Talk:Quran/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

Edit request from 94.2.65.253, 23 May 2010

Arahman98 (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC) The Caliph Uthman did not make "thousands" of copies of the Quran. Most authorities give the number of copies he actually ordered was six. So my suggestion is for the word "thousands" to be deleted.

The Caliph Uthman did not make "thousands" of copies of the Quran. Most authorities give the number of copies he actually ordered was six. So my suggestion is for the word "thousands" to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arahman98 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} The article features a picture in the History section. This picture shows The Prophet Muhammad. I would like to request that this image is removed as Muslims find depictions of the Prophet Muhammad very offensive as it is prohibited in their religion.

Kindest Regards 94.2.65.253 (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Please see WP:NOTCENSORED. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 19:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you people read both the denied requests for picture removal above and wikipedia's censorship rules?

Doktordoris (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Outdated browser message?

Why does the Online Quran site give me this message alone of all the sites I visit? I deleted my bookmark for this site because it made me wonder if it had been hacked or invaded by malware. 4.249.63.164 (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Thetruthwillopenyoureyes, 13 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please remove the image titled "Muhammad's Call to Prophecy and the First Revelation" as it is offensive and wrong to the whole of Islam for any display of an image of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

Thetruthwillopenyoureyes (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: The consensus is to keep such images. Please have a look at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Favonian (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Good grief, how many times will you lot ask for pictures to be removed? Why not read the previous umpteen requests and removal refusals? Many cultures have things which offend them, and it is your right to take offense at anything you wish to, but please don't try to foist your prejudices on us heathens. Thanks

Doktordoris (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the articles.

Please update the page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Image removed

Anyone who examines my editing history can tell that I have been a strong advocate of maintaining images of Muhammad in the Muhammad article. I continually warn users who remove such images, I have contributed to Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, and I engage in lengthy discussions on Talk:Muhammad/images.

However, I have just removed such an image from this article.

The image has no established history of consensus in this article. It was added in March (diff) by User:Cmmmm, who has a history of disruptive edits and has been blocked indefinitely since the beginning of June. Cmmmm added the image without providing any rationale, justification, or talk page discussion. Based on the user's editing history, I can only assume the intent here was to provoke a reaction. This is known as trolling.

Given that the image doesn't really illustrate the Qur'an (the topic of this article), given the apparent intent of the editor who added it, given that no rationale was offered for adding it, and given no established consensus, I feel it is appropriate to remove the image. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Content section

I think this issue may have been brought up before (possibly by myself - can't remember!): this section is clearly a very important part of the article and needs serious expansion. The main article links and other links are fine, but there should be something of substance in this section. Any suggestions ? Here are my thoughts on what should be included in the section: role of stories/parables (emphasis on moral lessons and not so much on details of stories/parables); Qur'anic discussion of natural phenomena (and point of doing so); prophets and messengers (and differences between Bible, for example); and lots of other general things such as, right and wrong, hypocrisy last day etc... MPatel ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"verbal text"

Could somebody please explain to me what a "verbal text" is and what the word "verbal" adds to the sentence The Qu'ran is the central religious text of Islam? nableezy - 15:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The Burning Pastor

I would guess that the recent controversy will disappear in time as being absolutely insignificant unless it provokes some kind of new war. Even then, it does not belong here. What other article would cite such stuff? Bridgettttttte_babble^poop 01:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that - focusing any part of the article on the recent Qur'an burning event, while it might seem relevant now, is rather insignificant overall. It would fall as recentism. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

So, I see some arguing up above on this page. I am fairly new to Wikipedia, and I usually drop exploratory comments off on discussion pages. Is there a way I could help arbitrate on this particular article? This is a very difficult subject. I would come with no POV, no edit warring, a respect for religious law, a respect for national laws, and an understanding that we are under Wikipedia’s banner – which has rules of its own. I know nothing about the Wikipedia hierarchy of dispute resolution, but I am willing to learn. As you see from my user page, I also come with a sense of humor. My humor would be exactly zero on this article. Very serious stuff here. Bridgettttttte_babble^poop 13:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC) 13:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC) {{help me}}

It's help requested just above, in bold, not below. Bridgettttttte_babble^poop 14:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:DR for an extensive overview of our dispute resolution processes. At this time, I don't think any dispute resolution is necessary though, just discuss it here. Regards SoWhy 15:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Y: From above, I see: "Some Of the Picture in this Page (Quran) is not and will not acceptable to any Muslim ,Please remove that. Precisely In the Section of "History " under the topic of " The Prophetic era " The picture shows our BELOVED PROPHET. please remove that . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymabadar (talk • contribs) 07:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)" I assume the image of the Prophet will stay down, forever. Am I correct? Bridgettttttte_babble^poop 19:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Some Of the Picture in this Page (Quran) is not and will not acceptable to any Muslim ,Please remove that.

Some Of the Picture in this Page (Quran) is not and will not acceptable to any Muslim ,Please remove that. Precisely In the Section of "History " under the topic of " The Prophetic era " The picture shows our BELOVED PROPHET. please remove that . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymabadar (talk • contribs) 07:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the pages on Wikipedia is not to appease the subjects, its simply to present the facts. 81.141.102.68 (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I also support the removal of 'Non Acceptable'Picture from this page. I will read the guidline more deeply. Bauani (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Image use policy#Moral issues, it does not unfairly demean or ridicule the subject, isn't unfairly obtained or intrude into a subjects private/family life, it follows guidelines. 81.141.102.68 (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

But see also Wikipedia:Images#Offensive images, which says "images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." I don't think a neutral encyclopedia article on Islam would normally include a picture of Muhammad, given the fact that a very large segment of the Muslim population considers this taboo. Not being a Muslim myself, I have no problem with the inclusion of such an image in an article about the history of Islamic art (since for many centuries in many regions such images were not taboo), or in an article like the one about the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, but putting it in this main article seems pointlessly provocative, unnecessary to the article content, and therefore non-encyclopedic. Hypnosifl (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

never mind, looks like Amatulic already removed it on July 6, with the explanation "I'm all for images, but I am removing this one. It was added without rationale or discussion in March by a user with a history of disruption, now indef blocked." Hypnosifl (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please go have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/FAQ where the topic of images of Mohammad is discussed. I believe there is a method there to ensure that images of the prophet do not appear on your browser if such things offend you (although note that most images of Mohammad used were created by Muslims, so obviously not all Muslims have this prohibition). Ashmoo (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow the logic. Can we remove the entire article if the Qu'ran itself offends me? Why stop at just the picture of Mohammed? Or articles about Saudi Arabia if Saudi Arabia offends me? Maybe we could eliminate anything about the Middle East because, sooner or later, that entire region offends somebody.Santamoly (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Large Gap

Can someone remove that? I tried by deleting but that didn't work....Maz640 (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Holy Quran Chapter One

اللامهغطپىاضضصعثجغژچعظطض؛؟ءءآؤإتثجژچ،يىووهنملكقفگڭطصچتةب —Preceding unsigned comment added by Islamrocks (talk • contribs) 17:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Quranrecitation, 14 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The glorious Quran, in this regard, says, O children of Adam, you shall be clean and dress nicely when you go to the Masjid. And eat and drink moderately; Surely, He does not love the gluttons. Quran [7:31] Along with the above-mentioned things, it is a very noticeable fact that in several places the Quran mentions the Slat along with mentioning the Zakat and the charity. It implies that it is also as noble a deed as charity is. When praying do not make the voice too high or too low. Say, "Call Him GOD, or call Him the Most Gracious; whichever name you use, to Him belongs the best names." You shall not utter your Contact Prayers (Salat) too loudly, nor secretly; use a moderate tone. Quran [17:110]

http://www.quranreading.com (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Earliest written form

I'm not willing to put "citation needed" into the article but could someone consider the words "Muhammad approved these recitations and also compiled the Qur'an in written form while he was alive" as far as "in written form" goes? I have no idea whether it's so but it seems counter-intuitive given the following sentence "established textually into a single book form shortly after Muhammad's death". To be specific, I'm querying the inclusion of "and also compiled the Qur'an in written form while he was alive" without a citation confirming it. JohnHarris (talk) 10:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I arrived at this talk page with exactly the same question. Like you, I am not generally a fan of article-tagging: but since you have had no response here, I think that attempting to summon knowledgeable editors by means of {{contradict}} and {{cn}} is the best way to go. I imagine they will be able to resolve the problem without much difficulty, so I have taken that route. Ian Spackman (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

But the knowledgeable editors failed to turn up—is anyone watching this page?—so I removed the disputed claim. Obviously it can be reinstated with a source. Ian Spackman (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the deleted sentence was ambiguous, assuming that the word "compiled" implies "gathered into a single book". However, it is well understood from historical accounts that during Muhammad's lifetime the complete Quran was available in written form, although not in book form, but as fragments held by each scribe. We are also certain that Muhammad had many scribes and he himself directed and participated in the task of preparing a written scripture. Wiqixtalk 22:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I will suggest to learn quran yourself and you will find the truth. Quran guide us towards nature and show us the path where we all are one. Quran teach us how to convert our individual thinking into collective thinking so that peace prevail in our society. http://www.learnquranonline.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.178.190.201 (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Splendid, then the article should say something like that. On a related point, though, there does seem to be a strange hole in the article, and that is the hole which would be filled by an account of the basic textual criticism of the text: which are the earliest extant manuscripts, for instance? Ian Spackman (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You may find some answers in the History of the Qur'an article. Wiqixtalk 01:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Oubada, 31 January 2011

Hello Please remove world of (lack) form the Quran text description and insert (is sometime seems to have discontinuity) (The text arrangement is sometime seems to have discontinuity, absence of any absence of any chronological or thematic order, and presence of repetition.[57][58]) Wikipedia current text: " The Qur’anic text seems to have no beginning, middle, or end, its nonlinear structure being akin to a web or net.[5] The textual arrangement is sometimes considered to have lack Italic textof continuity, absence of any chronological or thematic order, and presence of repetition.[57][58] "

This is the reasons: 1- Adding (lack) is a judgmental phrase. Judgments and views could change according to person understanding,time and knowledge 2- The quran text discontinuity could be a positive thing. 3- Writing only the fact without having a personal opinion or feeling give Wikipedia superior description of the any context without passing judgment to others.

Please make the changes and contact me if you have any questions Thank you

Oubada oubada@hotmail.com

Oubada (talk) 09:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Mankind vs. Muslims in introduction

I have corrected the sentence:

Muslims hold that the Qur’an is the verbal divine guidance and moral direction for mankind. to

Muslims hold that the Qur’an is the verbal divine guidance and moral direction for Muslims.

The Quran itself says that it is the direction for the Muslims. According to the Quran, the Muslim in their turn shall direct the "nations", i.e. "mankind". Read also the next sentence of the article, that it is the Arabic Quran which is the direction. Assuming that the Quran was for the "mankind", He would have chosen another way to express Himself. According to the Book described by the article, the tribe of Abraham is chosen by Allah to rule the nations, and the tribe of Abraham are also the only ones that are called Muslims.

If anyone claims that Allah in the Quran addresses anyone but the tribe of Abraham, please provide a quote.

[3.33] Surely Allah chose Adam and Nuh and the descendants of Ibrahim and the descendants of Imran above the nations. . . .

[22.78] And strive hard in (the way of) Allah, (such) a striving a is due to Him; He has chosen you and has not laid upon you an hardship in religion; the faith of your father Ibrahim; He named you Muslims before and in this, that the Apostle may be a bearer of witness to you, and you may be bearers of witness to the people; therefore keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and hold fast by Allah; He is your Guardian; how excellent the Guardian and how excellent the Helper!

Sources: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=simple&q1=3.33&size=First+100 http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=simple&q1=22.78&size=First+100 St.Trond (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but not true. According to the Qur'an, Muhammad was sent as a bearer of good news and warning for all mankind, see [1]. Also, your assertion that God would have "chosen another way to express Himself" is irrelevant, and not what Muslims believe. Wiqixtalk 18:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

To x above: Yes, according to the Koran, Muhammad, being a muslim "was sent as a bearer of good news and warning for all mankind" as you describe. Nothing is mentioned there about any instructions from the Koran to "mankind". The Koran was given in Arabic to the Muslims, that were descendants of Abraham and used the Arabic language. This is also as prescribed in the two verses of the Koran I quoted above. The Muslims and among them a prophet Muhammed, should then in their turn direct the nations. St.Trond (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

To the verse you refer to, which is 34.28, I have to point to an earlier verse in the same chapter:

[34.3] And those who disbelieve say: The hour shall not come upon us. Say: Yea! by my Lord, the Knower of the unseen, it shall certainly come upon you; not the weight of an atom becomes absent from Him, in the heavens or in the earth, and neither less than that nor greater, but (all) is in a clear book

In the chapter you refer to Allah claims that it is "all in a clear book": Allah is addressing the tribe of Abraham and is referring to the Quran in Arabic again. St.Trond (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how Quran 34:28 is "addressing the tribe of Abraham", since Abraham is nowhere mentioned in the whole of Chapter 34. Also, some verses explicitly say that that the Qur'an is intended as a guidance to mankind, for example Quran 2:185. This should settle this issue I think. Wiqixtalk 23:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Allah addresses only the tribe of Abraham in chapter 2 as well. Shakir translates the word into "man" and not "mankind". In the same chapter, before the verse you quote, Allah starts three verses with "O, children of Israel" [2], and one reminder that it is with the tribe of Abraham that Allah has a covenant:

[2.83] And when We made a covenant with the children of Israel: ....

If Allah had spoken to those who are not of the tribe of Abraham, could he then bring any good news, beyond that the Muslims would tell them what is Allah's will? ...as pointed out above. St.Trond (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Shakir used men (plural). One sense of men is mankind. He also used all men in the other verse where the universality of Muhammad's message is being emphasized. Nevertheless, your assertion needs a reliable source directly stating that Muslims believe the Qur'an to be a guidance to the tribe of Abraham, and not to mankind, contrary to what the Qur'an clearly states. Until that happens, let's keep it as it is. Wiqixtalk 22:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Current sentence:

Muslims hold that the Qur’an is the verbal divine guidance and moral direction for mankind.

Problems part one:

The Quran claims only that it addresses the tribe of Abraham: 39 quotes from the Quran

The Quran is presented only in Arabic: 10 quotes from the Quran.

The Quran cannot be translated according to itself: Quran 3.7..none knows its interpretation except Allah...

Problems part two:

The Quran itself says that it is the tribe of Abraham who are the directors of mankind:

3.33 Surely Allah chose Adam and Nuh and the descendants of Ibrahim and the descendants of Imran above the nations.

22.78 He named you Muslims .... and you may be bearers of witness to the people

Suggested new sentence inserted before the quoted sentence:

The Quran contains claims that it is the divine guidance for the tribe of Abraham and that the tribe of Abraham provides the moral direction for mankind.

The suggested text relates mainly to the key word: Quran, it is also supported by the text of the Quran. Which the current text is not.St.Trond (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I have also removed the reference from the next sentence as the quotes from the Koran do not support that the Koran is a "direction for mankind". It is clear by reading the relevant chapters of the Koran that Allah is not addressing mankind there:

The reference 2:185. In chapter 2 we find in 2:40 and 2:47 that Allah is addressing the "children of Israel", usually interpreted as the descendants of Abraham, which are also the Muslims according to the Koran 22:78.

The reference 34:28. Allah is not addressing mankind mankind either. The name of chapter 34 is "Saba", and Saba are described in third-person, see for example 34:15-34:21.

It is not clear from the Koran, that Allah by addressing only some gives a guidance to all, especially when the Koran also states that Muslims are the guides for the rest of the mankind:

[3.33] Surely Allah chose Adam and Nuh and the descendants of Ibrahim and the descendants of Imran above the nations. . . .

[22.78] And strive hard in (the way of) Allah, (such) a striving a is due to Him; He has chosen you and has not laid upon you an hardship in religion; the faith of your father Ibrahim; He named you Muslims before and in this, that the Apostle may be a bearer of witness to you, and you may be bearers of witness to the people; therefore keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and hold fast by Allah; He is your Guardian; how excellent the Guardian and how excellent the Helper!St.Trond (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Ja`far Sheikh Idris, professor of Islamic studies, Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences, Washington, states:

..."in Islam it is Allah's law as expressed in the Qur'an and the Sunnah that is the supreme law within the limits of which people have the right to legislate. A true Muslim never makes, or freely accepts, or believes that anyone has the right to make, or accept, legislation contravening the Divine law". [3]

What Ja`far Sheikh Idris describes fits perfectly Iran, where they have a Jew as an elected president, and to be blamed by the public, while the Guardian Council are the actual rulers. St.Trond (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Adamrce (talk | contribs) (76,453 bytes) (Undid revision 423391711 by St.Trond (talk) The text came onto non-believing Arabs (non-submitters to God), and it says it was sent for all mankind! Stop pushing your pov)

Comment: According to the Koran, non-believing Arabs are descendants of Abraham, which qualifies to become Muslims, while mankind in general is not descendants of Abraham. St.Trond (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Exegesis, be it Biblical or Quranic, is original research. If you have a Muslim commentary that says something to that effect, we can add that as that commentator's views. Wikipedia doesn't care about anyone's "truth," or "real understanding," it just summarizes sources with as little interpretation as possible. The verses you cited could just as easily be read as meaning that Muslims are called to encourage anyone to be a Muslim, and that they become non-genetic "children of Abraham" if they adopt the religion (considering Christianity has done the same thing, it's not that unlikely). Since that's the kind of interpretation most Muslim and non-Muslim sources tend to favor (or at least, they don't favor your personal interpretation), the article is not going to be a soapbox for your own views on Islam. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sir, you're getting everything mixed-up. With my respect of-course, but Arabs being qualified to be Muslims doesn't make any sense; because a Muslim is just a follower of Abraham's faith, weather he shares the blood or not. That's why the Quran said that it was sent to all mankind. What versus are you referring to in the Quran? Your reference has no relation to your post. Have you seen any versus conflict with the following three points?

(1) Genesis says, whoever is circumcised is considered from the seed of Abraham.

(2) Jesus was sent to the sons of Israel, so whoever believed that he's the Messiah was considered Christians, and whoever didn't are still Hebrews/Jews. However, any non-Hebrew that accepted and believed in Jesus is considered descendant of Abraham through David, like Jesus.

(3) A Muslim is just a word that means "submitter to God", which has nothing to do with physical blood. Whoever believes in Islam is considered a descendant of Abraham because they're circumcised, and also descendants of Abraham because of their belief in Jesus. So followers of Islam just follow Abraham's faith based on the Quranic scripture (predicted in the Hebrew and Christian Bible, as the book of law and setter of judgement on earth), as a blessed prophet and the great father of nations. AdvertAdam ^talk 21:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Search for the entire sentence for sources to the meaning of Koran 3.33: "The Holy Prophet and his Ahl ul Bayt are in the posterity of Ibrahim, therefore, in the light of this verse, they are chosen in preference to all the created beings. They are superior to every human being. (Tafsir Durr al Manthur; and Mawahib al Ladunniya)." St.Trond (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you heard Ian.thomson; you can't use a primary source like that. But I'll answer you anyways, for your personal knowledge. You're taking the text out-of-context. If you read 3.33 uptil 3.51, you can see the examples that explain 3.33! It gave examples of prophets and messengers coming out of the family of Imran and Abraham. Therefore, those messengers guide all mankind, not all the family of Abraham guides mankind. Furthermore, Tafsir is based on opinions too, so stop picking minority opinions and read the Sunni Tafsir, which is the majority. Hope I cleared your point AdvertAdam ^talk 10:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Do I really have to shout it? What part of it don't you get? No investigación original! Keine ursprüngliche Forschung! Click Click No Click Original Research! That includes your personal interpretation of the text! I really don't get how you don't understand this! No... original... research... That means any research... that your did yourself... does not count... You have to find someone else who says what you're saying. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to replace Qur'an with actual universally accepted English title "Koran"

Hello all, Point taken about inserting changes. It has been argued that the spelling "Koran" is outdated and that "Qur'an" is the generally accepted spelling on Wikipedia.

However, It’s actually not correct to say that "Koran" is outdated. As far as I can ascertain, Koran is still the accepted spelling in English. Other variations of "Koran", of which there are many, are also used. "Qur'an" is just one attempt to reflect the Arabic origin of the name and is merely a variant of the original English spelling. Therefore in my opinion, it is not valid to now impose this new, non-universally agreed, spelling over the traditionally used one.

Finally, there are numerous articles that use the spelling Koran

Emmetfahy (talk) 12:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom. Also, you're the only editor to push for the use of "Koran" in quite some time. The sources I've seen that use "Koran" either have an anti-Islamic bias, or are older than my social-security collecting mother. Current English sources use "Qur'an."

Also, could you provide some links to articles that use "Koran," which are not quoting older sources? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Zubair71's recent edits

If Zubair71 is interested, I'd like to hear his justification for changing "Muslims believe" to a statement of universal fact, treating a legend about the Qur'an as an unchallenged fact, and attempting to hide possible relationships between the Qur'an and other texts. I've gone and started this because he's made the bold edits, I've reverted them, but he's yet to discuss them. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello sir. I suggest that the "Potential influence of Christian apocrypha‎" should stay on the criticism page of the Qur'an. If Jews, Christians, and Muslims claim to be following the same God, creator, then the same god is who influences these texts to have similar histories. It's the same thing as saying that the Old Testament is influenced by the Scrolls of Abraham. Anyways, there's tons of claims like that between all Abrahamic faiths. Also, Zoroastrians claims that the Old Testament is influenced by them, the New Testament is influenced by the Old Testament, and the Qur'an is influenced by both. Therefore, I prefer removing this section rather than getting a pile of new sections by different faiths; as they all have scholarly texts. And there's already a section, right above it, containing similarities between them. What's your opinion?! AdvertAdam (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The Criticism of the Qur'an article (which appears to be "Criticizing the Qur'an" instead of "literary criticism of the Qur'an") actually does not address similarities between the Qur'an and certain Apocrypha, and I'm not sure that section was there to begin with (I'm flipping randomly through the history, gotten as far back as 2009 and I've found no use of the word "apocrypha.") I guess retitling it "Similarities to Christian Apocrypha" would be a solution, since it does fit within the section "Relationship with other literature." As I recall, some Muslims do see such similarities as evidence for the Qur'an being the final revelation. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

With all my respect sir, but (1) the whole section doesn't make sense, and is disrespectful as it considers that men stole stories from there; (2) The same meaning YOU are trying to make is already in the first sentence of "Torah, Hebrew Bible and New Testament" section, as "Christian apocrypha‎" is all about the Gospels. I still think the section should be deleted! AdvertAdam (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't introduce the section to begin with. It needed further neutralizing, which I've worked some on. However, it does have good sources, and it would be more prudent to just work at fixing the material rather than throwing it away. Wikipedia is about summarizing the sources with due weight, regardless of what people feel about the subject. The narrative elements in those apocryphal texts are not the same ones as the Hebrew and Christian Bibles. The Christian apocrypha section is not about the canonical Gospels which are accepted in any New Testament. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Ian.thomson

The User:Ian.thomson is continuosly trying to impose & push his POV on the article Qur'an. He has reverted my Four edits in the same article in less than 1 & half hours. I simply have kept myself away from editwarring and so I did not revert any of his edits. This is important to keep in mind, that the whole article is about "Qur'an" on which Muslims have belief and not Christians or Jews etc. So it is obvious that everything described about Qur'an belong to Muslims belief. So in every sentence of the article, there is no need to write that "Muslims believe about Qur'an that ......" or "According to Muslims belief......." or "Muslims consider that the Qur'an........" etc etc. Also see the article "Bible", where this type of perception is not done, because it is obvious that, the article "Bible" reflects the beliefs of Christians & Jews and not the beliefs of Muslims. But User:Ian.thomson wants this type of additions in article "Qur'an" only, just to give a wrong perception and making this article controvertial. Zubair71 (talk) 07:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You're replacing Muslim beliefs ("Muslims regard the Qur’an as the main miracle of Muhammad, as proof of his prophethood") with treatment as a universal fact that everyone accepts ("The Qur’an is the main miracle of Muhammad, as proof of his prophethood"). I'm preventing you from pushing a POV, that's not the same as pushing one of my own. I'm actually working AdvertAdam to reach a compromise about the apocrypha section, instead of just accusing him of vandalism. And you're wrong about the Bible article, it does indeed preface beliefs as beliefs instead of treating them as empirical observations. When the article discusses the Bible's contents, it says "it tells the story of" and stuff like that, it does not treat its contents as undeniably factual. If you can find any instance where it's treating any Christian or Jewish POV as fact, point it out. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with IT William M. Connolley (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The current phrasing still leaves something to be desired. It is often claimed that anyone who prays toward Mecca and recites the shahada is a Muslim. The shahada does not say anything about the Koran, so it is not Wiki's place to tell Muslims that they must believe in this, that, or the other. Kauffner (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The phrasing doesn't say that you have to believe that to be a Muslim, but the people that agree with those claims are Muslim, or follow a religion that considers itself an extension/revival/continuation/renewal of Islam. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Similarities and apocrypha

I think that "Similarities and apocrypha" is a suitable title, rather than "Potential Influence of Christian apocrypha" which is offensive and seems to have Christians' POV. Zubair71 (talk) 10:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

As a native English speaker and an English major, I have to say that "Similiarities and apocrypha" does not make sense. Similarities to what? Does the section discuss Qur'anic apocrypha? "Simiarities with Christian apocrypha" says what the similarities are to, allows readers to make up their own mind why there are similarities, and says what apocrypha there are similarities with. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Translation

Ian.thomson, you could of asked if you weren't happy with the content. Following your same sequence: (1) you can realize that I was referring to two books, which I could of left the ISBN only without the Google Books sample view; (2) I used Google Translation for people to see the wide range of meanings for the same word rather than putting examples, which I can still reference the Oxford Arabic Dictionary ISBN 978-0198643128 or Al-Mawrid Arabic-English Dictionary ISBN 978-1894412971, instead; (3) I was giving an example of the first paragraph's topic, which shows how far the translation was from the original meaning. It is a universal translation, as it's used in most Qur'anic translations. My example was explaining this topic: "Furthermore, an Arabic word may have a range of meanings depending on the context, making an accurate translation even more difficult". What do you recommend, removing the links and just leave the names of the books with ISBN? AdvertAdam (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I looked over the two books, and they are self-published sources. They come from pay-to-print publishers. Those are excluded from the reliable source guidelines. WP:RS does not allow for self-published sources except for the subject releasing information about itself (so, a celebrity's blog could be used for claims about himself).

The use of Google translate was original research. Using the Arabic-English dictionary would also be original research, unless it says that translating the Qur'an accurately can be difficult because of Arabic words having multiple meanings in English. However, that is a point for any translation of any document. But, because it is a common claim about the Qur'an specifically, I wouldn't object to the claim being documented if it has sources that meet WP:RS. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... Sorry I didn't pay attention to the publisher, as I thought you meant the google link as pay-to-print. Anyways, the most problem with Islamic studies is that they're mostly in the Middle-East, and they don't connect to western universities nor ISBN standards, either. This point is kind clear so I didn't want to add the Britannica Encyclopedia as the Roman war reference, however, I usually have a hard time finding sources for other subjects. Thanks anyways, and let me know if you have comments on my posting AdvertAdam ^talk 10:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus to move. It seems quite clear that Quran is more commonly used in English sources than Qur'an, even amongst the opposers and generally we go with common usage unless there are good reasons not to. The reasons given here (not to) include (1) appropriate transliteration, but that's only an option if there is no commonly used English term; (2) the chicago manual of style uses Qur'an, but that does not appear to be clearly the case; and muslim pov should be given preference, but that would only be the case if there were no suitable common term. Therefore, based on the evidence below, that article should be moved to Quran. --rgpk (comment) 21:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Qur'an → Quran — The authoritative sources still give “Koran”, the traditional spelling. Popular use is shifting to “Quran”, which gets far more use than the current title, “Qur’an”. The apostrophed version is associated with POV reverential use by believers. Although most participants in the September 2009 move discussion seemed to prefer “Quran", this discussion was nonetheless closed without an official consensus. Kauffner (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Merriam-Webster, Random House, American Heritage, Cambridge Dictionaries Online, and Oxford Dictionaries Online all give "Koran" as the preferred spelling.

2. ‘’The Economist‘’, ’‘ The New York Times’‘, and ‘’The Atlantic’‘ use “Koran”. The AP uses “Quran”. The BBC uses Qur’an for religious news, but Koran for general news.

3. The basis for the use of the apostrophe is the DMG Romanization system. But the use of DMG spelling is not at all common either on Wiki or in other English-language media. In particular, the use of apostrophes in such spellings is quite unusual. Wiki has “Shia Islam”, not “Shīʿah”; Muammar Gaddafi not "Muʿammar al-Qadhdhāfī"; Abdullah of Saudi Arabia not "ʿAbd Allāh"; Ali Abdullah Saleh (president of Yemen), not "ʿAli ʿAbd Allāh Ṣāliḥ"; Ismail I, not "Ismāʿīl I"; and so forth. Other Wiki articles are of course not precedents, but here they reflect media usage in general. In none of the above cases is there a traditional spelling anywhere near as well established as “Koran”.

4. This ngam does give the edge to “Qur’an”. The ngram is usually authoritative, but this result is out-of-step with every other category of usage. For example,"Quran" gets vastly more Web hits than "Qur’an". Since there is strong resistance to the idea of using apostrophes in this way, “Qur’an” seems to represent a reverential us. It is the equivalent of having an article on the pope entitled “The Holy Father” or one on Buddha entitled, “Lord Buddha”. Non-specialists won't use the macron or the apostrophe, so I can safely predict that future spelling will be “Quran”, which already gets far more Web hits than either “Qur’an” or “Koran”. Kauffner (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• My Google search figures...
  • "Qur'an" = "About 25,000,000 results"
  • "Quran" = "About 73,100,000 results"
  • "Koran" = "About 33,400,000 results"

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support, per the above reasoning, although I would prefer "Koran" since "authoritative sources" use it more widely. Powers ^T 15:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I too regard "Koran" as the normal English word but at least "Quran" removes the apostrophe. ðarkuncoll 16:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Waiting. I am under the impression that Koran is an outdated use, comparable to calling Muslims Muhammadeans. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support per comprehensive nom. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support the change to Quran, considering it the closest to the English pronunciation. Quran is also closer to the Arabic pronunciation than Koran, too. Qur'an is the closest to the Arabic pronunciation, that's why some believers insist on keeping it that way. AdvertAdam ^talk 05:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: You are basing your suggestion on two false claims, and I think you're the only one I know to have made them:

• Claim 1: "The apostrophed version is associated with POV reverential use by believers". You then explain in another paragraph that you reached this conclusion because "there is strong resistance to the idea of using apostrophes in this way".

Really ? The opposition can't have anything to do with following a logical and universal system developed to transliterate Arabic words ? I also don't get how you assigned the apostrophe mark the role of conveying holiness to describe its inclusion as 'equivalent of having an article on the pope entitled “The Holy Father” or one on Buddha entitled, “Lord Buddha”'.

Also, this is an argumentum ad populum.

• Claim 2: "Non-specialists won't use the macron or the apostrophe".

Nonsense. See usage in Oxford and Cambridge journals.

As for the argument based on the frequency of usage by Google or news papers like NY Times. As WP is an encyclopedia, the naming of this article in my opinion should follow the transliteration used by academic researchers or experts in the Arabic/Islamic fields (see above journals as an example) and not journalists. I strongly encourage the editors who voiced their support to reconsider their decision based on the above. Al-Andalusi (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't know enough to have a preference, so I won't support or oppose. But I will say I've never though of the "Qur'an" spelling as being in any way a respectful honorific - I'd thought it was just a guide to pronunciation -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I suspect the apostrophe is a pronunciation issue. I'll stricken my support until I can look over the guidelines more. On the grounds of what is most likely to be searched, Quran wins, but Al-Andalusi makes a good argument. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Either use diacritics fully (i.e., Qur’ān) or don't. Better yet, move to the English name, Koran, per WP:UE since this is English Wikipedia. —  AjaxSmack  19:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I've said this multiple times, I don't see how using "Koran" is different from using "Muhammadean." Ian.thomson (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It's different because Koran is a different spelling and not a different word, Koran is the most common spelling in English of the word, and Koran does not have the supposedly derogatory connotations that Muhammadean does. Quigley (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Koran is closer to Moslem than Muhammaden. There's nothing patently offensive about it, though I guess it could theoretically be chosen so as to offend. Just my opinion. Jabrol (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Koran isn't the same as Moslem either. Moslem is deprecated whilst Koran isn't. Notice these major English-language sources which use both "Koran" and "Muslim": BBC, New York Times, Washington Post, Reuters, ABC, Times of India

It's true, Moslem has largely disappeared whereas Koran is still around, but it's a similar situation with one accepted variant replacing another over time. Muslim/Muhammaden is a matter of ignorance rather than pedantry or personal preference. Jabrol (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support, also supporting "Koran", based on common English language use. To User:Al-Andalusi, your searches produce Qur'ān, not Qur'an, and the nominator has demonstrated that we and other English speaking media do not use that system for transcription of Arabic. Quigley (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, the majority, but not all, of the first few do that. Johnbod (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This request was based on changing the page to Quran, not Koran! Koran was basically used by non-Arabic-native speakers, because their native-tongue can't pronunciate the Arabic name, from my opinion and experience. So, the logical spelling should be based on the original language's pronunciation, which is why Arabic-native scholars and scientists use Quran, Qur'an, or Qur’ān instead. Most of the debate was based on the objection of using the apostrophe in the middle of the word, as it's not widely used in English writings. AdvertAdam ^talk 21:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, per al-Andalusi's reasoning, and because most scholarly works on the subject, especially those written in English, use either Qur'an or Qur'ān. Also of note is The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed, which gives priority to Qur'an (see 17.249, and the Index), and only mentioned Koran once and between parentheses (8.111). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no chapter 17 in the Chicago Manual! The Chicago Manual (2010) gives "Koran, Koranic (or, less commonly, Qur'an, Qur'anic)" (8.102) Kauffner (talk)

I was referring to the 15th edition (2003), as I've noted above, which does indeed give priority to "Qur'an" over "Koran". But looking at the 16th edition (2010), it seems to be more balanced (per the Index), with both forms being acceptable. Now, as far as this RFC is concerned, there is no mention of "Quran" anywhere in the CMOS. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 00:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"Qur'an" is indeed an established minority usage and it is recognized as such in various reference books. The problem with it is that it is associated with a particular POV. "Noble Qur'an" gets many more hits than "Noble Quran" even though "Quran" is otherwise a far more common spelling. Kauffner (talk) 10:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The version with the apostrophe looks better and is the way I'd expect to see it spelt (as a non-Muslim native English speaker, incidentally) if it wasn't spelt as "Koran", which is becoming increasingly outdated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• The apostrophe represents a glottal stop which is in the Arabic spelling and pronunciation. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• support - common usage, and is the way I'd expect to see it spelt (as a non-Muslim native English speaker, incidentally) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Per google search Pass a Method talk 10:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Use of diacritics fully (Qur’ān) won't keep it English but the apostrophe (Qur'an) represents real pronunciation closely even using English letters only. Use of Koran is outdated and not welcome by many Muslims. As question of POV, in this case Muslim POV can be given preference. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^talk 12:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - per above Ng.j (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Quran ONLY the finest piece of literature in Arabic....not one of the finest (if not THE finest) literature ever produced by mankind?

Is there no evidence or any scholarly insight that would confirm that the Quran is among the finest pieces of literature ever written? I mean, the whole 2000 pages is written in rhyming poetry and in a type of logical/reasoning that is totally unique, even from the old and new testaments.

Even Homer's Odyssey is not written in rhyme but the Quran is.

Maybe we need more mentioning of the literary significance of this book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.153.120 (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Homer's Odyssey is written in rhyme, as were almost all ancient works of literature in semi-literate societies. As for the Koran being "among the finest pieces of literature ever written", if you think jumping from one subject to another 3 or 4 times in a single paragraph with no warning whatsoever, constantly swapping from first to second person so you have no idea who's talking, and assembling an entire book simply on the basis of length of chapter without regard to content, chronology or logic, to be "among the finest pieces of literature ever written" then you are, of course, welcome to your opinion. ðarkuncoll 15:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It's your problem if you don't know how to read it. Keep your personal attack out of here. Whoever has reliable sources is welcomed to add, who hasn't should step back. AdvertAdam ^talk 04:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not much of a universal book for the whole of mankind, then, if one has to learn a special way of reading it before being able to understand it. ðarkuncoll 08:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

AdvertAdam, there was no "personal attack" there, so please do not accuse people of something they have not done. As for the suggested edit, I think a lot of Arabic scholars do indeed opine that the Quran has literary and poetic value, so if there are reliable sources to support that there should be no problem adding it (that is that "Arabic scholars say X...) - but I doubt there'll be much in the way of reliable sources supporting a claim that it is the best literature ever produced. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, ðarkun and Boing! said Zebedee. I remember that I had a list of quotes about this topic, from famous writers, which I will share them here sometime this week. I'm almost done with my finals this semester. AdvertAdam ^talk 05:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't we have just dismissed this with WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTSOAPBOX? Ian.thomson (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Post-vote discussion

• Strongly Oppose: Qur'an is the standard spelling used by Muslims. Why would anyone use a different spelling? Abdullajh (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Because they're not Muslims. There was a clue to the answer in your statement. ðarkuncoll 15:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Which is exactly the problem; analogous to a gang of anti-semites redefining terms from Judaism. There are many concerns with how this poll was conducted. It was not well publicized and insufficient time was given for the Muslim editors who maintain this page to provide feedback. I request a repeat poll. In the absence of this we should take this for arbitration. Abdullajh (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

If you think "non Muslim" is an analogous term to "anti-semite", then the problem is with you - equating the two is an obnoxious insult. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

By his logic, only Nazis should be allowed to edit the article on Mein Kampf, etc. ðarkuncoll 12:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

People, who in their ignorance, misspell a term that refers to the central text of Muslims should not be copied by Wikipedia. It is clear that the standard spelling employed by Muslims, "Qur'an", has been growing in popular usage for several years, as the respectful way to refer to this text, and this spelling continues to grow in popularity due to the respectful nature of most people, with "Koran", "Quran", and other misspellings being faded out. It is important that respectful, standard, usage be employed. Abdullajh (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Next, perhaps, we'll have to use Arabic script, for to do otherwise would be "disrespectful". ðarkuncoll 08:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Your comparison of the Qur'an with Mein Kampf is hateful, and your POV is uninformed and uninteresting. In general, the approach of this group for renaming the page, with clear disregard for standard usage, is highly problematic. For the new poll, I request that editors with hateful comments, such as comparing the Qur'an with Mein Kampf, be excluded from the vote. While all editors should have the freedom to edit, hateful POVs have no place here. It is a sad circumstance that the Muslim editors currently seem to be in the minority, and the current editors in the majority clearly have little knowledge of the topic as evidenced by this name change. Abdullajh (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The Google popularity figures mentioned above are misleading as URLs cannot have apostrophes. Many pages that use only the spelling Qur'an are included in the search for Quran because of their URLs. An example from the first page of hits is: Quran.com and there are many more: eg. from the second page of hits wsu.edu. Abdullajh (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Standard usage is very clearly in favor of "Qur'an" over "Quran" especially in the past 20 years with wide margins: Usage between 1900 and present. Abdullajh (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

A Google search for "quran -qur'an" yields about 50,600,000 hits, however most of these hits are from media sources that have chosen to use "Quran". This can hardly be called authoritative. A Google search for "qur'an" yields 23,800,000 hits; these are from a wide variety of authoritative sources, including nearly all of the translations of the Qur'an as well as academic sources. The raw number of Google hits is hardly an accurate measure, as decisions by a few media sources yield numerous media articles that artificially boost the hits. Abdullajh (talk) 04:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The AP Stylebook is the standard for American journalism and they give this word as Quran. So "Quran" is an established usage, not a misspelling of "Qur'an". "Qur'an" is certainly an established usage as well, but it is attached to a POV. In every category of usage, Koran + Quran gets more hits than "Qur'an". This means that most English-language writers on this subject prefer to use a word that is not aligned with this POV. The reality is that native-speaking non-Muslims and going to leave out the apostrophe and that's just the way the English language works. Authoritative use would be "Koran," since that is what the dictionaries and other reference books still say, although that seems to be a bit out-of-step with real-world usage at this point. Kauffner (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This is simply your POV. In fact all modern authoritative sources use Qur'an. Indeed, "leaving out the apostrophe" as an explicit attempt to slight the Muslim point-of-view, when the Qur'an is a Muslim text, is quite offensive. Yahoo search gives 3,570,000 hits for "Qur'an" whereas it gives only 3,190,000 hits for "Quran" even though this search includes all the pages with "quran" in the URL as noted above. Yahoo seems to combine pages from the same website which Google does not do, so Google leads to an inflation of pages from a few media sources that can hardly be called authoritative. Since it is clear that Qur'an is the accepted usage, increasingly so in modern times, and as it is clear that your intentions to change the title was to slight the Muslim point-of-view, it would be highly beneficial to return to the long-standing title, Qur'an, of the article. It is clear that the Muslim community has decided how this word should be transliterated in English and many actually find the spelling "Koran" to be offensive. Abdullajh (talk) 04:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

maybe it should be mentioned that it was burned once

specially because it caused the murder of a norwegian officer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.86.142 (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Influence of Christian apocrypha.

The statement"The Diatessaron, as a gospel harmony, especially may have led to the misconception in the Qur'an that the Christian Gospel is one text" unfortuately shows the ignorance of the author of the article. What the Qur'an calls Gospel (or Injil) is certainly not what is understood in christian circles as "Gospel". In the Qur'an the Gospel refers to a single specific revelation given directly to Jesus son of Mary regarded by the Qur'an as a Messenger of God. In Christian circles, "Gospel" refers to the life and works of Jesus and thus may have several sources or texts. Thus contrary to the author's remark that the Qur'an has a "misconception" regarding the singular text of the Gospel, the word "Gospel" in the Qur'an is indeed a single text revealed to Christ in a similar manner as the Qur'an itself was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. The Gospel in the Qur'an has no bearing to the present day cannonical gospels nor the apocryphal gospels even if some similarities do exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basemkhalil (talk • contribs) 00:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Basemkhalil. User Ian.thomson even has added the word "Potential" with the title, to impose this wrong perception more strongly. I think title of this section must be changed. A suitable title may be "Christians' allegations of apocrypha". Zubair71 (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I know this might not be the right place; however, I wanted to get your opinion, as you guys already got into a similar subject before. On the Judaism page, it says that "Judaism text, history and values influenced further Abrahamic religions". I objected on the point that influenced has a lot of meanings (in it's talk-page). Judaism history did influence Islam, but their text hasn't (in all dictionary meanings--like copied). I opened a discussion objecting on the citation that says Muhammad copied his stories from the Jewish Bible (the author's tone is definitely not a historian, as he speaks like if he lived with Muhammad), because all other sources either say he didn't or he probably did. The discussion kept going in circles for 20 days, then it was ignored. What do you suggest? Thanks... AdvertAdam ^talk 08:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Rv: why

I've had to revert Abdullajh's changes to the talk page [4]. Altering things in the way he did is not acceptable. Please don't do that. Regrettably this has lost some subsequent "voting"; this is the price of Abdullajh trying to push things along badly. I don't think having a new poll is acceptable, but if you really insist on doing it, please do it properly William M. Connolley (talk) 07:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

why not criticism section?

Criticism of the Qur'an

this article violates npov —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.174.128 (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what is said below. If we add a criticism section for this, why not add it for all of the other religions? I am a Christian, but I know that it is wrong to judge one another by their religion. Criticism is not necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duelingdj (talk • contribs)

Because it offends Muslims and its wrong .. the critisizm has its own page .. Athiests dispise the bible but the bible has its own page and athiesm has its own page .. SAME GOES WITH ISLAM AND ITS NAY SAYERS . THIS IS A RESPECTABLE PAGE TALKING ABOUT GOD AND MUSLIMS WONT ACCEPT TO ADD THE RAMBLINGS OF SOME RANDOM SO CALLED PHIOLOSOPHERS IN THIS PAGE ALONGSIDE THE WORD OF GOD .. ITS OFFENSIVE AND SOMETHING VERY FRAGILE ! Highdeeboy (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I am offended by people who think pressing caps lock before typing makes their opinions more valid and by people who don't even have the common courtesy to run their ramblings through a spell-checker. Wikipedia is not censored. I am an atheist but I don't 'dispise' the bible, nor do I despise the Koran, however I do loathe people who try force their beliefs upon others. Doktordoris (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Qur'aan nowhere says that it is the literal word of God. It is rather a Message of guidance (Verse 2.2) from God (Verse 4.82) conveyed through His Angel Messenger to Prophet Muhammad -- Guide us to the Right Path, Allah!Sofqur (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Um . . . what's the difference, exactly? If I couldn't write, and someone took dictation, converting my enunciations into text, and then e-mailed them to a friend for me, they're still my words. TheDragoon (talk) 04:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Taking offense to your personal convictions and/or beliefs being challenged NEVER justifies censorship, not even within the context of a single article. I still agree that it would be best to have a separate article devoted to criticism though, but for entirely different reasons, and not because people might be offended. 81.204.102.163 (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I still think a criticism section should exist here. Whenever main articles spawn dedicated sub-articles dealing with one specific aspect of its topic there exists a short summary section on the sub-topic within the main article, with a section hatline referring to the spawned article for more in-depth discussion. __meco (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a general wikipedia preference to not have Criticism sections. Any criticisms of the Quran should be in the relevant section. What sort of criticisms do you feel are missing from the article. Ashmoo (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"Because it offends Muslims" So? Lots of content on this site does. Lots of content on this site offends lots of people. We are not supposed to censor it because of that. The site is not made for children. I want to see either a criticism section or page. Nothing is above criticism. As someone said below "The purpose of the pages on Wikipedia is not to appease the subjects, its simply to present the facts." Techni (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

All religons have their problems. If we put a criticism for articles for other religons, like Christianity or Hiduism as Wikipedia is supposed to be fair. Also, all religons need to be respected. 76.99.170.19 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC).

Bible has a criticism section. Why not quran? There's a difference between being respectful and censorship... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.181.209 (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyone has the right to be offended. They do not have a right to censor Wikipedia. I do not understand why there is no criticism section when the Bible page has one. 24.69.71.254 (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

From the Bible article: "Biblical criticism refers to the investigation of the Bible as a text, and addresses questions such as authorship, dates of composition, and authorial intention. It is not the same as criticism of the Bible, which is an assertion against the Bible being a source of information or ethical guidance."

The article actually does address the Qur'an as a text, does discuss authorship, dates of composition, and authorial intention. The article does not engage in Islam-bashing just as the Bible article does not engage in Judaism-bashing or Christianity-bashing.

In other words: this article already contains Qur'anic criticism. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That may be, but the inconsistency I and others have pointed out remains. I can see now there are separate pages for criticism of the Qur'an/Bible/Talmud. However they are not linked to their respective main pages in the same way, and a superficial reading (like mine) could easily lead to misunderstandings. A little re-organising could save a lot of explanations 24.69.71.254 (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It is manifestly obvious that the Koran article at MINIMUM deserves a link to the article about its criticism, at least in the "See Also" section. Additionally, a short section outlining THAT there are such criticisms, with a succinct list of them and a link to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Qur%27an article would be a good thing for fairness. There is no reason any particular document should have criticism not mentioned when it exists. LPilarski (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Done (in "See also"). It is worth noting that "Criticisms of *" articles are usually low quality and do not give equal space for refutations, which makes them POVish. See also Wikipedia:Criticism. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 13:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

New Poll in Progress Preparation

We are arranging a new poll to move the page back to the long-standing spelling "Qur'an". The only argument that has been advanced for the spelling "Quran" is the number of Google hits which were found to be the result of several factors: 1) the inability to place apostrophes in URLs leading to hits for these, 2) the use of a few media sources of the non-standard spelling, and 3) a large number of pages with anti-Muslim hate speech that intentionally misspell "Qur'an" as "Koran" or "Quran" presumably as a slight to Muslims as part of their hate speech. The new poll will be prepared shortly and I hope for consensus to return to the authoritative and long-standing spelling. Abdullajh (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Abdullah, I totally agree with you. If most Muslim scholars believe it should be spelled Qu'ran in English, I believe that should be enough. (By the way, if there is any source showing this is so it would be good to have it to hand to answer any doubters). After all, the ancient capital of China used to be spelled Xian (and, previously Changan or Chang'an) but this has been changed in the Wikipedia article to Xi'an because this how the Chinese government has decided they would like to see the name romanised. A similar process has happened when Peking became Beijing, Madras became Chennai, Bombay became Mumbai, Calcutta became Kolkatta, etc., etc. And these are cases which do not involve religious sensibilities, so no one is hurt if someone still uses the old name. Likewise, if some religious group wishes to refer to what some people call 'God' as 'Jehovah,' 'Tengri,' or whatever else I can't see what the problem would be to use those terms in appropriate articles. WP should not be a place where people's religious views are slighted. One can always add appropriate redirection pages for anyone looking for the alternative romanisations. Good luck with getting the article moved. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, John. Your comments are exactly right; I am not sure how authoritative this page is for the spelling description, but it is an accurate description. I will look also for additional authoritative sources such as journal articles that describe the issue. As with the other examples you have described, the language has evolved, and the word Qur'an is the accepted modern spelling that can be found used for the vast majority of modern authoritative texts about the Qur'an. Abdullajh (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That page says that the issue of Quran versus Qur'an versus Qur'ān is one of transliteration of Arabic. If we are to follow the conventions of that website's scholars, who use a particular system of translation that Wikipedia does not ordinarily use, then we would use Qu'rān, not Qur'an. But we use Quran for the same reason that we use "Gaddafi" over "al-Qaḏḏāfī": because we seek to reflect common English usage, rather than to redefine it. John Hill's comparison to Beijing is not correct, because Beijing is what English languages sources commonly use, and it is an English word; not a transcription of the Chinese, which would be Běijīng or bak¹ging¹ or poh^入cin^平. So far, assertions are being thrown around that spelling the book as Quran (or, God-forbid-and-arrest-me-for-inciting-racial-hatred, Koran) is somehow offensive to Muslims. No sources have been provided to substantiate this claim, and even if there were, "I am offended by it" is not a valid argument in a move discussion. Quigley (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I grant you your point on "Beijing" - but, what about Xi'an? John Hill (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You expect Arabic to be transliterated the same way as Chinese? Wikiproject China has adopted a systemic transliteration system. For the specific reasons an apostrophe is used is Xi'an, see WP:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Apostrophes and Talk:Xi'an#Apostrophe. "Xian" is only slightly more common than "Xi'an", according to this ngram, even though "Xian" has various unrelated uses while "Xi'an" is pretty much just the city. Kauffner (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Addressed on the Quran and science page. Quigley (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of reliable sources consider "Qur'an" to be the usual English spelling. For example, [5], [6]. Here is a quote: "The usual English spelling of the Muslim scripture is Qur'an". Other forms are either considered archaic or found only in journalism (i.e., low-quality and non-academic sources). Note also that Wikipedia is not a democracy. An RFC should not be used to ignore the contents and styles of reliable sources. I'd say that you need to cite a couple of RS that share your objections to "Qur'an" to justify this rename. I'd be interested in seeing how an RS would justify how "Quran" is preferred over "Qur'an" for a high-quality sources (like an encyclopedia). That said, the Gaddafi analogy isn't relevant, as the equivalent of "al-Qaḏḏāfī" is not "Qur'an" but "al-qurʾān", which is not under consideration. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 08:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point here. I've been seeing a lot of pressure to change "Qur'an" to "Quran" or "Koran". "Qur'an" is the closest acceptable pronunciation to the original (Qur’ān). The clearest way here, in addition to your sources, is the most known translation of the Qur'an itself by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, using "Qur'an". Again, whoever doesn't know the original word will pronounce "Quran" and "Koran" wrong, like the accent of African, Afghanis, and Pakistanis. Therefore, a native English speaker needs "Qur'an", like "Qur-an", to give the world it's original voicing. Hope it helps the opposers AdvertAdam ^talk 09:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Please be aware there's a requested move at Talk:Qur'an and science#Requested move. My only real interest is consistency, so whichever way it goes, both (and other articles) should use the same spelling -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason that all pages on Wikipedia must use "Quran" because of your vote. As "Qur'an" is the more authoritative spelling, editors are free to use this spelling, certainly for other pages. When multiple spellings of a single term are used, they can be used freely, as Wikipedia is not the place to shape the language or to take sides in linguistic arguments. Abdullajh (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a poll to return the article to the authoritative and long-standing spelling "Qur'an". Please record your opinions below.

• Strongly Support The only interesting argument that was given for changing to "Quran" was number of Google hits. These were found to be due to a number of factors: 1) inability to put apostrophes in URLs, 2) a few media sources that choose to use "Quran", and 3) a number of blogs many with antiMuslim hate speech. The arguments for "Qur'an" are numerous and are given above in the lengthy discussion: they include 1) the vast majority of authoritative translations of the Qur'an use "Qur'an", 2) studies on the Qur'an use "Qur'an", and 3) number of published books using "Qur'an" are much greater in modern times than those using "Quran" [7], which is a better measure of authoritativeness. Abdullajh (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You can't keep polling people until you get the answer you like. Your arguments are exhausted, and have been already addressed—if not to your satisfaction, then at least to everyone else's. This behavior not only contravenes good custom to accept the result when the community weighs in, even when you disagree, but is also a personal attack on a lot of users, because one apostrophe is absolutely not "anti-Muslim hate speech". Consider stopping and reflecting before sanctions are applied onto you. Quigley (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is invalid. The hasty poll you conducted earlier was closed before many editors voted, and the only argument for the change to "Quran" (raw number of Google hits) has been addressed. Other editors have voiced the same opinion recently as you can see above. Please enter your vote. Best wishes, Abdullajh (talk)

• oppose reopening poll, per Quigley William M. Connolley (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Language do not stand still and spelling of words change while it evolves. Qur'an/ Quran/ Koran/ Kuran is being spelled with wide variety of spelling. Not yet a convention been standardized. In relation to Islam related words, it has been noticed that, contemporary approach is to write them using English replacements of Romanization of the word. e.g. Hadith. Qur'an in its actual pronunciation has a glottal stop in between r&a. People is moving on to pronouncing Islamic words more appropriately than before. We can see that, Koran or Coran are not used in modern days, while Koran was common in old days... this shift is due to concern about spelling and pronunciation. So, this might be better to have main Wikipedia article in Qur'an instead of Quran, coz Qur'an is preferred by authoritative sources. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 05:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support reopening the pole and then add a restriction to any further change requests, due to the origin: Qur'ān is an Arabic name, which should be written to the closest pronunciation in English alphabets. The faulty Quran and Koran translation is based on African and West-Asian accents. Qur'an is the closest spelling for any English Native to read correctly, without hearing it from someone else first. You can at least try this text to speech website to hear the difference yourself (using the voice of "Mike" for US English OR the voice of "Lucy" for UK English). Again, confirming Wiqi55's comment that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and I also don't think that a journalist spelling is what Wikipedia should be based on. AdvertAdam ^talk 06:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: this vote was canvassed [8] William M. Connolley (talk) 07:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I was already screening to see the progress of this discussion. There has been pressure from different editors to change this to "Quran" and "Koran". I'd like to see this done for good, then get restricted from future requests. AdvertAdam ^talk 08:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Just co-incidence then? You're contacted at 04:09 and you vote at 06:39? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support As far as I can ascertain, the official English spelling is Koran. The newer spellings (in English)appear to be an attempt to force people to artifically "respect" the Koran and Islam in general. Some spell it with a ‘K’ others with a ‘Q’ and — perhaps most offensive to Muslim sensibilities — some insert a meaningless apostrophe in the middle of the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmetfahy (talk • contribs) 09:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If you ever heard the word in Arabic, where it's an Arabic name, you wouldn't say meaningless apostrophe. AdvertAdam ^talk 03:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Support the reversal back to Qur'an which will, apparently (see discussions above), make it easier for English speakers to approximate the Arabic pronunciation. If this is how Muslims prefer it written in English - why not? Sounds emminently sensible to me! It is also easy to type on a standard English keyboard - no need to search for special accents or accented letters in WP's box at the bottom of this page - think of Xi'an in China. We are not being asked to type (the technically more correct) Qur'ān - so, what's the problem? Come on everyone - let's resolve this issue now and be done with it. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Note - JH didn't actually make this comment in this section. It has been "restored" from another section William M. Connolley (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: JH didn't make this comment in this section and made in another section (Poll to return page to authoritative and long-standing spelling Qur'an), which was made with contents from this section. That section was deleted totally with JH's comments as well. In response to Talk:Quran#Why_were_my_remarks_deleted.3F section, it was retrieved to this section. Later Talk:Quran#Poll_to_return_page_to_authoritative_and_long-standing_spelling_Qur.27an was restored again. JH's comments are victim of some alleged poll-rigging and edit war. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 05:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• This is my first ever comment on this matter. I'll support the spelling Qur'an in any polls, simply because it is a more correct and less ignorant spelling than Quran or Koran (the spelling Koran makes us look like a shrine to antiquated ignorance, we may as well bring back the spelling "Musselmans" as well in that case...) The syllables ra and r'a are completely different sounding syllables, and the only purpose of the apostrophe is to properly distinguish these two syllables in pronunciation. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess you can. Note though that the current status of "votes" in this section is rather unclear - nominally, this is a poll to re-open the poll. No-one has troubled to put this on any kind of regular footing William M. Connolley (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems like, this is already a poll, not a poll to reopen poll. The previous poll was closed too soon (10 days only), previous poll was based on democracy and search results while authoritative POV's should be taken in account. Above all, according to my POV, no consensus was made. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 05:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Rename to "Qurʾan", in accordance with the transliteration system of the International Journal of Middle East Studies published by Cambridge University. In their "Word List", they use "Qurʾan" with a hamza.

Removing the diacritical marks can be misleading, compare ʻAṣmāʼ bint Marwān's transliteration with that of Asmā' bint Abu Bakr when the marks are not present. Also as far as I know, macrons and dots are usually left out of transliteration of the names of only modern persons (or living people who have not used marks in their preferred English spelling). Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing

Note canvassing [9], [10] by User:Abdullajh.

Why were my remarks deleted?

Whatever argument is happening between other users, I strongly object to my vote and my comments being arbitrarily deleted like this. What to you mean when you say, "this is the price of Abdullajh trying to push things along badly"? Some of those were MY comments - not his. I demand my comments be reinserted on this page. This is really going too far. John Hill (talk) 07:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If you voted after A re-arranged votes between sections for his own convenience, then the answer is A re-arranged votes between sections for his own convenience. A managed to leave the page in a completely invalid state; I could see no way to resolve this other than reversion. If you want another poll (which I think is bad faith so soon after the previous one) then please start one in an orderly manner, rather than taking votes from a different section and inserting them into a poll William M. Connolley (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, there seems to be some misunderstanding here. Please note I have acted at all times in good faith and have had no part in rearranging votes, or anything of the kind. I am not responsible for others' actions on the WP. I think earlier comments on this page showed that the results of the first poll were based on Google searches (which inluded urls, etc), and so was invalid. It would seem right to run another poll. I will be travelling for a couple of months as of this Saturday and may have very limited internet access. If there is a second poll (and I, personally, would support one), I think my comments should be included amongst the replies. Maybe we need some Administrator to give advice on whether a second poll should be taken - or take the matter for mediation? I just hope earlier votes that you unilaterally removed - including my own - are taken into account and not forgotten. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt you have acted in good faith. So have I. But moving peoples votes between sections is not acceptable. Suggesting that the earlier poll was invalid, however, is verging very close to bad faith: you didn't like the result, so you're criticising the alleged methods. Please don't do that. You don't know exactly why people voted as they did, and even if you did, it would make no difference to the validity of the result William M. Connolley (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I also confirm the importance of the new poll, especially that the old one ignored the most important topic:Wikipedia's Islamic Manual of Style, which only states "Qur'an". Some editors claimed that the old poll was closed too soon, and they didn't have a chance to vote. I know the new poll was opened with a mess, and hope that it would be organized again properly, as you mentioned. AdvertAdam ^talk 11:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No, you don't confirm its importance, you assert its importance William M. Connolley (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Some editors claimed that the old poll was closed too soon, and they didn't have a chance to vote: the only person to assert that it was closed early is Abdullajh, who did vote, but was active while the poll was in progress. There is no reason to re-open it simply because he failed to vote William M. Connolley (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we need some Administrator to give advice on whether a second poll should be taken - I nearly put this on WP:ANI when Abdullajh moved stuff. So yes, if you want to post to ANI, or find an uninvolved admin to comment, please do William M. Connolley (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Islamic Manual of Style: which says "Holy Qur'an (or Holy Koran, Holy Quran, etc.) — recommended action is to NPOV to "Qur'an". Reason: Calling a book "Holy" is making a value judgement that is inappropriate to Wikipedia." I think you've misinterpreted that. It says (rephrased) "Holy X, NPOV to X". It doesn't say, "Koran -> Qur'an" or "Quran -> Qur'an". Also, note that is in the section "Islamic honorifics". Looking in the section "Grammatical standardization" I find it to be ambiguous, and to rely on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic) which is not a standard, only a proposed one William M. Connolley (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The incident of John Hill is really ridiculous, he asserted his opinion and then been diminished in name of restoration. First of all, alteration in talk page is not permitted - which Abdullajh did and dropped some opposing comments. I noticed the change and asked someone to take correct steps. Later William M. Connolley reverted back to pre-reorganization version. In that case he simply restored to an earlier version and contributions from John Hill are totally been ignored :@
As John Hill mentioned, he will not be able to monitor, I'll support and act on the course, that his contribs that has been lost shall be in just places.
In response to two mistakes, another incorrect thing I'm going to do, so as to minimize the affects of mistakes. I'm retrieving the lost comments from John Hill. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 16:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Abdullajh completely messed this up. You've now added to the mess, by "restoring" JH's comment to a section he never made the comment in. Argh! William M. Connolley (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Abdullajh messed a lot. You added more mess by completely removing a section, which included original comments. If you might have to revert! (talk page shall not be reverted nor be mutilated) you could have kept John Hill's comments in original place, with some note. I already noted, I made a wrongful doing in response to two misdeeds to minimize entropy dispersal.

But now I see that, I nafSadh, William M. Connolley and majorly Abdullajh are in verge of Edit war. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 05:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)