Talk:Quran

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (Aug.2002 to Apr.2005):

1 Selected Quotes from the Qur'an || 2 Standardisation of the copies of the Qur'an || 3 Mathematical Miracles || 4 Contemporary Scholarship and the Qur'an || 5 Article not neutral || 6 Number of Verses in the Qur'an || 7 Qur'an graveyards || 8 Article not neutral at all || 9 Qur'an Usage || 10 Hafiz || 11 Sacred || 12 Arabic name || 13 Wikisource || 14 Suras || 15 PBUH || 16 Apologetic || 17 Samrkand Manuscript || 18 Created and UnCreated Debated || 19 Stylistic features || 20 Fairly minor edits || 21 Deuteronomy & John refs early in article || 22 Uncreated Qur'an (deletion of passage related to Bible) || 23 Added this link || 24 External links again || 25 Is that rearrangement OK? || 26 Removed commercial link || 27 I deleted a picture || 28 Ibn Kathir || 29 parts and subdivisions || 30 Recent additions to external links || 31 Textual criticism and the Qur'an - Clarification after removal || 32 Mary is not a prophet of Islam || 33 Can a Muslim editor check the Islamic links? || 34 Slavery

• Archive 2 (Feb.2005 to Oct.2005):

1 Quran, Koran || 2 "Entities and events ... confirmed by science..." || 3 Qur'an appearance || 4 Qur'an desecration (Rulings on handling Qur'an, DISRESPECT TO THE NOBLE QUR'AN, Sunni ruling on desecration of Qur'an) || 5 An ex-soldier's POV (You struck out) || 6 Major revision || 7 Abrogation || 8 The Qur'an and science || 9 Piss Koran? || 10 Pietistic edits by anon || 11 Devrabation's edits || 12 Very interesting || 13 The Ayat and Wikipedia || 14 Standard referances || 15 Picture on the bottom || 16 Link to submission.org || 17 false suras|| 18 "Muslims believe" questioned || 19 Islam holds != Muslims believe || 20 Apology - I edited without reading all the talk page || 21 Citing Qur'an || 22 Desicrating Qur'an (Minor changes 2005-08-26) || 23 Importing the Qur'an and Hadith || 24 Addition of quran.org.uk || 25 (Say) Watt? || 26 English Wikisource Quran...vandalism || 27 Robert Spencer link|| 28 Created vs. uncreated

Please add new sections and talk threads to the bottom of this page.

---

Request on quoting translations

Can I please urge editors to state which translation they are quoting verses from. Some of the translations (if they truly are that and not just loose paraphrases) seem to be inaccurate, misleading and incomplete (see my recent request on the Islam talk page). I tend to use the Yusuf A. Ali translation, but if any translation is used, then we need to make sure that the original meaning is not lost. Thanks. ---Mpatel (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Changing "According to secular scholars"

The last paragraph under the heading "According to secular scholars" talks about the Sana Manuscripts and link to a site that contradicts the very contents of the paragraph. The paragraph says that Dr.Puin's findings matched the reports by Islamic scholars on variations found in the Qurans held by Abdallah Ibn Masud, Ubay Ibn Ka'b, and Ali. In the previous section, it also states that these changes differed mostly (citation for other accounts of differences in word changes are needed in such a sensitive subject) only in orthographical and lexical variants, and that these three are recorded as having accepted the Uthmanic version. So a link to a site which states that Dr. Puin's findings contained abberations from the Quranic text which worried Muslims is in complete contradiction to the paragraph which states the complete opposite.

I will remove the link and rephrase the paragraph.

Please DON'T remove the link. It's information. Zora 20:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, the sentences that hold a possibility clause, like "mostly" needs to be revised to hold a defenitive clause because this renders the article prone to interpretations. If this article is to be cited as a knowledge source, then it should contain known facts. If there are considerable variations reported by scholars in the copies once held by Abdallah Ibn Masud, Ubay Ibn Ka'b, and Ali reported in authentic Islamic sources or historical documents, then these citations should be referenced to justify the use of "mostly", otherwise I believe the sentence should read, variations consist "entirely" as opposed to "mostly". If anyone disagrees, then please state so. I will wait for your suggestions before making this change ---mistknight 14:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the section should be rephrased BUT -- just to put you in mind of the full complexity of all this -- Dr. Puin's work was extremely controversial, as there was no way of knowing in advance that his work would confirm earlier Muslim scholars. I think I have stored somewhere a link to a very worried and belligerent letter to an English-language Yemeni newspaper in which the writer says that the government never should have allowed the infidel scholar into the country and that since everyone knew that the Qur'an was perfect and unchanging, the very inquiry was blasphemous. Something like that. Indeed, I believe the scholars and the Yemeni government tried to keep the whole matter fairly quiet until the fragments were safely photographed and the scholars were out of the country.

So far as I can tell, there is a large gap between popular perceptions, in the Muslim world, and the actual complexity of Islamic scholarship. Frex, the statement that the version of the Qur'an used most widely today was established by scholars in Cairo in 1922 provoked howls of outrage from one Muslim editor here at Wikipedia, who insisted that the Qur'an was perfect and unchanging. He clearly didn't know anything about the long history of Quranic scholarship, traditions of recitation, etc.

If the section is confusing, it's confusing. The reader is the final test of whether or not something works. So let's work on it. Zora 20:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

But if the reference to Dr.Puin's publication in the article is authentic ("Observations on Early Qur'an Manuscripts in San'a", Puin, in The Qur'an as Text, ed. Wild, Brill, 1996), which states that the variations he found agreed with the orthographic and verse count changes that were recorded by some Muslim scholars between the Uthmanic version and the Companions' versions, it would be incorrect to link to a site which says his findings revealed significant changes which troubled the Muslim communitee, regardless of weather his presence in Sana' was welcomed or not, the site states a fact that contradicts a seemingly legitimate reference in this article. Furthermore, the site DOES NOT give references to Dr.Puin's publications, or explicitly say this knowledge was obtained directly from Dr.Puin, finally the site's contents are extremely questionable, if you observe the english articles, it would be very unlikely to consider a site with an article titled "QURAN: The source of hate, violence and Islamic terrorism" as a source of ANY legitimate information on the Quran, I believe my removal of the link was justified mistknight 21:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

It would have been much much better if we had some acedmic site rather then this one . Any ways , as was written here , the differences consisted almost entirely of orthographic and verse count variations . That isnt considered to be a difference at all . As diacritical marks were added b/c non arabs had diffficulty reading quran . In the present times , arabic, persian & urdu is still written without vovels , that is uncomprehendable to a non native , but native speakers can easily read it . The problem was that when Quran reached Persia , it was being read in 7 dialects , & was without dots/diacritical marks .AS a result , non natives started reading it very differently . Persians/non arabs needed to have these changes b/c persian/turkish/urdu have more sounds than arabic , and these sounds are only differentiated by dots .

The number of verses are still not fixed , there are official verses that end with ة , & there are verses that end with ط . Either you take ط as a comma , or a ful stop , it doesnt change the meaning .

So DR. Puin's work is actually confirming that Quran is perfect & unchanging ( Diactitical marks werent revealed , everybody knows that ) . How/why would it ( the differences ) trouble the Muslim communitee ....I have got nooo idea . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 22:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Changing "The temporal order of Quranic verses"

I don't yet have time to make this change, but I will reconstruct this section ASAP. This section clearly alludes that Muslims have come up with the concept of abrogation to solve the problem of seemingly contradicting verses, this is not the case. Not Muslims, but the Quran itself ordains the concept of abrogation. In Al-Baqara 2:106 "If We abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We will replace it by a better one or one similar. Did you not know that God has power over all things?" This clearly takes the abrogation to a whole new level, not Muslims, but the Quran itself has explicitly mentioned the presence of abrogated verses, whereas this section clearly gives an impression that Muslims have come up with the concept of abrogation to solve the problem of contradictory verses. As to which verses are abrogated, as far as I know, this is a controversial issue between Muslims. mistknight 22:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Who declared the Yusuf Ali translation the "official" Wikipedia translation?

I just noticed that someone had added a notice to the top of the article saying that all quotes would come from the Yusuf Ali translation. Huh? Who decided this? I believe that most English-speaking academics who use translations prefer Arberry's. Zora 22:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

That was me. Actually, it was not meant to be dogmatic; just that I was sick and tired of people apparently 'quoting' from the Qur'an without giving a translation source. Now that people have noticed it, perhaps they will start quoting properly. Anyone can use any translation they want to, but there should be a reference of some sort. Ideally, a translation whose meaning is as close to the original Arabic would be ideal. ---Mpatel (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: "a translation whose meaning is as close to the original Arabic" -- ... And therein lies the problem. :)

There is no authoritative version beyond the Arabic, and (putting it bluntly) not only is not, cannot be such a version. This is not a normal document.

Consider, for instance that the verse (109:6) usually translated along the lines of "To you your religion, and to me mine" can also, and quite persuasively, be rendered, "To you your lifestyle, and to me mine." AND "To you your reckoning, and to me mine." AND "To you your Way, and to me mine."

Four, count 'em, four simultaneous meanings, each requiring a separate English rendering. Notice, though, that all the meanings are complementary, and all four resonate in the (perhaps hypothetical) "final" meaning. Now this problem is not an isolated incident, and not to be confused with a "crux" at 109:6; this multiple-complementary-meaning thing happens pervasively throughout the text. (Example: "ayat" doesn't just mean "verse of the Qur'an," but also "sign of God," "miracle," "evidence," and "communication.")

I'm all for people citing which version they're quoting from. Some translations are manifestly deficient. But as for a settled English translation that offers "meaning close to the original Arabic" -- good luck. One Arabic speaker told me that reading any English translation was like listening to Beethoven played on a bass drum. The more Arabic I learn, the more I remember that comparison. BrandonYusufToropov 17:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yup , I share the same "Beethoven on bass drum" feeling while reading translations . The feeling that made me study Arabic . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 18:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, please read carefully what I wrote. I said it was not meant to be dogmatic - just there to get people's attention to the fact that some people claim to be 'quoting' when they are in fact not (and if they are, to at least give a reference) . Like I also said, ideally, we should get "a translation whose meaning is as close to the original Arabic" - ok, I realise that is near impossible. I accept that. I'll remove the notice if that clears up any confusion. ---Mpatel (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed the Yusuf Ali tag at the top. I've given a few quotes from YA. ---Mpatel (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Cropped image

Without the human figure, the page loses its scale. It could be two inches high for all we know. Could you leave enough of the figure to establish the scale? Zora 11:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Conceiling References

Quranic commentaries by Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat is unprecedented in the history of Islam. However, even after several trials to update the article page I have not been sucessful to add the mentioned references, because the whoever the maintenor of this page, quickly removes those references. The references are fully conceiled effectively in order to prevent the view of the Holy Quran by the Ahmadiyya Mulsim Jamaat. The commentaries are exhaustive, the references include:

• Tafsir by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in Urdu (4 Volumes - Abridged)
• Tafsir-e-Kabir by Mirza Bashir Ahmad (5 Volumes)
• Tafsir (Haqaiq-ul-Furqan) by Noor Uddin Bhairvi in Urdu (4 Volumes - Abridged)

That seems unfair... why should they not be represented? --Striver 17:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, two of the refs are in Urdu.

--rutariq True. however, the other references are in arabic only as well. 17:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

We've pretty much let anybody link anything to this article, but it seems to me that we should start being a bit more selective. Otherwise we are going to have ten thousand links. I'd suggest that we start by linking only to classic tafsir, or articles about them. Zora 17:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

--rutariq Being selective is one thing, however, being impartial is another. The reference I request for addition in "THE" only extensive reference available across the Net. The commentary of the Quran is that very reason that differentiate this community Ahmadi from the other 72 sects of Islam. 17:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Then why not let them have non-urdu one? Having the classical ones are great, but modern ones have theit place to, dont you agree? Further, should'nt the view of everyone be represented in the translation and tafsir section? Sure, it will be a long list, but it is the Quran we are talking about, so it should not surprise anyone.

--Striver 17:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, put the English ref back. Clearly the links section needs some pruning -- that is, someone willing to click thru on every link and check the quality of the website. Right now, this article is in the same state that the Islam article was a year ago -- a plethora of links, mostly submitted by self-advertising groups. That isn't the way to produce a qualtiy list. Zora 18:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

--rutariq Again, someone eventually removed that reference to Tasir-e-Kabir by Mirza Bashir Ahmad (5 Volumes). Even other Urdu links such Maudoodi's commentary links are still there. In my opniion, this is clear demonstration of being biased. Since the link I had been trying to post several times, is the most extensive commentary work available on the Internet, I think putting any other link while excluding this one is an act of injustice. 16:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Some work on it whould'nt hurt :) --Striver 18:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

--rutariq Check out this index section with Quranic commentaries.

bad editing/format

This article needs a lot improving, it has way too many grammatical, formatting, layout,font and linking mistakes.

Usually, if they're minor fixes, it's easier to do them yourself than to tell someone else exactly what you think is wrong and have that person fix it to your standards. If you think the article needs a total rewrite, do it yourself and post it as a temp page before replacing the whole article. The other editors can't write to order, particularly when it isn't clear what mistakes you see. Zora 00:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Pious hands at work-

I don't know WHO -- I think it might have been a long string of anonIPs -- edited this article to remove or counter any criticism or disturbing observations, replaced the woman looking at the huge Qur'an with the cropped picture sans woman, and in general, mangled it. Many of the changes turned sentences or even entire sections into nonsense. I'm angry and upset by what I see as blatant intellectual dishonesty. Zora 01:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually a lot of those edits were done by well-established editors like Sam Korn who replaced the image with a cropped one. And it seems a lot like you reverted to an older version. If you wish to add or remove so much material, please take it step by step rather than one large edit. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't revert, I rewrote. Zora 05:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

---

What the ???? You reverted just about everything I wrote -- and put up the cropped picture of the Qur'an page again. I didn't introduce ANYTHING new or controversial, I just took out stuff that had snuck in without discussion. Your position seems to be that if an anonIP comes here and makes changes without discussion, and they're in the direction of Muslim piety, they can't be removed without discussion. That is simply not fair. Also, we have had endless discussions of the Qur'an page and everyone save Muslim censors seems to agree that the human figure is needed to show the scale of the page. Otherwise it could be ANY size. As a woman, I am upset that someone would feel that bare legs and arms are SOOO disturbing that they must not be shown in juxtaposition to the Qur'an. Why cater to that sort of misogyny? Oh, I did add that bit about decorating everyday objects with Qur'an verses, because someone stuck up that picture, and I knew that there were Muslims who objected to the practice. I'm glad that you left that. Zora 05:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about "pious editing" at all. I said your edits were major and should be done step by step with discussion. I had no opinions on the differences between the versions. I don't agree, however, with your edits to the translation section because it mingled and mixed that section and the one above it. I am fine with the rest of your edits. I agree with the user below on what he says about the picture. Is the lady with the bad posture rally necessary. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

When I looked at the two sections, they were basically restatements of the same thing. I didn't leave anything out, I just removed duplication. Concise is good. Clear rather than meandering is good. That's copyediting. I'm a copyeditor. I didn't remove ANY relevant info re how Muslims feel about translation of the Qur'an. Zora 21:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Zora, why do you insist upon that woman to be there in the picture ? I don't have any trouble with that picture but it does not have anything to do with Quran, anyway. If this article is regarding any physical structure, it is fine that a person standing nearby would help appreciate the size of the structure. But this displayed image is just an enlarged version of an old Quran page and which is enlarged just to display it in an exhibition. So size of this enlarged page has no significance to size of a person. If you go down to the edit history you will find this edit was not done by anonymous editor but Sam Korn and he has specified the filename "Oversized_Koran_folio_cropped". Just because some Muslims don't like this image here, does not mean it must be there in this page.

As I understand it, the Qur'an was really that big. The page has not been artificially enlarged. I believe that this Qur'an was commissioned by Timurlane, a controversial historical figure. (He ravaged Sistan and destroyed the irrigation system there, among other atrocities.) Hence the SIZE of the page tells us something about the physical versions of the Qur'an -- that the Qur'an was written and displayed in many different formats. I believe that there are other very very large Qur'ans, usually calligraphed for mosques. There are also very very small Qur'ans. I had a friend once who had bought a one-page Qur'an in Cairo, a large page with tiny writing. (It would be nice to have a picture of one of those, with a human for scale.)

If we had another picture of a very large Qur'an to replace this one, with a human figure for scale, I could possibly overcome my rage at censorship and allow the picture to be replaced. But if you remove it, or remove the figure, without replacing the info, it's destruction of INFORMATION -- just because some Muslim men think that a woman's body is somehow frightening, disgusting, disturbing, something to cover up and hide, something that contaminates the Qur'an.

If those men can't control their sexual impulses, it's THEIR problem, not mine. I should be able to walk naked down the street and not be bothered. (Well, I'm old and fat enough that I wouldn't be bothered, but let's assume that I look like Aishwarya Rai.) Sheesh, MEN. Zora 21:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"just because some Muslim men think that a woman's body is somehow frightening ..." With all due respect, I think you're doing a little projecting when it comes to the motivation behind changing the image. --72.25.8.86 15:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not Muslim. I am a British Anglican Catholic, so this was not motivated by my thoughts on religion. There was an email to the info-en email address requesting that the image be cropped. The justification was indeed the point about the scantily clad woman standing next to it. I can see this point. I don't think Wikipedia should be offensive for offence's own sake, and I can't see any real reason why the woman should appear in the photograph. The picture as cropped is more illustrative of the subject and isn't offensive at all. The image is in fact more encyclopaedic as it is, looking far less like a holiday snap and more like an illustration. Firstly, I resent having aspersions cast on my motives. Secondly, I don't consider the change one for the worse; quite the opposite. Unless anyone can give good reason for moving back to the old image, I shall put my version back. [[Sam Korn]] 16:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If you remove the human figure, you remove all visual information wrt scale. I wouldn't be offensive for the sake of offense, but dang it, this is INFO. As a woman, I am infuriated by all these male assumptions that a woman who is modestly clothed by the standards of her time and place is OFFENSIVE. Find a picture of a huge Qur'an with a human figure for scale to replace this one if you find it offensive. Ditto for one of the one-page Qur'ans in teeny tiny writing. Zora 22:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me. I thought I said I didn't find it offensive myself. I happen to be of the opinion that the image without the woman in it is a better picture. I am not censoring the image. I would do the same to any image that someone uploads if it isn't as focused on the encyclopaedic content as it could be. Repeat, I made the change because it improved the picture, not because I'm a misogynist. As for the question of scale, the picture cropped still conveys the size adequately. That image could not be anything other than the size it is even without the object of reference removed. With the potential for offence, the improvement in the image, and the failure to become worse, I don't see a good reason for keeping the full image. The question of offence is minor, but it still does play a part, particularly when placed next to the section about Qur'an desecration. [[Sam Korn]] 22:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Without the human figure there is nothing to establish scale. Your cropped picture could be of a two-inch-high Qur'an. That's what I mean by losing information. Zora 22:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Here I am afraid I must disagree with you. It's my opinion that just as much information is conveyed. The size of the flash reflection shows the size clearly, and the size of the frame means it can't be too small. After all, the exact size is not particularly relevant. What is relevant is that it's bloody big, and that comes across perfectly well. [[Sam Korn]] 22:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to disagree. There is no way to judge the size of the frame without some other reference. This is why, when architects make drawings of proposed projects for clients, they scatter human figures about the drawing to indicate scale. That's how humans intuitively judge size -- by reference to human figures. Take a look at this Qur'an picture [1]. Can you tell how big the original is? Guess. Now here's the answer: [2]Zora 02:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Size of the Quran created by Timur is not relevent here. It would be more appropriate in an article regarding Quran Calligraphy or in an article regarding Timur of Iran. 59.93.39.76 06:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

request for advice

People have singled out three different translations of the Qu'ran: A.J. Arberry; Abdallah Yusuf Ali; and Ahmed Ali. I have not yet read the Qu'ran and would like a reliable and well-regarded translation. I would appreciate any advice. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

My vote is for the Arberry. That's the one I have. Arberry has an ear for English poetry/prose; the other translations go "clunk". Zora 21:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I would vote for Pickthall although the others aren't far behind. Yusuf Ali is also good. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Shi'a view

http://al-islam.org/tahrif_quran/ --Striver 13:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

From what I've been reading in Momen, that is true now but it was not always true of the Shi'a. Zora 10:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

http://al-islam.org/al-tawhid/misconceptions/misconceptions.htm --Striver 08:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

What has this got to do with the Qu'ran? Zora 10:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Links

We've been letting folks add links as they please, and the links section is getting very long. The links should be pruned. What sort of principles should we use in deciding which links to keep and which to drop?

I'd like to suggest that we limit translations to four or five main translations into English, keep the tafsir section but ONLY link to classic tafsir (not recent ones), keep the academic links, prune the search services to two or three, ditto the audio files, and remove the rest. I don't like to see various Islamic groups using this article as a link farm to pull people to their interpretation of Islam. We ought to try to stay away from that, IMHO. Zora 08:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Some suggestions from me

• "Quran in Arabic" is now in translations section. Quran is in Arabic and how this link is here ?
• "Exposition of the Holy Qur'an" in translation section is not translation but commentary of verses.
• Link to www.aswatalislam.net in audio/video section can be made to one.
• "Quran in XML" is not appropriate in tafsir section.
• "Study The Quran in-depth" link in tafsir section can be moved to "Quranic studies" section.

Soft coder 10:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

All those seem like reasonable comments to me. Remove the Arabic, remove the Exposition, combine links, remove Quran in XML, and move the Study link (though we may decide to remove it later). Is there anyone who objects? Let's wait a day to be sure. Not everyone is in the same time zone. Zora 10:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Cant we just use a link to wikisource for the Qur'an itself? --Victim of signature fascism Please join SIIEG and teach them NPOV 18:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Controversial picture, caption

I think it was an anon who removed the controversial picture without mentioning it here, and the loss wasn't noticed for a while. Jwissick and I agreed that it should be put back. If the museum allows women in shorts to look at the Qur'an, and Muslims aren't picketing the museum in protest, then it seems silly for a few ideologues to object to the picture of the horrendous act of looking at the Qur'an (not even touching it) while wearing shorts. It may be information that the picture is objectionable, so I added that to the caption. If other editors think that the extra bit could be rephrased to be blander, or think that it's unnecessarily provocative, I suppose it could be changed or removed. Zora 01:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Your caption seems to give the impression that this is a famous picture, considered as Quran desecration by Muslim world. You have deducted from your own mind that all the anon editors who previously removed this picture were Muslims. Actually the cropping of the image was done by Sam Korn, who is a Christian(see talk above).--Soft coder^Talk 05:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

He thought that the picture offended Muslims, because of the continual removals. Well, if you remove or crop the picture, you offend ME, as a female. I don't think my limbs are obscenities that have to be hidden. I am perfectly willing to have the extra info in the caption removed, if the other editors agree. I'm not willing to show a cropped picture or remove the picture. Zora 05:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Although as a Muslim, I don't feel offended by the picture. However, your complete unwillingness to crop the picture if it offers an equal quality seems rather selfish. The topic at hand is not the woman or women at all, but the Qur'an. If this picture was cropped to include just the Qur'an or an even better picture displaying the same foilo, I for one would be in favor of the better picture. Also, regarding the caption, I think the extra info regarding why the picture is contentious has no merit in this instance. Pepsidrinka 06:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The woman adds alot as far as the scale of the foilo in question. I am also not willing to remove the photo or crop it. There is no right on the Wiki to not be offended. I am sure thousands of people find Piss Christ to be offensive, but I don't see anyone attempting to remove that image. If some zealots have a problem with it... tough. Jwissick^(t)(c) 06:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

christian faith is different topic and please don't mix topics together , Christians are free to deal with their icons , but for this case it is not appropriate , since you are talking about Quran in key topic , not subtopic , so please use this picture somewhere else , any topic related to Islam else and i will not complain. Saytah 08:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Without a human figure, there is nothing to show the sheer, awesome size of the page. Because of the glass and the reflections you can't see the calligraphy all that well, so if it were just a question of putting up another picture of a Qur'an page, there are much better pictures. IF someone can get a shot of that huge page with a male human figure, I'd be willing to do that as a compromise, though it sticks in my craw. Or any shot of another of the giant, mosque-size Qur'ans, with something else in the picture to show the size.

It would also be nice to have a picture of a one page Qur'an. A grad-school acquaintance of mine had one, an artwork she had bought in Cairo. Just one large sheet, with teeny-tiny calligraphy. I was unable to find any public domain pictures of such on the web. We could also have a picture of one of the TINY Qur'ans. I saw a photo of a man holding one between his thumb and forefinger. But that wasn't PD either. Zora 06:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

it seems to me that zora is protecting the picture maybe because she have some problems with fundamentalists persons , so she have personal ( not academic reasons ) to keep this picture here under the quran as a key topic , and what you are saying about the picture of Christ is not related to this at all , the Jesus picture is under photography topic , not under the bible as a key topic , so if you are going to give us reason use the bible key topic , don't use different topic and different category . Mostafa bakry 02:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

Now I hope this isn't in the article, if it is, sorry for the waste of time. Does anyone know why it usually transcribed as Qur'an instead of Koran? I realise that this isn't a wikipedia thing it's just that "qu", in English anyway, nearly always makes a sound as if it were "kw" like quiet is pronounced like "kwiet". Did this transcription come from French or Spanish or something? It's just that Qu'ran seems to be so much more used I was wondering why it is like that. - RedHotHeat 18:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Arabic "Qaf" is best transcribed as Q, even though usage of the Q phonetic "space" is different than in English. ("K" letter in Arabic has a whole different sound, and does not appear in this word.) There is no "O" in Arabic. This is the more correct transliteration, but "Koran" is still common in book titles and headlines. BYT 18:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The picture, again

I had an idea -- I cropped the controversial picture slightly, so that it doesn't show any bare thigh, or emphasize the woman's rear end. It still shows the whole Qur'an page and still has a human figure for scale. I'm thinking that the scandalized Muslims who kept deleting the picture may be somewhat more comfortable with a mere bare arm than they are with a glimpse of thigh too. Comments? Zora 02:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No, someone deleted the picture again. Sheesh. A BARE ARM is scandalous? Zora 06:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I say put the first pic back up.. There is no pleasing some people. Jwissick^(t)(c) 06:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Loool!!! Is that you Zora? ;) Cheers -- Szvest 11:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

I wasn't too happy with this image myself. It is quite below the standard of most our images. It's a museum snapshot with a random tourist standing in the way, and there is a flash reflex on the page. I say throw it out without replacement (or rather, with replacement, if we can find one that is of better quality). dab (ᛏ) 12:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the quality of the calligraphy and the sheer size of the page tell us something important about the many forms in which Muslims have created the Qur'an. I have said all along that if there were a better picture of a large Qur'an page with a human figure for scale I would take that. I actually spent quite a bit of time googling for images, but didn't find anything PD. Zora 12:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems the photo is starting to draw sock puppets to remove the image.... Jwissick^(t)(c) 05:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Plus I'm just upset that the vandals seem to regard a woman not in hijab as something that defiles a Qur'an page just by looking at it. I'm the only WOMAN here and I feel that my limbs are not obscene. Zora 05:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored - Sorry, but women are not "obscene" and even if they were Wikipedia is *not* censored for the benefit of any political or religious group. If it was articles like Office of Special Affairs, Suppressive Person and Xenu would have already been deleted and protected against recreation: Scientologists view it as very serious offence against their religion to reveal such information but we don't censor that (thankfully. See Operation Clambake).

---

Our serial reverter and sockpuppet user deleted this section and posted this explanation (to be fair, he may have done that out of ignorance):

In the name of ALLAH the most merciful the specially merciful, My name is Mohammad and i'm an arabian muslim. When I was navigating your site telling about Noble Quran, I found something urgent i must tell you with

At the first I'd like to thank you for giving information about Noble QURAN, But I'd like to attract your attention to something very important, that's at the picture named "Big_Quran_page.jpg" there was a woman with no clothes on her arms and that action the Noble Quran forbides it for women as mentioned in SURAT ALAHZAB- AYA 59 ( so the picture isn't suitable at all ) [ it is against what Quran tells with the necessity of being covered for women from head to toe, so it's reserved like Jewels] If you cut the woman part and maintain the page of Quran or any thing you see to fix this misunderstand, we (muslims) will appreciate this and will give us more trust with you.

Many thanks for you all sorry for my long words and bad english, but I hope you do it quickly

Actually, he's wrong about the Qur'an. That ayah just tells women to "draw their veils close about them". From there to "head to toe covering" is quite a leap. Many Muslims do not accept the Arabian interpretation of hijab. Nor do they believe that mutaween should go about beating women who don't cover up, or forcing schoolgirls back into burning buildings to die because they weren't covered. Feh. Yes, I'm upset. Zora 13:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I suspect whether he is a real Muslim or not. I don't think any one will call himself an "Arabian Muslim". --Soft coder^Talk 14:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

My name is Mohammad and i'm an arabian muslim is a déjà vu, especially the thigie thing about arabian/arab! Mohammad = Arabian = Muslim! MaMmmmm! On the other hand, I guess we should be very careful commenting on that, including edit summaries! Cheers -- Szvest 16:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

There is an addition to remove dubiosity

Dear all, specially softcode What I told about Hijab in Surat ALAHZAB-AYA 59 is true not wrong,

why ?

The SUNNAH came to explain the true wanted meanings in Quran. And we must resort to it when we are different.

We find this meaning in Surat AN-NISA-AYA 59

'O ye who believe ! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and those of you who are in authority; and if ye have a dispute concerning and matter, refer it to Allah and the messenger if ye are (in truth) believers in Allah and the last days ... '

and also in Surat ALHASHR-AYA 7 'And whatsoever the messenger gives you , take it, and whatsoever he forbiddeth, abstan (from it)'

And we've found many evidences in our messenger MOHAMMAD' SUNNA provide women must wear neqab ( hiding her all body from men ) And this what women did in our Prophet age.

This is one of them telling the woman not to wear niqab or gloves in Hajj, what does it mean ?

It means, if she finished Hajj she return to her first state of wearing neqab and gloves.

And this what believers' mothers had done as came from our messenger's wife Aisha - contentment from Allah on her - (who was erudite with Islam) in her Hajj with Rasoul Allah, she said ' when the ridings (men) pass side us, we let it down to cover our faces and when they go we raise )

And also, you can read the true meaning of this Aya in IBN-Katheer's illustration - mercy from Allah upon him-

Because, if we (muslims) want to understand any AYAH meaning in Noble Quran, we don't understand it from ourselves, so every one will have an openion different from others ( as every one has his own mind ), but there is only one understanding way, you know what ? It's to follow our SAVANTs who were with Rasoul Allah to perform our Islamic instructions truely with no lowest doubt in meaning.

Why we take with their understand ?

Because they were with Rasoul Allah (Muhammad- peace on him)all the time and knew from him what are the true meanings of Quran instructions.

And Quran told us to believe in what they had believed, in Surat Al-Bakara-AYA 137 'And if they believe in the like of that which ye believe, then are they rightly guided. But if they turn away, then are they in schism, and Allah will suffice thee (for defence) against them. He is the hearer, the knower'

And also in Surat Al-Tawbah Aya-100 'And the first to lead the way, of the Muha'jirin and the Ansar, and those who followed them in goodness Allah well pleased with them and they are well pleased with him and He hath made ready for them Gardens underneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide for ever. That is the supreme triumph.'

I repeat my call to the responsibles of the site, it's so wrong to show this woman with Holy Quran page, please take this request seriously and if you want to keep the scale of the picture, I can manage this and give it back with no scale and ready without naked arms.

Thanks alot for all mohhed@yahoo.com

You acted like a clown here by making your remarks right into the main article. Later edits of yours show that you are intelligent enough to remove the picture, post into talk page etc. I am not commenting whether this picture is appropriate here or not whether due to its poor quality or any other reason. I think it is too silly to waste time on this matter, when there are people who insist that it should be here. Wikipedia editors contains people with varying beliefs and ideology and its contents are build upon by discussion and debate, so that they reflect a neutral point of view. It is natural, since there are lot of editors, everything will not suit your point of view. If you are really new to Wikipedia, I think you follow how things work here for some time before starting "editing".--Soft coder^Talk 07:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

New pictures

I've said that I'd be willing to compromise on a picture of a big Qur'an page, with a human figure for scale, if one of the objectors could furnish a good-quality public-domain jpeg as a substitute. That way we wouldn't lose any information to censorship. I've also suggested that photos of tiny Qur'ans and one-page Qur'ans, also PD, would make a nice contrast. I live in an area with next to no Muslims (Hawai'i), where the museums feature Asian and Pacific art instead of Islamic art. I've tried googling for images but haven't found anything PD. We could end this whole farce if the objector, who claims to be a Saudi Muslim, could just visit a Qur'an museum and take a few pictures. Or get a museum to donate such pictures, or some such thing. I really don't LIKE being told that my bare arms (in evidence right now as I type) are scandalous, but I'm willing to overlook that as long as I make sure that no information is lost. Zora 03:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Technically he shouldn't even be talking to you, me or any unmarried female if he's so fundamentalist that he thinks human arms are "obscene" --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 03:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I've got no objection re the pic but I don't understand why it should exactly be a human figure for scale! Does that follow any context in the article and does the rest of the pics out there know any condition? -- Cheers -- Szvest 03:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Sometimes rulers are used for scale, but they don't have the visceral meaning that a human figure does. Architects show projects with human figures for scale. Archaelogists taking pictures of sites include humans for scale. Cars are shown with human figures (females in bikinis!) for scale. It's how we naturally judge size. I'd bet that there are psychological studies showing this, but if you just stop and think for a bit, you'll probably agree. Without scale, the size of that awesome Qur'an has no meaning. Zora 04:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I say leave it as is... No reason to bow to edit warring just cause some zealot muslim has a bug up somewhere. There is no right to not be offended anywhere. Jwissick^(t)(c) 04:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If you refrain from calling zealot muslim, surely the vandal would respect you and try to understand. Cheers -- ^{Wiki me up™}

The key element that this image intends to illustrate is verses of the Qu'ran. As per suggestion above, I have found a public-domain (Library of Congress) image that illustrates verses of the Qu'ran with the calligraphy shown at large scale for easy viewing. -- Curps 21:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Pictures of Qur'an pages are easily obtained. If the page is older than 1923, any photo is PD because it's two-dimensional. The problem is finding a photo of one of the large-page Qur'ans used in mosques, with a human figure for scale. If it's not two-dimensional, then the copyright problem is harder to solve. We have to find someone who will take the picture and donate the copyright to WP.

Some time ago I found a photo of a page from a beautiful hand-calligraphed and decorated seven-inch high Qur'an. You couldn't tell from the photo that it was that small. So the photo was PD, but useless for demonstrating scale. Zora 00:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that a suitable replacement has been made, there is absolutely no reason to have the picture with the woman. I don't think we should appease those who find the picture with the woman offensive, but I also don't think we should pester them. You can crop the woman out of the picture entirely because she is not actually covering the Qur'an. The size of the page can be described in the caption of the photograph. Even without that descriptor, the fact that the page is framed implies that it is large. You don't need to tell me that the picture right above the one with the woman is that of a page as opposed to a large-scale Qur'an. It's quite obvious. Likewise, no human standing next to this picture of a hydrogen bomb is necessary in telling me that it is big.

Lastly, you state that you believe "the problem is finding a photo of one of the large-page Qur'ans used in mosques". Clearly, that page is not in a mosque and therefore does not demonstrate that (I understand it may be hard to find one still in a mosque). So I think either a) the picture should be removed completely or b) cropped so the woman is no longer visible, but the size is mentioned in the caption. For the record, I am not offended by this picture. But the fact that others might and the fact that the picture has little value lends me to believe that the picture should not be present. A similar conclusion occured on the Muhammad talk page where it was decided that there was no value for a potentially offensive picture. The same rings true here. joturner 01:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored - Sorry, but women are not "obscene" and even if they were Wikipedia is *not* censored for the benefit of any political or religious group. The current image (removed out-of-process after the page had already been protected by another admin by Curps (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)): if it was articles like Office of Special Affairs, Suppressive Person and Xenu would have already been deleted and protected against recreation: Scientologists view it as very serious offence against their religion to reveal such information but we don't censor that (thankfully). --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 03:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I see the page has now been protected. However, the protection occurred in the seconds between the time I clicked on "edit this page" and the time I clicked on "save page". I'm not sure what's the procedure here... I didn't in fact edit a protected page, so I personally have not reverted my edit. I suppose someone else could go ahead and do so if they have a m:Wrong version issue. I'm not really sure protection was warranted for that matter.

In any case, I would also argue that the original picture adds nothing that is not available from other pictures. The essential element being illustrated is the calligraphic writing; there is nothing particular unusual about a big piece of paper, these existed even in ancient and medieval times. There is no particular value in illustrating the scale of the parchment; certainly, for the overwhelming majority of our images, this is not done. For instance, our images of the Mona Lisa and the Raft of the Medusa do not have persons standing next to them to illustrate the fact that the latter is in fact a vastly bigger canvas than the former (however, the height and width are given numerically in the caption).

The original photo in this article is not even of particularly high quality: there is a flash reflection in the glass. An illustration of the Mona Lisa with a flash reflection in the glass and a person standing next to it would undoubtedly be considered inferior to the Mona Lisa image we currently have, which is simply a high-quality reproduction of the canvas itself and nothing but. A "flash-reflection-person-standing-next-to-it" Mona Lisa image would be substituted at the first opportunity by the current image we have now, and there would be no particular need to retain the original image. Similarly, in substituting a new calligraphic writing image for the original photo in this Qur'an article, I made just such a substitution, and likewise, there is no particular need to retain the original image.

And finally, it is not "giving in to censorship" to note that the juxtaposition of elements may be jarring to some of the very audience who will be most likely to look up this article. To translate this into Western terms, it might appear to them to be a bit like putting a woman in a bikini in a photo of an original copy of the United States Constitution. Such an image would serve no purpose and convey no important information (particularly if it was of less than optimal quality) and would be edited out of our "constitution" article despite any claims of censorship. -- Curps 04:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want to do that I will support you Wikipedia is not and should not be censored for anyone. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 04:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I perfer the orig. image as it added alot more than the new image. The scale of the page needs to be expressed. That it is displayed in the Smithsonian is notable. The new image just does not express nearly what the old image did. Granted, some muslims think it is a scandal to have bare arms near a page of the qur'an, but I really do not care. There is no right to not be offended. And WIkipedia is not censored for the protection of anyone. I vote for the origional image and unprotection Jwissick^(t)(c) 04:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The argument that it would be like a woman in a bikini next to the const is invalid IMHO. She is conservitivly dressed considering how hot it can get in DC. Ask yourself if you would be offended if she was standing next to the Const. I would not be offended. I still vote the origional image be restored. Jwissick^(t)(c) 05:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Curps, the voice of reason...

Before I continue my statement, I would like to point out a faux pas committed by Mistress Selina Kyle. In one of her previous statements she referenced Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored. In the consensus version of the policy, the Wikipedia is not censored section appears instead as the Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors section. Essentially, she edited the policy before making her statement. As it says in that same article, under Wikipedia is not a battleground, do not create or modify articles just to prove a point. Adhere to that please.

That aside, just because something is omitted does not mean it's censorship. The sexual intercourse article does not contain a single picture of real people having sexual intercourse. The torture article does not have pictures of people getting their fingers broken with pliers and the execution article fails to have a photo of someone being electrocuted. That's because on top of being disturbing, disgusting, and/or offensive, they are all unnecessary. And so that is what we are dealing with here: putting up something potentially offensive versus posting something more neutral yet still informative. This is not censorship; this is courtesy.

If we look at when this all began back in November, it was a Christian editor (not a pious Muslim) who originally cropped the picture down. In the ensuing debate, statements, especially from Zora, have highlighted the portrayal of women more than usefulness of the photograph. It seems as though more interest has been taken in proving a some underlying (political?) point. That point may be that "if those men can't control their sexual impulses, it's THEIR problem, not [ours]" (Zora 21:48 29-Nov-2005). It may be have something to do with women being able to wear what they want (Zora 22:04 30-Nov-2005). It may be that "women are not "obscene"" (Mistress Selina Kyle 03:32 4-Jan-2006). Frankly, this is not a debate about women's rights or what they should or should not be allowed to wear. This is a debate about whether it is necessary to have a picture with this woman considering a) some find it offensive, b) it is not of good quality, and c) the scale of the photo can be determined in other ways. An article about the Qur'an does not need this picture.

I hope this gets resolved very soon or I might have to go down to Freer Gallery (which is where that page from the Qur'an should be on display) and take a new one. Don't make it come to that. No honestly. Don't. joturner 05:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

length of Quran

can somebody tell me, how many syllables are there in the Quran, and how long a period is intended by "an eigth of a reading of the Quran" (viz., how long does it typically take to recite the entire Quran?) dab (ᛏ) 15:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It takes about 30-35 hours to recite the entire Qur'an, although the speed at which the qari' recites can make that time longer or shorter. It will tend to be on the higher end of that range if it is recited during tarawih prayer, which requires that the Sura Al-Fatiha be recited hundreds of times. joturner 21:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected the article from editing due to the ongoing edit war about this image. I'm not involved in the debate, but feel it cannot go on as a revert war and must be settled on the talk page not in edit summaries. Thanks. Harro5 03:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)