Talk:Al-Muʼminun
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Al-Muʼminun article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that one or more audio files be included in this article to improve its quality. Please see Wikipedia:Requested recordings for more on this request. |
Need to edit English spelling edit
According to the Arabic way of spelling the name (viz. Arabic: سورة المؤمنون ) the surah needs to be spelt 'Al-Mu’minoon' in English. I have made edits wherever necessary for this and am now proceeding to move the surah to it's correct title now. In case anyone thinks otherwise, please discuss here before reverting. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Which way to edit English spelling edit
There are many theories about how to transcribe Arabic into English. I don't like the one currently being used. In particular I object to the "oo". I would spell the phrase al-muminun. I leave out hamza. My way is just my way. I think it would be best if Wikipedia were to adapt a standard transliteration. But I am not sanguine about reaching agreement as to which transliteration. DKleinecke (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The contents of this article edit
I believe this article should be removed from the Wikipedia. Or, perhaps, to a perfunctory description of it as the 23rd surah and a cross-reference to the Qur'an. As it stands it is an extensive tafsir and is full of POV. If a description is needed there is a good one paragraph description in Maulana Muhammad Ali's translation. In fact if I were doing this I would use MMA's descriptions for all 114 surahs. And I feel sure that many Muslims would object because he belonged to the Ahmadiyya. All of these theological matters are fraught with sectarian disagreements and sure to induce controversy if extended beyond the basic obvious points. DKleinecke (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)