? How could a disambig link to another article of similar name count as vandalism? Anyway, if people were deleting the link because they personally dislike the content at the other end, they should be reminded that Wikipedia is not censored for their (or anyone else's) religious beliefs. However, we can explore other ways of presenting the link. The Bokaro model is an option, but you see that the unqualified use of the term "Bokaro" links to the disambig page, not to either of the articles. My guess is that this is how all the binary disambig pages work. It doesn't make much sense to have the main term (here, Al-Fatiha) link to one of the articles, with a note that other uses can be found at Al-Fatiha (disambiguation), which then includes only one other article. That's a lot of steps for just two articles, my guess is that terms with two articles are not handled this way elsewhere on Wikipedia, and the only reason I can see for doing it is as concession to theology. Wikipedia doesn't make editorial decisions based on readers' religious sensibilities (e.g., Muhammad Cartoons and Piss Christ), and I don't think we should start now. Babajobu 10:00 am, 7 May 2006, Sunday (4 years, 10 months, 21 days ago) (UTC−7)

Babajobu I have already given you an example of such an article where wikipedia handles 2 similarly-named articles by linking to a dismmbiguation page in the way you described: it is reference 8 in my list, the article entitled bilberry. But because it suits your argument you chose instead to talk about about the bokaro article (reference 9).

If you type bilberry in the search box you will get the bilberry article with the disambiguation {{other uses}} model template at the top, this then links to a disamb page with 2 articles.

IN FACT HERE ARE TWENTY MORE EXAMPLES OF WIKIPEDIA HANDLING DISAMBIGUITY BETWEEN TWO SIMILARLY NAMED ARTICLES IN THIS WAY- AARP, Apparatchick, Brett Whiteley, Callisthenes, Daisy Systems, Daniel O'Connell, Dead Man's Switch, Dunedin, Fraser River, Fulke Greville, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, Harpers Ferry, Kilsyth, Maradona, Max steiner, Michael Phelps, Schizophrenia, Short Circuit, Trafalgar Square, Zefyri and so on and so forth.

So you see, we would not at all be setting a precedent by following my suggestion. Personally I don't think we should have the link at all, as there is no ambiguity - when you click "go" when searching for al-fatiha you will expect to see the article on surah al-fatiha, if you want to see something else click search[10].

ALSO DON'T THINK I DIDN'T NOTICE THAT YOU CREATED THE AL-FATIHA ORGANISATION PAGE AND HAVE THE MAJORITY OF EDITS FOR THIS ARTICLE - WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A SOAPBOX Babajobu - "Creating overly abundant links ... to articles in which you have a personal stake, is similarly unacceptable." [11]. I reitterate that removal of the link appears popular with editors, in fact you are the only editor who is reverting BUT I want to achieve some compromise so I again point to my original suggestion. Wikipidian 7:27 pm, 7 May 2006, Sunday (4 years, 10 months, 21 days ago) (UTC−7)

I didn't choose the Bokaro example because it suited my argument, I chose it because I had never encountered the sort of disambig arrangement you described, and because Bokaro was the first of your examples I clicked on and was consistent with how I've usually seen a two-term disambig situation handled. But ignoring your assumption of bad faith, you've satisfied me that the "see disambig page" link to a two-term disambig is in use on Wikipedia. I think it's a clumsy solution, and the Wikipedia community has repeatedly rejected the notion that the protection of religious sensibilities should affect editorial decisions. And, of course, it's certainly plausible that someone interested in GLBT issues would know the name of Al-Fatiha, but not know that it is called a "foundation" rather than a community or an organization or whatever. But if you want arrange the disambig in a way that will protect Muslims from haram information, I won't object, because you've demonstrated to my satisfaction that the alternative disambig arrangement can also be defended on more reasonable grounds. Babajobu 8:26 pm, 7 May 2006, Sunday (4 years, 10 months, 21 days ago) (UTC−7)

==REMOVE THE LINK AT THE TOP, THIS IS THE OPENER OF THE MOST HOLY BOOK IN THE WORLD FOR ALL MUSLIMS, AND THAT YOU EVEN THINK OF DOING SOMETHING LIKE THIS DELIBERATELY THIS IS UNACCEPTIBLE== "...Guide us to the Right Path. The path of those upon whom Thou has bestowed favors, Not of those who Thou has cursed once nor of those who have gone astray. " is the opposer a muslim? He should ASK for guidance to the right path, and this is not the path of those who have gone astray. Quite contrary, the first line of the wikipedia article of one of the most important surahs in the QURAN, is in fact ITSELF leading people astray, to "lgbt" article, an organization of people who still are stuck in worldly matters and sexuality, this is incomparable to the unlimited height of the message of the quran. What on earth have you been smoking when you put this, and still insist on it being at the top of one of the most important articles of quran in wikipedia???? I normally couldnt care less about others sexuality, but my this is original. GET IN LINE IN THE SCALE OF IMPORTANCE OF THINGS! DO YOU UNDERSTAND?Odarcan (talk) 09:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Restored but will consider a dab page. Dougweller (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

then please make one Odarcan (talk) 09:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

arabic font size

could this be bigger? It's really hard to read.

Allah or God

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The word 'Allah' is a name while God in english language is a general word. I think Allah should be used in english translation.

God (with an uppercase G) is a proper name in English which can not take a plural, not a general word. The name God is the name of the one and only god of the Jews, Christians and Muslims in English. Many people (both English speakers and non-English speakers) confuse it with the word god (with a lowercase g), which is a general word refering to any deity of any religion (and can therefore take a plural). The correct translation into English of the name Allah is God, just as the correct translation of the name Isa is Jesus, Ayyub is Job, Yahya is John, Yunus is Jonah, Talut is Saul, etc. --Drivelhead 9:42 am, 20 May 2006, Saturday (4 years, 10 months, 8 days ago) (UTC−7)

The work God in English is in no way a general word. Were a translation of biblical text made from English to Arabic it would be translated as Allah in a similar way, albet opposite, as is done in this article. To do otherwise would be to propagate a the misconception that Allah is a separate god from God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.67.6 (talk) 7:20 pm, 8 December 2009, Tuesday (1 year, 3 months, 18 days ago) (UTC−8) #

I am a Muslim and I must agree with SineBot. Jewish articles do not use Adonai or Hashem, why use Allah. This tends to make ppl think it's a different God when they don't know much about Islam. Also they don't mention that Ir Rahman Ir Raheem are two of Hashem Adonaior Allah's names. ~GCleph

Allah is the proper name of god or God or GOD in Islam which cannot be translated. If I say my name is Abdullah, and I am introducing myself to the English men, I cannot say that my name is Slave of the God in Islam. Or can I? wlvrnclws 23:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the Notes

Well, quoting "Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody" in an article about Al Qur'an and Surah Al-Fatihah might appear a little bit ... misplaced. No ? TwoHorned 5:17 am, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This passage can be easily contended, there are hundreds of English translations of the Quran and Dawood is the only translator to make these references. He also worked strictly as a translator, not a student of the Quran, publishing several translations of books in 1955; meaning that his scholarly abilities in translating a Quran weren't super academic and therefore not as trustworthy. He also mixed all the chapters up in his 1955 translation, something that had to be changed upon the 2nd edition because of major concerns from the Muslim community. The references to his translations don't actually show valid citations either. So, I'm in favor of deleting the whole sentence, or at least posting citation as questionable. Yeah?

In the seventh verse, the words "those who have earned your Anger/Wrath" refer to the Jews (also translated as "those who have incurred your wrath," Dawood, 1955.) and the words "those who have lost their way" refer to Christians (also translated as "those who have gone astray," N. J. Dawood, 1955.) 23:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuaneAhmad (talk • contribs)

For Information purposes:

The first verse, transliterated as "bismillāhir rahmānir rahīm", may be familiar due to its ubiquity in Arabic and Muslim societies. Using the Hafs recitation, this verse appears at the start of every chapter in the Qur'an with the exception of the ninth. The verse normally precedes reciting a chapter or part of a chapter during daily prayer in Islam, and is proclaimed before many personal and everyday activities as a way to invoke God's blessing. The two words "ar rahmān" and "ar rahīm" are often translated in English as "the beneficent" and "the merciful". Grammatically the two words "rahmaan" and "raheem" are different linguistic forms of the triconsonantal root R-H-M, connoting "mercy".

The second verse's "الحمد الله" ranks as one of the most popular phrases in all of Arabic, being used to express one's well-being, general happiness, or even consolation in a disaster (see Alhamdulillah). The verse is also significant in that it includes a relationship between the two most common names for God in Arabic "الله" and "رب". The first word is a ubiquitous name for God, and the second roughly translates to "Lord." It shares the same root with the Hebrew "rabbi". In some printings of the Qur'an, both words appear in red everywhere in the Qur'an.

The first word of the fourth verse varies as between variant recitation versions of the Qur'an. The most widely preferred of those differ on whether it is "maliki" with a short "a," which means "king" (Warsh, from Nafi'; Ibn Kathir; Ibn Amir; Abu 'Amr; Hamza), or rather "māliki" with a long "a," meaning "master" or "owner" (Hafs, from Asim, and al-Kisa'i). "Maliki" and "māliki" are distinct words of inconsistent precise meaning deriving from the same triconsonantal root in Arabic, M-L-K.

In the seventh verse, the words "those who have earned your Anger/Wrath" refer to the Jews (also translated as "those who have incurred your wrath," Dawood, 1955.) and the words "those who have lost their way" refer to Christians (also translated as "those who have gone astray," N. J. Dawood, 1955.)

JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Virtues of this Sura

I was thinking about making a table "Virtues of Sura" in this way below. But whether certain Hadiths are authentic or not may vary from scholar to scholar within the same school. Also the branches are quite misleading. It needs to be done by an Alim/Ulema, else it will certainly do more harm than good. (Also added some details about Bismillah)

Authentic Hadith according to various branches

Hadith	Maliki	Shafi	Hambali	Hanafi	Salafi /Ahle Hadith	Sufi	Shia
ABCD	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No
EFGH	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes

I divided Virtues into several parts. The part "Uncategorized Collection" can have things which we generally know about but cannot yet classify into truthful/argumentative/weak. It can be removed if the other parts are filled. Verycuriousboy (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Assalaamu Alaikum. I am making table-form of the Virtues of Sura al-Nas. Pray for me. Jazakallah Khair. - Verycuriousboy (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

17 times Al-Fatiha in mandatory prayers

This is not exactly true. If u pray all the mandatory prayers behind an Imam then count is 0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.105.156.120 (talk) 3:05 am, 28 April 2008, Monday (2 years, 10 months, 29 days ago) (UTC−7)

---

Thats funny, even if you pray behind an Imam, you still have to recite it AFTER him as far as I know, in all of the rakaah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.134.213.192 (talk) 5:28 am, 8 August 2009, Saturday (1 year, 7 months, 19 days ago) (UTC−7)

If Muslims do the 5 obligatory prayers, then they recite Al-Fatiha 17 times in one day. In each repetition or Rakah of the Prayer (Salat) Al Fatiha is recited. The number of times depends on the prayer time. There are 3 prayers of 4 Rakats, 1 of 3 Rakats and 1 of 2 Rakats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkvang64 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If someone else would expand the lead I would make this a good article

However if I have to expand the lead then someone else will have to make it a good article. Which could mean all sorts of things being demanded. I could see some reviewer wanting to make this article about how much they dislike Islam and the Quran.--Hfarmer (talk) 4:50 am, 18 December 2008, Thursday (2 years, 3 months, 8 days ago) (UTC−8)

Regarding the audio file

what kind is wanted? Just reading it or reading it with the classic melody? (as is done on the site IslamWay If it's just reading it, then I know arabic and I wouldn't mind.

--User:SuperJew (talk) 8:26 am, 30 April 2009, Thursday (1 year, 10 months, 27 days ago) (UTC−7)

Multiple Issues tag

This has the potential to be a good article, as of right now, however, it is in desperate need of reorganization, and wikification as well as some issues need to be cited or commentary removed. Particularly difficult is the Interpretation section that does not cite sources in the wiki format (cites via Qur'an). It also borders and occasionally goes over the limits of WP:ENC. Finally it has some formatting problems that make it hard to read and are also not conforming to WP:MOS. I would fix those bits myself but I would rather someone with a better knowledge of the Qur'an do so as the formatting is the smaller issue at stake here.

I'd like to be clear that I find this article important and that the interpretation section has some very interesting points in it. It simply needs to conform to Wikipedia standards and make sure to cite its sources correctly so that it reads more like an encyclopedia rather than an opinion seasoned exegesis of the surah. I also think some standardization in the system of romanization of the Arabic in the article would be helpful but I can't tell if Wikipedia has a set transliteration system.

Ilkelma (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Merge with https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Al-hamdu_lillahi_rabbil_%27alamin - Verycuriousboy (talk) 07:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added a POV tag and an OR tag to the article. I don't think any explanation of the tags is necessary, so obvious are the problems, but if anyone disagrees with the tags, let me know and I'll explain their justification in more detail. As a placeholder: This article is in sorry shape, and very little of it seems to be sourced. Much of the article is also extremely difficult to understand (nigh on unreadable) due to bad prose and formatting. My opinion (at this moment) is that entire sections of it are so plagued by POV, OR, and citation needed problems that they should be deleted and restarted from scratch. Someone please convince me otherwise, or make some dramatic changes to fix these problems. Otherwise I'll take it upon myself to tame this mess in a few days time.--Grapplequip (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• • This article (particularly the "explanation of structure" section) read as a religious sermon to a religious student, a believer or would-be believer, and nothing like an enyclopedia article. So I edited that section heavily to include "Muslims believe that..." and de-capitalized "He" and "Him" in reference to Allah. From "What Wikipedia Is Not": "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, as well as articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:

Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanegreene (talk • contribs) 10:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization & God concept

I have made edits before capitalizing the name of God in the translations. In the Jewish articles God is capital. Why not here? I am doing it again and will continue as Islam is also an Abrahamic religion. If you want it not capital, then remove it EVERYWHERE don't just pick on us Muslims —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.109.20.141 (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I find your tone confrontational and defensive, but your point is well taken. Capital G God should be the word used here as shown by previous discussions on this talk page. I have also changed a reference to "their god-concept" as I think it is not NPOV in that it appears to cast doubt on the accuracy of using the word God as well as adopting a superior tone that is wholly unnecessary and potentially very offensive. Ilkelma (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

File:001 abdulbaset fatiha.ogg Nominated for speedy Deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

	An image used in this article, File:001 abdulbaset fatiha.ogg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources

It appears that most, if not all, of the sources cited in this article do not conform to WP:SOURCES, as they appear to be self-published websites. Please let me know if I'm wrong in this assessment.--Grapplequip (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Salam all,

Please consider integrating this infomation to this section.

Please see how the additive prime numbers of surat Al-Fatiha (7 verses, 29 words, 139 letters) point to a new numerology system called Primalogy in which the Arabic letters are ordered alphabetically from elf to yaa and given prime values from 2 to 107 [with hamza = 1].

Additive prime number (AP) is a prime number whose digit sum is also prime. All 7 (7), 29 (2+9=11), and 139 (1+3+9=13) are all additive prime numbers (AP).

The primalogy value (PV) of surat Al-Fatiha is 8317 (additive prime number).

The PV of surat Al-Ikhlaas with bismAllah is 4201 (additive prime number).

The PV of surat Al-Ikhlaas without bismAllah is 3167 (additive prime number).

The PV of Ayatul-Kursi is 11261 (additive prime number).

The PV of most repeated verse in the Quran "Fabiayee aalaaei Rabbikumaa tukathibaan" is 683 (additive prime number). The aya has 4 words and is repeated 31 times in surat Ar-Rahmaan. The PV of this aya (683) is the 124th prime number, where 124 = 4 x 31.

And the PV of the word "Allah" is 269 (additive prime number).

Moreover, Quran 15:87: "We have given you seven of the Methaani and the Grand Quran" implies: The Book = The Key + The Message 114 sura = 1 (Al-Fatiha) + 113 sura (AP) 6236 aya = 7 (Al-Fatiha) + 6229 aya (AP)

Even the word Al-Quran means The Readable (despite being encoded which no one can produce at chapter-level).

Glory to Allah The Creator and Sustainer of all seen and unseen worlds in real-time.

Thank you,

Ali Adams God > infinity www.heliwave.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.58.154 (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Mathematical Structure in Sura 1 (Al-Fatehah) based on number 19 (Over it is Nineteen 74:30)

Peace to all,

God Willing I intend starting a new section as follows,

The Quran is characterized by a unique phenomenon never found in any human authored book, one that is based on number 19, it can be seen as a common denominator of the Quran.

(1). The first verse of this Sura referred as Basmalah بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ has 19 Arabic Letters.

(2) The sura number, followed by the numbers of verses, next to each other, give 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. This number is a multiple of 19.

(3) If we substitute the number of letters per verse in place of the verse numbers, we get 1 19 17 12 11 19 18 43. This number is also a multiple of 19.

(4) If we insert the total gematrical value of every verse, we get 1 19 786 17 581 12 618 11 241 19 836 18 1072 43 6009. This number is a multiple of 19.

Verse #	No. of Letters	Gematrical Value
1	19	786
2	17	581
3	12	618
4	11	241
5	19	836
6	18	1072
7	43	6009
Totals	139	10143

(5) The number shown above includes all parameters of Sura 1 and consists of 38 digits (19x2).

(6) It is noteworthy that this 38-digit number is still divisible by 19 when we write its components backward, from right to left, as practiced by the Arabs. Thus, 6009 43 1072 18 836 19 241 11 618 12 581 17 786 19 1 is also a multiple of 19.

If there are any concerns do let me know, else I God Willing intend to upload this on the main page in another 36 hours time.

Peace

(DukhanSmoke (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC))

Can you please explain, that from an encyclopedic (or even Da'wah) point of view, will this information benefit any one? Further, if you really want to add this, pls cite the sources as well. Need to submit this article to "Good Articles" list, so it must follow all WP guidelines of being a Good articleHQEditor (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you please consider the following translation? It is in line with all other chapters in the Quran.

1:1 In the Name of God, Allah, the Merciful everywhere, the Merciful everywhen.

1:2 Praise belongs to Allah, Lord of all the worlds, (why?) ... 1:3 (because You are) the best Merciful, the most Merciful.

1:4 (oh) Master of the Day of Retribution. ... 1:5 You [alone] do we worship, and to You [alone] do we turn for help.

1:6 Guide us on the straight path, (which path?) ... 1:7 the path of those whom You have blessed — not of those who incur Your wrath, nor of those who are going astray.

God > — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliwave (talk • contribs) 15:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Is Translations, interpretations and commentaries accurate?

Apologies for the lack of knowledge, but is the following statement accurate?

"In verses 6 and 7, since they are to be repeated by the faithful at least 17 times a day, it is important to remember what is being described. The phrase "the Path journeyed by those upon whom You showered blessings" refers to Muslims. The phrase "those who made themselves liable to criminal cognizance/arrest" (more clearly translated as "those who have incurred Your wrath") refers to the Jews. The phrase "those who are the neglectful wanderers" (more clearly translated as "those who have gone astray") refers to the Christians."

There is no supporting citation, and as a non-Muslim it comes across very specific when my knee-jerk reaction is that it could apply to broader things. If that's the proper interpretation, hey, that's great, just add a citation. But if it's not actually the globally acknowledged understanding it should either be deleted or acknowledged as only one understanding. Again, I am not Muslim, I'm just interested in understanding and I don't like taking something like this verbatim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judoka735 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

A really excellent question. I have found a reliable sources on this, " The Qur'an and Its Interpreters: v.1: Vol 1 by Mahmoud M. Ayoub (Jun 1984) " (when you see websites being used for such things, always check) and this says[12] "7. The way of those upon whom You have bestowed Your favor, not of those who have incurred Your wrath or those who have gone astray. (7) Most commentators have included the Jews among those who have "incurred" divine wrath and the Christians among those who have "gone astray" (Tabari, I, pp. 185-195; Zamakhshari, I, p. 71). Some commentators, however, have questioned this view, because the text makes no specific reference to any religious community, and have chosen instead to retain the general meaning of the text, which refers to two types of people rather than any particular religious community. Nisaburi asserts that "those who have incurred God's wrath are the people of negligence, and those who have gone astray are the people of immoderation" (Nisaburi, I, p. 113; for a com- prehensive discussion of different views, see Tabarsi, I, pp. 59-66). In contrast with Nisaburi's pietistic interpretation, Ibn 'Arabi pre- sents a highly mystical exegesis of Sural al-Fatihah, reflecting his own philosophy of the unity of being (wahdat al-wujud)." and goes into more detail than may be appropriate here. Dougweller (talk) 09:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The idea that the two categories of "bad people" are Jews and Christians may indeed be held by "most commentators" but I seriously doubt it. Those ideas are abroad in large part because of the ready availability of editions of the Q'ran that are paid for and distributed by the Saudis, and the interpretation is specifically a Wahabbi one. In English translations distributed through Saudi channels, those ideas are actually added to the text in the form of parenthetical expressions, so that unless a reader goes to the trouble of finding several translations to compare, he or she is likely to come away with the notion that this ideas are the actual words of the Q'ran and they are not. Theonemacduff (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion of the interpretations of the Surah has no place under the subheading "Summary of the Surah". In the references, mention of Jews and Christians has been inserted into the text, and is unrelated to the translation of the text. At best, the paragraph describes one school of thought, that belongs on a different page or section. That being said, not only is this interpretation in direct contradiction to Surah 2:62 and 5:62 [13], but inferring that "neglectful wanderers" and "[those] who have incurred your wrath" is to be read as Christians and Jews needs to be substantiated. Maybe it just refers to those who are considered "negligent" and/or sinful, pretty safe bet in Abrahamic texts...01:08, 16 February 2015 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.168.125 (talk)

Removal of a sub-section

I believe that the section "An experienced way of warding off Jinn or magic" under the heading "Shia benefits" should be removed as it is unsourced and doesn't seem to be based on anything authentic. --Wahj-asSaif (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion regarding in-sufficiency of translations

A discussion regarding the in-sufficiency of translations against the original text was added to the article, which really highlights an important issue when reading translations rather than original text. However, the discussion required a citation if sourced from an external reliable source. If it was original research, then it should first be published in a reliable source, then quoted on Wp. Pls refer WP:PANDS. The discussion has therefore been removed from the article page, but copy pasted below. HQEditor (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Reading any text, including in one's native language, is in fact translation. When we read English text we simultaneously translate it by conceiving the message, the thought, intention of the writer conveyed to you. It is unfortunate that people seldom consider this everyday understanding when it comes to Qur'aan which will decide their fate. Why is it so important for our own sake and interest to achieve success in the hereafter that we must learn to translate and evaluate the translations?

Quite many people have translated the text of Qur'aan for various motivations, considerations and intentions, good as well as bad, in timeline. Most of these are available on line-42 at a website. Thanks to computer and internet technology, it is now easy to see the majority of translations on one page. This blessing of technology has highlighted a dismal image of saddening effect. When we see many translations on one page we find more plagiarism than original work by the majority.

بِسْمِ اللّهِ الرَّحْمـَنِ الرَّحِيم

George Sale: (London, 1734) In the name of the most merciful God. John Medows Rodwell: (London, 1861) In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Sahih International: In the name of Allah , the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful.

Pickthall: In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

Yusuf Ali: In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

Shakir: In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

Muhammad Sarwar: In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful

Mohsin Khan: In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.

Sher Ali [Qadiani] In the name of ALLAH, the Gracious, the Merciful.

1. Whether this English "sentence" is a complete sentence or is lacking in linkages. 2. If it is not a complete sentence, what will be the meanings or connotation of "In the name of God":

  (a) In behalf of;
  (b) By the authority of;
  (c) With appeal to; or
  (d)  Just a swearing
  (e) invocation: a calling upon Allah

The translated "sentence" is incomplete and suffers ambiguity. English grammar tells: A sentence is a group of words which starts with a capital letter and ends with a full stop (.), question mark (?) or exclamation mark (!). A sentence contains or implies a predicate and a subject. There has to be a verb in it.

Translated text can be termed as a SENTENCE FRAGMENT. It fails to be a sentence in the sense that it cannot stand by itself. It does not contain even one independent clause. It may locate something in time and place with a prepositional phrase or a series of such phrases, but it's still lacking a proper subject-verb relationship within an independent clause.

Hence Sale's and Rodwell's translation is patently incorrect. Since others have just copied-plagiarized, they neither seem to have given a thought nor seem to have revisited the Arabic text to parse it and then translate. Unfortunate!

Just plain awful

Just giving a mere glance at this article, I'm already seeing violations of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources. This is what I'm quoting from memory and were any editor to delve into the actual guideline and policy pages, they very well might find even more violations. It's just a bad article and is in some serious need for work. I'm going to go through and try to edit only certain aspects at a time while posting comments here, but with the sheer amount of work that needs to be done I'm hoping that feedback will come swiftly, otherwise fixing this could take forever. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

And here we are, the entire opening of the "Commentary" section (several very long paragraphs) appears to be copy pasted from here with only slight changes in the prose. Maududi is a respected theologian but this is a violation of Wikipedia:Copy-paste. If the citation is worthwhile, then someone can take the time to write an original piece cited by this page, but for the time being I am simply going to remove it. This article is already filled with far too much material which looks to be copy pasted, and I think we need to scrutnize the print sources which have been cited as well. Massive blocks of text with a single citation at the end are a bit suspect. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

To top off the first round, I will remove anything which has been tagged as uncited for a significant amount of time (some of this stuff has been tagged since 2012). The general citation tag has been at the top of the article since 2011 but I don't know which specific parts that general tag was referring to or when the untagged yet unreferenced info was put in, so anything unsourced but not tagged will also be tagged. I await feedback from other concerned editors. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism

Please verify that the unsourced edit en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Fatiha&diff=prev&oldid=538618117 is not vandalism, the editing IP vandalized other articles later, like Battle of Wanat, (see en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Wanat&diff=564473637&oldid=564385325 .) --Micge (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Has been taken care off by edit en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Fatiha&diff=next&oldid=564320046 .--Micge (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Few Questions

• Shall the unreferenced sections be removed?
• It will be best to explain what the verse means and any background story it has in the article (with help of reliable source) rather than putting the verse (which belongs to wikisource page of quran).
• Should we consider independent websites as sources? - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

This Article Must be Rewritten & Professionally Present Surah Fatiha

Thank You Your Excellency Gentle Reader!

This article must be redone. This article does not do a good job of representing on Surah Fatiha. The article does not even list the Surah Fatiha or the translation of the Surah or anything useful that people are looking for. And there is a lot of things that are not well articulated, well translated or well thought through to provide the reader with good presentation of Surah Fatiha. Please kindly redo this article, below is information on Surah Fatiha, Please kindly include in the article.

Also I recommend that the links point to a reputable site such as Quran.com that is well done and presents well the Quran instead of the links that are to sites not as credible or as beautiful nor as well presented as Quran.com

Standard for the Article on Surah Fatiha: Please kindly review the wiki page on the Lord's Prayer [14] and set the same standard for articulating and presenting Surah Fatiha. Please kindly revise and improve this article.

Many things in the article are not well thought out, poorly translated, poorly articulated and poorly presented. Surah Fathia does not appear in the article, translation, meaning, arabic nor transliteration. There are many errors, for example it says that Praise to Allah Lord of Existence which is not a correct translation for Allah is Lord of things and beings that exist and those that do not exist such as ideas or ideas that people will have or things that people will create or people that are not yet in existence but will live in the future or that have died and no longer exist in this physical world. A better translation is Allah the Lord of the Universes or Allah the Lord of everything that has existed will exist or is in existence and whatever else there may be.

The article is very poorly done and needs to be redone, there are errors and things that have not been thought out. This article does a poor job of presenting Surah Fatiha to the wikipedia audience. Here is some information on Surah Fatiha that people are looking for and interested in reading:

I would like to kindly and humbly provide an introduction, Arabic with Translation, Commentary and notes on Surah Fatiha for your use to reconstruct this Article.

The Holy Quran Surat Al-Fātiĥah (The Opener) - سورة الفاتحة

1:1 بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ Yusuf Ali Translation: In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

1:2 الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ Yusuf Ali Translation: Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds;

1:3 الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ Yusuf Ali Translation: Most Gracious, Most Merciful;

1:4 مَالِكِ يَوْمِ الدِّينِ Yusuf Ali Translation: Master of the Day of Judgment.

1:5 إِيَّاكَ نَعْبُدُ وَإِيَّاكَ نَسْتَعِينُ Yusuf Ali Translation: Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek.

1:6 اهْدِنَا الصِّرَاطَ الْمُسْتَقِيمَ Yusuf Ali Translation: Show us the straight way,

1:7 صِرَاطَ الَّذِينَ أَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِمْ غَيْرِ الْمَغْضُوبِ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا الضَّالِّينَ Yusuf Ali Translation: The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray.

Transliteration:

Surat Al-Fātiĥah (The Opener) - سورة الفاتحة

1:1 Transliteration: Bismi Allahi arrahmani arraheem

1:2 Transliteration: Alhamdu lillahi rabbi alAAalameen

1:3 Transliteration: Arrahmani arraheem

1:4 Transliteration: Maliki yawmi addeen

1:5 Transliteration: Iyyaka naAAbudu wa-iyyaka nastaAAeen

1:6 Transliteration: Ihdina assirata almustaqeem

1:7 Transliteration: Sirata allatheena anAAamta AAalayhim ghayri almaghdoobi AAalayhim wala addalleen

Surah Fatiha Translation of the Meaning, Explanation, Commentary and Notes:

SURA 1

SURA 1. Fatiha, or the Opening Chapter.

Introduction to Surah Fatiha

Commentary 42.-First comes that beautiful Sura, The Opening Chapter of Seven Verses, rightly called the Essence of the Book. It teaches us the perfect Prayer. For if we can pray aright, it means that we have some knowledge of Allah and His attributes, of His relations to us and His creation, which includes ourselves; that we glimpse the source from which we come, and that final goal which is our spiritual destiny under Allah's true judgment: then we offer ourselves to Allah and seek His light.

Commentary 43.-Prayer is the heart of religion and Faith. But how shall we pray? What words shall convey the yearnings of our miserable ignorant hearts to the Knower of all? Is it worthy of Him or of our spiritual nature to ask for vanities or even for such physical needs as our daily bread? The Inspired One taught us a Prayer that sums up our faith, our hope, and our aspiration in things that matter. We think in devotion of Allah's name and His Nature; we praise Him for His creation and His Cherishing care; we call to mind the Realities, seen and unseen; we offer Him worship and ask for His guidance; and we know the straight from the crooked path by the light of His grace that illumines the righteous.

Verse 1. In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

Note 15. Each chapter or portion of the Koran is called a Sura, which means a Degree or Step by which we mount up. Sometimes whole Suras were revealed, and sometimes Portions which were arranged under the Prophet's directions. Some Suras are long, and some are short, but a logical thread runs through them all. Each verse of the Sura is called an Ayat, which means also a sign. A verse of revelation is a Sign of Allah's wisdom and goodness just as much as Allah's beautiful handiwork in the material creation or His dealings in history are signs to us, if we would understand. Some Ayats are long, and some are short. The Ayat is the true unit of the Koran.

Note 16. Al-Fatiha is the Opening Chapter of the Qu’ran.

Note 17. These seven verses form a complete unit by themselves, and are recited in every prayer and on many other occasions. Cf. (compare) Sura 15:87.

Quran Chapter 15 Surat Al-Ĥijr (The Rocky Tract) Verse 87 Yusuf Ali Translation: And We have bestowed upon thee the Seven Oft-repeated (verses) and the Grand Qur'an.

Note 18. By universal consent it is rightly placed at the beginning of the Koran as summing up in marvelously terse and comprehensive words, man's relation to Allah in contemplation and prayer. In our spiritual contemplation the first words should be those of praise If the praise is from our inmost being, it brings us closer to Allah. Then our eyes see all good, peace, and harmony. Evil, rebellion, and conflict are purged out. They do not exist for us, for our eyes are lifted up above them in praise. Then we see Allah's attributes better (verses 2-4). This leads us to the attitude of worship and acknowledgment (verse 5). And finally comes prayer for guidance, and a contemplation of what guidance means (verses 6-7). Allah needs no praise, for He is above all praise; He needs no petition, for He knows our needs better than we do ourselves; and His bounties are open without asking, to the righteous and the sinner alike. The prayer is primarily for our own spiritual education consolation, and confirmation. That is why the words in this Sura are given to us in the form in which we should utter them.

Note 19. The Arabic words "Rahman" and "Rahim " translated "Most Gracious" and "Most Merciful" are both intensive forms referring to different aspects of Allah's attribute of Mercy. The Arabic intensive is more suited to express Allah's attributes than the superlative degree in English. The latter implies a comparison with other beings, or with other times or places, while there is no being like unto Allah. Mercy may imply pity. longsuffering, patience, and forgiveness, all of which the sinner needs and Allah Most Merciful bestows in abundant measure. But there is a Mercy that goes before even the need arises, the Grace which is ever watchful. and flows from Allah Most Gracious to all His creatures, protecting them, preserving them, guiding them, and leading them to clear light and higher life. Opinion is divided whether the Bismillah should be numbered as a separate verse or not. It is unanimously agreed that it is a part of the Koran in Sura An-Naml. Therefore it is better to give it an independent number in the first Sura. For subsequent Suras it is treated as an introduction or head-line, and therefore not numbered.

Verse 2. Praise be to Allah, The Cherisher and Sustainer of the Worlds;

Note 20. The Arabic word 'Rabb', usually translated Lord, has also the meaning of cherishing, sustaining, bringing to maturity. Allah cares for all the worlds He has created. (see note 1787 and note 4355)

Note 1787. The divine Message was priceless; it was not for the Messenger's personal profit, nor did he ask of men any reward for bringing it for their benefit. It was for all creatures,-literally, for all the worlds, as explained in Sura 1:2 Verse note 20. (see also 34:47 and 36.21)

Quran Chapter 34 Surat Saba' (Sheba) Verse 47 Yusuf Ali Translation: Say: "No reward do I ask of you: it is (all) in your interest: my reward is only due from Allah: And He is witness to all things."

Note 3859. Cf. compare Sura 10:72. The second argument is that he has nothing to gain from them. His message is for their own good. He is willing to suffer persecution and insult, because he has to fulfill his mission from Allah.

Quran Chapter 10 Surat Yūnus (Jonah) Verse 72 Yusuf Ali Translation: "But if ye turn back, (consider): no reward have I asked of you: my reward is only due from Allah, and I have been commanded to be of those who submit to Allah's will (in Islam)."

Note 1458. The Prophet of Allah preaches for the good of his people. But he claims no reward from them, but on the contrary is reviled, persecuted, banished, and often slain. (cf. compare 34:57 (above) and 36:21)

Quran Chapter 36 Surat Yā-Sīn (Ya Sin) (Oh thou man) Verse 21 Yusuf Ali Translation: "Obey those who ask no reward of you (for themselves), and who have themselves received Guidance.”

Note 3967. Prophets do not seek their own advantage. They serve Allah and humanity. Their hope lies in the good pleasure of Allah, to Whose service they are devoted. Cf. compare Suras 10:72 (above); 12:104; etc.

Quran Chapter 12 Surat Yūsuf (Joseph) Verse 104 Yusuf Ali Translation: And no reward dost thou ask of them for this: it is no less than a message for all creatures.

Note 1787. The divine Message was priceless; it was not for the Messenger's personal profit, nor did he ask of men any reward for bringing it for their benefit. It was for all creatures,-literally, for all the worlds, as explained in Sura 1:2 Verse note 20.

Note 4355. These are the opening words of the first Sura, and they describe the atmosphere of the final Bliss in Heaven, in the light of the Countenance of their Lord, the Lord of all!

There are many worlds – astronomical and physical worlds, worlds of thought, spiritual world, and so on. In every one of them, Allah is king and Allah is all-in-all. We express only one aspect of it when of it when we say of it when we say: “In Him we live, and move, and have our being.” The mystical division between (1) Nasut, the human world world knowlable by the senses, (2) Malakut, the invisible world of Angels , and (3) Lahut, the divine world of Reality, requires a whole volume to explain it.

Verse 3. Most Gracious, Most Merciful;

Verse 4. Master of the Day of Judgment.

Verse 5. Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek.

Note 21. On realizing in our souls Allah's love and care. His grace and mercy, and His power and justice (as Ruler of the Day of Judgment), the immediate result is that we bend in the act of worship, and see both our shortcomings and His all-sufficient power. The emphatic form means that not only do we reach the position of worshipping Allah and asking for His help, but we worship Him alone and ask for His aid only. For there is none other than He worthy of our devotion and able to help us. The plural "we" indicates that we associate ourselves with all who seek Allah, thus strengthening ourselves and strengthening them in a fellowship of faith. (see note 586).

Quran Chapter 4 Surat An-Nisā' (The Women) Verse 69 Yusuf Ali Translation: All who obey Allah and the messenger are in the company of those on whom is the Grace of Allah,- of the prophets (who teach), the sincere (lovers of Truth), the witnesses (who testify), and the Righteous (who do good): Ah! what a beautiful fellowship!

Note 586. A passage of the deepest devotional meaning. Even the humblest man who accepts Faith and does good becomes an accepted member of a great and beautiful company in the Hereafter. It is a company which lives perpetually in the sunshine of God's Grace (This passage partly illustrates Sura 1:5) . It is a glorious hierarchy, of which four grades are specified: (1) The highest is that of the Prophets or Apostles, who get plenary inspiration from God, and who teach mankind by example and precept. That rank in Islam is held by Muhammad Al-Mustafa. (2) The next are those whose badge is sincerity and truth: they love and support the truth with their person, their means, their influence, and all that is theirs. That rank was held by the special Companions of Muhammad, among whom the type was that of Hadhrat Abu Baker As-Siddiq. (3) The next are the noble army of Witnesses, who testify to the truth. The testimony may be by martyrdom, Or it may be by the tongue of the true Preacher or the pen of the devoted scholar, or the life of the man devoted to service, (4) Lastly, there is the large company of Righteous people, the ordinary folk who do their ordinary business, but always in a righteous Way. (cf. compare Sura 29:9)

Quran Chapter 29 Surat Al-`Ankabūt (The Spider) Verse 9 Yusuf Ali Translation: And those who believe and work righteous deeds,- them shall We admit to the company of the Righteous.

Note 3432. The picking up again of the words which began verse 7 above shows that the same subject is now pursued from another aspect. The striving in righteous deeds will restore fallen man to the society of the Righteous described in chapter 4:69 and note 586)

Verse 6. Show us the straight way,

Note 22. If we translate by the English word "guide", we shall have to say: Guide us to and in the straight Way". For we may he wandering aimlessly, and the first step is to find the way; and the second need is to keep in the Way: our own wisdom may fail in either case. The straight Way is often the narrow Way, or the steep Way, which many people shun (Sura 90:11). By the world's perversity the straight Way is sometimes stigmatized and the crooked Way praised. How are we to judge? We must ask for Allah's guidance. With a little spiritual insight we shall see which are the people who walk in the light of Allah's grace, and which are those that walk in the darkness of Wrath. This also would help our judgment.

Verse 7. The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, Those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray.

Note 23. Note that the words relating to Grace are connected actively with Allah: those relating to Wrath are impersonal. In the one case Allah's Mercy encompasses us beyond our deserts In the other case our own actions are responsible for the Wrath,-the negative of Grace, Peace, or Harmony.

Note 24. Are there two categories?-Those who are in the darkness of Wrath and those who stray? The first are those who deliberately break Allah's law; the second those who stray out of carelessness or negligence. Both are responsible for their own acts or omissions. In opposition to both are the people who are in the light of Allah's Grace: for His Grace not only protects them from active wrong (if they will only submit their will to Him) but also from straying into paths of temptation or carelessness. The negative 'gair' should be construed as applying not to the way, but as describing men protected from two dangers by Allah's Grace.

Thank You Your Excellency Gentle Reader! Please kindly forgive me if I said anything that did not please Your Excellency!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.198.128.170 (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:COPYVIO

Regarding this edit: the difference between the Wikipedia article about "Lord's Prayer" and the article about "Al-Fatiha" is that in the article about "Lord's Prayer" the text is not just dumped in a separate section by itself; there is wide literature and commentary analyzing the Prayer which is cited all over the article. In the article about "Al-Fatiha" the text was just dumped in a "Wikisource-y" way. Moreover, the copyright status of the translation is not determined. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Removing of the NPOV tag

I looked at the article, but Unfortunately I did not understand exactly where is the NPOV problem? @Grapplequip: can you help me? Thanks!Savior59 (talk) 11:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Savior59: In general the article is poor because it presents Islamic beliefs as if they are true.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I did a big revision and removed the tags.[15]--Anders Feder (talk) 09:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Section names

@Anders Feder: Do you not think this classification is better?: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Fatiha&oldid=661990027Homiho (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Homiho: I removed the subsectioning of the "Names" section because the subsections were very short. Per MOS:BODY#Headings and sections, "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose."--Anders Feder (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ayyat 6 and 7 interpretations

If you see just for a sec open mindly. Its a prayer. Its a help seaking voice of inner heart. its about people. Was all the jews or christians were disobeying or gumrah?? Its about all about being a good person . Faithfull path. Muhammaddanishsufyan (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Bias

This whole article seems kind of slanted towards criticism by Christians of the last two verses of the prayer. I'm not saying there's no place to reference the prayers critics, but if you read just this article you would think this was just Muslims praying every day for God to smite Christians and Jews and not a prayer that neutrally references "those who have brought down wrath" and "those who wander astray" with no particular reference to any specific non-Muslim community. This is especially troubling since the only basis for interpreting these references as about Jews and Christians are hadiths, which probably shouldn't matter to how a secular, unbiased site like wikipedia attempts to present religious literature.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:242:4180:6FB3:80BC:F9AF:A7E8:9A12 (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Complaint - Al Fatiha is short. It is cited in the article, yet the ridiculously short text is nowhere to be found. Nor are there any links, external or otherwise, to its text.

Al Fatiha is short.

Its verses are cited in the article, yet the ridiculously short text is nowhere to be found.

Nor are there any links, external or otherwise, to its text.

Al-Fatiha amounts to a prayer for guidance.

As a sura that is purported to summarize the contents of the Quran, its omission here is offensive.

I'm not even a Muslim and I'm offended that its text in either English or Arabic is absent/removed. This is RIDICULOUS.

Someone afraid of including Al-Fatiha in Wikipedia? Edits by Atheists, Christians, Jews, to eliminate it? This is inexcusable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.218.64 (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Old but useful section has been removed.

An old but useful section has been removed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Fatiha&type=revision&diff=519089516&oldid=519064989  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verycuriousboy (talk • contribs) 10:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC) 

Removal of valuable content

The following wording was removed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Fatiha&diff=929521686&oldid=929521385

Verse 1:6 The phrases in verse 6 (and 7), Guide us [to] the straight path, The path of those on whom you have bestowed your grace, is seen as referring to Muslims.[4]

Verse 1:7 The phrase in verse 7, those who made themselves liable to criminal cognizance/arrest (more clearly translated as, those who earned [your] wrath) is usually seen as referring to the Jews and the phrase, those who are the neglectful wanderers (more clearly translated as, those who have gone astray) is seen as referring to the Christians.[1][4] Muhammad when asked, does this mean the Jews and Christians, responded, Whom else?[15][16] The Quran: An Encyclopedia, authored by 43 Muslim and non-Muslim academics says, The Prophet interpreted those who incurred God’s wrath as the Jews and the misguided as the Christians.[5] Most commentators agree that verse 7 refers to Christians and Jews.[4][13][17][18]

Some commentators suggest that these verses do not refer to any particular religious community.[4]

Rather than what appears as WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT the issues are too important and encyclopedic to simply delete away. Suggest rather WP:PRESERVE and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM Koreangauteng (talk)

The formatting is horrible at best, the citation is a chaotic mess. From a textual point of view, the contents of these verses, de facto of the entire surah is been adressed in the sections below. Plucking out 2 verses and selectively using certain exegetes and ahadith like  صحيح البخاري to undermine a certain message for this matter is, as the name suggests 'selective referencing.' In this sense, to put it simple, when we editors feel obliged to fill the entire exegesis or ahadith of 1600 years of islamic exegesis with their inherently differing views for each verse, this entire section becomes de-jure obsolete. Edit: Using ex-muslim and us-news articles, as well as as apologetic pages does not count as secondary sources. I had to go through some really unusual sources, from apologetic pages to the afore mentioned ex-muslim-blog, to several conservative and or right winged news networks that were inserted on several occasion to the different articles regarding the respective surahs. Quiet frankly I'm really shocked. I studied Islamic Studies and a certain objectivity is a must-have. I'm saying this with my uttermost respect, since I've noticed some of your edits regarding cleaning/ordering certain sub-sections are really well done. Keep up. But the deletion of entire sections is really rough. I had to literally re-track around 34 secondary sources that were deleted, sources by renowned western scholars in Islamic Studies. You can imagine this beeing incredibly annoying then anything else. Edit 2: Context wise, a bigger issue arises from the fact that the adressed people in verse 6 & 7 can not, exclusively, refer to Jews or Christians, as is evident in the following tafsīr (see مفاتيح الغيب|& الكشاف عن حقائق التنزيل  ), but that these two religions inclusively (counting every religion that is not on the right path in the quranic sense & context) are part of a group, just like the polytheists, of going astray. This is the dominant consensus. When we start to fill this section with interprations of various different scholars (or some journalists who themselves try on Quran exegesis), allthough the content itself is explained on this very same article, then we put this entire section ad absurdum, as people will understand this very approach as an invite to edit entire lengthy exegesis sections. The text and tafsīr are pretty clear, who is adressed when talking about "following the right path" and "those who went astray". AshleighHanley82(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

AshleighHanley82 - I agree with the concerns raised, on your Talk Page, by others, about your editing methods. These concerns seem to be unresolved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AshleighHanley82 You say you have studied Islam. I too study Islam. I also study current world events.

You will be familiar with the Islamic Arabic expressions 'Taqiya' and 'Kitman'. Neither should be used in Wikipedia. Criticism of Islam is a legitimate Wikipedia topic.

You have, irrespective of WP:PG, simply deleted a large amount of material referring to Verse 1.7. Material you might not like. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT That material you trashed, had been there for more than 5 years and 500 edits.

This is what is being responded to in 2019 >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iti-dplakf4&feature=youtu.be Today, this media is much more influential than some ancient Tafsir. With all due respect, your edits tend to include these very legalistic Tafsirs (some with a POV spin). Many are almost unfathomable.

I will rewrite and simplify 1.7 taking into account your improvements. You might like to add to / modify this content. Koreangauteng (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

To prove your point, that in verse 6/7 solely christians and jews are referred to, you have posted a video from a swedish content creator with the name Sweden Dawah, which is pretty much the muslim equivalent of a missionary. Tell me that this is not the way you, as a student of Islam, approach the corpus. This is then followed by throwing words like taqīya تقیة‎ into the room. More importantly, you still use dubious news-networks as secondary sources. I, again(!), had to delete christian blogs, conservative news networks that were used as sources to explain quranic surahs. I'm shocked. Quiet literally, I'm shocked. This very short text of yours has so much POV in it, yet you seem to not notice it. What you define as the legalistic tafsīr is the dominant, madhahib مذاهب defining tafsīr, e.g. the islamic schools of law. These shaped and still shape for a time period of more then 1000 years (and ongoing) the core belief of Sunni & Shia Islam, making up of around 95-98% of all muslims. You want to ignore this. Anyways, let us try to find a consensus here. Taking all this aside, your own sources in their original wording (and yes, I really went out to the library to find and read these books), only suggest Jews (& Christians) are AMONG those who have gone astray. The original arabic wording supports it. There is a lengthy discussion somewhere on this talk-page on this very same topic. Even back then it was cautiously put into a sub-section with the premisse that it technically does not belong here due to mainstream tafsīr contradicting this. So just because it was there all the time does not justifiy it. I try my best to be as respectful as possible here, let us try to be productive: The university I'm working in has a decent amount of tafsīr-collection. I read around 8-10 from the earliest and latest tafsīr and none followed your proposed interpretation. If we are to include your proposed section, then we need to represent the overwhelmingly dominant view first, and this is pretty much the opposite of what you proposed. This hole section would then be a huge block of tafsīr and differing ahadith, context-wise a chaotic mess would be imminent, everything to explain one verse. Your text would be burried under the majority of tafsīr. Needless to say, since you included a hadith in this section, many others will see this very same approach as an invitation to push their own POV, "positive" and "negative" ahadith alike. AshleighHanley82 —Preceding undated comment added 05:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Most of the world including myself have no problems, or issues, with 1:1 to 1:6. It is Verse 1:7 which is contentious. There is currently no explanation on Wikipedia. Could you write some simple words to be included for Wikipedia readers explaining. (1) Which group, "have [you] bestowed your grace"? (2) Which group, "[have] earned [your] wrath" ? (3) Which group, "have gone astray" ? Koreangauteng (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Quiet frankly, most of the 'world' you describe is pretty much you alone who seems to be obsessed that christians and jews are the sole target of verse 1:7, whereas Asad (on the authority of) Baghawi, Zamakhshari, Razi and many more make it clear; pretty much everyone who freely choses not to follow the quranic context is adressed here. I already provided you the respective tafsīr (see above). I'm not going to repeat myself. Even Ibn Kathir who you (in this regard your sources) chose to cite, asserts that pretty much everyone, polytheists and jews/christians alike, are adressed. This is been backed by the complete lack of words for jews and christians respectively الْيَهُودُ & نَصَارَىٰ . User @AhmadF.Cheema: will soon join this discussion to give insight on this topic. Please refrain from further changing articles. It would be much appreciated if you could revert your edits on the article reg. Baqara 256 to the one that was in use for several years until we all reach a clear consensus. Deleting almost two dozen citations and their respective secondary sources then rearranging them under a different section, which doesn't fit the context of the article, is counterproductive. The fact that this verse is 'medinan/madani' belongs to the lede section, as is evident from the dozens of other articles on the countless other surahs. Edit: we have been busy rearranging some of the articles. In short: when there is a decent 'Content'-summary section please don't delete it to your gusto and create the 'notable verses section' as this completely deludes the entire article, since the reader now has no clue what the content of the surah is. The remaining fractured verses are de facto of no help because some surahs have dozens and hundred(ish) verses. By the way, feel free to join the discussion.'AshleighHanley82 —Preceding undated comment added 08:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Special:Diff/925273717 - Not a good source for the present case. If such sources are to be used, they at the very least need to be qualified as Islam critics etc.
• Special:Diff/928157708 - Looks like Al-Qushayri is the Nisaburi mentioned in the citation.
• Special:Diff/928176633 - Rewarded people "seen as referring to Muslims" doesn't appear to be supported in the citation. As a small side-note, Muslims here can refer to previous generations of Christians and Jews too (Qur'an 2:62).
• Special:Diff/928234825 - I seriously doubt that this chapter is looked at from this angle. The later cited references for this statement don't directly support the idea that this chapter "describes the relative theological positions" of the three groups.
• Special:Diff/928288583 - Not a good source for the present case, especially for the "daily Muslim prayers" part, islamqa.info is better, odd that Salah article already didn't have this information.

Regarding the verse 7, I believe there is a significant need to address a few general things here. When it comes to negative statements regarding non-Muslims in Islamic scripture - be it while using the term People of the Book (for Jews and Christians), the Polytheists (Mushrikeen) or the general term Kufaar - there are basically two interpretations.

1. First that these terms signify all the members of these respective groups i.e. when Jews are mentioned it means that basically every single Jew that has ever lived, and is going to live, is being included. Afaik, this is a right-wing lay-Muslim belief, a lot of even conservative scholars would distance themselves from such a simplistic understanding.
2. Second interpretation being more nuanced argues that specifically only those non-Muslims are being included who deliberately and knowingly refused to accept the truth of Islam. This understanding is related to the concept of Itmam al-Hujjat (completion of proof) in Islam i.e. when a Prophet is sent to a particular people, the messenger through arguments and miracles completely proves the truth of their message, however, some individuals for whatever worldly reason, refuse to publicly accept the correct faith. Qur'an 20:56, 28:59, and 4:165 etc. refer to this. In fact, Kaafir literally means to hide, and in this context to conceal the truth.

Furthermore, after the generation of the Prophet passes away - and with them, the clear evidence of miracles - generally, no non-Muslim can be judged to be deliberately rejecting the truth, therefore, those negative statements against disbelievers found in Muslim scripture generally don't apply to them.

Detailed article: Understanding 'Kufr' (Disbelief) from a Quranic Perspective Joseph Islam

Therefore, if Qur'an 1:7 and the related hadith are being negative towards Christians and Jews, they have to be understood under the shadow of these interpretations. Arguably, instead of all People of the Book, specifically only those who deliberately took the wrong path are being referred to here.

Regarding interpretations, in addition to the ones AshleighHanley82 pointed out above:

• Shafi Usmani interprets in the general sense and gives Christians and Jews as examples of this wrong behaviour.
• Maududi (most Westerners would consider him an Islamist) doesn't bother to mention Christians and Jews.
• The progressive Ghamidi mentions both Christians and Jews, but he is well-known for supporting the above cited second interpretation. People who are rewarded are named as Prophets, their companions, martyrs and the righteous.
• Islahi interprets in the general sense, with a group of Jews and Christians as examples, also pointing out some sincere Jews who tried to stop their society from turning to the wrong path.
• Asad doesn't mention Christians and Jews.

Regarding Q1:7 being employed to denigrate or humiliate these religious groups, I haven't personally seen this happening. Koreangauteng mentioned such usage in the case of Q5:60, but not here. Presently what has been pointed out is Islam critics believing Q1:7 to be denigrating. Personally, I think while there are other Qur'an verses which are used by Muslim right-wingers to denigrate non-Muslims, however, this verse isn't one of them, at least not in any significant quantities.

Moving ahead on the present impasse, I would argue that if this interpretation - that Q1:7 wholly and exclusively refers to all Christians and Jews - is accepted by a significant number of people (regardless of whether they are Muslim or Islam critics), a couple of short sentences regarding it probably should be included. It has to be kept in mind that this understanding is accepted by more than a fringe group. Koreangauteng will probably be able to best answer this.

If included, it probably should go something like the following: Some Islam critics believe Q1:7 denigrates all Christians and Jews, however, Muslims aren't knwon for doing this and Qur'an exegeses don't necessarily support such a belief (will probably require a secondary source citation).

-- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

References

I agree, AhmadF.Cheema. Before I add something on this topic, I think I have to clarify something: Reading the tafsīr, when I said all religions are adressed in 1:7, I of course did not mean that every single person in the past and present day is included in this collective. What I was trying to say was, that when the quranic criteria of hiding (كفر), rejection & active hostility was met, then these group of people were included (e.g. are adressed); basically this very specific group could consist of, according to the majority of tafsīr, all religious but also non-religious people, the core message being each individual is judged upon his/her individual actions. Hopefully this time it is somewhat clearer. Regarding creating a sub-section on surah al-Fatiha specifically for some verses: For the sake of a clean and well structured article, I'm not wholly convinced that fracturing contents and creating sub-sections is the way to go. I just checked the section 'Subject and Theme Matter' (which by the way should be sufficient) and noticed Maududi's tafsīr is already included in there. He is one of the more conservative exegetes on this subject matter, who (as you said) doesn't mention jews & christian at all. If there is an urgent need, then we could update this section with 1 or 2 phrases on how the majority/minority of quranic exegetes interpreted this specific verses. I do not see an improvement at all when we start to fracture sub-sections though. AshleighHanley82 (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Good start, particularly that the 1:7 content and citations, deleted by AshleighHanley82, has been there for more than 5 years and 500 edits. PS there are a multiple Islamic references / citations re Jews and Christians. https://www.al-islam.org/enlightening-commentary-light-holy-quran-vol-1/surah-al-fatihah-chapter-1 Koreangauteng (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Above is a consensus to include words on 1.7.

- agree do not separate wording into a new section

- agree do not use any citation which is not directly linked to 1:7

- agree not to cite use any non-Koranic expert re the text

- however it is legitimate in Wikipedia to use a non-Muslim (such as the well-credentialed Andrew Bostom) to provide insights into the CONSEQUENCES of 1.7 Koreangauteng (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The following is what I think section Al-Fatiha#Verses 1:6 - 1:7 should be:

Verses 1:6 - 1:7

Verses 1:6 - 1:7 Muslim commentators often believe past generations of Jews and Christians as an example of those evoking God's anger and those who went astray, respectively. Islam critics, such as Andrew Bostom, view this as an exclusive condemnation of all Jews and Christians, past, present and future, and the seventh verse as a curse to those religious groups. However, most Islamic scholars have interpreted these verses as referring exclusively not to a specific group of people but instead interpret these verses in the more general sense as, "evil consequences which man brings upon himself by willfully rejecting God's guidance and acting contrary to His injunctions." References

Don't believe a paragraph dedicated to JCPA is relevant here. Comments?

Furthermore, somewhat relevant is the Hebrew Bible mentioning Jews evoking God's wrath (Exodus 32, Jeremiah 44).

— AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Exclusive condemnation?

Regarding the recent disputed edit, since I was the one who wrote that portion, thought I should make the intended meaning more clear.

Probably a lot of commentators do consider the verse as a reference towards Jews and Christians. Arguably, there is nothing extraordinary here; most, if not all, ideologies believe other ideologies' followers to be astray and regarding God's wrath, as mentioned above, the Hebrew Bible mentions similar things too (Exodus 32, Jeremiah 44).

Then, the Islam critics come, who move some steps further and argue that this verse is a special hateful, cursing, bigoted statement specifically and exclusively directed towards Christians and Jews.

After this, is the - However, most Islamic scholars have interpreted these verses as... - portion, which denotes the apparent contradiction with the critics position of exclusive bigotry. In short, in this sentence it is not the reference to non-Muslims that is primarily being denied, but the special negative meaning given by critics which is apparently being contradicted by the commentaries.

— AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

You might find this article of interest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Some_issues_with_the_current_Wikipedia_Quran_articles

Koreangauteng (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

There are citations supporting each alternative position.

The article currently reads "However, most Islamic scholars have interpreted these verses as referring exclusively not to a specific group of people . . . ."

The specific, and contradictory, citations relevant the "most" claim:

Position 1 "Most commentators have included the Jews . . . "

Position 2 "According to almost all the commentators . . . synonymous with the evil consequences which man brings upon himself . . ."

Recommend the article should read: "However, other Islamic scholars have interpreted these verses as referring exclusively not to a specific group of people . . ." Koreangauteng (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Ahmad Cheema. The concerns regarding Jews and Christians is already mentioned in the first sentence. The third sentence is a counterweight to the second by Bostom, not the first. NPOV requires proper countercriticism to be mentioned which is properly reflected in the articles current state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.150.134 (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

References

In addition to the above, as the quote used in Antisemitism in Islam reads: ... Most commentators have included [not exclusively identified] the Jews among [meaning this is not singular, and there are others] those who have "incurred" divine wrath...". Also an off-topic clarification, in the summary for Special:Diff/936203495 I meant the info in Afsaruddin's citation was apparently already included in Qur'an 2:256 and not that the citation itself was included. — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Referring to Special:Diff/937072514, in the cited video only the second instance, where the example of Seinfeld is given, comes close to the all Jews interpretation; on the other hand, everyone else refers to the same "Muslim commentators often believe past generations of Jews and Christians as an example of those evoking God's anger and those who went astray, respectively" and not "an exclusive condemnation of all Jews and Christians from all times."

• The first religious leader refers to the "apes" punishment, however, as Q7:163-170 clearly note, even here not all Jews were punished such.

"And when a community among them said, "Why do you advise [or warn] a people whom Allah is [about] to destroy or to punish with a severe punishment?" they [the advisors] said, "To be absolved before your Lord and perhaps they may fear Him." And when they forgot that by which they had been reminded, We saved those who had forbidden evil and seized those who wronged, with a wretched punishment, because they were defiantly disobeying. ... And We divided them throughout the earth into nations. Of them some were righteous, and of them some were otherwise. ... But those who hold fast to the Book [probably referring to Jews here too] and establish prayer - indeed, We will not allow to be lost the reward of the reformers."

Therefore, this can't be used as referring to all Jews.

• The second one is apparently the only one, closest to the all Jews interpretation.
• The third and fourth one, refer to the same context already mentioned in the article, they do not explicitly state "all Jews and Christians from all times."
• The fifth one says: "Pointing specifically at different groups here, as we said, although the aayat include all the non-Muslims, whether they be Christians or Jew or other than them, but... because they ... knew and yet they rejected it ... If you look at many of the Christians today...".
• The sixth one states: "... because they had knowledge, they have knowledge but they don't act on this knowledge...". Therefore, people who believe that all Jews accept Islam as the truth but deliberately publicly reject it, only such individuals can argue that this is referring to all Jews.
• Then the exegesis is quoted, which speaks in the past tense "... but deviated from this truth... thus deserved the Wrath ... deviated from the Message..." - again, not a reference to "all Jews and Christians from all times."
• The next exegesis also refers to the already present article context, and does not explicitly mention "all Jews and Christians from all times."

Using such a citation here appears more than a little misleading, might even fall under WP:UNDUE. I would argue, the lone "Seinfeld" instance is related to the context of the two general interpretations on how disbelievers are overall viewed in Islam (as I mentioned in Special:Diff/929733160) and therefore relevant in Islam and other religions and not here.

— AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

صِرَاطَ ٱلَّذِينَ أَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِمْ غَيْرِ ٱلْمَغْضُوبِ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا ٱلضَّالِّينَ, Jews, Christians

1.9 billion Muslims could / should recite these words in Arabic, "at least 17 times during the five daily prayers".

119.155.29.184 ( and 165.120.15.119 and 46.212.241.21 ) You need to prove to Wikipedia you are not WP:SOCKPUPPETs. Re your thoughts about YouTube - where in WP:PG do they come from?

AhmadF.Cheema While I appreciate your Wiki-diligence and could strongly rebut the points (above) you raise, I will put the paragraph under Antisemitism in Islam.

The 1.7 matter is still unresolved.

Finally - in 2020 all over the world, Quran exegesis via the various web platforms is much more influential, than an ancient commentary sitting on a dusty library shelf. Koreangauteng (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

No, IP editors do not have to prove they are not sockpuppets. As for the disputed content, neither a vague statement that 'some Muslims' believe something, nor primary-sourced evidence (from YouTube or elsewhere) that specific Muslims believe the same thing belongs in the article unless a proper secondary source can be found that suggests such beliefs are of significance. One can find all sorts of evidence that individuals of all faiths (or none) believe all sorts of things, but such findings don't belong in an encyclopaedia unless one can at minimum find a reliable source that tells the reader how common such beliefs are.

And as for your comments on how many Muslims say their daily prayers, and on 2020, please read WP:NOTFORUM 165.120.15.119 (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

165.120.15.119 " . . . such findings don't belong in an encyclopaedia unless one can at minimum find a reliable source that tells the reader how common such beliefs are." Wow! This and the other points you raise are all debatable. Koreangauteng (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

If my points are 'debatable', please explain why. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)→

Koreangauteng my man, we've been arguing about this for over a month now. By now we're simply retiriating arguments. Reviewing the talk page this discussion was also had 5 years ago (See content 15 of this page, It's where your source comes from, also note the ancient editors responses) and a few times since.

There is really no real reason for this article to hyper-focus on verses 6,7 when there is zero commentary on the previous verses.

On your insistence some POV criticism has been allowed but now you're trying to add even more criticism while trying to diminish the balancing counter-argument presented. This is clearly an unjustified POV push.

P.S Muhammad Asad says nothing about Jews. Previously you've (deliberately or not) wrongly been claiming that he does.

Postscript: صَدَقَ ٱللَّٰهُ ٱلْعَلِيُّ ٱلْعَظِيمُ

User LissanX recently substantially reformatted the Contents section of the page, and in doing so added a postscript to the prayer which I cannot find any reference for:

صَدَقَ ٱللَّٰهُ ٱلْعَلِيُّ ٱلْعَظِيمُ

ṣadaqa -llāhu l-ʿalīyu l-ʿaẓīmu

/sˤa.da.qa ‿ɫ.ɫaː.hu ‿l.ʕa.lij.ju ‿l.ʕa.ðˤiː.mu/

God, the Exalted, the Great, has spoken the truth.

Some brief searching for the translation returns a lot of results from Bahá'í sources, making me wonder if this isn't an addition peculiar to that tradition. For the time being, I've added a {{citation needed}} template, but if anyone can provide more relevant information, I would be much obliged. 104.246.223.26 (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out.

This phrase is not part of this, or any, Surah, however, in some Muslim communities the recitation of the Qur'an is often customarily ended with this phrase. Some Muslim scholars are fine with this practice, but others look at it more unfavourably. Because of the somewhat controversial nature, I think this should be removed from here, especially considering the fact that this Surah is the first and one of the most important of the Qur'an.

— AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Abdul Basit 'Abd us-Samad, who is arguably the most the most renowned Qur'an reciter in history, included it in his recitations.

It’s mentioned in several Islamic sources. For example:

فأخبرني ما ابتداء القرآن وما ختمه قال يا ابن سلام ابتداؤه بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم وختمه صدق الله العلي العظيم قال صدقت يا محمد

An example of it's shorter variant without Template:Rtl-lang:

صدَق الشَّخصُ/ صدَقَ الشَّخصُ في الأمر: أخبر بالواقع كما هو، عكس كذب "كان يصدُق دائمًا- {قَالَ سَنَنْظُرُ أَصَدَقْتَ أَمْ كُنْتَ مِنَ الْكَاذِبِينَ} " صدَق الله العظيم: خاتمة تقالُ بعد تلاوة القرآن.

The widely accepted view is that it is the post-Surah phrase. It would be a mistake to remove it due to a minority view. It would be better to mention the fact that not all Muslims approve of it's inclusion. — LissanX (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully, first there is a need to provide a reference that this is the "widely accepted view", second it'll have to be shown that the alternate view belongs only to a tiny minority, which appears to be impossible since islamqa.info which often represents the prevailing Wahhabi position supports the alternate view.

Furthermore, there isn't even a necessity to include the phrase here as it isn't actually part of the Surah; maybe include it in Qira'at? As long as the issue remains a matter of difference of opinion, it appears difficult to justify the phrase's inclusion here.

— AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, with all due respect, the Wahhabi denomination is itself a very small fragment of the Muslim world. The world's approximately 1.6 billion Muslim population are divided into the following main denominations:

1) Hanafi Sunni Muslims: 35%

2) Shafei Sunni Muslim: 25%

3) Shia Muslims: 20%

4) Maliki Sunni Muslims: 15%

5) Hanbali Sunni Muslims: 4%

6) Salafi Muslims: 1%

Of course, Wahhabism is mostly made up of mostly the Hanbali population, which accounts for only 4% of the total population. Salafism is often considered synonymous or comparable with Wahhabism, and if we combine the two, and assume all Hanbalis are also Wahhabis, we only get 5%. That leaves 95% of the total Muslim population.

Of course, now what’s left is to demonstrate that the other 95% accept the phrase. I’ve done so partially above, but can add more sources if need be when I have the opportunity. — LissanX (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

5% or even less is still more than a "tiny minority"; furthermore, Wahabbism has significant political and financial clout, also a number of times their interpretations are accepted by other groups too (like these Hanafis and another group); all this makes their opinions even more significant. If Wahabbi opinions are being argued to be too fringe then shouldn't their arguments be removed from all other Wikipedia articles too?

Including this phrase here definitely means speaking in Wikivoice, wrongly insinuating there is no significant difference-of-opinion on the issue. If the phrase was actually relevant to the Surah (like if it was part of one of those alternate recitations) then it could've been argued that it deserves inclusion even in the presence of alternate views, however, this is obviously not the case. The phrase is completely irrelevant to the Surah content, and is relevant only to Qur'an recitation.

With respect, I still believe it's wrong to include this phrase in such a manner, especially considering the irrelevance of it.

— AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Any further response on this? — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Translation

There's no need to have multiple translations in the article. One should be enough, probably Sahih International.VR _talk 22:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not adverse to adding Sahih International, as it is an easy read and I am inclined to agree there are more translations than needed. However Sahih International is problematic. To me it has a very clear Agenda: to obfuscate Islam's obvious judeo-Christian heritage. Its failure to translate Allah as God, being an example, the purpose of which is to further miseducate non-Arab speakers and uneducated Muslims into the mindset that we are talking about two different deities. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

This argument seems like a stretch; is there any evidence for such an agenda other than this word choice? All four of the translations currently in the article use "Allah" not "God". The same deity is referred to by different names even within the same mythology; see Names of God. Evem when a character in one mythology is derived from a character in another, it's common practice on Wikipedia and in the world in general to use different names to refer to the different versions. For example, Zeus vs. Jupiter. -- Beland (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I removed the redundant translations again after they were added by Wulverine claws.

Another redundancy is inclusion of both the Hafs and Warsh versions of the Arabic. Since this is the English Wikipedia, readers are only expected to be able to read English. Having the original Arabic text there at all might be justified as educational for the bilingual or those who are curious about Arabic. But having two versions of the same text that are unreadable to most readers is not helpful, unless we are discussing the differences (which in this article we aren't). -- Beland (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Beland: I have reverted the article to a version without translations/transliterations. I would suggest we streamline all religious texts by presenting a short summary instead of text (including both transliterations and translations to avoid controversy) such as in Book of Genesis, preferably using a reputable tafsir (I've used Ibn Kathir). AccordingClass (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Protect to users-only request

To prevent Islamophobia--24.173.222.94 (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

6/7 ayah dispute

@Wulverine claws: If the phrase "[The scholars] disagree over whether [Bismillah] is a separate Ayah before every Surah, or if it is an Ayah, or a part of an Ayah, included in every Surah where the Bismillah appears in its beginning" isn't self explanatory, let me break it down for you: Ibn Kathir isn't the only authority when it comes to Quranic exegesis, nor has he come up with the tafsir/exegesis himself. Ibn Kathir simply happened to compile the opinions of various sahaba, tabi`in, and other scholars into his tafsir, which explains why he has gone to great lengths to include each and every quotation. In the following paragraph, Ibn Kathir explains that the following sahaba/tabi`in/scholars have the following views:

The Bismillah is an ayah and part of every surah, except At-Tawbah (leaving Al-Fatiha with 7 ayat):

• Ibn `Abbas
• Ibn `Umar
• Ibn Az-Zubayr
• Abu Hurayrah
• `Ali
• among others

The Bismillah is not an ayah nor a part of any surah (leaving Al-Fatiha with 6 ayat):

• Malik
• Abu Hanifah
• among others

The Bismillah is an ayah but not part of any surah (leaving Al-Fatiha with 6 ayat):

• Dawud

Please do not revert the article without properly going through the cited references.

—AccordingClass (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course if you remove one ayah from 7 it becomes 6. And my math is good

But those who disagree with the first opinion especially non-kufic scholars they divide the last ayah into 2.(refer 7 different recitation of Quran)

Allah says in the chapter 15 al hijr verse 87 of the Qur'an:

وَلَقَدْ ءَاتَيْنَـٰكَ سَبْعًا مِّنَ ٱلْمَثَانِى وَٱلْقُرْءَانَ ٱلْعَظِيمَ

And We have certainly given you, [O Muḥammad], seven of the often repeated [verses] and the great Qur’ān.

(Seven often repeated verses refers to al fatiha)

Read more for the evidance

(Copied from Tafsir Ibn Kathir on quran.com) There were some differences among the scholars over the meaning of "seven of the Mathani. Ibn Mas`ud, Ibn `Umar, Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, Sa`id bin Jubayr, Ad-Dahhak and others said that they are the seven long (Surahs), meaning Al-Baqarah, Al- `Imran, An-Nisa', Al-Ma'idah, Al-An`am, Al-A`raf and Yunus. There are texts to this effect reported from Ibn `Abbas and Sa`id bin Jubayr. Sa`id said: "In them, Allah explains the obligations, the Hudud (legal limits), stories and rulings. Ibn `Abbas said, "He explains the parables, stories and lessons. The second opinion is that they (the seven of the Mathani) are Al-Fatihah, which is composed of seven Ayat. This was reported from `Ali, `Umar, Ibn Mas`ud and Ibn `Abbas. Ibn `Abbas said: "The Bismillah, is completing seven Ayah, which Allah has given exclusively to you (Muslims). This is also the opinion of Ibrahim An-Nakha`i, `Abdullah bin `Umayr, Ibn Abi Mulaykah, Shahr bin Hawshab, Al-Hasan Al-Basri and Mujahid. Al-Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, recorded two Hadiths on this topic. (The first) was recorded from Abu Sa`id bin Al-Mu`alla, who said: "The Prophet passed by me while I was praying. He called out for me but I did not come until I finished my prayer. Then I came to him, and He asked,

«مَا مَنَعَكَ أَنْ تَأْتِيَنِي؟» (What stopped you from coming to me) I said, `I was praying'. He said,

«أَلَمْ يَقُلِ اللهُ (`Did not Allah say يأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ اسْتَجِيبُواْ لِلَّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ إِذَا دَعَاكُمْ (O you who believe! Answer Allah (by obeying Him) and (His) Messenger when he calls you...) 8:24

أَلَا أُعَلِّمُكَ أَعْظَمَ سُورَةٍ فِي الْقُرْآنِ قَبْلَ أَنْ أَخْرُجَ مِنَ الْمَسْجِد» (Shall I not teach you the most magnificent Surah before I leave the Masjid) Then the Prophet went to leave the Masjid, and I reminded him, so he said,

الْحَمْدُ للَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَـلَمِينَ ("Al-Hamdu Lillahi Rabbil-'Alamin All praises and thanks be to Allah, the Lord of all that exists)(1:2).

هِيَ السَّبْعُ الْمَثَانِي وَالْقُرْآنُ الَّذِي أُوتِيتُه» (This is the seven of the Mathani and the Qur'an which I have been given.) (The second Hadith) was reported from Abu Hurayrah who said that the Messenger of Allah said:

«أُمُّ الْقُرْآنِ هِيَ السَّبْعُ الْمَثَانِي وَالْقُرْآنُ الْعَظِيم» (Umm Al-Qur'an (the Mother or the Essence of the Qur'an,) is the seven Mathani, and the Grand Qur'an.) This means that Al-Fatihah is the seven Mathani and the Grand Qur'an, but this does not contradict the statement that the seven Mathani are the seven long Surahs, because they also share these attributes, as does the whole Qur'an. As Allah says,

اللَّهُ نَزَّلَ أَحْسَنَ الْحَدِيثِ كِتَـباً مُّتَشَـبِهاً مَّثَانِيَ (Allah has sent down the best statement, a Book (this Qur'an), its parts resembling each other in goodness and truth, oft-recited) (39:23). So it is oft-recited in one way, and its parts resemble one another in another way, and this is also the Grand Qur'an.

لاَ تَمُدَّنَّ عَيْنَيْكَ إِلَى مَا مَتَّعْنَا بِهِ أَزْوَاجًا مِّنْهُمْ (Look not with your eyes ambitiously at what We have given to certain classes of them) 20: 131 meaning, be content with the Grand Qur'an that Allah has given to you, and do not long for the luxuries and transient delights that they have.

لاَ تَمُدَّنَّ عَيْنَيْكَ (Look not with your eyes ambitiously) Al-`Awfi reported that Ibn `Abbas said: "He in this Ayah forbade a man to wish for what his companion has.

إِلَى مَا مَتَّعْنَا بِهِ أَزْوَاجًا مِّنْهُمْ (at what We have given to certain classes of them,) Mujahid said: "This refers to the rich. wlvrnclws 22:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Saba' Mathani meaning seven often repeated (or recited Verses). wlvrnclws 23:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Wulverine claws: It is not entirely clear whether these verses refer to Al-Fatiha. They might, but whether or not we include that in this encyclopedia, is entirely subject to the interpretation of scholars–we cannot directly include text from the Quran here. As such, the opinions of all scholars and Islamic groups has to be considered before we put out a message saying "Al-Fatiha has 6 ayat and 6 ayat only."

Do not revert this article again, or I will have to report you vandalizing it. The fact is–and yes, this is a fact–scholars disagree on whether the Basmalah is part of any surah, let alone Al-Fatiha, and we have to take that into account.

—AccordingClass (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

You ask for the clear proof,

Narrated Abu Sa‘îd bin Al-Mu‘alla: While I was praying in the mosque, Allâh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم called me but I did not respond to him. Later I said, "O Allâh’s Messenger, I was praying." He said, "Didn’t Allâh say - Answer Allâh (by obeying Him) and His Messenger when he صلى الله عليه وسلم calls you." (V.8:24). He then said to me, "I will teach you a Sûrah which is the greatest Sû rah in the Qur’ân, before you leave the mosque." Then he got hold of my hand, and when he intended to leave (the mosque), I said to him, "Didn’t you say to me, "I will teach you a Sûrah which is the greatest Sûrah in the Qur’an?" He said, " Al-Hamdu lillahi Rabbil-‘âlamîn [i.e. all the praises and thanks be to Allâh, the Lord of the ‘Âlamîn (mankind, jinn and all that exists)], Sûrat Al-Fâtihah which is As-Sab‘ Al-Mathâni (i.e. the seven repeatedly recited Verses) and the Grand Qur’ân which has been given to me." (Sahih Al-Bukhâri, Vol.6, Hadîth No. 1).

In this hadith it is clearly mentioned that alfatihah is saba mathani (seven often repeatedly reciting verse) and the second thing is you do not have the clear evidence that the alfatiha is of 6 verses, because of scholars dispute over basmalah, it doesn't mean that al fatihah has 6 verses.

And those (scholars or anybody) who say that al fatihah is of 6 verses let them bring the authentic source.

May be alfatihah is of 6 verses and I am wrong, I just ask you for clear and reliable source but you are not able to bring it.

And at last if you bring the proper source of 6 verses then I am not going to revert it again. And I don't want to be amongst the ignorant. wlvrnclws 14:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)