From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Qur'an)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Islam (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Bahá'í Faith  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahá'í Faith, a coordinated attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information about the Bahá'í Faith on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Religion (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Religious texts (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing this article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Literature (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Books (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Quran:

Can you please add the following line, under the definition?

4:82 وَلَوْ كَانَ مِنْ عِندِ غَيْرِ ٱللَّهِ لَوَجَدُواْ فِيهِ ٱخْتِلاَفاً كَثِيراً If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it much contradiction. Veyselperu (talk) 07:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Italic text* I propose writing المدنية instead of المدينية because this is better relation to almadina (النسبة الأفصح والأصح إلى مدينة هي مدني وليس مدينيى), however this is a minor change. Amr alhossary (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

  • At the end of the "Uniqueness" section of the "Significance in Islam" section, it is claimed that many prophecies of the Quran are "trivially proven inaccurate." This has no source, isn't true to my knowledge, and borders on breaking neutrality. Suggest that it be removed.
  • In the section 7.1 it says "the Quran was ... discussed by Christians and Jews before it was standardized."[115] This is a biased opinion. The reference given does not suggest this opinion in any way. Also the website it refers to shows where the bias is coming from.

Suggest remove it.

  • in section 2.2 change "in Sells's phrase" to "in Sells' words"
I believe that change #2 will improve the readability of the article ( (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC))
  • "The Qur’an itself challenges those who deny its claimed divine origin to produce a text like it.[47][48][49][50][51][52] These claims originate directly from Islamic belief in its revealed nature, and are widely disputed by non-Muslim scholars of Islamic history.[53]"

The quoted text above is in the section titled 'Miracle'. The last reference (No. 53) refers to a book called The End of Faith by Sam Harris. Sam Harris is not considered, has never been considered or recognised as a 'scholar of Islamic History' in the relevant academic circle. His works do not deal with Islamic history. He has not written any book that solely deals with the history of Islam. No book has ever written by him that intends to deal with Islamic History. If he is in fact a scholar of Islamic history he has concealed it very well and has done everything to not give the secret away.

-reply from another user - what exactly is your issue with the part you quoted above, about "produce a surah like it"? It is true. And it is written in the quran. And it is true that all muslims who try to prove the quran to be from God, do say this sentence all the time. And so it is completely true that muslims use those quran verses in that way. To challenge people to produce a surah like it, and then judge the meeting of this challenge, as something which makes the quran true or not. Even though it does not logically prove the quran to be true, but is just a silly trick to fool people into feeling secure, when they didn't actually prove it is true either. So no it should not be removed. Unless you want to hide the truth. - end of reply -.

  • In paragraph 2 of introduction:

"Muslim tradition agrees that although the Qur’an was authentically memorized completely by tens of thousands verbally; the Qur’an was still established textually into a single book form shortly after Muhammad's death by order of the first Caliph Abu Bakr suggested by his future successor Umar."

suggest replacing the semicolon with a comma to correct grammatical error.

  • {{editsemiprotected}} "Today several dozen persons hold the title "Memorizer of the Ten Recitations." This sentence should be removed, as there

are many many people who have memorized the ten recitations, not just several dozen.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ɔ ʃ 03:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

if a citation cannot be made to account for "several dozen" people, suggest removal of sentence completely, as there is no citation given to support this, and I cannot find one to support my stipulation either.Queequag (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In the "Relationship with other literature" #7 section, i believe it would be appropriate to add the prophesies in the previous scriptures which the Quran coincides with, as it says in the Quran that it is a book which is confirmed by previous scriptures: And when there cometh unto them a Scripture from Almighty God, confirming that in their possession (2:89) Those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them (7:157) If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee (10:94) They say: "If only he would bring us a miracle from his Lord!" Hath there not come unto them the proof of what is in the former scriptures? (20:133)

Having already rejected the religion of those Meccans who encouraged the worship of many gods, Muhammad spent much of his time contemplating the oneness of God. During a state of inner reflection, Muhammad reported hearing a loud, commanding voice cry, "Iqra!" (the Arabic word for "read"). The voice said the word a second time. Believing that he was alone in the cave, Muhammad became frightened. Nonetheless, he cried out, "I am not one of those who can read!" According to Muhammad, he was then lifted, embraced, and let go as the voice again ordered, "Iqra!" Muhammad replied just as he had done moments earlier. When the command came again, he responded by asking, "What shall I read?" This time, as the voice spoke the words, he repeated them, reciting what Muslims believe is the First Revelation and the beginning of Surah 96 of the Qur'an.

Isaiah 29;12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.

Isiah 40:6-8 The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh [is] grass, and all the goodliness thereof [is] as the flower of the field: The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people [is] grass. The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Isaiah 28:10-13 - For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little: For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people To whom he said, This [is] the rest [wherewith] ye may cause the weary to rest; and this [is] the refreshing: yet they would not hear. But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

The Quran was revealed in stages over the course of 23 years, some verses in one city, others in another.

Isaiah 51:4 Hearken unto me, my people; and give ear unto me, O my nation: for a law shall proceed from me, and I will make my judgment to rest for a light of the people.

No other Prophet after Moses brought their own law and followed the Law of Moses, this verse is in Isaiah, who came after Moses, giving tidings of a new law to come.

Jeremiah 31:33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. The entire Quran with all it's laws and injunctions, was and is committed to memory by millions of people around the world.

Hosea 2:23 And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to [them which were] not my people, Thou [art] my people; and they shall say, [Thou art] my God.

Can you please add the following line, under Recent Translations? Talal Itani (2012) THE QURAN – A Modern English Translation. ClearQuran Publishing. ISBN 978-1467948746

Section 3: Significance in Islam. Penultimate paragraph, 2nd sentence. TYPOS: Muslism => Muslims 'a they' => 'they'

I believe this article would benefit from more explicit dates. ex. Uthman is inferred to be shortly after the death of Mohammed. But it is not stated and "shortly" is ambiguous when dealing w a thousand years. (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

As its name implies, the To-do list on an article's talk page shows the list of improvements suggested for the article. It is created and formatted using the Todo template. The list is maintained by editors, writers, reviewers or readers like you as a way to focus your collaborative efforts. As such, they represent a tentative consensus that helps improve the efficiency of the editing process.


Line 4 " Thus, a group of scribes, most importantly Zayd, collected the verses and produced a hand-written manuscript of the complete book" Line 9 "Thus, within 20 years of Muhammad's death, the Quran was committed to written form"

The problem here is that hand written "complete" manuscript was already written by Zaid, the second one "uthman manuscript" copied from the first and added vocalization. So it didnt take 20 years for the Quran to be comitted to written form.

Quran pages from around Muhammad's lifetime found[edit]

See this NPR article.

David Thomas, professor of Christianity and Islam at the University of Birmingham, places the manuscript to "less than two decades after Muhammad's death." Oxford's radiocarbon analysis found that it was written between 568 and 645, up to two years before or thirteen years after Muhammad's lifetime. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

"Quaran" Spelling[edit]

Hello. I noticed that many of the articles discussing the Quran are inconsistent with its spelling. Is Quaran (the title of this page)the standard on Wikipedia? Or some other spelling (in which case this page should be renamed), and if so, what is it? I know that sometimes there are national variations in English (British vs. United States mostly), but since it isn't an English word I assume there is a common standard, at least on Wikipedia, right?— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

The word "Quaran" does not appear in the article. The only times it appears on this talk page is when you use that word. This article is titled "Quran" (with no "a" between the U and R), and that is how it is spelled throughout the article and on this talk page. Please actually read the article before making claims about it. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Help required[edit]

I would like help improving this article, if anyone can spare the time. Thank you. :-) -- Veyselperu (talk) 08:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Veyselperu: Hey, I'm seeing your request now, sorry for the delay. What Can I do? Mhhossein (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


According to Oxford Dictionary the correct pronunciation is:

BrE /kəˈrɑːn/  ; NAmE /kəˈrɑːn/ (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Birmangham Quran manuscript on the main page[edit]

I nominated Birmingham Quran manuscript for becoming a featured picture and it was successfully promoted. Furthermore, I sought to know whether and how it appears on the main page and I received a good response:"Yes, it will [appear on the main page]. Generally there is an 18 month delay, but something like this could (and probably will) be scheduled for date relevance earlier. Eid al-Adha will be in late September, and that would be a decent date to run this. Not because of the verses shown, but because of the Quran's importance in Islam." So, we'll God willing see this old manuscript of Quran on the main page in almost 32 days. Mhhossein (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Quran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 25 September 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved - pretty much a dead heat. Article will be found by an interested reader with either title. Mike Cline (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

QuranKoran – I have 3 main reasons this would be a better title:

1. It is more common. 1,650,000 News hits for Koran -Quran vs 238,000 news hits for Quran -Koran It is the spelling preferred by The OED, Merriam-Webster,,, Cambridge Dictionaries, The Free Dictionary, and Collins Dictionary. It is slightly more common on ngrams.

2. It is more traditional and familiar to English speakers, and is better established as part of the language.

3. It is much easier for native English speakers with no Arabic knowledge to spell and pronounce properly.

Bobby Martnen (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: However it's spelled, it's a transliteration. Like translations, they are more or less approximate whatever one does. Decades ago, "Koran" seemed to be the one-and-only Latin alphabet spelling, but I haven't seen it commonly in quite a long time. I'd have said Quran is the current spelling, like Beijing rather than Peking. It might be helpful to know date stamps of some statistical hits to see if there is a trend. Evensteven (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment: Per the above comment, Google Ngram Viewer shows a clear trend away from Koran and toward Quran starting around 1875 or 1918. The two seem to have become roughly equally common around 1986 and have basically stayed that way since then, although with some persisting greater overall prevalence of Koran up to 2008 (after which the tool does not analyze). —BarrelProof (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: most books I read use "Quran" rather than any other spelling variant. Also, "Quran" is the standard transliteration from the original Arabic as per WP:MOSAR. Khestwol (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: My thanks to BarrelProof for the trends information, and to Khestwol for confirmation of the standard transliteration. Older usages in English (like "Koran" and "Peking") are often notoriously Anglicanized themselves, not reflecting the original particularly well. Such Anglicanizations have in more recent times tended to be corrected to make better approximations. (One never sees "Peking" any more.) However long it takes actual usage to catch up, I'll throw my lot in with what promises to be the future standard: "Quran". Evensteven (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: the most common spelling appears to be Quran or Qur'an, not Koran. WP:COMMONNAME applies here. ONR (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It is interesting that ONR brought up "Qur'an", for two different reasons. The first is that "Quran" and "Qur'an" are clearly basically equivalent, whereas "Koran" is not really the same, as it is clearly a more Westernized name (somewhat like Peking versus Beijing or Bombay versus Mumbai). So when considering "Koran" versus the others, I would suggest to sum up both the occurrences of "Quran" and "Qur'an". When that is done, "Koran" is definitely not the WP:COMMONNAME in book sources. The second reason is even more interesting. In fact, "Qur'an" appears to be more common than both "Quran" and "Koran" in book sources, by a large and growing margin. See the Google Ngram Viewer result for comparing the three. I suggest discussing the desirability of a move to Qur'an. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I would agree that the title of the article ought to be "Qur'an", under the assumption that it is commoner than "Quran". I'm not aware at all of what significance the apostrophe conveys, but transliterations of Arabic are full of them, so I can only assume that there is a valid language characteristic involved. If "Qu'ran" becomes the new title, "Quran" can still be a redirect to it, and even "Koran" (for historical purposes). Evensteven (talk) 05:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I think the current title Quran is fine. In general apostrophes (and diacritic marks) are omitted from Wikipedia titles. For example Umar, Uthman, Ali, Eid al-Adha, etc do not use apostrophes in titles although their strict transliteration do have apostrophes. Khestwol (talk) 08:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. "Koran" is the preferred spelling of every major English-language dictionary. To add to the comprehensive list given in the nomination, there's also American Heritage (newly updated with a 2015 edition) and Webster's New World College Dictionary (recommended by the AP Stylebook). The standard transliteration from Arabic is al-Qur'ān. "Qur'an" and "Quran" represent misguided attempts to split the difference. "Koran" is somewhat more common than "Quran," according to this ngram. Even if it wasn't, the title should tell the reader how to spell this word correctly. Hymn and her (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Ngram favors the "Q" spelling. It favors Qur'an by a big margin over "Koran". Khestwol (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
My sense is that "Qu'ran" is associated with devotional literature. It would be like calling the pope "the Holy Father." If you look at the New York Times or other major media organizations, none of them are using the apostrophe. Dictionaries and style guides are the authorities on spelling. No one off Wikipedia would use an ngram to make this decision. Hymn and her (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hymn and her, to be correct, AP Stylebook prefers "Quran". --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 06:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Reference works use The Chicago Manual of Style, which recommends Merriam-Webster spelling. Chicago is mentioned several times in WP:MOS, AP not at all. Hymn and her (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:MOS does not give precedence to any one manual of style over another. Moreover, Chicago MOS has entries for both Qurʾan and Koran. Few dictionaries that the CMOS uses [1] also use Qran and Koran interchangeably. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 12:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
CMOS explicitly prefers Merriam-Webster spellings in several places, see sections 2.51 and 5.220. Also, the CMOS rule is to use the first spelling given, even if the dictionary itself doesn't express a preference. For example, American Heritage gives equal status to "Koran" and "Qu'ran." But by this rule you still end up with "Koran." CMOS even has a section that addresses our problem specifically: "Koran; Koranic (or, less commonly Qu'ran; Qu'ranic)" (CMOS, Section 8.102). As far as the AP goes, it is most irregular for a style guide to have a "preferred spelling" that goes against the advise of a relevant reference work that they themselves recommend -- in this case Webster's New World College Dictionary. Hymn and her (talk) 10:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I disagree about comparison to "Peking" v. "Beijing". One is the transliteration from Mandarin Chinese, and the other from Cantonese. Generally the same written language, but there is no similarly in pronunciation, so there is no similarly in transliteration. In other words, there might be reasons why "Peking" should still be used; there is no such reason for "Koran". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
    • You cannot use logic to figure out spelling! Don't you believe in using a dictionary? OneLook lists 28 online dictionaries. Pretty much all of them give the K spelling. As for "Peking," that's a spelling created by French missionaries, notably Du Halde (1735). So the phonetic values of the letters are French. At that time, Nanjing dialect was standard rather than Beijing dialect. But it has nothing to do with Cantonese. Hymn and her (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the arguments regarding transliteration are nonsensical. In parallel there is no difference in English in the pronunciation of Cue, Kew, or Queue.
The first constanant of the word "ق" is represented in the International Phonetic Alphabet as /k/ and working through the Arabic listings alphabetically, article topics that began with this Arabic letter were: Cairo, Karaganda Region and Kazakhstan.
The first vowel of the word, an open-mid back rounded vowel, "ɔ" is pronounced ~"o" as per the recorded provided by File:Open-mid back rounded vowel.ogg :
GregKaye 08:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. WP:MOSAR also says (even before it was updated earlier today) that primary transcriptions -i.e. common English names- take precedence over any other rendering. Since it is written that way even in dictionaries, I'd say go for Koran. Small note though: if a more literal rendering is preferred, we should go for the standard transcription Qur'an instead of Quran. The reason by the way, why Qur'an shows up so often in searches, is probably also because it is written that way in Latin-script-but-non-English Muslim communities (e.g. Turkey and Indonesia) - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as the nominator. Here is some more evidence for the prevalence of Koran over Quran in English:
News from the last week that contains "Quran" but not "Koran"
News from the last week that contains "Koran" but not "Quran"
Koran dominates Quran by a 4:1 ratio. Bobby Martnen (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Google Ngram Viewer, when using only Books in the English language published in any country, still gets the "Q" spelling (Qur'an) as, by far, the common name. Ever since 1980s, English has switched to using the Q spelling for the Quran (most commonly with the apostrophe) in overwhelming majority of reliable sources. Khestwol (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a stale discussion. There had been several discussion over this. A little history: I remember this article shortly lived as Qur'an before it was moved back to Quran. I don't remember and neither can find evidence that it ever lived as Koran. However, there are more than just one discussion about moving it to Koran.
Now, If you look into ngrams for last 25 years Qur'an is clearly the most used spelling. If we look into a long period of time, we see historically Koran was more prevalent spelling. But clearly the trend started to change post WW2. This is the period, when most of the English speaking world started to adopt more proper spellings for many foreign words. Quran and Qur'an are more common today than Koran in academia and among those who are more familiar with Islam. In my opinion, the argument "Koran is the only correct spelling or the preferable one", is conservative and a denial of the languages' ever changing nature. If someday, Koran returns as the most common word, we would go there, if after one or few centuries is it something else, we would use that. Today, spelling with 'Q' most is common, so we should use that. --nafSadh did say 16:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
This RM pits "Koran" against "Quran." The results for "Qu'ran" should not enter into it. Washington Post uses Koran, while New York Times uses Quran. It's Pepsi and Coke. The two spellings are used in the same type of publication and have the same significance. The major dictionaries, the ones in use today, continue to give the "Koran" spelling. To throw "Qu'ran" into the mix confuses the issue since this spelling appears in devotional literature and thus has a different significance. Judging from the ngram, somebody must have gotten a load of books from Muslim publishers and scanned them into gbooks. Hymn and her (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear: the spelling Qur'an is by no means only used in devotional literature. It is derived from the exact transliteration Qur’ān, but simplified for typing purposes (i.e. straight apostrophe and a plain "a"). - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Most news sources and dictionaries use Koran while academic sources and Google show the prevalence of Quran (or Qur'an to be precise). This may point to no obvious universal spelling in the English media. This is where WP:NC and WP:MOSAR kick in.

    Per NC, Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness and Consistency should be accounted for. Per MOSAR, If there is no common transcription, a basic transcription is used. Thus Quran is a better choice. Perhaps we can have a discussion on these lines. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 06:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Qur'an Quran Koran
Google Search 64m 48m 37m
Google Books 675k 406k 619k
Google News 74k 0.2m 2.8m
Google Ngram [2] 42 24 21
Google Trends [3] 44 14
Religions Styleboook
AP Stylebook
Oxford Reference [4] 697 2757 776
Oxford Dictionary
Oxford English Dictionary Dictionary (?)
FBI 15 8 7
NYT 1320 1250 4450
CNN 845 839 1250
Washington Post 751 673 2540
Al Jazeera 842 843 121
Britannica (Qurʾān)
Library of Congress 593 270 1050
PS: This discussion is already listed at WP:RM, Such activity ( [5] [6] [7] [8]) should be abstained from. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 06:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
This chart is full of mistakes. Both AP and Religions Stylebook recommend "Quran," not "Qu'ran." Britannica uses "Qur'ān." They use standard Arabic transcription across the board, so their style is not comparable to ours. IMO, you look a spelling up the dictionary. You don't apply the rules of mathematics and declare one spelling to be the happy medium between two other spellings. Hymn and her (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I've corrected the three mistakes. The MOS considers statistics and basic transcription as criteria, your personal opinion does not count here. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 12:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.