Talk:Quran/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between Aug.2002 and Apr.2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Qur'an/Archive03; see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Selected Quotes from the Qur'an

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Quran

I was looking to compile a list of selected quotes from the Qur'an dealing with various topics. Any edits... thoughts... suggestions...?

There are certainly many quotes from Qur'an on the topics mentioned in wikiquote.org, as well as other topics. Do you want me to add these quotes (my selections of these) or are you looking for sources? Kazeroon

Standardisation of the copies of the Qur'an

I think it is fair to state that the standardisation of the Qur'an was met with approval across the Muslim World and there was no violence that ensued as should be expected when somebody starts claiming their copy of a religious text is correct. Isnt' that an amazing thing and worth wondernig about? If it is a fact, it should be pointed out to the reader. This is in sharp contrast to other standardisation attempts with other texts. The canonisation of the gospels was followed with a considerable blood letting of fellow Christians, i am told... can this be confirmed? Whether that is correct or not, in the Muslim world you can see the turmoil that Muslims with principles had with other issues... but nobody spoke on this count. Why?

The assasination of the Caliph Uthman of that time only occured, if my history lessons serve me correctly because one party wished for another man to do the job. But nobody ever disputed the copies of the Qur'an except along these party political lines. Those that question as the articles suggests, only have dubious claims to support it.

What do you think?

Mathematical Miracles

The number 19 miracle has been written off by almost ALL Muslims. IT IS A HOAX. However, there is another more serious and simple contender that ANYONE CAN CHECK. 1) Add the Chapter number of each Surah and record the total (6555) 2) Add the verses in the Qur'an (6236) 3) Now have the Surah Number added to its respective verses (so 1+7 in first row 2+286 in 2nd, etc.). Odd answers keep in one column, and Even in others. 4) The odd answers' total will be 6555 and the even will be 6236.

Now i ask anybody to find a single person that has ever existed who can deliberately ensure that their book's words and chapter numbers combine to make the same effect. If they do, can it have the same literary effect as the Qur'an, which is i would ask you to think rationally, a miracle in itself? Who designed the Qur'an? Does this interesting fact merit mentioning?

I only say this for a person who wishes to give the benefit of the doubt and will give a fair hearing to anyone.

--62.252.192.5 19:24, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This claim is correct - although, of course, the odd and even answers had to add up to 6555+6236 in any case. - Mustafaa 13:42, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I notice that a non-Muslim evangelist has clearly been doing some editing. "Analogous to Creation Science", my foot! As I explain, the analogy runs exactly opposite, whether right or wrong.

I notice that 192.70.252.32 removed the following text:

BEGIN MISSING TEXT

Contemporary Scholarship and the Qur'an

This paragraph was written by someone who has a fleeting knowledge of the history of Qur'an. The information it provides is next to useless.

That's YOUR opinion, Mr. or Ms. Anonymous, but we are given no reason to believe that it has any foundation other than prejudice. Zora 20:10, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Islamic scholars, on the other hand, have long shown that this is not quite the case. Just as higher biblical criticism revolutionzed Judaism and Christianity by calling into question long held assumptions about the origins of the Bible, similar studies have done the same for the Qur'an. Scholars of Islamic religious literature now agree that much of the Qur'an is a modified composite based on the Tanakh [Hebrew Bible] and the New Testament of the Christian Bible. It is recognized that many of the pious claims about its composition and content are not historically supportable.

Utter nonsense. Please stop claiming scholarly approach and asking for historical evidence without using references yourself. "Scholars of Islamic religious literature now agree .. ??" Please!

Islamic history records that Uthman collected all variants of the Qur'an and destroyed those that he did not approve of

Correct

There is no evidence that Uthman's choices are necessarily correct.

Categorically incorrect. All the sources you would site for the first claim would also testify that the Uthmanic compilation was copied from the version compiled during the time of Abu Bakr, less than two years of the Prophet's death. Every single written piece was testified to have been written at the presence of the Prophet. Not a single companion objected to Uthman's compilations.

Hard textual evidence reveals that the text of the Qur'an continued to develop after this time.

Categorically incorrect. What "hard textual evidences" that you are so miserably failing to point out? All manuscripts of the Qur'an dating back to mere decades after Hijra match the current copies *written* *letter* *for* *written* *letter*. The Qur'anic copies of today are still written in what's known as Uthmanic script.

The Hadith claims that the Qur'an is defective; the Hadith is the authoritative Muslim understanding of the Qur'an and Islamic law. (It is roughly equivalent to Judaism's oral law in the Mishna and Talmuds.) The Hadiths say that some of the Qur'an was lost, forgotten, or abrogated. It explicitly refers to chapters [suras] in the Qur'an that are no longer extant.

Such a twist of facts and such lack of knowledge! That some of the Qur'an was abrogated or forgotten is explicitly stated in the Qur'an itself (I don't recollect it being mentioned in Hadith, however). What counts for Qur'an is what the Prophet reviewed with Archangel Gabriel in the Ramadan of his last year, which is what he approved as written and later compiled after his death.

While never discussed in public among religious Muslims, Islamic scholars note that there are a number of variants in modern day versions of the Qur'an.

Read The Fine Article. There are different *recitations* not versions. All muslims accept the ten cannonical recitations, because of their tawatur isnad as explained in the article. As a matter of fact believing in tawatur is essential to belief and denying it automatically nullifies belief.

Next time I suggest you would make a little effort of research before spreading your nonsense.--Abdousi 07:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

END MISSING TEXT

and replaced it with claims that the Qur'an has never been changed. It's customary to explain large changes to the text with a note in the "summary" field on the edit form, or preferably a detailed explanation of one's reasoning in the talk page, particularly on subjects that may be controversial. --Brion VIBBER 13:34 Aug 7, 2002 (PDT)

I just noticed this and was about to restore it. I am putting this text back in the main article until some reasonable justification is given for its removal. Danny PS. Maverick beat me to it. :-) Danny

To Anon; When you hit save on the bottom of a page you are promising that the material you saved is not covered by others copyrights. I checked your additions and nearly every sentence was found on one or another website. Example: [1]. The additions also did not conform to our policy of NPOV and deleting text without any explanation is not looked on lightly around here. With that said, your help is much needed and requested to help with these entries; just make sure you follow our policies and guidelines please. --mav

I'm no expert on Islam, but I remember reading that when an edition Qur'an (or Koran or whatever) is published, it is never simply called "the Qur'an." It is always titled "The Holy Qur'an" or "The Glorious Qur'an" or "The Noble Qur'an" or some other defining adjective. If this is a fact, then it deserves to be mentioned in the entry. Could someone verify this? Modemac

It is common, but is not absolutely required. Compare with the Christian 'His Holiness the Pope'. Polite, but not appropriate for a heading in an encyclopedia. Anjouli 12:38, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Err.. It is required.. It is required to differentiate the Qur'an from other Recitations for Muslims. 195.7.55.146

It is not required. And there are no other Recitations with which it might be confused.Prater 17:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for adding "The Koran Interpreted". I recall hearing that scholars consider the Koran untranslatable, because the map of the world provided by Arabic is too dissimilar to the map of the world provided by other languages. Hence, the Koran cannot be properly understood in translation.

As a member of the Unification Church, whose living founder speaks mostly in Korean, I am familiar with issues deriving from translation problems. --Ed Poor

The first external link to the "Noble Qur'an" says that once it's translated, it's no longer the literal word of Allah, but is rather a translation of an interpretation. This is quite logical given the premise that the original text was actually dictated by God to Muhammad word for word. Wesley

I changed the wording to interpretive translation as I think that more correctly says what is desired. I also changed wording to make it more NPOV. I hope I didn't step on anybody's toes.

I would like to see an outline of the Koran that describes in some detain what it contains. Ezra Wax

The mathematical thing is an invention of a modern cult and doesn't reflect the truth

It's just a Bizarre coincidence? Come off it!! I've heard some of the most top ranking Clerics speak of mathematical 'miracles' in the Qur'an. So thats NPOV is it?195.7.55.146

I deleted Non-Muslims hold that Muhammad was merely taking older religious documents and stories and embellishing them.
--Sorry, but if you want to report an opinion you have to identify whose opinion it is. At least refer to a scholar who holds this opinion. "Non-Muslims" is too broad and lazy. It is also wrong, because the vast majority of non-Muslims have no clue and no opinion on this subject. -- zero 14:07, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Since the 1970s, many muslims have started to believe in a third mechnism preservation built into the Qur'an in the form of a mathematical structure. It seems the suras, the verses, the words, the number of certain letters, the number of words from the same root, the number and variety of divine names, and many other elements may all be intricately interwoven with comprehensive mathematical coding based around the geometrical value of the Arabic word "Wahad" (one).
-- I wonder whether this passage was added by someone who believes in this "mathematical structure" or by someone who just happened to read about it. I suspect the latter, because it is not a good report. Actually the supposed features of the word Wahad are but one of dozens of supposed features. The essence of the theory is that there are patterns involving the number 19 which cannot be explained by chance. This was proposed by an American Muslim Rashid Khalifa who wrote several books about it. I'd be surprised if it is believed by more than a tiny fraction of Muslims since Khalifa had to modify the text to get his patterns to work, including the removal of two whole verses. Khalifa also claimed that the patterns proved that he himself was the next great prophet after Abraham and Moses. I propose to replace this passage by a short rewritten paragraph at the end of the article, but will wait for a week or two to see if there are any objections. --zero 07:18, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It is a very minor view considered 'lunatic-fringe' by most Muslims. Probably it does not belong here. Perhaps a separate article? Anjouli 12:33, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It is quite true that 'Qur'ans' have been found that differ from the orthodox version. On the other hand, there are some very early Qur'ans that are identical. Unfortunatly neither exist in sufficient numbers to prove or refute the claim that the current version is identical with the first Qur'an. There may have been 'heretical' variations over the centuries.

By the way, Islam and Muslim should be capitalised. Anjouli 12:33, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Zeimusu writes:

I find this phrase hard to understand:

this practice simply destroyed variations that had been original to the text

Is it indicating that some believe there were variations in the 7th century texts (or even in the recitals of the Prophet) or does it refer to allegeded variations in later copies? I vote that this paragraph be rewritten to say

As with other ancient texts, no manuscript exists so we cannot know if the current accepted version is identical to that recited by the Prophet, however most Islamic scholars believe that the text has not changed substantially since it was first written down. The practice of destroying copies that deviate from the accepted version, while aimed at preserving the integrity of the text, makes a historical analysis of textural variations difficult or impossible."

(But I write this after a highly non-islamic glass of wine and I'm not really happy with the phrasing)

Zeimusu 15:22, 2004 May 6 (UTC)

Article not neutral

Added note indicating this.

Number of Verses in the Qur'an

Just how many verses are there? 6236 according to [2] and [3]; 6666 according to [4]; 6,616 according to [5]. Does anyone know an authoritative answer? - Mustafaa 18:19, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

From my research, 6236 verses (containing more than seventy-seven thousand words) is the most adequate figure. 6616 is mentioned in the introduction for the Roman Urdu Qur'an by Hughes, while a closer number of 6666 may have either come from a sect of Shi'a Islam or polemics attempting to discredit the Qur'an. However, it would be more proper to count by words (or even letters?) instead of verses. Usedbook 23:53, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Errr, the only time I've ever seen that '6666' figure is when baptists are trying to suggest that the mark of the Beast is Islams holy book. It's simply a lie.

The Shiite sources are similar to those of Sunni sources in regards to the number of verses. Although there are some variations, they cluster around 6,200 to 6,240. The most commonly accepted number is 6,236 (as stated above), and it is the number quoted by the Kufi scribes (which in turn name Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib as their source or one of their sources). The reason for differences in the number verses is that Qur'an was revealed verbally to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and he in turn recited it to his followers. One of the rules of Qur'anic recital is Waqf, which requires or recommends the reciter to stop at the end of certain words within a verse. Since Waqf can take place in the middle of a verse, some scribes have considered certain instances of Waqf to indicate the end of a verse (thus resulting in two verses), while others decided that those stops were simply an instance of Waqf in the middle of a verse (resulting in one verse). For this reason there is a much tighter agreement on the total number of words in Qur'an: 77,436 to 77,439. My source for this information is a Farsi book titled History of Qur'an (Tarikh-e Qur'an) by Dr. Mahmood Ramiar, 1983, Tehran, Iran. The book seems to be well researched with extensive use of traditional (Sunny and Shiite) sources.

Qur'an graveyards

The article mentions "Qur'an graveyards" but I can't find a single reference on the Internet. Where can I read more? — Hippietrail 01:54, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There was a very widely discussed article in The Atlantic in 1999 about old Qur'ans found during the renovation of a mosque in Yemen. The article is old enough that it's in The Atlantic Archives, open only to paying subscribers, but someone has posted a copy of the article here: [6]. Zora 04:39, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Article not neutral at all

I am working on so many other pages that I don't really have the time or energy to fight on this one, BUT ... I must say that it reads like an apology for an extremely conservative and parochial position. Qur'an perfect and complete? -- even though it was compiled by humans? From variant traditions? Even though early Muslim commentators speak of lost verses, dropped verses? Even though verses contradict each other? Even though there are a number of words in the Koran whose meaning is unclear?

Even though I'm not a Muslim, it seems to me that it would be perfectly possible to believe that the Qur'an is an imperfect human creation and still be a good Muslim. Just so, many Christians believe that the Bible is human creation but remain Christians. To INSIST that all Muslims must reject any historical or textual criticism is certainly a popular position, I'll admit that ... but to insist on it in a Wikipedia article is to turn the article into a sectarian tract.

If there's one thing in Islam that appeals to me, it's Muhammed's denunciation of idolatry. Not as it's trivially enforced today, but as a protest against relying on man-made things and ignoring the God that's "as close as your jugular vein". Isn't the exaggerated reverence for a human-created book idolatry?

Zora 04:30, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This "extremely conservative and parochial position" is at the very root of Islam. To believe the Qur'an is a human creation would amount to claiming Muhammad was lying or mistaken when he claimed to have received a message from God; to believe that flaws have been introduced by humans would imply the need for further revelation, would seem to contradict several passages in the Qur'an itself, and would involve rather deep-rooted suspicion of the original followers (the sahaba), since we know for certain the Qur'anic text has not changed since Uthman's time. You may believe that Muslims should be more open-minded about these possibilities; however, you would be hard-pressed to find Muslims, no matter how "liberal", who would agree. Its interpretation, into which human error can enter quite naturally, is one thing; its authorship, quite another.

The Christianity analogy is flawed in one crucial respect, by the way; much of the Bible explicitly claims to have been written by humans (Luke or Paul, for instance), and when God is said to speak, he is explicitly quoted. In the Qur'an, God regularly speaks in the first person, addressing the Prophet. - Mustafaa 10:37, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That doesn't stop many fundamentalist christian sects from claiming the bible is the word of god and to be taken literally. To claim that every Muslim must hold such atavistic opinions in the face of textual criticism is itself a medieval position and does the community a disservice. I daresay there are deep spiritual traditions in Islam (as in Christianity) that know better than to haggle over ink and paper, and look for the wisdom beyond the words. It would be useful to present such islamic wisdom beside "quran-thumping" fanatism to allow "the West" to form an image of Islam that is not dominated by madmen. dab 10:38, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you can find credible Muslim scholars holding such views, you're welcome to add them; personally, I have never heard of even the most free-thinking Sufi suggesting that the Qur'an was not the Word of God, though they may well (as with the Ismailis) propose esoteric, symbolic interpretations supposed to trump the literal ones. But as to the idea that such a view is "atavistic" or held by "madmen" - regarding it as madness to suppose God might choose to communicate with mankind, and preserve His message, seems to me to say more about the West than about the Muslim world. - Mustafaa 01:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Qur'an Usage

I think it would be interesting to compare the usage of the Qur'an with other texts i.e. Christians have multiple Study Bibles. Would one find a counterpart of the Gideon's Association putting copies in hotel rooms in Moslem countries? Do most Moslem families own a personal copy, or do most Moslems go to a Mosque to read it?

Also, Sikh's hold the word of their Guru's in a sacred book which is kept on display and well cared for because the book itself is seen as sacred. Does anyone know if it's similar in Islam? For example, is defacing a copy of the Qur'an a harsh insult? Would a student of the Qur'an feel uncomfortable underlining, highlighting or writing in the margins in their copies?

Moreover, I would imagine that there are more copies of the Bible than people in the world, would it be comparable with the Qur'an, with every home containing multiple copies, every Mosque containing more than enough copies for parishioners, etc.? ----

Could be an interesting topic for expansion. Certainly one would never do anything like "underlining, highlighting or writing in the margins in their copies"; indeed, you aren't supposed to touch the book unless you've performed wudu first. - Mustafaa 10:24, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I went on vacation to Iran and yes, they do have Qur'ans in each hotel room(at least in the ones I checked). Most Muslims would have an Arabic-only Qur'an, with translations and such at the Mosque.

Defacing the Qur'an has no actual punishment; I suppose it is up to God to decide. Although it is quite disrespectful. And I think that the original Arabic should not be highlighted but the translations and such are allowed to be.

Yes.

Hafiz

Err, I've never heard of 'Hafiz' being tranlsated as memorizer. I mean, the phrase 'Allah Hafiz', which is very prevailant in Indian cultures as a 'goodbye' greeting (similar to Ma'salaam in Libya or Wa'Salaam in Saudi Arabia) means 'Allah (God) protect [you]'. No?

This is correct. They mean the same: Allah Hafiz is "Allah preserve you", and a memorizer is someone who has preserved the Qur'an in his head. - Mustafaa 10:22, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sacred

As far as I know of, Al-Qur'an is considered sacred only because it has Allah word in it. If the wording is wipe out, it is just a piece of paper. It is something like if you have a picture of your mother, you do not want to step on it. However, those who want to touch it must perform wudu to clean themselves spiritually; and non-muslim is forbidden to touch it (because they cannot perform wudu and thus forever not spiritually clean. (In order to perform wudu one have to be a muslim, get it..)

Writing on it is like writing on one's mother picture, can be done if it in for some good purpose, i.e. reminder, otherwise, it is the intent that is counted.

Al-Qur'an was written within the life time of companions of Muhammad. If any variation is introduced, I do not think any one of them worthy a grain of salt would keep quiet. They are all, willing to die for Allah. Whom am I to say what those companions already unanimiously agreed.Yosri 11:37, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good analogy. - Mustafaa 12:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Arabic name

shouldn't the arabic (alphabet) version of the name be "al-qur'an" (if not "al-qur'an al-karim") rather than simply "qur'an" (afaik, without the article the word simply means "lecture", and only the definite article makes it "The Lecture", similar to "a book" vs, "The Bible") dab 09:00, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, according to WP policy, the article should be at Quran rather than Qur'an: while the latter is more precise, it is not the more common variant in English. Similarly, we would have to have Sa`udi, Sa`udi `Arabia rather than Saudi, Saudi Arabia. dab 12:10, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Another question. I have noticed that in the arabic name the alif of the article carries a hamza on top. I have learned just one year of Arabic, but I think this should never happen (except in the Iraqi flag, were the alif in Allah carries a hamza, I don't know why). Anybody with more auctoritas to agree or disagree please? I don't dare to correct it because I'm not sure, thanks --ArinArin 14:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikisource

I uploaded the original text (in Unicode) to Wikisource:Al-Qur’ân al-Karîm. Maybe we can include an additional wikisource link to it. (it should be moved to the unicode-arabic title, though) dab 09:21, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your posting of the Qur'an is totally wrong. You've added the 'basmala' to the first ayah's and there are no vowels at all. Please remove it and wait for someone who is a Muslims with knowledge to do it for you. A. 15:19, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

as I say on the talk page there, I am aware there are "no vowels at all", and for this reason I will replace it with a transliterated version. It also says that it is not an "authoritative" version, and certainly not for devotional purposes. The basmalas are as I found them on sacred-texts.com. Probably a mechanical error of the conversion (hey, it's a wiki. you can fix it.) dab 17:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I put the transliterated version at Wikisource:Al-Qurʾān al-Karīm now. It's still not perfect (eg., the sura titles are not properly transliterated (vowel length unmarked)), but the basmalas are correctly placed now, and there are vowels too. I have waited too long for a convenient online-edition of the Qur'an. While there has been a plethora of very good bible editions for many years, there are still only very half-hearted gif-collections and "erroneous" unvocalized unicode editions. I am not sure why it's so difficult to put the text online. I imagine it's partly because the arabic script, while very aesthetic and all, is frightfully unpractical for computer use. I still don't have a browser that can display vocalized texts properly. I have taken the very unwieldy transliteration from sacred-texts and converted it to the scientific transliteration in Unicode. Also, putting it on Wikisource has the advantage that any remaining errors can easily be weeded out by knowledgeable muslims as they come across them. The ultimate aim must be to arrive at an reviewed, error-free etext of the Qur'an. dab 09:56, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There are loads of vocalized Arabic texts of the Qur'an online (eg http://www.holyquran.net/quran/index.html); what's wrong with those? - Mustafaa 10:11, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Maybe I am wrong, and I was just unable to find them. The example you give, however, I cannot display. (what format is it?). If you have a clean, unicode, vocalized etext, I would be thankful if you uploaded it to Wikisource! dab 10:40, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's windows-1256 format, I just found out. It would be very nice to have this converted to unicode and uploaded! (that still doesn't change the fact that I cannot display vocalized arabic properly on any of my browsers (I can see the vowel signs, but they break up the word and are displayed between the letters rather than over or under them). dab 10:43, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about how to convert Windows-1256 to Unicode, but I'll see if there's anything I can do. I notice, however, that there is one problem with the text I linked: since Win1256 doesn't support some of the special Qur'anic recitation signs, its orthography has been regularized a bit (مَالِكِ instead of, as it should be, مٰلِكِ). That should be correctable, though. As to why your system doesn't display vocalization right, I don't know, but upgrading might do the trick... - Mustafaa 11:22, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

of course, I'm not asking you to fix my system ;o) I'm confident I'll be able to display a properlly encoded unicode text, sooner or later. And I already can process it, for example to convert it to the beautiful Arabtex (LaTeX package) layout. Unicode is here to stay, and it will really be worth the effort to produce an "authoritative" Unicode version! dab 11:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The 'floating alif' (I don't know the correct terminology) example you give is also present in my transliterated version, where they are simply rendered as "a-macron". I think it's a mechanical orthographic convention, though (correct me), and it's "ma:lik" in pronunciation either way. dab 11:49, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is a purely orthographic difference; both are pronounced like a-macron, but they're written differently. However, they are not in free variation; which is used depends on the word. - Mustafaa 11:55, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If the difference is lexical, there is no easy way to fix it. The source for my transliterated text does not make the distinction (see [7] ). Obviously, the finished Unicode version should have correct orthography. If you have a digital dictionary, we might produce a correct version by comparing the Qur'an text with the dictionary entries. Otherwise, it will be manual work to insert the 'floating alifs'. There is also the issue of the 'dotless ya's, which appear as i-macron or a-macron instead of being transcrbed with a separate sign. I would say it's a rather pityful first attempt at a transliteration, and I will gladly replace it if someone has one that is more accurate. regards, dab 13:34, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

http://www.lib.umich.edu/area/Near.East/QuranKarim11192002Unicode.html has vocalized Unicode, but suffering from the same orthographic problem. I don't have a digital dictionary; the spellings with superscript-alif's are for the most part used only in the Qur'an and not in modern documents... - Mustafaa 14:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We could upload this version to Wikisource as a base for future improvements. I made a wordlist of the Qur'an, and it contains 17576 unique words. There are 5993 words that contain a-macron (this includes separate entries for morphological differences (case and state, e.g. allāha 592x, allāhi 1085x, allāhu 979x, allāhumma 5x etc.)) Somebody would have to go over this list and mark words that contain superscript alifs, and we could then use it to restore them to the text itself. This would take quite a few hours to do, however, even for someone who is well-versed in Qur'anic orthography. The re-insertion of dotless yas into the transliterated text can be done automatically using the arab-unicode text. We can also check both versions for errors by comparing the two texts (assuming that they do not go back to a common digital ancestor). Are there any other orthographical problems you can think of? dab 12:26, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi folks. I just noticed that you added the Arabic text to Wikisource. I think it is great. It might also be a good idea to add documentation there: the source of the text and its digital version, and any editorial decisions you yourselves have made about it regarding orthography, etc. (By the way, if there is more than one valid option in terms of how to present the Arabic text, there is no problem adding parallel versions to WS, and then the user can choose whichever one he wants.) If some of that documentation discussion is here it could be simply copied to WS.

The main reason I'm writing is the right-to-left issue. You'll notice that your Qur'anic text is currently formatted LTR. That appearance can be easily fixed, but the edit box will still be LTR. If all you are doing is copying and pasting a ready-made digital text, then it is probably not too much of a problem for you. But if in the future you want to edit details of the text within the edit box, or to create study aids for individual passages in the Koran (in Arabic), or links to translations of individual passages, the LTR and lack of arabic domain will be a big problem.

You may or may not be aware that there is currently a heated debate about language domains going on at Wikisource. There was even a vote going on, which I think has just ended already. But even though the voting seems to be over, you should still be aware of what's going on if you plan on adding arabic language texts to WS. Click on the Hebrew Wikisource hewikisource: to see that a RTL domain is indeed possible. Dovi 04:32, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Dovi, nice to see you again! I got your message about that vote, but by the time I was back on Wikipedia, it was a bit old... Yes, that LTR edit box is annoying; I'm surprised the software forces a direction (there's no intrinsic reason for an edit box to do so, is there?) - Mustafaa 10:11, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In [8], I found one transliteration that might mislead, between:

single quote represents dead hamza, e.g. yuʿminūna in 2:3, and
single quote represents ʿayn, e.g. ʿalā in 2:5

It seems this transliteration occur in every verses contain them.

I suggest, based on similar pronounciation with ʾulā, that the writing is yuʾminūna instead (ʾ for representing dead hamza/alif, ʿ for representing ʿayn). - DiN 01:42, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC+1)

Of couse, hamza should be ʾ. (what is a dead hamza?) Is the spelling consistent, or is this just an error in the text? dab 08:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Um, I assume this project is to be shared when finished? Would be nice to get it up at Project Gutenberg (probably as an HTML text with UTF-8 specified). Also, if you want to work on other texts, Distributed Proofreaders Europe is a Unicode-compliant proofreading site. They're doing their first project in Arabic script (in Urdu, really, the poems of Iqbal) and it would be nice if other projects followed. Zora 13:58, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

obviously it will be shared. I hope it will be a wikisource text, and I put the umichigan text on Wikisource:أَلْقُرآن أَلْكَرِيم for now. I cannot fix the superscript alif problem myself, though, and I am hoping for volunteers with good knowledge of arabic. I have done some DPing before I became a WP addict, but a found the PG requirement of scans of the printed title page, while understandable, a nuisance (we couldn't provide it for this text, for example) 130.60.142.62 14:30, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Suras

I'm trying to get a Wikipedia entry done on each sura; anyone want to participate? - Mustafaa 11:57, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

PBUH

Do we really need this (PBUH) business? It doesn't seem very neutral or encyclopaedic (the Muhammad article does without it. And we don't say "his Holiness" every time we mention a pope either, to accomodate the Catholics). dab 14:42, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Apologetic

This article needs complete revision, at least the first half. It reads like written by an apologist. OneGuy 16:33, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

-- Remove the paragraph about the Bible. That was totally irrelevant here. OneGuy 17:40, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

-- There is no dispute on the superiority of various dialects (ahruf) that the Qur'an was being recited, because the dialects use by Muhammad (PBUH) is the original one, and should be the one followed. The dispute is on localised reading at various location outside Mecca & Medina, because the people there have diferent dialects. Yosri 17:46, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The site I gave has a quotation from Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, Tafseer Soorah Al-Hujuraat, 1990, Tawheed Publications, Riyadh, page 28-29. The quote is below. Do you want to comment on it?

The Qur'an continued to be read according to the seven ahruf until midway through Caliph 'Uthman's rule when some confusion arose in the outlying provinces concerning the Qur'an's recitation. Some Arab tribes had began to boast about the superiority of their ahruf and a rivalry began to develop. At the same time, some new Muslims also began mixing the various forms of recitation out of ignorance. Caliph 'Uthman decided to make official copies of the Qur'an according to the dialect of the Quraysh and send them along with the Qur'anic reciters to the major centres of Islam. This decision was approved by Sahaabah and all unofficial copies of the Qur'an were destroyed. Following the distribution of the official copies, all the other ahruf were dropped and the Qur'an began to be read in only one harf. Thus, the Qur'an which is available through out the world today is written and recited only according to the harf of Quraysh OneGuy 18:29, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Samrkand Manuscript

Some conflicting questions about this Samrkund manuscript.

This is a complete Qur'an.

There are no vowel or diacritical marks here. We know for sure that Hajjaj bin Yousef introduced vowel marks in written Qur'ans. Hajjaj died in June 714. This would suggest (perhaps) that this manuscript was written before 714.

The problem is that the manuscript is in Kufic script. Kufic script was developed in Kufa, Iraq. Ali ibn Talib (who came after Uthman) made Kufa his capital. This then can't be Uthmanic manuscript for sure.

When exactly was Kufic script developed? I have seen Christian writers (like Jay Smith) claim that Kufic script was developed way latter during Abbasid (750 CE) caliphate. His only argument was that the script appears on the coins during Abbasid caliphate. But just because the script appears on Abbasid coins doesn't mean it didn't exist before that. Anyone knows exact date when the Kufic script was used first? If it developed before 750, then Samrkund manuscript is probably older than 750, since it does not have vowel marks, and given that Hajjaj who introduced vowel marks died in 714, this manuscript could be older than even 714. OneGuy 20:37, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Too add something here, Hajjaj bin Yousef (d. 714) was the governor of Kufa (where Kufic script developed). Since Hajjaj introduced vowels into the Qur'an, how is it possible that Samarkand manuscript is written in Kufic script (home of hajjaj) but yet it doesn't have vowels and diacritical marks? The manuscript has to be older than Hajjaj, somewhere between Ali's Caliphate and the death of Hajjaj in 714.

I have not seen any scientific dating done on this manuscript. Some scholars have only speculated that Kufic script appears on Abbasid coins after 750, so the manuscript must be 750 or older. This cannot be right. Umayyad Caliphate ruled from Syria, so that's why we don't see Kufic script before 750 on coins. This doesn't mean that the script didn't exist in Kufa (Iraq) before 750. If some scientists date this manuscript, it could put an end to Wansbrough theory for sure.

Created and UnCreated Debated

That part is factually incorrect. The article claims that liberal movements in Islam implicitly or explicitly question the uncreateded Qur'an when they "question the continuing applicability and validity of Islamic law."

First, let me explain this. Most Islamic scholars accept that parts of the Qur'an deals with specific situation during the time of Muhammad (i.e locked in time). Does that contradict that the Qur'an is eternal and uncreated? No, this can be explained easily by something like this: God knew from eternity what will happen during the time of Muhammad; thus, even though parts of the Qur'an deal specifically with the situation at the time of Muhammad, it could still be eternal and uncreated (since God always knew what was going to happen at that time and what "revelation" will be given in response).

Given that background, now it's easy to understand that you can be a "liberal Muslim" and interpret ALL Islamic law as being relevant ONLY at the time of Muhammad, but yet believe that the Qur'an is eternal word of God. A "liberal Muslim" doesn't have to deny the Qur'an being uncreated word of God to be a "liberal Muslim."

Any comments on that? OneGuy 13:31, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

you can argue this in principle, but it's a rather silly position, on a par with the creationist "God hid the fossils and faked the radiocarbon content". It's much more mature to consider the 'uncreated' claim as "locked in time" also. (because, is there any point left in whether a word is or is not eternal, if it is only applicable for a limited time anyway). it's the old problem that an omniscient god effectively makes time meaningless (not only the qur'an would be uncreated/eternal, but all events, by being foreknown, as well, including this comment I'm typing here) dab 13:43, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is how the uncreated Qur'an is understood in Islam. They don't claim that the pages and ink is eternal, but that the word of God is eternal in a sense that God's knowledge must be eternal. Does God's knowledge increase with experience? If not, then all of God's knowledge must be eternal. This is the basis of uncreated debate. If the Qur'an is the literal word of God, then it's part of God's knowledge, and God's knowledge must be eternal. No one claims that the ink, book, and pages are eternal.

How are you comparing that with creationist God hid fossil? OneGuy 14:20, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I understand we are talking about the wording, not ink and paper. But normally, belief in an 'uncreated' Qur'an implies belief in its universal validity. Your argument tries to have an 'uncreated' Qur'an that is applicable only at a certain moment, in a certain place. the fossil simile is not exact. it's just an example of contorting your original supposition to account for the facts. I have much sympathy, of course, for Muslims who are prepared to reflect on whether or not 7th century laws should be modified today. But your argument to maintain 'uncreated' status in any meaningful sense seems a bit far-fetched... Anyway, we don't need to evaluate this. If there are schools who argue like this, we will of course say that there are dab 14:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think "uncreated" Qur'an implies universal validity in every sense. (most of Islamic law is derived from traditions anyway). No Islamic scholar can deny that part of the Qur'an talks about specific events at the time of Muhammad. This is just a fact. One example would be part related to the battle of Badr. How can everything have a universal validity then? That's impossible.

Anyway, the article claims that questioning Islamic law implies automatically questioning uncreated Qur'an. This isn't true. All Muslims (even Wahabis) admit that part of the Qur'an relates to Muhammad's time (like battle of Badr), but yet they accept uncreated Qur'an in the sense I explained above. OneGuy 14:59, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fine -- as far as I'm concerned, we can just say "All Muslims (even Wahabis) admit that part of the Qur'an relates to Muhammad's time (like battle of Badr), but yet they accept uncreated Qur'an", without giving any more details as to how they argue the point. My impression is that Islam as the "youngest" book-religion needed a strong statement of "our book is better than your book", but now that Islam is equally established, this claim is not as necessary (and was thus "time locked" as you would say). Also, as the article already states, the idea of "uncreated" may have been taken from platonic thought/Hellenism etc. (or is there actually a passage in the qur'an along the lines "Muhammad, this is God: You are in the process of receiving a text in several portions which is uncreated and has existed for eternity") dab 15:09, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A Muslim doesn't have to believe in uncreated Qur'an. I only responded here because this was already part of the article. As I said earlier a few days ago, this is irrelevant debate to most Muslims. Uncreated Qur'an is not an article of faith. Most Muslims I know never even heard about this debate, nor do they care.

Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the word of God. Now, that is an article of faith, one of the Six Articles of Belief: Belief in the Books (sent by God) (whether the books are created or uncreated is philohpical/theoligical ramblings among theologians -- not an issue to ordinary Muslims). OneGuy 15:38, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Stylistic features

I've added a fairly long but by no means comprehensive section on some stylistic features of the Qur'an; overview and comments would be welcome. Thanks! - Mustafaa 00:38, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fairly minor edits

Someone coming from an anonymous IP added references to the Apocrypha and Didache, which I changed slightly to references to Bible and Torah, Apocrypha and Midrash, which is somewhat more correct, I believe. Same person also deleted link to audio recordings of Qur'an recitals and substituted another one. I restored the original link, without removing the addition. I'm not at all sure what the differences between the links are. Would appreciate some input from others more knowledgeable in this area. I also deleted a website about Qur'anic views of the Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity, as that seemed somewhat off the main topic. Might be appropriate for another article.

I intend to work on this article sometime, but I'm still READING. Stack of books next to the bed ... Zora 08:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deuteronomy & John refs early in article

Peace --

These appeals early on to Torah and Gospel citations might give the impression that Muslims accept the contemporary versions of these books as divine revelation, which is not true. We ***respect*** them, but regard them (as the Qur'an instructs) as having been tampered with by human beings.

The whole question of whether a given Torah or Gospel passage foretells the coming of Muhammad (pbuh) or the revelation of the Qur'an is a controversial one, and it seems to me a bit of a distraction here, early on in the piece. Accordingly, I've edited it out, though I'm certainly open to discussion about why these refs belong in the article. BrandonYusufToropov 12:06, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I fully agree. Anyone who wants to introduce a lenghty bible quote into section one of the Qur'an article should at least consult Talk beforehand. And "It also fulfils the prophesy of Jesus son of Mary." was horribly POV anyway (see Al-Alaq, though) dab 12:12, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

True; and if prophecies of Muhammad's coming belonged anywhere, it should have been Muhammad. See also Paraclete, though. - Mustafaa 23:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since it's completely disputed that any of these prophecies are real "prophecies" (and in my opinion all "prophecies" are nothing but interpretation of vague passages to justify already assumed belief), no article should have these "prophecies" section. This is extremely POV propaganda and is similar to Muslims and Christians claiming that scientific facts were predicted in the Qur'an/Bible. This belongs to missionary pamphlets, not Encyclopedia OneGuy 07:27, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

no, we can easily have 'prophecies' sections. we just need to say 'widely regarded' or something. The article text can just never be assertive about any prophecy. dab 08:19, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Uncreated Qur'an (deletion of passage related to Bible)

I deleted this:

"A Qur'an created by God for a particular context might also account for differences between the Bible without requiring humans to have corrupted divine texts."

... because it is, I think, a position no qualified Islamic scholar would actually support. The Qur'an clearly holds that the religious scriptures of Christians and Jews were corrupted by human influence. A non-Muslim would be free to disagree on this point, of course, but even a "liberal" Muslim, I think, would not attempt to "explain away" such passages as 2:59, 2:78-79, 3:78, 3:187, and 5:13.

2:106 has been interpreted as an explanation for the phenomenon of God allowing change and abrogation of Christian and Jewish scriptures. This is a controversial matter, of course.

Added this link

Who's Afraid of Textual Criticism? BrandonYusufToropov 13:02, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) (fixed your link)

When I clicked on that link, I got a lot of warning messages and then an error message. When I went in through Google, it was fine. But the link, as reproduced below, looks exactly the same.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/textcriticism.html

I'm not sure that this is a very GOOD link, once reached. It has a mean-spirited, nyah-nyah-nyah air to it. It focuses heavily on attacking the Christian scriptures -- which, as I'm a Buddhist, seems somewhat beside the point.

The links really do need to be evaluated and sorted into categories. Zora 13:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point. I'm taking it off. BrandonYusufToropov 15:42, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just checked -- you beat me to it. I like the reorganization. BrandonYusufToropov 15:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not me. I think that was OneGuy. It is a good job. Zora 22:12, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

External links again

I think someone added some external links in Miscellaneous -- I didn't remember seeing them previously. I looked at them briefly, then moved two of them to Tafsir.

The links section is going to have to be watched carefully, because every zealot with a favorite teacher is going to want to add his/her link. I do think that only the teachers with the larger followings should be featured in the links, not marginal crackpots. The problem is that, as a non-Muslim, I have NO IDEA who's mainstream and who's a crackpot. This is where we need even-handed, judicious Muslim editors. Zora 20:35, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why move them to tafsir section? Both links are to books that talk abou the Qur'an. They are not tafir. OneGuy 21:11, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I understand it, tafsir is commentary. Those sites seem to be commentary on the Qur'an. What is your definition of tafsir? If it excludes commentary, then we need a commentary section. Zora 03:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tafsir means exegesis. Those books are talking generally about the Qur'an. i.e manuscripts, how it was compiled, created uncreated debates, etc etc ... that's not "tafsir." These are just books on the Qur'an OneGuy 04:02, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is ulm the same thing as Western textual criticism? If not, how does it differ? Zora 05:24, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Textual criticism implies scholarly work. These two books appear to be written for general public. Also, if you go through the two books real quick, both books have a section that explains what "Tafsir" means. Clearly these books themselves are not "Tafsir." OneGuy 10:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I know it, ulm is supposed to mean knowledge. So, uloom al-qur'an would probably mean the Qur'anic science... It may mean Qur'anic studies, from which it would consist of exegesis and info related to its compilation, related debates, etc... Although, I think textual criticism would translate into naqd kitabi, NQD criticize, and kitabi --relating to text, book, etc... KTB - write... I can't guarantee if I'm totally right, so please correct me if I'm wrong... --Agari 06:16, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Is that rearrangement OK?

I fussed with the links, and added one book to the reading list. Are the references OK now? Zora 11:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed commercial link

An anonymous editor just added, and I just removed, the following link:

http://www.divineislam.com/ - A freeware of the holy Qur'an with extra information about Islam. There are additional a lot of other languages for option.

While the "Qur'an viewer" touted in the site can be downloaded for free, that seems to be a loss-leader for various other programs that are available only by purchase. Given that e-books of the Qur'an are available for free from other sites, I don't see any reason to include this link. But I'm laying out the reasons for my decision here in case anyone wants to argue the point. Zora 22:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I just checked it. The software was free, but there were also many free translations downloadable from this page of the site:

http://www.divineislam.co.uk/DivineIslam/Software/Quran_Translations/

Such as,

"The Holy Qur'an, English Translation " Abdul Majid Daryabadi 1941 57, Lahore - A faithful, though largely unacknowledged translation.

"The Meaning of The Glorious Koran" Hassan Qaribullah/Ahmad Darwish Grand Shaykh, Professor Hasan Qaribullah and Shaykh Ahmad Darwish. Umm Durman university, Cairo 2001.

English "Al-Muntakhab" An explanatory English translation that paraphrases the contents of the Qur'an in a lucid style.

English Translation of The Holy Qur'an, based on the Al-Muntakhab Tafsir written by a group of Scholars.

English "The Holy Quran" Muhammad Sarwar An explanatory English translation that paraphrases the contents of the Qur'an in a lucid style.

English "The Message of The Qur'an" Muhammad Asad

(Muhammad Asad -- well known Jewish convert but has not article on wiki yet? -- his translation that is linked from the article is poorly formatted and appears incomplete; though the commentary part is missing even on the software page apparently).

A New Rendering of its Meaning in English" Abdalhaqq and Aisha Bewley A contemporary and easily intelligible translation, based on the Warsh reading as opposed to the common Nafs reading.

"The Noble Qur'an" Muhammed Taqiuddin & Muhammad Muhsin Khan A well-known English translation, approved and endorsed by IFTA (Islamic-Research) and the Saudi government.

All these were free. Are they available on other site? If not, then this part makes it worth giving it a link.

Plus, free translations in many other languages were on the page (French, Spanish, Urdu, Chinese, Malay, Indonesian, Albanian, Azerbaijani, Bosnian, Japanese, Korean, German, Dutch, Czech Portuguese, Finnish, Hausa, Somali, Malayalam, Maranao, Tamil, Thai, Russian, Turkish, Swahili) OneGuy 11:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't see the point of linking to zillions of qur'an translations in all these languages. If I wanted to find such a translation, I'd just google. Sure, we van link to a couple of English translations, but linking to freeware? Probably a Windows binary (platform bias)? I don't see the point. This is going too far in the direction of 'link repository' and has no direct relevance to the article. [[User:Dbachmann|dab (T) ]] 11:47, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well more translations can be useful when there is dispute about a translation, like there was on Jihad page about Pitchall "great slaughter" phrase :)) Or when someone claims this or that word is mistranslation. The only way in that case for someone who doesn't speak Arabic is to compare different translations and make a judgement. Anyway, I prefer web pages instead of software too. Though, I have not seen all these translations on any site yet OneGuy 11:55, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, our entrepreneur just added the link again. This guy is determined. It gives me a bad taste in the mouth. I want links to be based on what independent critics use, think is best, not to sites that are the most persistent in advertising themselves. Remove? Zora 15:30, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

yeah, sorry, didn't realize it was the same guy again. I "annotated" the link, but that was not meant as an endorsement. dab (ᛏ) 17:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I deleted a picture

Again, notifying folks that I deleted a picture of a Qur'an translation put up by Hoshie. One, it didn't fit well. Two, it was a full-face picture of a particular translation, so that it seemed as if Wikipedia were recommending that particular translation. A picture of a stack of translations would work better. I'd take one, but I don't have a digital camera ... Zora 00:57, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

P.S. If we're going to have pictures, surely pictures of beautifully calligraphed and decorated Qur'ans would be apropos. Perhaps even a breakout article on history of Qur'an calligraphy and decoration ... Surely it wouldn't be too hard to get permission to open-source a photo of one of the celebrated Qur'ans in some of the major collections. Zora 01:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

the images on http://faculty.washington.edu/wheelerb/quran/quran_index.html should be fair game (Template:PD-art). dab (ᛏ) 17:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How can we be sure? Wheeler may have permission to use those images, but not to give them out to other people. Just coz it's on the web doesn't mean it's fair game -- at least so far as I understand copyright. Clarification requested. Zora 21:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

no, but look at Template:PD-art: if it's two-dimensional (a manuscript) and older than 100 years, a photograph of it is not copyrightable, at least not in the US, and we have lots of images based on this (see Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation). dab (ᛏ) 07:40, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, I played around with Photoshop and cropped some of Wheeler's pictures, uploaded and inserted them. This is the FIRST TIME I've uploaded any images and I'm feeling somewhat insecure about the whole thing. Please fix if there's anything wrong. Zora 09:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ibn Kathir

The article says, "Today seven canonical readings of the Qur'an and several uncanonical exist" and the list has names of,

Nafi' of Madina (169/785), transmitted by Warsh (197/812)
Ibn Kathir of Makka (120/737)
Ibn 'Amir of Damascus (118/736)
Abu 'Amr of Basra (148/770)
'Asim of Kufa (127/744), transmitted by Hafs (180/796)
Hamza of Kufa (156/772)
Al-Kisa'i of Kufa (189/804), transmitted by Duri (246/860)

Ibn Kathir of Makka (120/737) cannot be the same Ibn Kathir who has article on wiki. That Ibn Kathir was born in 1301. Changed the link to Ibn Kathir of Makka OneGuy

parts and subdivisions

I've added a section on parts and subdivisions. One page says that the hizb division is used only in the Arab world and the ruku' division only in South Asia -- if someone can confirm this, it would be good to add that information. Joriki 06:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Recent additions to external links

A number of anonymous IPs (I suspect website owners plugging their own websites) have added three (?) external links during the last day. I'm starting to wonder just HOW MANY Qur'an sites there are on the web. I'm also beginning to doubt my ability to distinguish between the really good ones and the hack jobs. I hope some of the other editors will scan all the websites and post some input here. Just how big do we want the list to be and what criteria do we use to judge their usefulness? Zora 20:21, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I think the audio links to hundreds of all-Arabic recitations of the Qur'an are of limited use here, since the typical reader is unlikely to have any understanding of Arabic. A more helpful site would be:

http://www.islamicity.com/multimedia/radio/ch152/

...which is all English (and one of my favorite translations). I'm sure there's a good Arabic and English link, too, I'll see if I can track it down. BrandonYusufToropov 19:01, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, some people add these different audio recitation links. If there is a link to a page that has all these recitations, at least you then have a valid reason to delete more links added OneGuy 00:48, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think all Muslims prefer to read/listen Qur'an in Arabic even when they don't know arabic. So arabic websites for recitation of Qur'an is ok. But if it is about explanation, English link should be preferred.

Zain 01:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Textual criticism and the Qur'an - Clarification after removal

I added a text there, which was removed by Grenavitar requiring better facts and npov. I think npov is not the issue here, but sources. So I added references and also the verses from the Qur'an. Be aware that my goal is just to add evidence that criticism against the Qur'an (in the context of the Qur'ans accusations of "textual errors" in the bible) has a broader scope then just looking at it from the angle of "Higher biblical criticism" as the paragraph states it. Where biblical history is backed up by "secular" sources there is clearly more to it. The 3 (or 4 if you like) examples I deliver are not related to historical criticism against the Qur'an in general, but very specific related to where the "cause" of the discrepancy threatens to be attributed to "textual corruption" of the Bible, where this apparently is not true. —Fjodorii 10:44, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

You have inserted disputed POV Christian polemics in the article, some of it entirely baseless. For example, the Qur'an doesn't say Mary is part of Christian trinity. See Mary and Trinity. As for Samaritan, see The "Samaritan" Error In The Qur'an ... These are highly disputed arguments. You inserted them as facts. You also inserted a link to Christian POV missionary polemic site in the article OneGuy 15:19, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There were some other problems with your edit. You wrote "Mohammed seems to have understood..." That sentence itself is POV. Muslims do not believe that Muhammad is the author of the Qur'an. (2) Some modern skeptical scholars (such as Crone) do not believe that Muhammad is the author of the Qur'an (they believe it evolved long after Muhammad). The sentence should have been "the Qur'an seems to have understood..." not "Mohammed seems to have understood..." Also, the rest of the article spells his name as "Muhammad." Lastly, the Qur'an doesn't mention Alexander the Great. Whether Zul-Qarnain means "Alexander the Great" is a matter of interpretation (and debate). The verse on Mary doesn't have the word "Trinity" in it. See the above links for more on that OneGuy 16:10, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This business about the Qur'an directly mentioning Alexander the Great -- as opposed to Zul-Qarnain, the ambiguous figure whom it does mention -- is an urban legend perpetuated by Christian missionaries, and a classic example of Qur'an-bashing. So is the equally erroneous statement that the Qur'an holds Mary to be a member of the Christian Trinity, debunked by OneGuy above. Finally, the claim that the Qur'an misidentified Mary as the literal sister of Aaron is particularly pervasive among Christian missionaries, and it appears that no matter how many times the passage in question is patiently explained by Muslims, the claim seems to resurface. One wonders why.

There is, I think, little doubt that those who circulate this misunderstanding are engaged, not in neutral study, but in the perpetuation of anti-Islamic propaganda. Here, for your reference, is a link explaining the facts of the matter: [9]

Anyone who reads this page and persists in the belief that the Qur'an contradicts itself on this point is, in my view, a propagandist with a clear grudge against Islam, and by no stretch of the imagination an unbiased commentator or analyst.

There are other popular, glaring errors of fact that opponents of Islam would like to insert into an article such as this, but how about let's not. Maybe you could insert your points into the article Religious Conversion as an example of proselytizing, though. BrandonYusufToropov 17:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not urban legend perpetuated only by "Christian missionaries" either. See Yusuf Ali's commentary. It's just one of many interpretation of "Zul-Qarnain". However, all these are interpretations. There is no direct reference by name to Alexander the Great in the Qur'an. OneGuy 22:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well -- the "urban legend" part I was referring to is the habit of saying without reservation or disclaimer: "The Qur'an is wrong because it screws up its history when it talks about Alexander the Great." It's like me saying "The Columbia Encyclopedia is wrong when it says that the author of the I Ching is Don Rickles." People may have theories about Don Rickles and the I Ching, but the fact of the matter is that the Columbia Encyclopedia never once says that Don Rickles wrote the I Ching, and I'm disingenuous if I claim otherwise. BYT 66.30.96.38 01:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mary is not a prophet of Islam

The article lists Mary as a prophet of Islam. This is not correct. Prophethood is restricted to men in Islam.Prater 13:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Right you are. I have revised to fix this error. BrandonYusufToropov 21:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can a Muslim editor check the Islamic links?

We now have a fairly large selection of links to various Islamic websites (Qur'an translations, recitations, ulm, tafsir). I have NO idea whether these sites are managed by respected scholars and mainstream organizations, or whether they're out-of-the-mainstream or kooky. I'm simply not knowledgeable enough. I would really appreciate if the Muslim editors could check the links and prune any strange ones. Zora 06:10, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BrandonYusufToropov linked to a page on Tafsir that is one of the chapter of a book Ulum al Qur'an that is already linked . Kind of redundant OneGuy

I tweaked this list a little -- but Oneguy, is the duplicate link we want to delete under the heading Tafsir or Ulm right now? Please let me know, thanks. BrandonYusufToropov 12:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Link to Ulum al Qur'an cannot be deleted because that's the complete book. Maybe duplicate in this case is not a problem. One links to the exact chapter in the book that deals with Tafsir, so it's not exact duplicate. This should be left as at it is OneGuy 13:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Quran slavery

There is a page at Quran slavery, that has nothing linking to it, and is not very wikified, with only a couple of edits. Someone who knows more should look into it and decide what to do with it --Jacobolus 20:09, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems to have been corrected, now has quotes from parts of the Qur'an talking about slavery

--usayd 21:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)