Talk:Quran and miracles

Un-sourced statements

Lets keep this article free from un-sourced statments. Wanna bet that it will get a AFD? --Striver 19:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that you have lost the bet. As there is not AFD even after many months. --- ابراهيم 20:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Title

Is the title of this article correct? Or maybe the text about the Qur'an being a miricle in itself has grown out of proportions and should be given an article of it's own. I was not expecting it here... I suggest a new page on The Linguistic and Literary Inimitability of the Qur'an. Info D 14:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

statistical section unclear

What do the numbers signify???
On the word counts it should be mentioned that you have to count only singular forms without any pronoun attached to obtain 365 occurences of "day" while to count "angels" 88 times you have to take any form you can find.

"unique" a meaningless word in this context

Discussion of all the ways a book imitating the Koran would have to be "unique" betray circular reasoning. To be unique means to be one of a kind. If anything imitates the Koran, it is by definition not one of a kind -- it's an imitation. But these exact criteria could be applied to, say, James Joyce. No doubt James Joyce isn't a prophet. Peccavimus 17:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

= The section Scientific Miracles contains Original Research.

The section "Scientific Miracles" states, "In Quran there is a hint of both big bang and big crunch." and then goes on. This is original research as the wording is unattributed to anyone who is a cosmologist. Yes reading the stated sura with it "We produce a new one:" would indicate a cycle of creation but who are we to describe it as such. We won't mention the illogic of the wording a "scientific miracle". The scientific method usually precludes miracles in that it precludes a supernatural origin for events. Ttiotsw 11:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Reason for tagging with cleanup.

I accidently hit this page and truthfully it's a bit messy full of original research and unattributed content. The section on Linguistic and Literary Inimitability needs a serious cull or if it's a topic in it's own right then moved to another page. As to why the rediscovery of the City of Iram is a miracle we'll never know. The reference for that is a web page and our Wikipedia page fails to highlight the numbers of people who feel it is a miracle or if it's just a few then the authority of those people. As for the "Mathematical" - this isn't maths. It is numerology at best. Ttiotsw 13:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

NEW reason to tag with cleanup and weasel wording.

The article was reverted to a 3 month old copy by someone. This has left the article even worse than before with nearly every sentence having classic weasel wording (truthfully I actually prefer ferrets but weasels will do). The numerology stuff still makes no sense even if you are pissed on this years wine and have forgotten all maths since kindergarten. Erich Von Daniken, come back, all is forgiven compared to this stuff; at least you had Aliens and spaceships and stuff. If this all makes no sense then read the article and tell me which is clearer. Ttiotsw 21:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

verses

see next last section, before the section regarding the treaty. --Striver 03:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality and wiki rules

This page has nothing to do as taking a side in the discussion if the Quran is of divine origin or it is the work of Muhammad. So, we cannot present biased arguments such as "Muhammad, who was influenced by older Jewish and Christian traditions, also included ..." as facts. There exist other wiki pages on this issue: "critism of Muhammad", "critisim of Quran", etc. The page must focus on the Quran.

We do not need to give a reference other than wiki page about the "ayat" for the sentence "verses of the book are referred to as ayat, which also means "a miracle" in the Arabic language." The mentioned wiki page states it clearly. I agree with the idea that wiki pages are not summary of a particular book.

And I see that many relevant external links are being removed for the sake of unrelated arguments.

This page has already been pruned greatly. Let us not make the same mistakes in the very beginning of the development of the page. Otherwise, I believe that a systematical vandalism is being applied for this page. (American force 21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

Other wiki pages cannot serve as references (see WP:V, only "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" are acceptable). You are true that it is better to have more sources than one, but at least one reliable source is needed. I think that the proper solution is to add other reliable scholarly sources and not delete the current one. - Moreover you should know that the "systematical vandalism" saved this article from deletion not so long ago (see the AfD discussion linked above).--Ioannes Pragensis 08:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the link for the ayat stays for now. However, the statement about divinity of Quran does not add something to the content. I think the solution is not to add any controversial sentences without consensus. Also, some external links are being removed in every revison, please do not remove them. (American force 14:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC))

If you are honest to develop a good article please stop reverting. I have restored the previous references. I think a brief discussion about the origin of Quran is relevant here, it is the main point of Muslim argument to present Quran as a miracle. I do not agree with Sefringle about the low importance of this article. There are even master and PhD theses over this topic.(Freskile 17:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC))

Neutrality

When writing and editing this article, be aware that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. That means, this article is not to become an Islamist propaganda article desined to convert people to Islam. It should mention the relevant and notable so-called miracles and responses, but should not be used for propaganda.--Sefringle 05:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Quran quotes

Quoting the quran without quoting a secondary source is against wikipedia policies. See WP:NPOV#Undue weight. It says

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

In other words, quoting the quran without a secondary source is WP:OR

See also: WP:OR#What is excluded?.

It says:

It introduces a theory or method of solution;

It introduces original ideas;

It defines new terms;

It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;

It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;

It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;

It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source. --Sefringle 21:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

---

You are really unbelievable(!), and your arguments are not even convincing.

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority": There is no viewpoint here, and I hope you are not referring to Muslims as an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, that would only be funny ..

"It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument": there is a citation, also there is a reputale source.

At least read your talk page; I will quote the words of "Ioannes Pragensis" from that page -I hope he won't mind-

Regarding the Quran quotes: I think that clearly understandable quotes from acknowledged primary sources are not regarded as WP:OR. ("Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." - And the description of miracles is probably easily understandable in the cited places of Quran.)

The primary source here is the Quran, and they are published by a reliable source 'usc.edu', even a wiki template exist for this.

So, direct quotations are allowed here. If it were not the case, the page which you presented as an example in another discussion, Miracles attributed to Jesus would be full of references. I can present here much much more examples of wiki articles diretly quoting from Bible and Quran.

Wiki pages are not for propaganda, this also means they cannot be used for an anti-Islamist propaganda. Please do not try to misuse wikirules with some biased comments. (American force 04:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC))

---

Also, there is no sense to embed so many Quranic verses into the context when they are just given as reference. The initial writer's choice was also in this way, and it is the common style of article writing.(American force 04:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC))

That doesn't change the fact that it is an extermely small minority view unless you or someone else can prove otherwise. You claim there are muslims who believe the quran has miracles. Prove it. If you can't by citing reputable sources, than it is a very small minority view.--Sefringle 04:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The discussion was about the usage of Quranic quotes. For the claim "there are muslims who believe the quran has miracles", the writer has already stated his source. (American force 04:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC))

The one and only source he mention is NOT reliable, notable, or scholarly.--Sefringle 04:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

additions by Slsm07

I removed these additions because they are cited to Ibrham, I.A. I have no evidence that this is either a scholar or even a notable person. The other thing is sourced to submission.org, which is not a reliable source.--Sefringle^Talk 18:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Sefringle. All im supposed to do was to cite the book. Here's some more info from Amazon if you need.[1] We are not given evidence here that all the other authors of the books and articles cited here are notable or scholars. These miracles do not have to be true nor do they have to be from a scholar, as long as there are widely claimed, as claimed miracles in the Quran are important in an article titled “Quran and miracles”. This is a published book, and that is the qualification I used to say that these are widely claimed. And for the Submission.org, cited for Mr.Bucaille's lecture, i cited another website which also has his lecture, although you might claim this to be a POV site too. Could you find a site, that you like, which has his lecture instead of just deleting the section?