Talk:Quran/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


>> It is not true, it mentions protecting the women. For example, the highest rate of rape in the world is based in the US, the lowest is in Saudi Arabia.

Bible however claims that beating your wife is an OK process.

Is it true Qur'an alouds beating as a resource to discipline women? That seems a little odd, specially since its politics about proselytism are so liberal. I mean from my understending, if somebody doesn't follow Islam customs or has another religion, they should join by following the example of good muslims, but in case of marriage, the wives, istead of following the example of a good husband, they shouls avoid punishments that go from getting out of bed to beatting... I find that to be contradictory. One´politic is totally cool and humanitarian and the other is what a ditactor do. what about the wives of bad muslims, the ones that don't follow Muhammed's example? I don't think Muhammed said so, its not Muhammed like because that's incoherent with his other teachings. Or let's say we have a very real case of a good willed man and a bad wife. He's good, so he has to obbey the Qur'an if the wife is bad, and because she is very bad, he has to beat her regularly. He is following Qur'an and is a good man in every aspect, so I personally as a Catholic, think he is an exelent person according to his context. The problem is, that he really has an evil wife. So she is probabbly not going to take it easily. Evil people are often vengative, so she kills him take his kids, posetions and fly to another country to marry a rich man... You see where am I going? Following the beating policy got him killed. And his kids are going to have an evil mom as a row model. I think the example and efforts of a good husband is enough to show a not-so-good wife the way. And according to Muhammad's bio here, that's what I think he would do. Heal through love, not through violence. What are the contemporary views on that issue now? -- 03:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a place for debate but discussion directly related to article. btw, beating mentioned in Quran is only a last step in the case of wife turning towards immorality, that is when she is 'not protecting what God would have her to guard' --Soft coderTalk 07:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, several Hadith suggest that the beating may be ceremonial such as with a hankerchief, and in any case as a last resort.

Well, ceremonialy it makes sense. Still weird, but I suppose it's kinda like those Taiwanese cops that beat vandals with sticks as punishment, that way at least there are withneses testifying that the punishment is deserved and appied fearly. Still, I hope muslims punish the same way bad husbands. If so, you should point it out, so that people isn't led to believe Islam is somewhat of a misogenistic religion anymore. I thing oficial modern Islam points of views of the issue shouls be exposed. --T-man, the wise 05:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It is only allowed with two things: toothbrushes and handkerchiefs. Pure inuyasha 20:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know where else to put up this question. I'm not Muslim, and although I live in Indonesia (majority: Muslim), I know very little about Qur'an. But I shouldn't be talking about myself, should I? Sorry. Now, I've heard that there is a chapter in the Qur'an that is never discussed, never opened, and never read, and is about Christians or something like that. Can anyone give information about this? It may be worth it.

I'm a Muslim and I've never heard such thing. What is your source.--Sa.vakilian 08:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Archive the Talk Page

Some one should archive this page, it's gotten rather long. Almost 90 seconds to DL on Dial-up. -Kode 23:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Szvest 14:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Quotes from the Qur'an

The quotes at the beginning of the article all have the word 'terror' in their quotation. It seems a bit strange to start the article with such phrases. Perhaps we can add some that aren't as strong. Maybe some that are about the Qur'an itself. M2k41 16:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes they should be removed altogether. They are only there because of bias, are in the wrong location and clrealy don't even belong in the article. Once again Timothy reverted the edit without looking so I'll explain each part that was removed.
The Quran quotes section was removed because it does not belong in an article which gives a general info on the Qur'an. Also it's pov, in the wrong place and each quote was chosen especially by someone who was vandalizing. I find that you really must be tired of editing if you are keeping such simple vandalism in the article now.
The "Christoph Luxenberg" part was edited becuase it makes no sense saying that there are "Some scholars" without any sources and names.
And the Crone and cook line is completely unsourced. And because they are individual academics their detail belongs in the main article.
Now I'm know you probably didn't read my edit before reverting it Timothy, but look at it before reverting to vandalised articles. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 06:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The Quran quotes section should stay with this quotes! Also the entire Quran quotes section should stay in this article because this are usefull quotes to introduce the message of the Quran! Administratior1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 21:04, 15 June 2006.

They are are offensive and unrepresentative of the message of the Qura'n. Stop your nasty game. — Gareth Hughes 20:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Well they are not offensive because they are direct quotes from the Qur'an itself, but I believe if quotes from the Qur'an should be included in this page I believe they should be quotes from the Qur'an that talk about itself. Unlike before where all the quotes were about fighting infidels. M2k41 22:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I meant to say that the selection is offensive. — Gareth Hughes 00:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The quotes section is certainly very POV. There are a few quotes taken from the Qur'an without commentary, to give the casual reader the impression that is a terrorist's manual. Now, if this is a belief it should be discussed openly and not insinuated with this quotes section. — Gareth Hughes 18:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think there should be a section on the relation between terrorism and the Qur'an, such as what are the parts of it that are used to instigate terrorism, which other parts are used to assert that the Qur'an does not support terrorism, etc. I mean, the whole discussion over the support of the Qur'an on Terrorism should be clarified. I don't have any knowledge at all to start such a topic, but I felt very disapointed when I searched for "terror" and found nothing, it is like pretending the topic does not exist, and a lot of people probably come here to learn about it, it is a very important one. So, all I can do is give this site as a tip for the discussion, as it helped me to understand this issue a LOT better: -------- the claims on this text are very interesting and I recommend to anyone interested on this matter, as probably everyone that click on this "discussion" link is.

Section on sceptics

I added the material on sceptical academics that someone had deleted, also material re Bellamy's proposed emendations, and added references. There are references for all those scholars now. No reason to remove the section.

I also re-arranged and pruned the links, see also, etc. We don't need "see alsos" that are already in the Islam template, so I kept only the ones directly related to the Qur'an, Zora 09:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Zora, I think you know very well who this "someone" is. Pecher Talk 09:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Etymology section

Benne removed qualifying language around the note re Luxenberg, and removed line re academic scepticism of Luxenberg. The scepticism is a fact. There have been several devastating reviews, plus a whole academic conference that, on the whole, said that his views were flaky. I'm gung-ho behind academic research, even if it's embarrassing to Muslims, but I'm also upset by anti-Muslims who distort academic findings. When academia, and science, are true to themselves (which is not always the case), trying to figure out what is TRUE is the main thing, and that means acknowledging stuff that upends your old theories and view of the world. Zora 09:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's quite a qualification, Zora, saying that I'm trying to distort the etymology section. It was not my intention to present it as the only possible etymology, and that's not what it says either. It says that some scholars trace the word Qur'an back to Syriac qeryānā. I just noticed that my edits (e.g., Syriac Christianity rather than Syria) had been reverted, so I replaced the section. That's all, no POV intentions whatsoever. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Besides, the German Semitic scholar Theodor Nöldeke, well versed in both Syriac and Arabic, writes the same thing in his Geschichte des Qorāns (I, 31-34). --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I really don't see how the sentence Some scholars, such as Christoph Luxenberg, have stated that the word "Qur'an" was derived from the Syriac ܩܪܝܢܐ qəryānā (lectionary used in the Syriac churches) can be regarded as presenting Luxenberg's statements as a fact. Present some countertheses rather than qualifying his work as a claim. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That wording asserts that it's not just Luxenberg, but numerous scholars, and doesn't say anything about the opposition to Luxenberg's claims. So far we have TWO scholars who support Luxenberg, and I have yet to look up their backgrounds. Zora 23:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

At least three ... You forgot good ol' Nöldeke. ;-) I'll try and find more scientist who support his thesis. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a fact tag to the mainstream etymology. You seem a little too careful not to see Luxenberg's hypotheses presented as facts, however you appear to have no problem with the common etymology being put forward as an inevitable fact. By the way, Luxenberg writes in his book that "his" etymology is also mentioned in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. V, Leiden 1986, article Al-Kur'an, page 400. Can anybody confirm that? --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the links to (general) critical assessments of of Luxenberg's work from the Etymology section. They don't belong there, but should be included in the article about Luxenberg and/or his book.
Of course, specific criticism concerning Nöldeke and Luxenburg's etymology are more than welcome in the section. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added a little bit to this section to really show that the word Qur'an is indeed derived from an arabic root rather than been taken from another language. There are several words in Arabic that are taken from other languages but Qur'an is not one of them because it can very easily be traced back to a root. This is a really straight forward fact and I don't know if, in the light of this fact, the part that says that the word "qur'an" is Syriac in origin must remian. Also there is no question among Arabic speakers that Qur'an is derived from the word read.

Marwan123 04:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Marwan123


As Zora rightly pointed out, Theodor Nöldeke is not a very recent scholar. However, I still believe his 1860 Geschichte des Qorâns should be listed in the References section. How about changing the section title to Qur'anic scholarship or just leaving out the subsections altogether? --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Putting translations, old tafsirs, and contemporary Quranic exegesis all in the same list is confusing. There are more Quranic scholars than Noldeke to be listed, if we're going to list them all. The energy would be better spent in making sure that Historiography of early Islam is complete (it's sketchy right now) and then linking that to this article. Zora 10:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
But his work is about the Qur'an, not so much about the early history of Islam, so I think it should be listed in the Qur'an article (or perhaps in an article about the history of the Qur'an). --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 10:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There is an article on the Origin and development of the Qur'an where he would be relevant. I haven't had time to work on that article. It is a complete mess right now, IMHO. Hey, is that in the See also list? Zora 10:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to place the Origin and development of the Qur'an section be at the beginning of the article, after the Etymology section (and perhaps renaming it History of the Qur'an). --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
One, that's going to increase vandalism -- if it's the first thing some Muslim visitors see, they're going to delete it. Two, I'm not sure that readers would understand that history if they hadn't learned a few things about the document first. There are many articles where we first explain what X is and then give the history of X. Zora 11:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Hafiz

Who keeps changing the definition of Hafiz to memorizer? This is not true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 06:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Number of languages in which the Qur'an has been translated

I think it would be interesting to have the total number of languages, or even better, a List of all the languages in which a qur'an translation exists. Does anybody know this? --Blauerflummi 09:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


There appears to be a misunderstanding. In Arabic, qur'aan is a masdar of qara'a, as illustrated by the second passage; that's a matter of fact, not opinion. The question is whether it was originally a masdar of qara'a, or whether it was borrowed into this grammatical slot from another language. - Mustafaa 22:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


  • I would suggest that adding the translated sentences renders the etymology section a little too long for such a side-issue - but then again, I dislike quotes in articles in general, unless there's a very strong argument for them.
  • I would hope you can find some more reputable modern who supports the qeryana etymology. If in 100 years no one with better credentials than an anonymous writer who speaks execrable Arabic has supported the idea, there must be a rather convincing reason to reject it; if, on the other hand, it's a widely held thesis, then it would make more sense to cite somebody well-known to be reliable, and leave Luxenberg out of it altogether. - Mustafaa 23:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe Nöldeke is a reputable scholar. Furthermore, the Syriac etymology is mentioned in the article "al-Kur'ān" (The Encyclopedia of Islam (Vol. V, Leiden 1986), and by Erwin Gräf in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft (111 (N.F. 36), 1962, p. 396-398.)
  • I think the citation from Nöldeke's book is relevant in its entirety.
  • If you think the etymology section is becoming too large, it could be made a separate article, leaving a summary of the two theories in the Qur'an article. ----Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Nöldeke is a sound reference for the Syriac-origin hypothesis. Luxenberg, however, has had quite a divided reception; certainly Qur'an scholars (whether Muslim or not) are very negative, but he did get a neutral-to-positive review in Hugoye Syriac Studies Journal. Part of the problem with the Syriac/Aramaic-origin hypothesis is that it is suggesting the word comes from the same Semitic root anyway. This means that whether the word comes from pure Arabic, from pure Aramaic or some mixing of the two, it means the same thing. In Nöldeke's Compendious Syriac Grammar, he describes a form of noun that he calls the nomen actionis, which functions a little like a gerund or verbal noun. The Syriac word ܩܪܝܢܐ qeryānâ is the nomen actionis of the verb ܩܪܐ qrâ, meaning 'to call'. Thus, I would suggest that whether this is derived from Arabic or Aramaic, or from a verb or a noun, the differences are so subtle as to be outweighed by the possibility of language change. — Gareth Hughes 11:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Move it back!

This page was moved unilaterally by Ed Poor. He had not discussed the move, and more importantly: adding Holy to the Qur'an is in conflict with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles). So please, move it back. ----Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

copied from User talk:Ed Poor:

I wonder why you moved Qur'an. You didn't discuss it first, and the move is in conflict with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles), and not in line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh my, you are right. In an excess of pro-Islamic enthusiasm I unintentionally violated a guideline:
  • Holy Qur'an (or Holy Koran, Holy Quran, etc.) — appropriate action is to NPOV to "Qur'an". Calling a book "Holy" is making a value judgment that is inappropriate to Wikipedia.
I should have checked the reference to Holy Bible, which redirects to Bible.
If you're an admin, please accept my apology and undo my erroneous move! :-) --Uncle Ed 15:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for undoing my mistake so quickly. No harm meant! --Uncle Ed 15:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Ha Ha ha. The many Gods of our Universe must be chuckling --CltFn 16:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


I can't remember where I saw it, but somewhere in the Qur'an it says that disbelievers refers to people who aren't practicing any religion they are of, not just islam; I.E. hypocrites. so people who follow their religion don't count in the common Qur'anic definition of disbeliever. Pure inuyasha 20:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That's an issue that really varies depending on the group of Muslims... and I don't think that would be a common view. Hypocrisy (munafiq) is different than disbelief (kafir, I guess would be the commong word for that)... It is likely true that some Muslims believe that but it's by no means a universal. gren グレン 04:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite what I mean..... argh the arabic language is too complex. Pure inuyasha 02:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Some Muslims consider all non-Muslims as disbelievers,but in School in Syria they tought us that anyone who is not Muslim,Jewish,Christian is disbeliever.I Am Searching 12:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


In chapter 67(pg.542) of "The Discoverers" Daniel J.Boorstin states that "the Koran was published in Venice in 1530". The text in the article refers to the earliest existing movable-type copy dating to 1537/38. Does anyone know if it was printed in 1530 or is this a typo in Boorstin's book? Jjc2002 12:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Misspelling or alternate spelling

There is a redirect page Qu'ran. Is this an acceptable alternate spelling, or is it just flat wrong? –RHolton– 20:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's flat out wrong because it would make it be pronounced "coo-raan" instead of "cur-aan" with the throaty interject in the middle. I used to type it that way a lot just becuase I didn't pay attention to where the ' goes and I assume that's what others do. Not 100% sure, though. gren グレン 04:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
The apostrophe here isn't an accent mark, but a consonant in its own right. The root here is QR'. "Qu'ran" is like spelling Islam "Ilsam".Timothy Usher 06:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
as, of course, may be learnt in the very first section of this article. Maybe it should reside at Qurʾān, though, to avoid this sort of assumption? dab () 22:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Red links to blue ?

There are quite a few red links in the 'Schools of Recitation' subsection - I don't know who created that section, and it may be difficult to create the relevant articles straight away, but maybe someone would like to blue some of those links ? In fact, I think that I might have a go at this soon. Feel free to help out! MP (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Qu'ran Translation

I am willing to post up all the common translations on Wiki of the Qu'ran, but is that something I should do here on Wikipedia or on Wikibooks?

Istheway2 14:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Red links are those which do not have a corresponding independent article. ------- Maybe this fellow won't come back to read this answer, so, if anyone would mind to do it, probably it wouldnt be of any harm to delete this topic in a few weeks.

God or Allah: Using English translation for Arabic terms

There is a massive change in the history that changes the words God to Allah because "the Arabic name is Allah". I think that is not well-understood. Those who know Arabic must know that Allah is in fact made by using the definite article Al (equivalent of English 'the') and ilah (meaning god). Consequently Allah literally means 'the god' or, more appropriately, God with a capital G. When we use a language to someone who comes to Wikipedia, the aim is to have them understand the topic as easily as possible. If we write all the terminology from another language that is easily translatable, then we put the burden on them to actually understand that term. A newcomer to this Quran page is not likely to understand the article well, even if they spent a few hours.

I urge the Wikipedia moderators, and generally the folks on the Qur'an page, to actually create some rules around where to use actual Arabic and where translation suffices. God is a perfectly valid translation and many translators of the Quran have actually used that. Similarly, it may make more sense to use 'prayer' instead of 'salah' and just mention the word salah the first time a mention to prayer is made. The remaining article can continue to use the word prayer. Same is true of a few other terms. Omer 22:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Omer; and as an outsider, I am interested in the islamic faith and would like to learn more. God, Allah, or whoever is out there should be above language. I believe that the Qu'ran being widely translated would create greater religious understanding and agreement among the Muslims of the world.14:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Verse relating to combat

I have no idea what verses relating to combat are doing. Why not verses relating to peace in Quran as well? Is this neutral? And why not verses relating to any other topic?

Of course, all verses are out of context and no reader can make out the correct meaning - if we have to provide verses, either provide in context, or provide explanation or just cut that part. If no objections, I vote for cutting and will cut it out. Omer 22:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the section could be extended into something like "War and peace in the Qur'an". Since the topic is quite current, I believe it should be dealt with in this article. Considering the length of the article, I believe this should be done succinctly here, while expanding on the subject in a separate article. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
That is a good option. At the same time, I'd say that instead of having verses, we rather have a summary here, linked to an article that discusses that particular issue in detail. I do not know how to set up links. If you or someone else can set up the link, I will be able to work on the article. Thanks! Omer 22:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I was also quite shocked reaching the end of the article and then with only a couple lines context: Wham! More quotes about 'Combat' one after another, than are used for any other topic in the whole article. Someone who had not read the Qur'an would think this is its major theme (it is not.)I am disappointed with this, as it shows a disturbing and stereotypical bias. Ending the main text with the quote that is currently there is a sickening state of affairs. I see no reason whatsoever for the arbirtrary finishing of the article with 'combat' and happily second that this is cut, which I will do if I can.

I did that cut, like I said I would based on its clear bias and then got a message saying it had been reverted. I didn't know things worked like that around here, but I can see the general point about protecting vandalism. I followed the link and got to a user's page that said he's against deletion of information. Obviously, it would be ridiculous to object to the translation of verses of the Qur'an to be on Wikipedia, but the point is that why is there a special section on 'combat' right at the end of the article with verses just on this subject, as stated by the user above. Its a completely different issue if you have verses under a number of headings, for instance: 'Allah, The Qur'an, Muhammad (p.b.u.h.), Islam, Peace, Combat, The Day of Judgement' and so on. While there is no doubt that the Qur'an speaks for itself, the way that it has been selectively quoted under 'Combat' should be removed until someone puts together a more representative selection of quotes. Also the organisation of the article with combat at the end should be reconsidered, as it really compromises the article. 10:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Ibrahim

I just had a further thought upon rereading the previous comments above. Anyone who has not studied the Qur'an would not be aware about the difference between the completely clear verses, which do not require interpretation and those that do, for example, many legislative issues. It seems a flawed approach to jumble a bunch of verses that require interpretation together under any sort of heading and expect that to be useful information. For that reason, I think that the combat verses still have to leave the page. In the notes at the bottom of the page there are links to searchable online Qur'an translations, in which someone can look up any term they want, so the information is not lost. I would appreciate feedback on my comments and any thoughts on the way to move forward. 10:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Ibrahim

I don't see any reason to have such a section. The Quran deals with many issues; why should just 'combat' be singled out as if its the most important theme mentioned in the Quran? I'm removing that section. --Bluerain (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to make an additional comment, regarding the suggestion given above about having a section like "War n peace in the Quran" which summarises from another article, the reasoning being that its a current issue. I think there are already enough articles on Wiki that not only deal with this issue in the current context but also theologically - Criticism of Islam, Islamism, Jihad, etc. To include parts of those here, in an article on a book is far-fetched and much beyond the scope of this article. --Bluerain (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be a section on the relation between terrorism and the Qur'an, such as what are the parts of it that are used to instigate terrorism, which other parts are used to assert that the Qur'an does not support terrorism, etc. I mean, the whole discussion over the support of the Qur'an on Terrorism should be clarified. I don't have any knowledge at all to start such a topic, but I felt very disapointed when I searched for "terror" and found nothing, it is like pretending the topic does not exist, and a lot of people probably come here to learn about it, it is a very important one. So, all I can do is give this site as a tip for the discussion, as it helped me to understand this issue a LOT better: -------- the claims on this text are very interesting and I recommend to anyone interested on this matter, as probably everyone that click on this "discussion" link is. (this post is a copy of one I've just posted above, as I think the matters are alike)

OK. You need examples of verses refering to combat in the quran, here are many:

"Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!" [Quran 3:151]
"How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them. No plea had they, when Our terror came unto them, save that they said: Lo! We were wrong-doers." [Quran 7:4-5]
"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.'" [Quran 8:12]
"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly." [Quran 8:60]
"Lo! those who disbelieve spend their wealth in order that they may debar (men) from the way of Allah. They will spend it, then it will become an anguish for them, then they will be conquered. And those who disbelieve will be gathered unto hell,"[Quran 8:36]
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."[Quran 9:5]
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued." [Quran 9:29]
"And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!" [Quran 9:30]
"And the True Promise draweth nigh; then behold them, staring wide (in terror), the eyes of those who disbelieve! (They say): Alas for us! We (lived) in forgetfulness of this. Ah, but we were wrong-doers!" [Quran 21:97]
"He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however much idolaters may be averse."[Quran 61:9]
"On the Day when (some) faces will be whitened and (some) faces will be blackened; and as for those whose faces have been blackened, it will be said unto them: Disbelieved ye after your (profession of) belief ? Then taste the punishment for that ye disbelieved."[Quran 3:106]
"Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise." [Quran 4:56]
"And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do." [Quran 8:39]
"O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred (steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence." [Quran 8:65]
"Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings."[Quran 98:6]
"Say: (It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers Fire. Its tent encloseth them. If they ask for showers, they will be showered with water like to molten lead which burneth the faces. Calamitous the drink and ill the resting-place!" [Quran 18:29]
"These twain (the believers and the disbelievers) are two opponents who contend concerning their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads,Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted;And for them are hooked rods of iron.Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning." [Quran 22:19-22]

--Sefringle 04:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's pointless without context. I only know of one of these verses which was in the news because apparently it is usually taken out of context:

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."[Quran 9:5]

This verse was revealed/written at a time when the muslims were not allowed to fight back against their oppressors and were forced to run/hide. After this verse they were permitted to stand ground and engage in combat vs their oppressors. Makes a big difference with and w/o context. --FK65 16:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, now that is not the context of the verse. The verse was written after Mohammad dissolved the treaty with the Meccans in order to 'justify' his raids against them.--Sefringle 04:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

please give me links to translations of quran

if anyone can, than please give me links where i can find the translations of quran. also if someone has read quran, please verify the below, if it is present in quran, and send me the sura and ayat no.

1. is it true that quran says earth to be flat and not spherical.

2. is it true that quran says earth to be the centre of whole universe, not just solar system.

3. is it true that quran says that apostates of islam must be killed.

4. does islamic law, sharia, in quran says that in order that rape be classified as rape, there must be 4 muslim male witnesses present at the time of crime.

5. does quran says that u got to marry ur first cousin.

6. does quran says that in order that a non muslim lives in a islamic country, they must be payin a special tax called jizya.

7. does islam condemns shia sect becoz islam being a monotheistic religion, cannot have two interpretations. so either sunni can be right islam or shia. but one of them have to be kaafurs.

thanx and waitin for reply. nids 23:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not think this is the forum for this kind of a discussion, or am I wrong. This is a forum for discussion on the article written on Quran and related issues. The questions you have asked do not have an easy yes or no answer - they are convoluted issues, and I'll suggest that you consult a site that actually discusses these. There are many on the web out there. You can try,,, for instance. Thanks. --Omer 22:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

half of that stuff is insane. why the heck would you HAVE to marry you're first cousin? Pure inuyasha 17:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You can find a good translation of the Qur'an here.

1. The Qur'an does not claim that the earth to be flat. Most Islamic scholars have always said that the Earth is round.

2. No, it does not say that the Earth is the center of the universe.

3. The Qur'an does not state that apostates must be killed but it says they will be punished in the afterlife. There are various hadith that support the killing of apostates though, as I recall.

4. Yes, that is correct.

5. Absolutely not. Muslims do not have to marry their first cousins, nor does the Qur'an say that.

6. Muslims living Islamic countries must pay Zakat, and non-Muslims must pay jizya (if the government collects it).

7. Islam is a monotheistic religion, yes, but it is not monolithic. It does not condemn any of its sects - but various scholars use their interpretations of the Qur'an to condemn other sects.

I hope that answers your questions. If you have any more, feel free to ask me on my talk page. BhaiSaab talk 22:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with #3,5, 6, and 7 of BhaiSaab's answers, to the best of my knowledge. No comment on the other answers, I don't know enough to do so.Starwarp2k2 01:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems a bit offensive, the way you word it. Nonetheless, here's a site for some Qu'ran translations [], and also questions about Islam you can check out [] . Hope this helps - Istheway2 19:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

For number 4, it's actually a reference to zinah = adultery, not rape.

Don't think the miracles stuff belongs here

It's vehemently disputed by Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and utterly irrelevant theologically. No other responsible encyclopedia I've found covers this under the main entry for Qur'an. Can't we just point people to the article about miracles? BYT 16:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. -- Szvest 16:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Its irrelevant and its POV. I'm removing it since I think we have a rough consensus here, and there haven't been points to the contrary raised as of yet. Anyone wishing to re-add please discuss here. --Bluerain (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

What is 'White House George W Bush'? This is really offensive vandalism. Marhadiasa 15:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea. *~Daniel~* 06:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There's some apparent vandalism in the first section of the article "Muslima (also known as terrorists)." I am going to delete the paranthesized portion. - hadalat

Ways of dealing with the Qur'an

I've just read this: "Some Muslims believe that it is not only acceptable, but commendable to decorate everyday objects with Qur'anic verses, as daily reminders. Other Muslims feel that this is a misuse of Qur'anic verses; those who handle these objects will not have cleansed themselves properly and may use them without respect". ------- I wonder if there should be a topic on the ways of dealing with an exemplar of the Qur'an, as the islamic tradition has it (it was one of the reasons I came to this article, I just bought one today). It would be very interesting and fits well to the encyclopedia-esque article type, I think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. BhaiSaab talk 17:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
It's me again... The problem is that I don't know anything about the matter. Was hoping an actual muslim would contribute, something like that. Thanks for all the advises and stuff.

Qur'an and Science

The 'Qur'an and Science' section is messed up in the sense that it is obviously POV. The first link is clearly unreliable too. Will try and sort out the section soon. MP (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the section could be removed. It's POV, maybe even non-notable, and isn't justified for inclusion in this article. (Islamic science is the right place, if at all). Responses? --Bluerain (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! It was I who started to mess this section up. The first text in this section was a copy and paste from the Islamic web page Islam101 - "The Qur’an and Modern Science": That article was totally POV. Have tried to make the section a bit more NPOV. But I agree that it should be removed. It's more or less impossible to write anything about "scientific theories in the Qur'an" that's not POV.

The quran and science section can be improved by showing some of the scientific fallacies as well. You can't just show the so-called scientific miracles. There are many verses contradictary to science as well including:
18.86, which says the sun rests in murky water
Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness." [Quran 18:86]
and 35:11, which says man was created from dust, when actually man was created through evolution.
And Allah did create you from dust; then from a sperm-drop; then He made you in pairs. And no female conceives, or lays down (her load), but with His knowledge. Nor is a man long-lived granted length of days, nor is a part cut off from his life, but is in a Decree (ordained). All this is easy to Allah
[Quran 35:11]
--Sefringle 05:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Created through evolution? I think it means human flesh created from clay. Evolution is not a substance. --FK65 19:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Why the "quran and science" section was deleted

Why was the quran and science section deleted?--Sefringle 18:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an and disbelievers

A number of times recently a reasonably lengthy collection of quotes from the book, supposedly concerning disbelievers, was edited out as nonsense- just wondering,what about that stuff was nonsense, exactly? All freely invented? Duagloth 03:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoever deleted that section may burn in hell ~ Amen ~ ( 00:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

What is a fact and what is not

I was reading this section from the Quran page:

"Muslims believe the common elements or resemblances between the Bible and other Jewish and Christian writings and Islamic dispensations is due to the common divine source. Muslims believe that the Christian or Jewish texts were authentic divine revelations given to prophets. Some Muslims claim that they were neglected or corrupted (tahrif) by the Jews and Christians and have been replaced by God's final and perfect revelation, which is the Qur'an. [8] However the historical biblical archaeological record refutes this assertion because the Dead Sea Scrolls (Old Testament and other Jewish writings) have been fully translated [9], validating the authenticity of the greek Septuagint (Old Testament)[10]."

My question is that it says "some Muslims believe", but then it says that the "'historical' biblical archaeological record refutes this assertion". The problem I have with this is that even archaeologists have 'views' and archaeology is not an exact science. It has been contended. Bart Ehrman, a scholar in Biblical history, contends in 'Misquoting Jesus' (ISBN 0060738170) that Bible indeed might have not have reached its final readers in its true form. For instance, the same words may have been translated incorrectly, or some times, the scribes had a manuscript that had some words missing which they had to fill themselves. The problem is considered to be both with the original text, as well as with the translations.

From an objectivity point of view, I think we should remove 'some' from Muslims point of view, because Muslims almost unanimously agree on this point, and add that 'according to other scholars, this can be refuted based on the archaeological ...'. If you really want to say it all, we can further say that some scholars further refute this view because they claim that scribes had some manuscripts with missing text, and they translated into words that lost their meaning over time, and in some cases, they just did not do a very good translation at all.

In either case, I think it needs a little more balancing to be completely objective. Omer 22:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What if the bible had already been messed with by the time the dead sea scrolls were written? Zazaban 23:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There are quotations in Qur'an which emphasize on the corruption (tahrif) of Jewish texts for example in 13th of Al-Ma'ida The God says "But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind. "[1]. So I think all Muslims beleive in corruption (tahrif)--Sa.vakilian 15:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

From a scientifical viewpoint it's absurd to claim that discrepancies between two historical works, where one is a first- or second hand account (in case of the NT) and the other is a 600 years younger and unsurported work, have any other explaination than the younger work is incorrect. It's fine and dandy and should be reported that muslims have a religious dogma that state otherwise, but we shouldn't completely forget the concept of "reason" so the

'according to other scholars, this can be refuted based on the archaeological ...'

Can not only be kept in place but further strengthen as

'according to other scholars, this can be refuted based on standard source critique techniques and the archaeological ...'

-- 21:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Steel

Allow me to propose an editted and expanded version of the section: "Similarities between the Qur'an and the Bible"

The Qur'an retells stories of many of the people and events recounted in Jewish and Christian sacred books (Tanakh, Bible) and devotional literature (Apocrypha, Midrash), although it differs in many details. Adam, Enoch, Noah, Heber, Shelah, Abraham, Lot, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Job, Jethro, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Jonah, Aaron, Moses, Zechariah, Jesus, and John the Baptist are mentioned in the Qur'an as prophets of God (see Prophets of Islam). Muslims believe the common elements or resemblances between the Bible and other Jewish and Christian writings and Islamic dispensations is due to the common divine source, and that the Christian or Jewish texts were authentic divine revelations given to prophets. A majority of Muslims and the quran it self claim that those texts were neglected or corrupted (tahrif) by the Jews and Christians and have been replaced by God's final and perfect revelation, which is the Qur'an.[18]

However, a majority of secular scientists refutes this view, based on the stable and reliable older Jewish and christian text sources. This rebuttal is partly based on the fact that a large majority of secular scientists agree that the gospels of the new testemony is written down latest in the early decades of the 2nd century and that the original texts have been quite stable and can be reconstructed to a very high degree of precission using the large corpus of fragments from the first 3 centuries. In any case the compilation "Codex Vaticanus" from mid 4th century as well as the "codex Sinaiticus" (mid 4th century) is preserved. Both of these preserved compilations of the New testemony (though sinaiticus does not completely follow the Niceae cannon) plus the Septuagint (a greek translation of the old testemony) predates the death of Muhammad (and thus the quran) by nearly 300 years and predates the oldest known (and reliably dated) copy of the quran by some 500 years. Some of the oldest known texts of the old testemony are recorded in the Greek translation, the Septuagint. To this can be noted that parts of the old testemony are surprisingly precisely validated by the Qumran scrools (generally dating before 68AD). Further more the quranic accounts of christian religious legends cannot be surported by the more than 30000 known christian fragments dating from the first three centuries.

In this light, the quran is, from a source critical viewpoint, an unreliable source to early chrisianity as well as judaismen at the beginning of the first millenia.

Own notes: This section "Similarities between the Qur'an and the Bible" is not a question of faith or dogma. It is a scientific diciplin, and as such "belief", "tradition", "dogma" or religious feelings have no place.

Request Protection

I request protection for this page because of the endless amounts of vandalism which has been going on here. Note: All of the vandalism is done by none Muslims. ( 00:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

Please protect this article, it is consistently vandalized.

If it is forbidden to pulp, discard or re-cycle a worn out text, how is it disposed of? Is there a stock-pile of worn-out Korans somewhere? Unsigned comment by

They are being burned. You may also refer to Qur'an desecration. -- Szvest 14:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

Referenced quotes from quran in main topic

I don't see why the verses pertaining to terrorism are the first things that people viewing this page should see. True there should be a section for misconceptions, but of all the beauty of the Quran, why choose these controversial topics to be seen before everything else? Someone please edit this.

Interpretation of the Qur'an

I tried to make this part more acadamic. So I added definition, classified and rearranged the text. I did this on the basis of preface of Tafsir Almizan --Sa.vakilian 08:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What I have read and heard but never seen

I have heard of persons who claimed they memorised the Qur'an. To me this means from the very first word to the last. Has anyone actually saw someone recite or write down this entire work correctly, strictly from memory, without a mistake, making sure there was no cheating, and historically recorded it, on video and audio tape, so this can be verified. The recitation and writing must have taken some time. How long does it take to recite or write the entire Qur'an? User:Kazuba 21 Sept 2006

What do you mean? Somebody memorize qur'an from the first word to last. This has usual been usual since the prophet time up to now. Also you can see Origin and development of the Qur'an for more information.--Sa.vakilian 02:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Please refer to Hafiz. Check the external links there as well. It can take several years (±5 years) but that depends on the person. -- Szvest 10:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign
I (like many) have seen lots of them. There are hundreds of thousands of them in my country (Bangladesh). There are millions of them in the whole Muslim world. --Russoue 19:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

So what you are telling me is you personally have never heard or saw it recited from the beginning to the end and it has never been video taped. Right? That was the question. User:Kazuba 22 Sept 2006

I got what you mean Kazuba. Personally i've never seen or heard of someone who's done that as that would take hours if not more than a day non-stop. What Hafizs do is to recite entire Hizbs (aka Juz') in a single session. This is done in mosques or on TV/radio on special occasions.
So, reciting the whole Qur'an is possible but it's about time. Theorically that is possible. Practically it is not possible. -- Szvest 12:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

````It is practical if you are curious enough to see if it can be accomplished. I am that curious. I have heard people claiming they memorized the Bible, but I have never heard it recited from the end to the beginning. Then I heard persons claim they had memorized certain books from the Bible and I never heard those. I have seen people with photographic memories but I have never seen one recite an entire book. They only knew parts. Only once, when I was a small child, did I see a little girl recite an entire story from a comic book. She knew each page and picture frame by frame, and every speaker and their dialogue word for word. I was astonished! User:Kazuba 22 Sept 2006

Faqihs are obliged to memorize the Qur'an word by word. I don't have any doubt that students at Al-Azhar University or University of Al Karaouine memorize all Qura'n by heart. Those people are experts and learning the book by heart is a kind of obligation. I've got to know regular people doing so as well. The thing is that it is technically impossible for them to recite it non-stop. -- Szvest 13:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

````The subject can live in isolation, stop take a break, eat, use a toilet, etc. The subject doesn't have to recite it. They can write it. Why hasn't it been done as an experiment in human memory? No one ever thought of it? How can it be technically immpossible? A crummy magician stayed isolated in a box (supposedly without eating) for 44 days. It just hasn't been attempted or demonstrated to critically examine the claim. No curiosity. User:Kazuba 22 Sept 2006

That would be a good challenge and a good record for the Guinness Book. In that sense, yes it is possible! I know about Marathon endurance and know that the 4 years old Indian boy Budhia Singh could do better than most marathoners! -- Szvest 15:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

When written down?

I see nothing in article - not even a discussion - about when the verses were committed to writing. I also see nothing about there being some difficulty with homographs after it took written form - something about the script not showing vowel sounds as entirely distinct --JimWae 21:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You're write. I think we should add this issues inn this article.--Sa.vakilian 03:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Link to Skeptical Qur'an, or whatever it is called

We aren't here to give an exclusively Muslim, or even academic, view of the Qur'an. We're here to present all views. Some people have strongly negative views of the Qur'an, so they should be represented with one site at least. That may not be the best link. Let me look over the whole list and see if I have any ideas. Zora 06:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think it's solved. I took a look; the list was haphazard and close to useless. Since there are thousands of possible links, and we don't want to exalt one interpretation or one sect over another, let's take the same approach used in the Islam article and just link to DMOZ. They are nothing but links. So the skeptical link is gone, but so are the others.
I was thinking that we should have Qur'an search sites, but there are hundreds of those, run by various sects, and I'm not sure that it would be good to recommend one over another. What do other editors think? Zora 06:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


I think this article should rearrange and some part should rewrite in academic way.--Sa.vakilian 02:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I proose this structure:
1- Etymology
2- Format(structure) of the Qur'an

This part include definition of Ayat, Surah and ruku'at

3- The language of the Qur'an 
4- Stylistic attributes 
5- Origin of the Qur'an 
6- History of Qur'an
 6-1- reveal (also it's not good translation for تنزيل)
 6-2- maintenance of Qurán
 6-3- collection and stardization
7- writing and recitation of qurán 
 7-1- recitation
 7-2- writing
8- Translation of Qurán
9- interpretation of Qurán
10- importance of Qurán in Islamic theology
11- The Qur'an and Islamic culture 
12- Situation of Qur'an among Abrahamic religions 
 12-1- Similarities between the Qur'an and the Bible 
13- The orientalists'viewpoint--Sa.vakilian 02:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks pretty good. -- Szvest 10:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

I rearranged the article in the more coherent way.

1 Etymology 
2 Format of the Qur'an 
3 Stylistic attributes 
  3.1 The beginnings of the suras 
  3.2 The temporal order of Qur'anic verses 
4 Origin and development of the Qur'an 
5 The language of the Qur'an 
6 The Qur'an for reading and recitation 
  6.1 Qur'an recitation 
    6.1.1 Schools of recitation 
  6.2 Writing and printing the Qur'an 
7 Translations of the Qur'an 
8 Interpretation of the Qur'an 
9 Similarities between the Qur'an and the Bible 
10 The Qur'an and Islamic culture 
11 See also 
12 References 
  12.1 Translations 
  12.2 Older commentary 
  12.3 Older scholarship  
  12.4 Recent scholarship 
13 Directory of external links relating to the Qur'an 

--Sa.vakilian 04:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Metre (music) or meter (poetry) ?

I'm not sure which one these is the correct link when discussing the "metre of the word" in the etymology section: metre (music) or meter (poetry). Whoever wrote it spelled it as metre (and hence 'music' - which is what I linked it to), but now I think it should be meter (poetry). Help. MP (talk) 11:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Origin and development of the Qur'an

This part of article was POV. I tried to make it NPOV by adding some quotations from Qur'an which narrates Muslims viewpoint about origin of Qur'an. Also this part is incomplete and we should add an abstract about development of the Qur'an from Origin and development of the Qur'an--Sa.vakilian 21:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Directory of external links relating to the Qur'an

we have waaaay to many external links.... Zazaban 18:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we do. Every dang mosque, sheikh, association, and whatnot has to put their links here. I will try to make the time later to do through, click each link, and try to triage the links, leaving only the most comprehensive and least proselytizing. WP is for learning, not for dawa. Zora 23:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


Due to the recent creation of the Criticism of the Qur'an article, I added a link to this article and a brief summary at the end of this page for the purpose of NOPV.--Sefringle 00:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry [User:Sefringle|Sefringle] But the article you mentioned is a disgrace to Wikipedia as an encycolpedia. The article is nothing but promotion of FFI and Islamophobia in its worst shape! (UJMi 23:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC))

See WP:NPOV/FAQ#Religion. The article exists to show the different viewpoints on the quran. Offensive to your religion is no reason to declare an article unfit for wikipedia.--Sefringle 04:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Although secular scholars, who don't believe in God as a supernatural being which creates, knows and is able to do everything, can't accept a non-human origin of qur'an because of their materialistic preassumptions. Hmm? Can the content of that excerpt be verified, and the capitalisation/grammar corrected? Beobach972 18:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It's inherently biased -- "can't accept" implies that the claim is a fact that the people described are uncomfortable with. Wikipedia doesn't talk like that. Fixing ... --FOo 22:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Too much Arabic?

As a non-Muslim reading this artical i have too say that the first too sections contain FAR TOO MUCH Arabic which destroyes the flow of the artical. Furthermore the first two paragraphs are too physilophical and certainly arn't that interesting to a non-Muslim like me. The artical does improve substantially later on though. I hope u find my points constructive. --Boris Johnson VC 08:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't find too much arabic. Most articles start that way anyways. Zazaban 00:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed paragraph that stated that Qur'an first translated in 7 C.E.

Reverted this [2] because Muhammad recieved his first divine relevation about 610 C.E., so unless Salman the Persian was unusually inspired, this can't be correct.

The first translator of the Qur'an is Salman the Persian. He was one of the prophet's nearest companions and translated the Qur'an during 7 C.E. - some of the people of Persia asked Salman al-Farisi to write to them something of the Qur'an, and he wrote to them the Fatihah in Persian.[1]
Jrincayc 01:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
There's reliable source for this translation. So you should put apposite reliable source instead of discussion.--Sa.vakilian 02:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
What the 7 C.E. date means is that Salman the Persian did his translation 603 years before it was recieved by Muhammad in 610 C.E. That is probably not what you ment. When did Salman the Persian actually do his translation? What does the source actually say? Jrincayc 14:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
7 C.E. is wrong. It should be 7th century. Salman the Persian has lived at least until the cliphate of Umar and he bacame the governor of Madaen .--Sa.vakilian 17:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
7 C.E.? Bwahaha, I don't know if this qualifies as a bad joke, or an honest mistake. In either case, we all agree that the proper wording should be 7th century and not 7 C.E. right? --ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 22:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Good article

I intend to candidate this article as a Good article. Do you agree with me.--Sa.vakilian 18:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the verbing of the word "candidate". :) --FOo 22:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I intend to nominate this article as a Good article.

  • It includes sufficient information about qur'an and it addresses all major aspects of the topic.
  • It is POV articles.
  • There isn't editorial war about this issue.
  • it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);
  • Most part of it is verifiable.--Sa.vakilian 02:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

One problem, however, is that it is not stable, as per requirement number five on this page --ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 05:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I checked the variations during last 10 days. It's not so much[3]. I guess it's negligible.--Sa.vakilian 14:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, it used to be very unstable. Seems to have gotten better. If it was nominated for good article I would approve. --ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 05:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • for an article like this, i would really like to see more academic citations for a number of the assertions in the article from published reliable sources. i would like to see more inline citations in general too. i would work on this article but i am currently quite busy, but will try to help wherever i can. a bit of cleanup, copyediting, sourcing (and some expansion) and this article could have a lot of potential to move to GA and then even FA. ITAQALLAH 18:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the Koran promote terrorism and violence???

I nearly forgot-there is intolerence as well—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I believe it doesn't do so and also reduces terrorism and violence ,however, It depends on how somebody read it. --Sa.vakilian 11:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you read the Noble Qur'an and judge it for yourself? --ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 05:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
only "Evil minded" people put comments like that.. :( ( 01:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC))

"Evil minded people"? Outsiders like me have had only one real source of what the Qu'ran says, and we are told by the terrorists and by our government that the Qu'ran promotes that. Most Americans, at least, don't communicate with Muslims, and as such, believe what they are told like a pack of Lemmings, thinking the same way. I am told by wikipedia and by Islamic followers that it actually doesn't promote violence, but peace, charity, and following the way of God (Allah) as told through the prophet Mohammed.Norwelsh ^ 14:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

History of transcription of Al-Quran

Under the "Origin and development of the Qur'an", it is told that before the current version there were some several versions from which the current version was derived. Is there any concrete proof of it? I don't think if some non-muslim scholar thinks that way makes this thing a fact. There is always one and only one version of the Qur'an. There was never more than one version. Any claims must be backed by concrete proofs.

Also, in the beginning of the page, I found that this is a disputed article. Later going through it, I found this moot point, may be there is more. I think wikipedia better not have this page in this way than having a controversial one hurting Muslims.--Russoue 19:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please sign join us and edit the article.--Sa.vakilian 18:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Duty toward Jews and Christians

It has been about 5 years since I read the Koran. And I read the Penguin version, a muslim told me that this was the "bad" version though I don't know what he meant. I thought there was a duty toward "people of the book" (xtians and jews) but I can't find it in my notes, since I just underlined passages. Could someone please help me or tell me that I am wrong etc. - Abscissa 22:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^ An-Nawawi, Al-Majmu', (Cairo, Matbacat at-'Tadamun n.d.), 380.