Jump to content

Talk:Quran

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2001:708:10:10:f2de:f1ff:fe54:62c4 (talk) at 12:28, 15 July 2014 (→‎Finest Work?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Template:Pbneutral


There is a citation needed for this line in the compilation portion of this article:

The Quran in its present form is generally considered by academic scholars to record the words spoken by Muhammad because the search for variants has not yielded any differences of great significance.

Here is the source: http://books.google.com/books?id=c6hAAQAAIAAJ&q=%22+generally+considered+by+academic+scholars+to+record+the+words+spoken+by+Prophet+Muhammad%22&dq=%22+generally+considered+by+academic+scholars+to+record+the+words+spoken+by+Prophet+Muhammad%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6tgGU5v9F6Kf2QXL1YGoAw&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA

Would someone add it? Thanks

141.217.233.40 (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a reliable source (WP:RS)? It does not seem like Edwin E. Hitti has any reputation as an expert on Quranic textual criticism or early Islamic history. And, for example, the Donner source cited seems to say the opposite (Donner 2006, p. 31–33). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


It seems as though it is a reliable source because Edwin E. Hitti has authored many books on Islam. He is a keynote speaker at many events and has reputable knowledge about islam.

This book seems to have his background in the first two pages of the preview.

http://books.google.com/books?id=hbEEuTMUuX0C&pg=PA283&lpg=PA283&dq=Edwin+E.+Hitti&source=bl&ots=cm5NgZBAR1&sig=qm_F2npxKB_KKouWU5xgX-fQ5Gg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2gYOU9z-F4Pr2AXdl4CQAg&ved=0CEYQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Edwin%20E.%20Hitti&f=false

141.217.233.40 (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs organisation

The article is not well organised, and does not meet the readers' priorities. abdussalambaryun dated 5 June 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdussalambaryun (talk • contribs) 19:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying "it's bad" doesn't do anything to help with any supposed problems. Do you have any suggestions as to what the structure should be like? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest to take out of the introduction what Muslims believe of the Quran or any persons believe of the Quran. Focusing on the book and author and first teaching of the book, first language of the book, first publishing of the book, dated, and references that is authenticated. If we want to say what Muslims or Christians or Jewish believe/think/say about this book, then it should be in a separate section. The reader then can choose what to read, and the reader would expect to see reliable references of which Muslims believe/say this or that about this book. Therefore, the structure of this article to start with definition and then introduction and then its sections, each section is focused on few related objectives. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My definition is mentioned, but I think we need the Quran's author definition, the first 10 verses (Aya) really defines the author and then the book (the 7 of sura Alfateha, and 3 of Sura Baqara) and it describes the Quran's main issue. So I don't see that importance in this article. From my understanding of the Quran, the first 7 verses are the most important verses of the full Quran, as prophet Mohammed said. However, it will be nice if the Quran author gets a chance to note the definition before others in this article we are editing. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction is not simple

We need more simple introduction, I don't see the editor writing in the third voice, usually the article editor is giving his/her opinion. This should not continue, because the Wikipedia is about best writing and references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdussalambaryun (talk • contribs) 20:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What? The introduction only uses third-person voicing. There is never a single use of "I" or "you" in the introduction.
The introduction summarizes and cites a number of academic sources to describe what Muslim beliefs about the Quran. It would only be accurate to describe Muslim beliefs as Muslim beliefs, since Wikipedia lets the reader make up their own mind as to what the "truth" is. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer simple definition of the Quran in the first paragraph of the article. For example, first of all it is a book of religion, the religion is Islam. It mentions that it is a message from The Creator through a messenger whose name is Mohammed. We need to describe the book as it defines itself (or the way the author defines his book). The first paragraph does not even mention Mohammed the first human and messenger who revealed the Quran. What people believe about Quran is not much important in first two paragraphs, but the editors mention "Muslims believe ...." , let us focus what does the book say about itself. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean let us put references to the verses that defines the Quran by the Quran author, I don't want to define it in our way or in any Muslims way. I believe that authors define their books not others. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi NeilNI, I want to make it simple for the reader. Any article or English writing in the world needs to aim to simplify the reader's work. The writer should not just push information with no organisation. I read the article and would like see clear objectives in each section and clear priorities of parts. When I get better edit power I may be more encouraged. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The added text suggested is translated (I may need to find best translation) verses of Quran (the most important verses):


(

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, the Lord and Sustainer of the worlds. Most Gracious, Most Merciful; Master of the Day of Judgment. Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek. Show us the straight way. The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray.

This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah. Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them. And who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter. They are on (true) guidance, from their Lord, and it is these who will prosper.

)

The above is the 10 first verses of Quran, and contains the translated 7 verses of sura Alfateha and first three of Sura Albaqara.

Abdusalambaryun (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggest amending the first paragraph of the article as below which I exclude what Muslims say.

(The Quran (English pronunciation: /kɔrˈɑːn/[n 1] kor-ahn , Arabic: القرآن‎ al-qur'ān, IPA: [qurˈʔaːn],[n 2] figuratively meaning "the recitation", also romanised Qur'an or Koran) is the central book of the Islam religion, which was revealed by Muhammad the son of Abdallah (the messenger in Islam). The Quran's original texture language is Arabic, and it's verses/parts were revealed in Maka city and Madeena city between year 610-632. Muhammad, is illiterate and according to tradition, recited perfectly what the angel Gabriel revealed to him for his companions to write down and memorize. )

The above information is very important to help the reader understand the book times, names involved, and places. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

        • What sentence you want to remove from my suggestion and what you agree. Let us build together the introduction to make it simple with strong information. I don't want to mention believes but reality. Why you think Muhammad was not illiterate? Is there first proof of that within a land and time that most were illiterate. However, you are not correct about tradition. I only want the Quran to define itself and its ideas, so you need to understand that the Quran States clearly that Muhammad is illiterate. Therefore, I want to mention that it's the Quran book that says that not tradition. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Compared to your proposal, I think the present text in the article is fine the way it is. And it's not what I believe about Muhammad's illiteracy (or what the Quran says), it's what scholarly sources say:
          • The Quran describes Muhammad as "ummi",[37] which is traditionally interpreted as "illiterate," but the meaning is rather more complex. The medieval commentators such as Al-Tabari maintained that the term induced two meanings: firstly, the inability to read or write in general and secondly, the inexperience or ignorance of the previous books or scriptures; however, they gave priority to the first meaning. Besides, Muhammad's illiteracy was taken as a sign of the genuineness of his prophethood. For example, according to Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, if Muhammad had mastered writing and reading he possibly would have been suspected of having studied the books of the ancestors. Some scholars such as Watt prefer the second meaning.
          • Remember, this is not "The History of the Quran According to the Quran". --NeilN talk to me 03:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst this is true, the bigger problem with the proposed text is the word "revealed". That is a Muslim belief, and cannot be stated without qualification. An alternative non-Muslim view would be "composed by Muhammad", which Muslims object to. Hence, the current formula to phrase it in terms of "Muslims believe...." is necessary. DeCausa (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- I think now we are saying what we believe or what other think about the verses. We need to agree on which English translation we follow of the book in this article or which number of translations we will mention to start with as subject. You need a subject text/book to start basing information on, so if we don't agree on which translation the reader of our article will read while reading the article then we have no reference of our English paragraphs. It is clear by educated readers that the Quran says that Muhammad is illiterate and that he is the source for all of revealing its words. The current introduction is based on information of other than the real Quran, so I see no sense to start with others and ignore the subject. We are not discussing history of Quran or thoughts but we need to discuss the Quran text, or what is the Quran book exactly.

The Quran is a book, so it is words and sentences that have meaning, the base of the subject is to start with some of its meaning. When we mention translation books we will need references, so then we start describing that book in English to help readers know about the Quran text and context. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're not turning the article into a Quran study or commentary. --NeilN talk to me 09:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • usually this article seems now like commentary, saying what others say about it without saying what the author says simply and exactly as what is the Quran?

I know that Wikipedia is not about sources and references, but it is about the describing with the most related real information with sources. Usually what people believe or think or write about others still can be imaginary/false. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources disagree on whether Muhammad was illiterate, see: "It is not known, however, whether Muhammad himself was able to read and write. Muslims generally claim that he was illiterate, although his professional involvement in trade and commerce might argue for some form of acquaintance with written record keeping." (Böwering, Gerhard (2008). "Recent research on the construction of the Qur'ān". In Reynolds, Gabriel Said (ed.). The Qur'ān in Its Historical Context. Routledge. pp. 70–87. ISBN 9780203939604. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); templatestyles stripmarker in |first= at position 1 (help); templatestyles stripmarker in |last= at position 1 (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) See especially: Goldfeld (1980), Der Islam vol. 57, p. 67; Günther (2002), JQS vol. 4, no. 1, p. 16; both which conclude that النَّبِيَّ الْأُمِّيَّ does not imply illiteracy.) --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- I speak and write in Arabic and I am sure that Quran means by Ummi (word in arabic) the same as illiterate. If you ask any arabic person in any arabic country, first respond is it means illiterate. However, it will be interesting for me to read that strange reference. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what you think ummi means in Modern Arabic because Qur'anic Arabic is not the same. There are many cases where interpretations of a verse have lead to the change in meaning of a word between Qur'anic and MSA and the dialects. Ogress smash! 20:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes what matters is the majority understanding of a word and the majority real sources that are reliable. Ok I will investigate those two sources given, and I am sure there are many reliable sources that explain the word as illiterate. In the end thoughts are like me and like authors of those sources they think the word is not illiterate and I think it is but the majority reliable sources matters. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not able to contribute to edit the article

Please advise why the article is blocked. If there is who responsible then please discuss here my concerns. abdussalambaryun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdussalambaryun (talk • contribs) 20:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is locked because of long-term vandalism on it. If you have a request for a specific change, simply post what part of the article you want changed, what you want it changed to, and why this change should be made. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~), so that your posts are time-stamped. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

editors editing without discussing here in June 2014

Please discuss you editing so we can work together. abdussalambaryun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdussalambaryun (talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to keep creating new sections for each new comment. Doing so, especially so rapidly, borders on spam. What recent changes do you have a problem with, and why do you have a problem with them? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • if most people are blocked then the editors have no right to edit only after consensus or discussing or talking here in this list of talk/discuss. I suggest that editors don't edit until I see there suggestions and I want to discuss with them. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've told this editor he'll be able to edit the article when his account is 4 days old and he has 10 edits. Dougweller (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

section of: relationship with other literature

The section starts with a subsection (the bible) but the bible was not mentioned much and the relationship is not clear between Quran and the Bible. We need to be clear of the main idea of this section that is shows the Quran relations with others and not others relation to Quran. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggest: that to have subsection for Bible and another for Tawra separated, and suggest amending subsection (relationships) to become (views of the relationships), or (views of literatures relationship with Quran). Abdusalambaryun (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Quran mentions in Sura (1) Albaqara, Aya 75-79, Sura (3), Aya 46, and Sura (4) Almaeda, Aya 13 and Aya 41, that there were people that changed altered the religious text of previous holy books as the bible and Tawra. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Article is about Quran and not Muslims

The interest of the article is to aim to know more about the Quran Book, let us not be distracted by Muslims believes or Muslims traditions. Now we have a book, and this book can be read and understood by any human on Earth, so what will be the best introduction and definition.

Secondly, if we want to write about Muslims believe of Quran then that can be a separate section. There are many information missing on the article that is related to the Quran and still not clear. I think Muslims traditions or believe can be more detailed in another article, because even Muslims have different schools like other religions. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the purpose of this article is to describe all aspects of the subject. Origin, content, history, interpretations, controversies, historical impact on art/politics/religion, etc. The actual content is just one facet. --NeilN talk to me 03:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But also, the Qu'ran has virtually no importance in itself. It is primarily important because of what Muslims believe about it i.e. it's importance comes from being the main religious text of a major world religion. What Christians and Jews views of it are are only of secondary importance. And that's the way the article is currently written, which is right. DeCausa (talk) 06:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- ok let us prioritise main issues, this article title is Quran and not Muslims, therefore, we start with this important subject. The Quran is important in this article because the title contain only the word Quran. If you want to write an article about The Muslims Quran, then I can understand why you want to write about Muslims believe. Readers of this article are free to choose what is important and what is not, we should not interfere. Therefore, we should write Muslims believe in separate section, other groups/people/individual believes in separate sections. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The purpose of the article is to describe the Quran first (without confusing more complexed issues or subjects), then describe all other issues/aspects related (but better in separate sections). The article is not organised in its prioritising important issues. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Abdusalamamaryun, you seem to think that the purpose of the article is merely to give a summary of what's in the Qu'ran. But that's not it. The purpose, as with any Wikipedia article, is to give a summary of what reliable sources have said about the Qu'ran. DeCausa (talk) 11:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- we need to have introduction that has priorities in information. I don't say summary but the purpose is to explain What is the Quran, really? Not What some people say about the Quran? So if we want to do summarising body then the last paragraph in introduction can summarise, where sections are after in details as I mentioned before. The first paragraph should not have what people say about Quran, but what the author says first. You did not answer to organising information. Why there is no agreement? What is the problem with organising and prioritising. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Quran is a primary source. Wikipedia requires secondary sources (i.e., what scholars say about the Quran) to "explain What is the Quran, really". --NeilN talk to me 20:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipedia needs both sources (primary and secondary) to be available for real descriptions and real information. Furthermore, in the Arabic Wikipedia pages, the referencing Quran as primary source may not be needed because the original Quran book is in Arabic language, but in this English Wikipedia, the primary Quran source of English translation is required and necessary to be referenced and available as real information. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't encourage the use of primary sources because of the risk of the result being original research which is not permitted. The article needs to be based on secondary sources to structure the article and make its main points. Some limited referencing to primary sources, e.g. the Qu'ran, is permitted but that can't shape the article. Please familiarise yourself with the relevant policy: WP:PRIMARY. DeCausa (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The way the article shaped now is not correct, the Quran is about its texts, context, and author, not about Muslims and editors views. I see that editor opinion is clear which is not policy to write editor opinions through secondary sources. Describing both sides sources is important yo clarify the subject. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bible section

It says it needs a citation that the Qu'ran speaks highly of the Bile and Torah. Here you go; Torah--"We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers," (Sura 2:87).1 Psalms--"We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms," (4:163). Gospel--"It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)," (3:3). Also, "And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah," (5:46). 86.43.171.32 (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't sources for the statement. Per WP:PRIMARY, they can only be used as sources for exactly what it says in the Qu'ran. It requires interpretation to turn that into "speaks highly" (actually says "speaks well" which should probably be changed) and cannot be done with a primary source. A secondary source (and not hadith) is needed. DeCausa (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the Quran verses are that those holy books are from Allah the only God. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • The Quran mentions (7:157) "Those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write whom they find written with them in the Torah and the Gospel ..."

It can be found in Bible, Isaiah (29:12) " And if the document is given to one who cannot read and he is asked to read it, he will say: I can't read" Abdusalambaryun (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Do some research into various interpretations, don't just choose one. Isn't the word used 'ummi'?Dougweller (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2014

In Bible definitions it was mentioned that"There is no single "Bible" and many Bibles with varying contents exist". its worth mentioning that; there is only a single copy of the holy Qur'an with the same context being read and memorized by Muslims. Bader725 (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request; moreover, on a subject like this, such a change would also need consensus, before being added to the article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intro misleading

In the intro currently it says "However, some significant textual variations and deficiencies in the Arabic script mean the relationship between the text of today's Quran and an original text is unclear" . I think this is misleading. The source says "Most variants are minor, but some are significant and involve not just vocalization but completely different words". It also says that these variants are based on pre-Uthmanic traditions. The purpose of the compilation of the quran at Uthman's time was to unify the writing of the quran (also in the source). This was within 20 years of Muhammad's death with many of those who heard it directly from him still alive. I believe that putting that in the intro without the proper context is misleading.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting issue. Well, Donner does not say that all of the variants are based on pre-Uthmanic traditions. He says that some were claimed to be based on pre-Uthmanic traditions, but he does not affirm this claim. As Donner says, there is a two-part lack of clarity: "many questions remain regarding the relationship of the ʿUthmānic text to both the revelations of Muḥammad’s time and to the Qurʾān of today." (pg. 32) Then he considers the variants you mention and he concludes: "The full import, however, of these variants for our understanding of the ʿUthmānic text and its relationship to the revelations as they existed in Muḥammad’s time is still not clear." Finally he considers the deficiencies in the early script and says: "it opens the possibility that the fully vocalised texts that were eventually prepared could have contained erroneous vocalisations, further clouding our perception of the relationship of today’s vocalised text to the revelations of Muḥammad’s time." That is, we just don't know exactly what Uthman's text was, and a fortiori we don't know exactly what Muhammad's text was.
There has been a lot of work since 2006, but Donner's conclusion has only been confirmed by it. The work of Keith Small and his Textual Criticism and Qurʾān Manuscripts (2011) has been well-regarded and gives the very same conclusion, even explicitly citing and agreeing with Donner (p. 179). François Déroche, who is probably the most well-regarded now (as Walid Saleh says: "First of all, this monograph leaves no doubt as to who is the leading scholar in quranic studies: François Déroche" [1]), makes the issue more problematic: He's concluded (Qur’ans of the Umayyads, 2013) largely on the basis of codex Parisino-petropolitanus and the Sana'a palimpsest that the Uthmanic text was not a standard as it is reported in tradition (p. 35 & 139), and agrees that the manuscripts (and lack of manuscripts) show that we just don't know about transmission: "As it [the Sana'a palimpsest] is alone in its textual tradition, it is unfortunately impossible to evaluate the way in which it was transmitted in various copies and to compare the results with what can be observed in the case of the canonical rasm" (p. 137) and that to answer all the questions of transmission we "require to have the material from this period published in a more systematic way." (p. 15) --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Region's Islamique / Region's Now- Islamique

Region <Bruxelles-Brabant> not heard of Wallonia but to Flandre.

( or, move it to the real topic: 

Flandria, Belgium, Brussels, Wallonia

Islamism, anti-Islamism, Arabism / Anti - Arabism, fascism / anti - fascism, racism / anti - racism)Iederzujnhui (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change, textual transmission and corruption

I'll just expand on what I said. So the lede clearly reports a religious view of the transmission of the text: That it is without corruption. The scholarly consensus is specifically that there is some corruption, but also more generally that the transmission is not clear. Including Donner just gives that general scholarly consensus. Removing any mention that the transmission is unclear, and including only a statement that questions remain about some undetermined set of aspects of canonization or some such, does not speak to the religious view which is clearly stated. The scholarly view has to be there to give a context to that religious view, per WP:NPOV. I don't care about the word "however" nor "nevertheless", but there has to be some connecting word or phrase to make it clear that what it being reported is no longer the under the influence of the "Muslims consider" which governs the previous sentence. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that you read our WP:SYNTH policy. It is clear that you're combining "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Otherwise, where does Donner explicitly states that the "scholarly consensus is specifically that there is some corruption" as you claim? His article does not deal with corruption anywhere. So you shouldn't cite it here to imply that it does. Wiqi(55) 00:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it, thank you. I've not cited Donner for that claim, nor have I tried to include that claim in the article. Donner's article certainly does deal with corruption, however. That's why he says that the possibility that the plena texts contain errors in vocalization is partly why the transmission is unclear; errors in transmission are one conceptual half of textual corruption (the other being intentional changes). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finest Work?

In the first paragraph of the page, the following sentence needs further thought:

It is widely regarded as the finest piece of literature in the Arabic language.

This phrase is:

  1. An opinion, not factual.
  2. Highly biased because of the religious ideology surrounding the book itself.
  3. False according to other sources. I did not see any specific sources on-line to add for this. However, my limited Arabic understanding and some non-Muslim Arabic speaking persons i know personally disagree with this statement.

How can we trust a sentence when 3 of the four sources are written by Muslims and 2 of the 4 are so obscure they are currently unobtainable?

Is there a way we can either move this sentence from the intro or just delete it entirely?

It reads poorly for an encyclopedia and those without religious affiliation would agree with the removal and disagree with the statement's premise.

Unless i hear compelling reasons otherwise i will remove this sentence after 48 hours.

--Riddleme (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


By coincidence I took a note on the same thing and support removing the statement. I don't believe it adds any neutral, informational value to the article. 2001:708:10:10:F2DE:F1FF:FE54:62C4 (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quran&oldid=617039723"