Talk:Quran/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Quran as primary source

does it mean that any claim, which does not exist in primary source can be referenced with primary source? for eexample, i saw a claim in Qur'an article about its revelation period which is 23 years and referenced with 17:106 where as in primary source only the word stages is written and not 23 years.[7]
The Torah and the Bible

2- According to the Qur'ān[Qur'an 3:3] Yusuf Ali,

“ It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).
In above text the (step by step), is not mentioned in Arabic text of Quran and SHAKIR has also not used it.
2.1 He sent down the Law (of Moses), this sentense is also not written in 3:3 of primary source, but SHAKIR translation is the nearest please check.
SHAKIR: He has revealed to you the Book with truth, verifying that which is before it, and He revealed the Tavrat and the Injeel aforetime, a guidance for the people, and He sent the Furqan. Thanks.--Farrukh38 (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

even after providing above references the wrong quranic verse are there as reference and removed by you the edditing made by me.--Farrukh38 (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

you have place a template telling that quran cannot be quoted for it self, but you have quoted your self qurani ayats. Even then these are not correct as per arabic text even then you have not removed from article? would you please tell with which wilipeda rule? or you want to say that its an encyclopedia means to write what a person likeeven then that claim is not correct?

Still have the qur'ani ayats references which do not support many claims in Qur'an article. you are reverting {{Fact}} templates without providing the truth. thanks--Farrukh38 (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Just undid a vandalism of the main page where someone had added "Evil" befor "Quran". Guys, this is an encyclopedia, not a debating forum. Whatever each of us believes can be discussed in a discussion forum but I think the Wiki should be kept as neutral as possible? What do you think?

The language of the Quran

The language of the Qur'an is structurally the same as the Arabic that is used today. Only vocabulary has slightly changed. To put it in perspective, the Arabic of 1400 years ago is closer to the Arabic of today than the English of the 1500s to the English of Today. It is true however that rhere is a special Quranic style but there is really nothing called Quranic Arabic Marwan123 06:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It's my understandin d@ Arabic comprises many different dialects, which may in some cases be mutually unintelligible. The Qur'an is written in a style of Arabic that serves as a standard when speakers of different dialects meet that enables to them to understand one another. I believe newspapers, other media outlets, and formal publications use this dialect or style of Arabic, as well. 4.243.152.190 17:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you are correct.

The Arabic pop that is used in the Quran is spoken no where. It's a highly dense and eloquent, to the point where even today's native Arabic speakers find it difficult to understand. Today, Arabic is spoken in many different dialects, from a country to a country. News papers and other formal publications use a standarized form of Arabic, but that too is no where near the high level of the Quranic Arabic. 216.99.52.170 20:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the Qur'an

This part should be written on the basis of scholar viewpoints and also we should seprate "Criticism of the Qur'an" and "Criticism of Muslim's beliefs about the Qur'an".

• 1- Divine origin:There are different viewpoint among Muslims. Although nowadays most of Muslims accept the divine origin, but this was not a common belief during history. Look at :Mihna

In fact this is a criticism agaist Muslim belief and we can't recognize it as "Criticism of the Qur'an".

I propose this theory instead: "Although Qur'an has claimed it is the word of God ("Kalam allah"), non-muslims claim that Muhammad has authored it (for his own benefits)."

• 2-Muslims claim the quran is perfectly compatable with science.

This is again about Muslim's belief. Of course science doesn't include permanent theories. In the past scientists believed in classical mechanics, Now they believe in Theory of relativity and tomorrow they'll believe in something else. I think this one is the belief of a group of Muslims and should be omitted. --Sa.vakilian 09:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• 3-War and violence: Jihad is an Islamic term and there is something about it in Qur'an. But there isn't anything about terrorism in Qur'an. There isn't written "Go and kill people". Although some of the Muslims kill people and claim Islam orders it but I think we shouldn't refer to Islamic extremist terrorism. This part is about "Criticism of the Qur'an" and it's not "Criticism of the Muslims".
• 4- Punishment: Some of the Non-Muslims believe some of the Islamic Punishments are cruel and unusual for what they think minor and unimportant sins or guilt. So It's the viewpoint of somebody, of course some others may find them nothing and propose to harshen punishments. Is there definite criteria?
• 5-Incompatability with other religous scriptures : It's unclear.--Sa.vakilian 16:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

read the article criticism of the quran first. It mentions the revelent quranic verses that critics (and terrorists) use to say that Islam supports terrorism. It also mentions relevant contradictions to science. The article was supposed to be a summary of the criticism of the quran article.--Sefringle 01:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I read it. Your summary is weak and I prefer another summary.--Sa.vakilian 02:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Criticism of the Qur'an#The origins of the Qur'an:Muhammad, according to tradition, recited perfectly what the angel Gabriel revealed to him for his companions to write down and memorize, but Non-Muslims claims Muhammad has made it by himself.
• Criticism of the Qur'an#Claim of Divine Origin:Qur'an is the miracle and the sign of Muhammad prophecy. Qur'an called itself as the best word in Arabic and has invited others to compete and say something better or at least equal.Critics reject the idea that Qur'an is miraculously perfect and impossible to imitate.
• Criticism of the Qur'an#Criticism of the science in the Qur'an:Many critics of Islam claim the existence of scientific errors in the Qur'an, endeavoring to prove that the Qur'an is not compatible with contemporary scientific views, and therefore is not of divine orgin. On the other hand muslims have different viewpoint about these verses. In some cases like creature of Adam they say science doesn't include permanent and true theories. In some cases they say the exterior meaning is metaphore or alegory like shining of moon and set the sun in a spring of murky water. In some other cases they say it's the special language of qur'an to describe something which are not sensible like "The seven skies".
• Criticism of the Qur'an#Satanic verses:Qur'an says that nor did Muhammad say anything from himself and neither did Satans interfere. But Some early Islamic histories recount how Satan fooled Muhammad into adding two lines to Sura 53 of the Qur'an, lines that implore followers to hope for intercession by three pagan goddesses. These histories then say that these 'Satanic Verses' were shortly afterward repudiated by Muhammad at the behest of the angel Gabriel. The authencity of this narration is disputed. Fischer and Abedi state that the story is rejected by almost all Muslim exegetes. Ibn Kathir in his commentary points out the weakness of the various Isnad by which the story was transmitted, almost all of them mursal- i.e. without a companion of Muhammad in their chain. Some of non-Muslim scholars like William Montgomery Watt suppose it's true while the others like J. Burton believe the story is a forgery.--Sa.vakilian 03:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a better explaination, and exceptable in my opinion. Though I am not sure about the other users opinion on this matter.--Sefringle 01:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Get sources, then we'll consider it. In any case it's bad as is it because we're not going to give criticism less space than nonsensical responses to the criticism in an article called "Criticism of the Quran." Arrow740 02:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Criticism of the Qur'an#War and violence:Some critics believe that it is not only extremist Islam that preaches violence but Islam itself, a violence implicit in the Qur'anic text as Jihad.[9:29] In response to the criticism regarding jihad and the Qur'an's alleged promotion of violence, Muslims argue that the real purpose of armed jihad is to remove injustice and aggression.[3] Also Muhammad even forgave people of Mecca who had exiled him before.

• Contradiction between Qur'an and the formers book:Qur'an has said that it has confirming which was (revealed) before it, Torah and the Gospel[3:3], but Jews and Christians say there are contradictions between Qur'an and these books in theological and moral aspects. However there is written in Qur'an that it rejects whatever Jews and Christians made by themselves and recongonized it as God's word and rule.[3:78]Tahrif# Qur'an and the doctrine of tahrif

--Sa.vakilian 04:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

offensive.

From the "cryticism of the qu'ran" section: Quote: "Severe punishments: the quran advocates use of the Death penalty[29][30] and the punishment which some of non-Muslims find cruel and unusual for many things which they find minor and unimportant like Apostasy,[31] Homosexuality,[32] Adultery,[33] and Theft[34] "

I would say that at least two of these things are neither minor nor unimportant, and are still actually refered to as sinful. This is quite offensive and leads me to ask if we could we possibly change to.......

"many things which they find minor, unimportant or not in fact sinful, like Aposasy,[31] Homosexuality,[32] adultery,[33] and theft[34] "

I am of course refering to "homosexuality" and "apostasy" being refered to as "minor" or "sinful" at best.

Thank you.

Under "References" section:

The link to http://www.septuagint.net, while initially linking to this domain, ALL subsequent links (from that page) link to numerous "born again Christian" sites. None of the links contribute to the article on the Qur'an, and the intial link is misleading and subsequent links are offensive. Choosing this link searching for additional information on the subject matter and finding information that tells me that I will burn in hell for all eternity unless I profess my love for Jesus and that the 12th Imam is in fact the Anti-Christ was certainly not what I was searching for when seeking more information on the Qur'an.

I think you should remove this link.

Thank you much,

Marion

--Maybe it should be added in the criticism section that the same laws are written in the bible and Torah, about death penalty for a number of "sins" many have no problem with today, for example homosexual intercourse. The Qu'ran is also in my mind closer to the equality between sexes that we have in the "west" today, than the bible and Torah. I think that much of the criticism that is put towards the Qu'ran is really a criticism towards middle eastern culture, since most people that are skeptical towards Islam as a religion most probably have never read the Qu'ran, but get their information from hearsay. (Or dare I say the USA propaganda machine) I am neither from the middle east nor Muslim, but I don't like disinformation made to spread hate.

--Daneic 08:48, 15 November 2006 (CET+1)

whether these laws are relevant to the bible or torah is irrevelent to this article. This article is about the quran, and not the bible or torah. If you want, you can add these claims to the bible and torah articles, but they have no place here.--Sefringle 05:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Romatt 08:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This offensiveness you speak of is quite biased. You say that "homosexuality" and "apostasy" are not minor but "adultery" and "theft" are more acceptable as minor; however, of the four sins given, "adultery" and "theft" hurt other people while "homosexuality" and "apostasy" hurt no other of God's creations. Also, "USA propaganda machine" is also biased, for reasons to obvious to mention here. Romatt 08:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversial sentence ?

The sentence, "Muslims regard it as God's final revelation to humankind and view it as the closest thing to a part of God in the world." (near the start of the article) could easily be offending to Muslims - it's the part of God bit that I am concerned about. Thoughts ? MP (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be removed as thats not actually regarded that way - it is the most holy script yes - but the whole world was made by god so...

Is this true ?

Is the sentence "All Muslims use the same Qur'an with no differences among the sects." true ? I read somewhere, some years ago, that some (US ?) sects change the verses to suit their own purposes. Has anyone ever heard of this ? MP (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Recently some of non muslim trying to make some diviation in "tafsir" the tafsir is the explanation of the quran means but the right way to have the tafsir is from the known books like "ibn katheer - alkortobi - tafsir alimameen" and those people try to weaken the strength of the quran means and real stories that quran tells, they have some books for this and sites like www.thequran.com to weaken the islam by deviation in quran and the explanation of it so try to know the islam from the right sites like www.islamonline.com or www.islamway.com this is for all information needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.36.3 (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The only difference that I'm aware of is between the Sunni Quran and the Shii Quran and it turned out that even this difference is actually not true. Both sects actually use the same Quran. Other than that, I don't believe there are people who call them selves muslims who use a Quran that is different. I'm not sure about Ismaili's or Druz they might have something different.Marwan123 07:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

--No, all sects use the same Quran, including Ismailis and Druze Abidh786 02:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Muslims believe that Qur'an is the Word of Allah and can not be changed by human beings. All sects of Muslims use exactly the same text which is believed to be the one revealed to Prophet Muhammad (s.a.). Different sects may interpret Qur'an according to their own set of beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.160.139.203 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is true as a tautology. Anyone who doesn't accept/use the Qur'an as is would not be considered a muslim any more than, for example, anyone who rejected Jesus could be considered a christian. As I understand it, Rashad Khalifa claimed to be a messenger and declared two verses to be false which are not included in his "translation" (see last two verses of the ninth surah). It is because of this change that I have edited the links to his work as I fail to see how it can be counted as a translation. I would raise the same objection of the Hilali and Khan translation since it claims to be a sort of tafsir/interpretation; however, in reality it really is pretty close to being a transation in the same vein as the Yusuf Ali work. My apologies if I have not done this properly. I am new to wikipedia.

All use the same. Kadhumia flo 18:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

All use the same (any person that claims to be using a different book, cannot call him/her self a muslim). we know this (and you can verify this - with some difficulty) by listening to the taraweeh prayers that are broadcast during ramadhan on any arabic/islamic channel (e.g. Al-Jazeera), They will show the Taraweeh prayers in Meccah with the imam reciting the same verses each year (the whole Koran from beginning to End!). The verses recited will match any Koran that you buy/borrow. Cs1kh 14:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I know this is somewhat old but I thought I may add that there are different rewayaat to the Quran, such as rewayat Hafsen 'an Asem (as told by Hafs of Asem), which have some differences in inflections and "tanouin". Is that what you mean? (please try to ignore my bad spelling.)Dadahs (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC).

The characters & vowels displayed in any Koran are identical (excluding spelling mistakes). If 2 people pronounce a word differently because of different interpretations of it's meaning, this does not mean the Koran they are reading is different (only that human intelligence/judgement is limited/flawed) e.g. in english, the word 'present' has two meanings and can change the meaning of a sentence containing it (a sentence containing it may get translated as 'he is present' or 'he is a present') - Poor example but hopefully you get the idea. [[User:Cs1kh]] (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad spellings

Someone REALLY needs to edit the criticisms section. It's actually unreadable. The grammar is abysmal, the quality of spelling nonexistent, and the quality of the section itself pretty poor. About 50% of them amount to saying "non-believers say that Muslim is the liars."

Yes, please edit the Qu'ranic sections. I entered a comment three or so minutes ago, and while I was at it, in two paragraphs, I corrected three "i before e" mistakes by others and an apostrophe problem. Hasn't wikipedia heard of "spell check"?Norwelsh ^ 14:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

And wh'en did Qur'an become the first spelling and not the variant? (212.99.205.42 07:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Kevin Pfeiffer)

7 Manazil?

In the section about Quran recitations something called 7 Manazils of Quran is mentioned. I'm not sure what these 7 Manazils are. I've never heard such a term and I believe it is related to something that the vast majority of Muslims also never heard of it. I think it should not be there

There are 7 Manazils in Quran. They are marked in each published version.

JESUS

Is Jesus mentioned the Qur'an? --LAMODE1 18:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Refer to Islamic view of Jesus, Islamic view of Jesus' death, Isa ibn Maryam (Jesus), Islamic view of Virgin Mary, Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an for further details. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 18:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Many times. Usually referred to as al-masih ibn maryam (Christ the son of Mary) Cs1kh 14:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Jesus is mentioned more than Prophet Muhammad in Quran, his mother Mary is praised the most among all women, she is called the "women of truth"/"women of all nations". ~atif - 14:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Citing Qur'an in articles

In case you were not aware, there is a template for creating links to Qur'anic verses through the USC-MSA. For example:

• {{Cite quran|3|72}} will produce ^{[Quran 3:72]}

Please see Category:Islamic text templates for more templates ... see their Discussion pages for examples of how they appear and how to use them. When I have more time, I will try to replace some of the explcit external links for citations on the main article page. —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 16:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

no pic

hilarious! --Striver 16:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

XD! Wow, that's just incredibly ridiculous. Removing a picture because it's beautiful... here, upload this crude drawing of the Qur'an I made in mspaint instead ;) --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 00:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sentences two though four

Has anyone actually read sentences two through four? The third begins by repeating the last clause of the second before blooming into some of the most miserably tortured prose I've ever seen on an article of this importance.Proabivouac 05:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, That is pretty bad. Zazaban 20:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As an adult with a moderate knowledge of Islamic and Arabic vocabulary, I find this article to be impenetrably dense. Sentence three, for example, contains six hyperlinks, many involving terms which would be unfamiliar to a non-Muslim/non-scholarly reader. I can't imagine how it would be viewed by a sixth-grader turning to wikipedia to do a school project. To me, this raises the question: "What is the purpose of the article?" I think that the article should, first and foremost, inform the reader. The tone of the article to me seems like an attempt to create a perfect, committee-negotiated, crystalline record of the subject, which might be of interest to aliens who fish it out of a time capsule in three thousand years. It's just not very helpful to someone actually trying to get a basic understanding of the Qur'an. I don't mean this to be disrespectful to those who have worked on it. I have enormous admiration for the work and knowledge that has gone into it. It just seems like it's more geared to satisfy its authors than it is to inform its readers. At the end of reading this article, I know a lot of obscurata about the history of recitation and translation, but have very little information about the actual content of the Qur'an. Forgive me for sniping, particularly since I have absolutely no capability of being helpful, but I encourage the authors to step back and look at the basic utility of the article.Ninquerinquar 03:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Spelling issues: Qur'ān

I think the word Qur'ān should be spelled uniformly throughout the article. However, the title of the article should be typable on an ordinary computer keyboard; i.e., without the macron over the a. Similarly, when the word is used in text, the alif should be represented by an ordinary apostrophe, though alt-0146 produces the "more correct" transliteration from the Arabic original. I changed all instances which are not part of titles of reference works, and which are not part of quotes. I also changed the very few instances of ArabDIN alif and ‘ain so that ordinary browsers can display them. --Cbdorsett 10:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the title of the article should be made easier to type for certain Western users. A simple solution would be to use a redirect so that people who don't know how to type the macron or don't know that it should be there, can be redirected to the proper page. leuce 11:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions & Answers

Guys what does "their right hands possess" mean in the following text (Sura believers)

023.006 YUSUFALI: Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame,

PICKTHAL: Save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy,

SHAKIR: Except before their mates or those whom their right hands possess, for they surely are not blameable,

PS: These three translations mean three different things to me! Which one is closer to the arabic version? Kiumars

--We have an article on that Right hands possess :) Abidh786 02:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Pruned links again

Every two-bit Islamic site in the world wants to link here. I removed all the "general" sites -- they should be in the DMOZ directory. That was all proselytization, in any case. I removed all the links to sites in Arabic, Urdu, etc. This is the English WP, not the "all languages of the world" WP. There were a number of general proselytizing sites mixed up with the translations and recitations, and I removed those.

The links could probably stand further pruning. I didn't click on each one. We need to remove everything commercial and everything that's, uh, not notable. Zora 11:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead

I've restored back a large part of the intro which was removed. The edits answer many questions:

• The language used in the qur'an
• Muslim beliefs re qur'an
• The period of its appearence
• What relationship it got w/ other sacred/holy texts and books
• Why it is considered as such among muslims.

These answers make those edits of an important encyclopaedic value to readers. The version i am reverting back respects WP:LEAD guideline-- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

recent edit to Qur'an#Criticism of the Qur'an

Criticism of the Qu’ran includes the archaeological record of all types of sacred scriptures. Many scholars conclude that the Qu’ran is a redaction in part of other sacred scriptures, in particular the Judaeo-Christian scriptures.

Translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls dispute Tahrif a teaching that reasons a need for Qu’ran because the original scriptures are corrupted. The Dead Sea Scrolls are the Old Testament. The Dead Sea Scrolls are significant evidence in favor of an uncorrupted Septuagint (LXX) also.

The history of the Septuagint (LXX) itself is used as evidence to refute tahrif as the New Testament writers reference the Septuagint also stating clearing in Luk 24:27 that Jesus went through 'all of the scriptures' and interpreted the things concerning himself.

If Jesus used the Septuagint or other texts that we can validate are not corrupted then there is no reason why Muslims should not accept what their own prophet used.

I removed this, because it really is not relevant to the Criticism of the Qur'an article, as nothing within that article duscusses this. I am also concerned about the POV it presents, as well as how it is criticism. --Sefringle 00:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I will reply to this in the next topic heading to give it clarity. You can discuss it there. (Runwiththewind 08:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

On the archaeological record of sacred scripture

This section was since mid last year. It was about the DSS and the LXX. Somebody didn't like the http//www.septuagint.net link because it may link to other sites. Instead WP:RS has been given so the section meets WP:NOR guidelines. The critic cites its sources.

• I would disagree with omitting the critic that starts with the orientation of a factual objective verifiable and consistent biblical archaeological record that refutes Tahrif.
• I would especially disagree when the only critic left then in its place is a subjective opinionated one about morals.

Seems to me someone is trying to set up a few trees so we miss the forest. (Runwiththewind 08:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

much of what you inserted is indeed OR, as it constitutes a synthesis of sources to advance a position not supported by the actual sources. what exactly do "The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English (2002) HarperSanFrancisco" and "The Dead Sea Scrolls - Revised Edition: A New Translation, by Michael O. Wise and Martin G. Abegg, HarperSanFrancisco (October 25, 2005)" say about the Qur'an? the first paragraph of your insertion is, again, a mix of OR and skewed, weasel-wordy commentary. Stillman simply says that stories from Judeo-Christian throught have been adapted in the Qur'an. he certainly isn't criticizing the Qur'an, and if you believe he is, then that is merely your own conclusion. again, the Wherry ref consists of him (who is an orientalist from the 19th century it seems) apparently refuting Muslim claims of textual corruption of biblical scripture. he quite clearly states that the Qur'an itself is unclear as to the type of corruption (i.e. ma'nawi or lafdhi; meaning or textual), so he certainly isn't criticising the Qur'an. the refs you have provided suggest you have not consulted the original references themselves, but have taken them from unreliable polemic websites. because of this mix of OR and sub-neutral commentary, i think it is appropriate to remove the entire section. ITAQALLAH 17:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I will deal with each part step by step.

• First part is. Deleting sections that existed months ago on the bases that you don’t like a source is absolutely not what Wikipedia advocates. It advocates improving the sources, if there are many out there. If not, then it can be removed. Obviously none of you are saying the critic does not exist. You just don’t like the references. For example…
• If you feel that Stillman is not the best example of a redaction critic then you are welcome to find a source that states the redaction argument better. The redaction critic exists. If the sources are troubling then the objective is to find better sources not to remove the section. Here is another source. Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation (1977) and The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History (1978) by Wansbrough.
• The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English (2002) HarperSanFrancisco is the citation for reference the Old Testament is in the Dead Sea Scrolls (older than Christ). The OT is in the DSS and this is the position of that source.
• I have given the archaeological record with respect to the available original manuscripts before, during and after Christ. If you have scriptures from that period which claims to be Old Testament with Hellenized Jewish usage before or during the time of Christ and are not reasonably consistent with the current Septuagint, then state the case for it by all means.
• Tahrif makes statements on corruption. Note, it is this tradition from the Qu’ran that is being refuted by the historical record.
• One more question for you…. What scriptures did Jesus use? Can you name them? (Runwiththewind 18:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

I concur that the section is OR and have re-removed it. You cannot imply arguments not directly made by the underlying cites. The Stillman cite could be salvageable, but I find it extremely hard to believe he is actually "concluding the Qur'an is a redaction" in that article. Scholars just don't go and say in scholarly articles that a certain holy book is a fraud. Can you quote the text exactly for us here? - Merzbow 18:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

i just wanted to add, the aim here is verifiability. if we have no decent sources actually forwarding the particular claim, we are under no obligation to include it. i would like to know what exactly, if at all, the sources i pointed to earlier say about the Qur'an. you also forwarded some other sources you believe are critical of the Qur'an: what do they say precisely? ITAQALLAH 18:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There should certainly be a place for this on wikipedia somewhere. Arrow740 18:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• http://www.derafsh-kaviyani.com/english/quran3.html uses the same references to quote Wansbrough on the Qur'an. The redaction criticism should stand using Wansbrough's works as citations as per above.
• What we are dealing with is the secular historical record devoid of any theism verifing that the New Testament references the Septuagint (quotes from it) and that the Septuagint is the same exact same content as the Old Testament scrolls in the Dead Sea Scrolls collection.
• The actual counterpoint to this being discussed by some here Merzbow and ITAQALLAH would have us believe that there is no reference saying that the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint are the same. The problem is the inital web site which does say that http://www.septuagint.net, was doubted by some because it links to Christian sources. Let us be extra clear here so that the point is made once more again. The Septuagint and parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls are the same. They are linked being this ... Old Testament..
• The claim that the sources do not back up the statements is absolute conjecture. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English provides the italicized differences with the Masoretic text, the DSS copies itself, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagent (LXX). They are all Old Testament. (Runwiththewind 22:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

Some extra stuff on this... The DSS also tell us some things concerning the Septuagint - the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. Biblical fragments have been found in the Qumran caves, which have a Hebrew text that is closer to the LXX than to the MT. This tells us that around the turn of the century there were various Hebrew texts in existence, and the LXX may have come from "a different Hebrew Text belonging to what we may call the Proto-Septuagint family".42 This would explain some of the differences between the MT and the LXX. Most notable, however, are two scrolls that were part of the original find in cave 1. The first of these is the Habakkuk Commentary that is a verse by verse exposition of chapters one and two of this book. found at [4] cites Edwin Yamauchi, The Stones and the Scriptures. Leicester: IVP, 1973. (Runwiththewind 22:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

Accuracy of quote in Etymology section

At the end of this section, in the last line, Yusuf Ali's translation, the sentence begins: "We have sent it down ..." Should this be "We have set it down ...?

This is just an Old English Teacher's hunch. 206.75.175.183 23:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC) [email removed to prevent spam]--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 14:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

the Arabic nazala = he has revealed is lit. he has sent down

Origin and development

The first paragraph of this section is a joke:

Some modern Western historians have concluded that Muhammad was sincere in his statement about receiving revelation, "for this alone makes credible the development of a great religion." [24] Modern historians generally decline to address the further question of whether the messages that Muhammad reported were revealed to him were from "his unconscious, the collective unconscious functioning in him, or from some divine source", but they acknowledge that the material came from "beyond his conscious mind" [24].

This seems like it's as NPOV as possible. Just because some book says something doesn't make it fact. "Modern historians....acknowledge that the material came from "beyond his conscious mind"." Imagine if this statement was in entry on the Bible: "Some modern Eastern historians have concluded that Saint Peter was sincere in his statement that he saw the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ." Duh! The entire first paragraph, with the exception of the first sentence, is a pointless POV and should be removed. 71.195.213.70 07:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. CaliforniaKid 02:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. I will remove it if it hasn't already been removed.--Sefringle 03:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Kindly use your conscience for few seconds. This paragraph has two highly credible references. Would you mind to realize them? VirtualEye 06:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

(The OP) I've edited the section to try and make it more NPOV and scholarly that it previously was, but I don't claim to be an expert. If anyone has ideas about improving it, please go for it. Regarding it's sources, you can find sources that say just about anything. Just because a source says that "most historians believe" that God told Muhammad what to write doesn't actually mean it's true. I'm sure there are *some* historians who think that, but you can say the exact same thing about any religion. It's a case of "no duh" and something that belongs in sunday (or whatever day) school, not a scholarly encyclopedia. 71.195.213.70 05:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Category for Deletion discussion

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 16:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC) -- Jeff3000 00:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section revert

I am a little concerned about the recent revert. The newer version is written in prose instead of a list, and it in my opinion summarizes the arguements fairly for this article. My newer version did last about three months without any major changes. But before I revert, I wish to see if I have consensus to do so.--Sefringle 03:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Since there are no objections, I am going to re-insurt the old version.--Sefringle 23:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Miracles section deeply unencyclopedic

I took it out. Even mainstream Islamic authorities stay away from these kinds of claims in reference material. BYT 23:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I support this action. It would clearly be POV pushing in whatever form it is in.--Sefringle 04:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

How about editing the section to make it less "POV Pushing" stylistically. No doubt the nature of this section is POV pushing by definition, but as the Quran is believed to be miraculous by a huge section of mankind a section on this is warranted; at least as far as objectively mentioning the claimed reasons why this is so. Similar to the criticsm section, which is, per se, also a POV by definition. Sufaid 07:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you try the language you're after out here first and we can discuss it. Otherwise it sounds a lot like, "There is startling evidence that Mormonism is in fact the path of God," a claim that would not last ten seconds in the Mormonism article. BYT 12:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

^^^That sounds like something that belongs on Uncyclopedia.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 02:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This section has been added again by user User:Imad Marie. I have removed it on one occasion but this has been reverted. In the interests of consensus I have edited it so that it is better balanced and stylistically more encyclopedic. Would appreciate opinions. Inbetweener (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Template

This may have already been discussed but it there a reason why the Template:Islam was removed from the page? 64.16.40.18 19:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's restored now.--Sefringle 07:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Quotefarm

This article contains way too many quotes, so I have added the {{quotefarm}} tag to it.--Sefringle 07:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Image

Hi, I have added a new image of an 11th century Qur'an that is in the British Museum.LordHarris 18:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

11th Century North African Qur'an in the British Museum

Who could believe it's an 11th century Qur'ân? Please, be serious if this has to be an encyclopeadia.

Content section missing?

Where is the section on the content of the Quran?--Kirby♥time 15:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? Don't you mean interpritations of the qur'an, because we have a section on that in this article.--Sefringle 02:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The Quran and science

If someone wants to create a section on the Quran & Science and use these as references, that's fine. However, four completely unexplained links; dropped into the middle of a section about something else, really aren't helpful. I removed these links from the article page:

• http://www.55a.net/firas/english
• http://www.miraclesofthequran.com
• http://nooran.org/en
• http://www.quran-miracle.info

--Versageek 21:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Second, those are not reliable sources. We'd need sources more reliable than those for this article.--Sefringle 03:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Writing and printing the Qur'ān

I've added some references above section and removed images web link.Image can't be used as reference.--NAHID 09:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Simultaneously too many cited quotes and too few?

The tags at the opening of the article look like a practical joke. Please help: Who wants these here and why? BYT 15:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between citing a source for a fact and taking an exerpt from a quote, which may or may not be used to verify a fact in the article (the quote would still need to be cited as to where it was obtained). Do you see the difference that is meant between a reference and a quote? Leebo ^T/C 16:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is a horrific mess and essentially needs a rewrite. - Merzbow 17:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What kind of citations specifically do you feel are lacking, Leebo?

And Merzbow, what would be the aims of the rewrite you would envision? Which sections particularly do you have comments on, and what are they? BYT 20:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is basically where Islam was about a year ago. The best way to get this to GA/FA status is to examine a diff of Islam from then to now and look at the kind of things that were changed. - Merzbow 03:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't tell you what needs to be done to fix the problems described by those tags. I was explaining the difference between them when you said they were the same. Leebo ^T/C 20:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you think they should stay? BYT 21:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd need to be a lot more familiar with the article to answer your question. I can't do it justice with a quick reading. Such an article requires an extensive reading while checking each source, and I can't do that right now. I watchlist this article for vandalism reverting and saw your question. I didn't put the tags there; I didn't condone or oppose them. I just try to explain what they mean. Leebo ^T/C 02:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• i do think a bit of a rewrite and reorganisation is needed. i think it would be nice to bring this article up to good academic standard. ITAQALLAH 15:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Challenge of the Qur'ān Section Needs Serious Revision

This section does not fit Wikipedia Standards. It is convoluted and extrememly disorganized. I would suggest the entire section either be removed or rewritten in an objective, Wikifiable manner. XParadigm777x 17:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It contains a lot of interesting stuff, but it seems to be mostly original research. With that in mind, I rewrote it, and tried to summarise most interesting or most relevant sections of it. Please make changes to my rewrite -- I'm not a Muslim scholar myself and I have been lead mostsly by what the previous author had written. leuce 11:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish that you had done small step edits. It is because it is not difficult to follow, what has changed. --- A. L. M. 14:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Small step edits were a little difficult. Basically the entire section had to be precised, which makes small changes difficult to indicate. leuce 13:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There was no sourced material, so I blanked it.Proabivouac 01:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if no sourced material means blanking, but in this case I have no objection to the blanking. I wouldn't have blanked it myself, but that's just me. :-) leuce 13:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

good move.--sefringle^Talk 03:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. XParadigm777x 19:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Qur'an vs Qur'ān

Don't mean to bring up any old debates or anything, so sorry if this has been brought up before.

This article is currently at Qur'an, yet the lead section has it down as Qur'ān. The article itself tends to vary between usage of the two, as well as occasionally using Quran, varying capitalisation of the Q, as well.

I'm not knowledgeable on Islam, or anything like that, I just feel that the article, outside of direct quotations, should be consistent in its usage, and that the article should be located at the most accurate title.

So, does anyone care to standardise spelling throughout the article (I would do it, but I'd probably do it to the wrong spelling), and if there's consensus, perhaps we could have a move request to Qur'ān, if necessary? --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

'with' the macron is more correct with regards to pronounciation, 'without' is the primary transcription and the most frequently occuring in general, and according to the WP:AMOS we should prefer the latter (if i recall correctly). ITAQALLAH 20:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Notes on Critisism

In the last paragraph:

Some critics have also commented on the arrangement of the Qur'anic text with accusations of lack of continuity, derivative mythology, inconsistency, contradiction, absence of any chronological or thematic order, and presence of repetition[81][82].

I have 3 notes: 1) the source in 81, when you read it, will be found very agressive and biased; it doesn't really state anything and does not even attempt to rationalise the point - a mere attack.

2) The words in bold (derivative mythology, inconsistency, contradiction) are not mentioned in either source. There should either be a scholary source or else the points deleted - I don't believe that biased and un-founded accusations have a place on Wikipedia.

3) What on earth does "derivative mythology" mean anyway?!

--Maha Odeh 05:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the pointed out words in bold should be deleted, as the sentence without them summarises the source more fairly.

Sufaid 11:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Quranic Initials

Why is there no mention of the Quranic Initials which prefix 29 of the chapters in the Quran (ie, KHYAS in sura 19, TSM in sura 28, HM in sura 40)?? It is wrong to exclude information about the initials in this article. There should be some mention of the mathematical code as well. Alijaza 23:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Illiteracy

It is claimed that Muhammad was illiterate. They use this argument to further underline their claim that the Quran is a mirracle, i.e. that an illiterate man was guided by God to produce the Quran. However, their are many references to Muhammad's literacy, both in the Quran (the very first revelation) and in the hadiths (most of all in the Hadith of the pen and paper, which is preserved in the Tarikh al-Tabari, Sahih Muslim, and Sahih Bukhari). So, was Muhammad illiterate or not?! If yes, then does that mean that many of these hadiths are fabrications?! If the answer is "no", then how big is the possibility that he himself wrote the Quran?!

It is highly disputed, so nothing is said. Some scholars, like William Montgomery Watt state that he was literate, while others say he was illiterate. see here.--Sefringle^Talk 23:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This would be an interesting topic to explore, given that it is kept strictly within the bounds of scholarly discussion.Vice regent 16:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Qu'ran was never written by Mohammed.Eilangko 20:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

An interesting topic in light of Drosnin's The Bible Code. Illiteracy may be an answer for the language used in the Book of Mormon, odd language that has brought much criticism of Mormonism. Does the same exist in the Koran? Is it illiteracy or a primitive code? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.158.166 (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Full texts?

Does it seem reasonable that Wikipedia should (or at least could, would somebody have the initiative) to host the full texts of many of the major holy books? Bible, Torah, Qur'an, 8 Pillars. Or maybe there is already something like that on Wikipedia? Assumedly (and hopefully!) these aren't copyrighted materials. Why not have a link from the regular entry to the full text entry elsewhere on the site? Sorry if I'm wasting discussion space, but it seems reasonable to do. Wadester16 02:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That is the role of wikisource. It has full body works of other religous texts here. There is a link to the Qu'ran in the sister links section.--Balloonguy 22:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A central religious text

Whoever wrote this article does not have a good command of the language of the Quran. Why is it defined as a religious text? Qu'ran MEANS recitation, and the Quran IS the recitation. The word for "book" is different - AlKitab. Saying AlQuran is a book is like saying "Bohemian Rhapsody" by Queen is a book. This also invokes and alleviates the confusion found in the later article, where the Quran doesn't say how to recite itself. Oh course it doesn't - does a song tell you how to sing itself?

I'm changing the article to conform with proper Quranic language in order to underline the recitation-based origin of the quran and strike out the incorrect statement that a recitation is the same as a book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.102.20 (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"A work of fiction"?

The following tag seems a little... off:

To call the Qur'an fiction is to insult the entire religion of Islam, and every single person who believes in it. Can we not do that, please?
Whoever put it there might have been trying to point out a POV bias, and if there is one it should be corrected, but this tag does not look like the right tag for that job. 72.177.65.203 03:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Calling any work of fiction, fiction, is bound to insult those who think it is fact. That doesn't make it any less a work of fiction. 76.185.107.7 04:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a logical point of view to take, and it is a view I personally share. But is it the proper POV for an unbiased, neutral encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.65.203 (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If the Moslems are offended at how their book is described, they can always avoid reading the article. No law in the world exists to compel them to browse through Wikipedia pages. This page can't be written in a way that pleases the Moslems by saying this is a heavenly book brought down from heaven by an angel. As things stand the Qur'an is a man-made book and this is a neutral statement and it's perfectly scientific: if there's any real evidence that the origin of the Qur'ân is preternatural it ought to be provided and the description of the book will be changed. If there are Moslems who don't like hearing or reading that, they have lots of other islamic sites where they can read exclusively the so-called truth that they want to be told. This page was written neither with the idea it should stick to some islamic dogmas nor with the aim to flatter Moslem readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.56.126.24 (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

In islamic culture, the most comon translation of the word Kur'an is "The Book". Although, there are some teoreticians that agree with the western comprehension of the word. Also, I would like to add, that behind the name of every "prophet" (it is not considered a very nice word in Islam), stands something like a title: a.s. (alehi ve sellam), and behind the name of Muhammed's closest folowers (later Caliphes) is the title: r.a. ( radiallahu an). 85.92.233.46 22:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you trying to convey here? All I can see is a pile of random irrelevant (false) information..216.99.53.158 (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Article does not meet standards of an Encyclopedia

It is important that this article should be re-written to meet the standards of an encyclopedia. For example, if you look at the section "Origin and development", we observe that the Quran was revealed to Moahammed by some supernatural power. No book in the history of mankind has ever been revealed to anyone by some sort of supernatural power. Please re-write the section "Origin and development" based on factual evidence as opposed to fictional belief systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eilangko (talk • contribs) 20:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You would see "According to Islam" at the beginning of the section if you paid more attention. --Seyyed(t-c) 08:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Where should be added?

There are some issues about the position of Quran in Islam which I don't know where should be added. We can make a separate section which describes about this issue. It can contain issues such as the importance of Quran in Muslim's beliefs as well as in Fiqh, reciting Quran including Al-Fatiha by all Muslims in their prayers, reciting one "Juz'" (one 30th) of Quran in Taravih in each night of Ramadan by Sunnis, and so on.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mizanagong.jpg

Image:Mizanagong.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Burnt, buried and "left to flow"?

Under subsection "In culture". These three things are simply incorrect. There is no reference cited for that. How can a book that people wash up before touching be "buried"? Besides, a book wouldn't "flow" down a river. It will sink like a rock.

(Fuzzbuzz 12:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

Relationship with other literature?

The article states that the "author/authors" may have borrowed information from the Christian apocrypha. While I don't deny that the Qur'an probobly borrowed foreign ideas, there is no evidence whatsoever that there were "multiple authors" of the Qur'an. This isn't the Bible. There were no edits, additions, subtractions, or reneges to the Qur'an. The text has remained pure ever since the time of Muhammad (Essentially all literates memorized it, which prevented error); this is undisputed amongst mainstream scholars, whether or not one agrees with the text or not. Even so, the Relationship with other literature is unnecessary; Wikipedia already has an entirely separate article for that (Legends and the Qur'an). -68.43.58.42 (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Undue Deletion.

I had added an esoteric interpretation of the name of the Qur'an in the heading of "Etymology and Meaning", but it has been deleted for no justifying reason. Was that material unauthentic? If so then multiple questions arise about the credibility of the articles on the Wikipedia. I deeply regret for this act. Can any one display the reason for deleting my addition? --Ya 'Ali Ya 'Azeem (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

miracle of the Quran

This thig are not based and if we added them we need to add articles that debunking miracle of the Quran like:

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/avijit/Quran_miracle.htm

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/avijit/Quran_miracle2.htm

http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/bigbang.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/denis_giron/islamsci.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Science/

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-119627472.html

http://www.yahyayunus.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wishinggoodness (talk • contribs) 09:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oren.tal (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

you're right in princple that we should try to keep POV out of the EL section, but you needn't prop these websites up as some sort of a bargaining chip. ITAQALLAH 02:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Qur'anic inimitable style

The claim that Qur'anic style is inimitable is discussed in two sections: "Literary structure" and "Qur'an and miracles". I suggest merging them in one. (Imad marie (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

'Free Koran'

Bewrae of a recent addition (which I just reverted) to the Quran template Template:QuranRelated providing a link to a free Qur'an. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"al-Nasikh wal-Mansukh" - The Abrogator and the Abrogated

The koran has chronological order and that order has meaning.Sura that revealed later cancel Sura that was revealed before. This is important rule and I think we should mention it. Here is a link about the issue: http://www.meforum.org/article/1754 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal (talk • contribs) 16:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Revelation Order of the Qur'an: http://www.missionislam.com/quran/revealationorder.htm Oren.tal (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Year of Writing

Among many things that are portrayed wrong, and also in a wrong meaningful way, is also the Writing date, amazing ! below is the wrong info para :
The Qur'an did not exist in book form at the time of Muhammad's death in 632. According to Sahih al-Bukhari, written some 200 years after Muhammad's death, this task fell to the scribe Zayd ibn Thabit at the direction of the first Muslim caliph Abu Bakr.
It was actually written 19 years after prophet Muhammad's death, everyone knows that.
--Tarikash 08:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

It is saying that Sahih Bukhari was writen 200 years after, not the Qur'an. ITAQALLAH 17:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ooops ! thanks ITAQALLAH. i was too upset and tired. all the time i see "Muslim believe/ muslim say/ muslim do" etc, where as on other religion, not as much (like christian believe/christian say/ jew believe/ jew say/etc), feels like, Muslims are some kind of a alien tribe/race or nothing at all. i read the prophet Muhammad's page much earlier, and yesterday, it is now in better form, than this Quran page, something is in wrong form or inadequate here.

anyway, above sentence would be better, if says ... The Qur'an did not exist in book form at the time of Muhammad's death in 632, a complete book form was done 19 years later. According to Sahih al-Bukhari, written some 200 years after Muhammad's death, this task fell to the scribe Zayd ibn Thabit at the direction of the first Muslim caliph Abu Bakr.

then it gives the sense, when it was actually done, with exact numbers. --Tarikash 21:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

If you feel that a change needs to be made that will better the article and conform to our content policies, then be bold and feel free to make it. ITAQALLAH 01:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding more info in the Origin and Development chapter

i have added the below para inside the "Origin and Development" chapter to include data related to origin and development of Qur'an, which i think is very important, which gives the sense of of its origination and as well how it developed or expanded to be used and followed by so many Muslims, and also gives the info, on the "hafiz" who actually memorized the whole Qur'an and their memorization was used to transfer Qur'an from memory to a written form.
Muslim says the Qur'an that was revealed to Muhammad is exactly same as today, because Qur'anic verses were instantly written on various available material that they found suitable for writing, but above all, they were memorized by several hundreds of his companions (qari' (قَارٍئ), hafiz) and shared with other Muslims, who also made their own recordings, and all those Qur'anic verses were recited, read and discussed everyday, and Qur'anic verses were vigorously recited (tilawa تلاوة) on all the special Muslim occasions and specially during the Ramadan month which is till a custom of today, and this oral memorization and those source materials were used to write the first Qur'an, 19 years after the death of Muhammad, which was verified several times again by those companions those who memorized all verses, but above all, Muslims practiced and transmitted the oral memorization of all Qur'anic verses as a custom from one to another continuously, which custom is followed even till today, without a single bit of change, like the tradition of Oral Torah.
Requesting to discuss about this, and include this para back into the article. And i also want to know why the user Arthur Harrison has deleted this info. -- Tarikash 08:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

I rearranged the latter half of the Origin and Development chapter, maintaining what was there while adding NPOV discussion of alternatives to the "standard" Muslim view. Both factual statements (relating to Yemeni texts and the Bavarian archive) added are fully sourced. I have therefore reverted his changes. As to Tarakish's question, I did not delete the cited text, but eliminated repetition in the run-on sentence. Also, Tarakish's insertion of a quote from the Qur'an to prove that it is unaltered violates the rule that a primary text cannot be cited to prove itself. I have reverted Itaqallah's reversion as too broad; I propose that any changes from here be made by line, not be reversion.Arthur Harrison (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you contributions Arthur and Tarikash. Please note that all material must be adhere to our content policies. That is, maintenance of a neutral perspective, material must be verified by reliable sources, and must avoid any form of original research. Please take the time to study these guidelines and policies. Any material that lacks citations may be challenged or removed. As I explained in the edit summary, much of the material is unsourced and a personal evaluation of various arguments. Some is sourced if I recall, albeit poorly. I decided to undo the recent changes in favour of proposing developments here first. Please also note that I also undid both of your insertions which were equally inappropriate. Regards. ITAQALLAH 15:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Itaqallah. I'm keenly aware of those Wikipedia policies. Leaving aside Tarakish's edits, I'd be curious for a linkage between the policies and your statement that my insertions were "inappropriate"--i.e., what about them is inappropriate in your opinion?Arthur Harrison (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the diff. The paragraphs starting with "However, scholarly debate exists...", "A second argument for the supposed exact correspondence..." which you inserted are not sourced at all. The next paragraph is cited partially, there still appears to be original research in the form of statements like "One counterargument to this supposed exact correspondence of Qur'anic texts.." or "These documents have not been fully analyzed, in part because of opposition by Yemeni authorities." (does the cited article say that? I thought it was found that the differences were rather minor). The last paragraph, "In January, 2008, it was reported that a photo archive of ancient manuscripts of the Qur'an...", is not cited to an academic source. Rather, it appears to be mostly the writer's speculation, nor is there any actual evidence of its significance.

Secondly, there is excessive focus on minority views. The vast majority of academic scholarship believes the Qur'an in general has been authentically preserved from the time of Muhammad. Two references as follows:

"... few have failed to be convinced that what is in our copy of the Quran is, in fact, what Muhammad taught, and is expressed in his own words... ...The search for variants in the partial versions extant before the Caliph Uthman’s alleged recension in the 640s (what can be called the “sources” behind our text) has not yielded any differences of great significance" (Peters, F. E. (Aug., 1991) "The Quest for the Historical Muhammad." International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 291-315.)

"Western scholarship has not reached a consensus on what value this mass of allegedly pre- Uthmanic variants has for our knowledge of the history of the Kur`an. Confidence in the variants declined during the 1930s as they were being collected and analysed. Bergsträsser ( Gesch. des Qor. , ii, 77-83, 92-6) still gave a fairly positive appraisal, but Jeffery (Materials, 16) wrote: “ With the increase of material one feels less inclined to venture on such a judgment of value ” , a view that came to be shared by O. Pretzl. Then after the project to prepare a critical edition of the Kur`an came to a halt, A. Fischer ( Isl. , xxviii [1948], 5) concluded that most of the allegedly pre-Kur`anic variants were later attempts by philologers to emend the `Uthmanic text."

But in any case, my main issue is with the passages that are either unsourced or need better sourcing. ITAQALLAH 15:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

To Arthur Harrison, and to anyone who is concerned, that paragraph is not proving anything, it is just including the ORIGIN or fact of Qur'an, that it was in the "Memory" of several companions, and then that memory was used to transfer the content in a written form, and practicing this memory was a common practice at that time, and even today Muslims do that, which is a very very i repeat a VERY important fact and must need to be included, so a person who doesn't know anything about Qur'an or knows a little can know how it was came about into existence of a book form in the first place after Muhammad. Qur'an is not about a book only, its also this "memory"/"knowledge" that is what needs to be showed here inside this "Origin and Development" chapter. And again i will repeat it is not of any kind of proof, just a mere fact. I welcome all to correct the flow of the sentence, and make it better. but this para needs to be re-included. And "Development" title of this chapter also dictates to describe in short, what process was followed at that time. --Tarikash 21:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

The new paragraph edited by Arthur Harrison, portraying that these information are only argument but nothing more, your adding many types of conclusion on these information on your own, you mentioned multiple times "argument" and your own conclusion sentences ... two even three, two at the top and one in the bottom of the SAME paragraph, makes/renders this para useless/hazy, that your or non-Muslims arguments/comments are the ONLY usefull argument or conclusion. Which is not true, or are the only arguments. There are more claims by both side that they are right and other side got it wrong. So please add your "conclusion" or "doubt" type of comment/data in the next or one para above. --Tarikash.

your version ... "A second argument for the supposed exact correspondence is that Qur'anic verses were recorded in writing at the time they were reported by Muhammad on written on various available materials that Muhammad'd companions had available. A third argument is that the verses were reportedly memorized by several hundred of Muhammad's companions (qari' (قَارٍئ), hafiz) and shared with other Muslims, who also made their own recordings, and those Qur'anic verses were recited, read and discussed, and Qur'anic verses were vigorously recited (tilawa تلاوة) during Muslim holy days and periods. It was this oral memorization and those source materials that were used to write the first Qur'an, 19 years after the death of Muhammad, which was reportedly verified several times again by those companions those who memorized all verses. While both of these arguments are made, they appear to contradict each other, both because oral memorization and passing on should be unnecessary if the argument regarding simultaneous written recordation is correct, and because oral passage of documents is notoriously unreliable."

I have changed it further with reference/source into this below paragraph. --Tarikash.

here is the changed paragraph ... "Muslims claims that when Qur'anic verses were revealed to Muhammad by the Angel Gabriel, Muhammad recited that specific verse or group of verse to other nearby companion, and those verses were written down immediately on various available materials that were suitable for writing, by his companions (scribe) at his instruction and he also indicated where exactly that portion of verse will fit in among the other verses and surahs. And this received new verses were also memorized instantly by his companion (hafiz), and passed on to other several hundred companions (qari' (قَارٍئ), hafiz) and to other Muslims, who also made their own recordings and memorized it. Qur'anic verses were recited (tilawa تلاوة), read and discussed on the day when it was revealed, and also during other Muslim holy days and periods. It was this memorization (oral) of verses and those written source materials that were used to write the first book form of Qur'an, 19 years after the death of Muhammad, by Zayd at the instruction of Muslim caliph Abu Bakr, when the need arises after a war (battle of Yamamah, aka Ridda wars) where several Hafiz companions died. Which was reportedly verified several times again by those companions those who memorized all verses. And during the time of caliph Uthman it was copied by Zayd and other companion and those copies were sent to various other location of the world. Memorization of all verses of Qur'an from the time of Muhammad when he was alive and even till today is a very common Muslim fundamental practice and tradition in schools and in society. However, above claims are heavily debated by various scholars, that Muslims are not right."

Note that, i have changed your multiple "argument" and your "conclusion" sentences into "However, above claims are heavily debated by various scholars, that Muslims are not right". You are adding too many conclusion based comment on your own, and your own thought, if they are not of your own, then please mention/include who doubts them, cite your source, please include who says they are contradictory, please give source/cite, in the next or one paragraph above. If muslim saying something needs reference/source/cite, then non-muslim saying something should/must have reference/source/cite as well. Thank you. --Tarikash 07:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC).

Sorry guys, there was just far too much material inserted that was violating our content policies. I'd explained how and where above. It would be much better if we could discuss proposed changes here first to ensure the sourcing and the attributions made to them are adequate. Regards, ITAQALLAH 22:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm proposing to replace part of this below 1st paragraph with part of the 2nd para, to give little bit more detail than what exist in the 1st para, to include the fact it existed in both written and memory form 1st, then those fragmented written parts and intact memory were used to write the first Quran in a book format. we should merge thse two para into 3rd para, and place it in the place of 1st para. --Tarikash.

1st para ... "The Qur'an did not exist in book form at the time of Muhammad's death in 632. According to Sahih al-Bukhari, who wrote some 200 years after Muhammad's death, the task of compilation fell to the scribe Zayd ibn Thabit at the direction of the first Muslim caliph Abu Bakr. Ibn Thabit gathered the Qur'anic material "collecting it from parchments, scapula, leaf-stalks of date palms and from the memories of men who knew it by heart". (Bukhari Sahih al-Bukhari, 6:60:201).. Copies were made, and as Islam expanded beyond the Arabian peninsula into Persia, India, Russia, China, Turkey, and across North Africa, the third Caliph, Uthman ibn Affan, in about 650 ordered a standardized version to be prepared to preserve the sanctity of the text and to establish a definitive spelling for all time. This remains the authoritative text of the Qur'an to this day."

2nd para ... "Muslims claims that when Qur'anic verses were revealed to Muhammad by the Angel Gabriel, Muhammad recited that specific verse or group of verse to other nearby companion, and those verses were written down immediately on various available materials that were suitable for writing, by his companions (scribe) at his instruction and he also indicated where exactly that portion of verse will fit in among the other verses and surahs. And this received new verses were also memorized instantly by his companion (hafiz), and passed on to other several hundred companions (qari' (قَارٍئ), hafiz) and to other Muslims, who also made their own recordings and memorized it. Qur'anic verses were recited (tilawa تلاوة), read and discussed on the day when it was revealed, and also during other Muslim holy days and periods. It was this memorization (oral) of verses and those written source materials that were used to write the first book form of Qur'an, 19 years after the death of Muhammad, by Zayd at the instruction of Muslim caliph Abu Bakr, when the need arised after a war (battle of Yamamah, aka Ridda wars) where several Hafiz companions died. Which was reportedly verified several times again by those companions those who memorized all verses. And during the time of caliph Uthman it was copied by Zayd and other companion and those copies were sent to various other location of the world. Memorization of all verses of Qur'an from the time of Muhammad when he was alive and even till today is a very common Muslim fundamental practice and tradition in schools and in society. However, above claims are heavily debated by various scholars, that Muslims are not right."

3rd merged para ... "The Qur'an did not exist in book form at the time of Muhammad's death in 632. When Qur'anic verses were revealed to Muhammad by the Angel Gabriel, Muhammad recited that specific verse or group of verse to other nearby companion, and those verses were written down immediately on various available materials that were suitable for writing, by his companions (scribe) at his instruction and he also indicated where exactly that portion of verse will fit in among the other verses and surahs. And this received new verses were also memorized instantly by his companion (hafiz), and passed on to other several hundred companions (qari' (قَارٍئ), hafiz) and to other Muslims, who also made their own recordings and memorized it. Qur'anic verses were recited (tilawa تلاوة), read and discussed on the day when it was revealed, and also during other Muslim holy days and periods. It was this memorization (oral) of verses and those written source materials that were used to write the first book form of Qur'an, 19 years after the death of Muhammad, by Zayd at the instruction of Muslim caliph Abu Bakr, when the need arised after a war (battle of Yamamah, aka Ridda wars) where several Hafiz companions died. Zayd Ibn Thabit gathered the Qur'anic material "collecting it from parchments, scapula, leaf-stalks of date palms and from the memories of men who knew it by heart". (Bukhari Sahih al-Bukhari, 6:60:201).. It was verified several times again by those companions those who memorized all verses. Then copies were made, and as Islam expanded beyond the Arabian peninsula into Persia, India, Russia, China, Turkey, and across North Africa, under the third Caliph, Uthman ibn Affan, in about 650 ordered a standardized version to be prepared to preserve the sanctity of the text and to establish a definitive spelling for all time. This remains the authoritative text of the Qur'an to this day.. Memorization of all verses of Qur'an from the time of Muhammad when he was alive and even till today is a very common Muslim fundamental practice and tradition in schools and in society."

What is your response on this. Further Note: I've added reflist at below to discuss the reference material, as well, it can be removed after the discussion is over. --Tarikash 00:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

Itaqallah, i've left reminder in your talk page and here to response, but you're ignoring to response, why? --Tarikash 02:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

Hi Tarikash. Sorry, I've been a bit busy. Overall, the sourcing is quite good.. but I see you including unsourced material or material that is interpetive of primary sources such as Bukhari etc. I would suggest you get hold of a good academic overview of the Qur'anic development and then start inserting facts from it into the section. You can then work on removing mid-sentence citations and put them after the peroid/full-stop at the end of the sentence, like this. I also suggest that you break your proposal down into individual sentences to make things easier for everyone when evaluating how appropriate or well-sourced particular content is, and to better understand which source is saying what. Regards, ITAQALLAH 16:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your valuable creative response. I will arrange the 3rd para in that way then. But it did cross my mind when i was referencing to Bukhari, then i thought Bukhari is not Quran, so that should be ok, even now currently, this section is still referencing to Bukhari ! I'm requesting you or anyelse who is interested, to help in organizing this 3rd short para, thanks. --Tarikash 21:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

web site to get Koran

I am adding web site that supply Koran for free.Many people would like to use the opportunity.It is useful link and it is relevant.Oren.tal (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This looks promotional, unnecessary, and the website is of unknown credibility. People have the opportunity to have a look at translations of the Qur'an, in full, online at various websites like USC-MSA (see [5]) or islamicity.com. I see no reason for this inclusion. ITAQALLAH 17:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

yes but with this web site they can get the book for free.I found this web site in Muslim you tube video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khjtrIkYU5I if you searched Islam in you tube you will get this video.Anyway this website offer what the other link don't offer and that paper book for free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal (talk • contribs) 20:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC) plus the WOT extension say it is safe website.Oren.tal (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Inward Aspects of the Qur'an

I added this part which is difficult to understand in the moder secular world. Sunnis also don't agree with it to some extent. First I wanted to use Henry Corbin's book, "The history of Islamic philosophy", to explain it but then I found it's too difficult due to numerous technical words in his text. Then I used Allameh Tabatabaei which explain issue without using those words. However I think if somebody want to understand the explanations clearly, he/she should read the references.

In addition, it's clear that modern scholars can't agree with this part at all, even if they can understand it, but it doesn't mean that is the idea of few fanatic and dogmatic Shias and Sufis. As I told, you can find this issue in Corbin's work as well. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, William Chittick, Hamid Algar, Martin Lings, Dariush Shayegan and many others has similar idea or at least familiar with it.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Pronuncation

Could somebody please give an IPA spelling and a sound file for the pronuncation? —vivacissamamente (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Translations of the Quran

The link to the main article is messed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumarine (talk • contribs) 22:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

In the Qu'ran the Angel is refered to as Gibriele instead of Gabriel (they both sound different. And the the "Inji" is spelled differently as well more like Injeel instead of Injil. I'm going to rename it as only Christians call it that but I will put in a bracket sign to tell non-Muslims what it means as it does clash with Christianity at some point...LOTRrules (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

about references

salamunalaik, Received your following messege.
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Qur'an. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 17:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

do you want to say ? that an encyclopedia means to write what a person like, even then that claim is not correct?

--Farrukh38 (talk) 09:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your offer to help me out,
1- what is not correct in citation?
2-which source was not reliable in my references?
which part of edited text is controversial edits?
would you please help me out in making the corrections in the text i added in Qur'an article?

thanking you again.--Farrukh38 (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Qur'an is a book whose writer is not known.
the year is not known
It means Qur'an does not ful fill Cite Book requirement.
Article Qur'an looks like an information about Qur'an and not from Qur'an.
In this article many refereces has been used to establish or proove historical information.
The references of verses provided in the article are not full filling the claims statements
should Qur'an not be discarded from wikipedia , as it doesnot full fill the wikipedia requirement.
Thanks --Farrukh38 (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

--Farrukh38 (talk) 09:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

would u please point out the citation and other errors.

Itaqallah Line 29: Line 29:

The term also has closely related synonyms which are employed throughout the Qur’ān. Each of the synonyms possess their own distinct meaning, but their use may converge with that of qur`ān in certain contexts. Such terms include kitāb ("book"); āyah ("sign"); and sūrah ("scripture"). The latter two terms also denote units of revelation. Other related words are: dhikr, meaning "remembrance," used to refer to the Qur’ān in the sense of a reminder and warning; and hikma, meaning "wisdom," sometimes referring to the revelation or part of it.  The term also has closely related synonyms which are employed throughout the Qur’ān. Each of the synonyms possess their own distinct meaning, but their use may converge with that of qur`ān in certain contexts. Such terms include kitāb ("book"); āyah ("sign"); and sūrah ("scripture"). The latter two terms also denote units of revelation. Other related words are: dhikr, meaning "remembrance," used to refer to the Qur’ān in the sense of a reminder and warning; and hikma, meaning "wisdom," sometimes referring to the revelation or part of it. 
   

- ^{[Quran 10:37]}Qur'an is reading of Al-kitab which is one, out of many other attributes of Al-kitab (The Book), which has many other names. Among those found in the text itself are al-Furqan ("discernment"), Umm al-Kitab (the "mother book", or "archetypal book"), al-huda ("the guide"), Dhikrallah ("the remembrance of God"), al-Hikmah ("wisdom'), and Kalamallah ("the word of God"). Another term is Al-Kitab ("the book"), though it is also used in the Arabic language for other scriptures, such as the Torah and the Gospels. As per Alkitab, this term is not used for Torah or Gospels, But this Al-kitab contains At-taurah in it, All the prophets governed with At-taurah of Al-kitab 5:44, and contains Al-Injeel in 5:46 which is sermon for muttaqeen. The term mushaf ("written work") is usually used to refer to particular manuscripts of the Qur’ān but is also used in the Qur’ān to identify earlier revealed books.. This reference [2] does not look from Quran. + ^{[Quran 10:37]}Qur'an is reading of Al-kitab which is one, out of many other attributes of Al-kitab (The Book), which has many other names. Among those found in the text itself are al-Furqan ("discernment"), Umm al-Kitab (the "mother book", or "archetypal book"), al-huda ("the guide"), Dhikrallah ("the remembrance of God"), al-Hikmah ("wisdom'), and Kalamallah ("the word of God"). Another term is Al-Kitab ("the book"), though it is also used in the Arabic language for other scriptures, such as the Torah and the Gospels, But As per Alkitab, this term is not used for scriptures like Torah or Gospels.
This Al-kitab contains At-taurah in it, All the prophets governed with At-taurah of Al-kitab 5:44, and contains Al-Injeel in 5:46 which is sermon for "muttaqeen" those who guard.
To understand the above explanation about Al-kitab, The term AL-kitab must be understand with the help of ayats in Book of Allah.
===AL-Kitab===
In this 5:48 verse the word Al-kitab has been used two times, one AL-kitab is revealing and confirming/verfying, which is between in his two hands from AL-kitab "The book". That is why as per Book of Allah "AL-kitab" does not means previous Holy Books, scriptures or Gospels, But two Books i.e existed and revealing. Normally people are confused with the word "kutub" and refer it as previous Holy Books.In Book of allah this word is used in many places. At some place the word kutu-be-hi is written which means his writings and not previous scriptures. To understand kutub mean writings, read 98:2,3. In 98:2 The Messenger recites prified pages. In 98:3 in pages are kutub which makes clear that these kutub in pages are ayats of Allah i.e writings and not previous Holy Books. Because normally the books contain pages and not the pages contain books.People are writing about Al-kitab as previous scriptures or Gospels from the Books other than Book of Allah. Allah is refering those books from which the people are writing about Al-kitab 34:44.
The term mushaf ("written work") is usually used to refer to particular manuscripts of the Qur’ān but is also used in the Qur’ān to identify earlier revealed books.. This reference [2] does not look from Quran.

== Structure==  == Structure== 

--Farrukh38 (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC) In all above changes, you observed citation error only in line no29, which i could not understand, the claim in line 29 is about explanation of word AL-kitab as writing as per Qurani ayats. AL-kitab does not mean as per Qur'an it self as previous scriptures but you are insisting in the name of Qur'an,line 28 has not the claim for explanation of the ayat,even then you removed all other lines too? would you please refer that rule for removal of above lines?--Farrukh38 (talk) 08:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

please remove line no 29 and add the rest references to tell truth about AL-kitab as per text of Qur'an which means the writing and not previous scriptures. please read this verse too about concealing the truth for book of allah, YUSUFALI: Those who conceal the clear (Signs) We have sent down, and the Guidance, after We have made it clear for the people in the Book,-on them shall be Allah's curse, and the curse of those entitled to curse,- PICKTHAL: Lo! Those who hide the proofs and the guidance which We revealed, after We had made it clear to mankind in the Scripture: such are accursed of Allah and accursed of those who have the power to curse. SHAKIR: Surely those who conceal the clear proofs and the guidance that We revealed after We made it clear in the Book for men, these it is whom Allah shall curse, and those who curse shall curse them (too). --Farrukh38 (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

to make sub page of Quran and reference with out any source

ItaqAllah the reference for mushaf word as previous revealed book is from Britannica and there also nothing has been cited from any source. please check the referece to improve the article. waiting for above reply. also waiting to make aub page of Quran the Al-kitab(Quran)

 thanks    Farrukh38 (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

sub page in Qur'an

want to insert following claims as sub page in Qur'an article, which i have written as an article AL-kitab.how can it be linked qith Qur'an article. please help me out and oblidge. thanks

In most of the Islamic articles, These words , AL-kitab, kutub, revelation and tanzil are reffered to previous scriptures Qur'an, and every body is writing from the books other than Quran just to proove his concept of previous revealed Books of Allah. Where as this concept doesnot prevail in The Book of Allah.

This word exists in the Book of Allah so many times, out of these few of them have been quoted here. We have to look this word in Book of Allah too, to tell the people, what exactly the Quran is saying in his text about this word.
As per Text of Al-kitab this word AL-kitab has many attributes, like Quran, Furqan.
As per dofferent scholors, Moosa (pbuh), Easa (pbuh) and Dawood (pbuh) got three different Books of Allah, They use to reffer As Torah, four Gospels, and Zabur Qur'an. Due to usage of these words most of the people are reffereing verses of Book Of Allah to establish their concepts. In Book of Allah is written that Easa (pbuh) has the knowledge of four things i.e AL-kitab, Al-Hikamt, At-taurat and AL-Injeel, which are four and not only alone Injeel.where the word , AL-injeel is given to Easa (pbuh) is written that verse has been quoted by people with out understanding the word AL-injeel as per Book of Allah.
To undertsnad these terms "AL-kitab", "kutub", As per text of AL-kitab, The term AL-kitab must be understand from the text of AL-kitab first, which is revealed with all prophets, in this ayats prophets are in plural and the book is in singular i.e AL-kitab is with all prophets.
This is not the only ayat in the Book of Allah which tells the one Book of Allah with all prophets mentioned in AL-kitab, But many ayats in which names of prophets are mentioned, to whom Allah has given this same AL-kitab.On the last day the Book which is same AL-kitab, again in singular, will be placed to judge mankind and prophets which are written inplural will be brought forward.No where in text of AL-kitab is written that Allah has given different books to his messengers, But on the contrary, Allah is asking to bring a book before this Book from the people, if they are speaking the truth regarding the previous books.
This Al-kitab has two types of ayats, one type is mohkumat i.e ayats having orders, The ayats having orders of Allah are called ("hukum Allah") and this hukum Allah is in At-taurah of AL-kitabAt-taurah is with prophets which are in plural, All the prophets governed with At-taurah.The plural of this word is kutub and this is also used by many scholors as previous scriptures. But as per text of Al-kitab recites purified pages in the pages are kutub, this means "writing", Because pages contains writings and many pages forms a book that is why here other than writing cannot be written. In the light of 98:2-3 The term ("kutubehi") as per AL-kitab means his writing and not previous scriptures.

The term Ahlalkitab, As per text of AL-kitab meaning "people of the book" or "family of the Book" is refered to the people, Holding this AL-kitab of Allah and the people among the mo'minoon are Ahlalkitab and not people of previous scriptres.
In the light of above references of AL-kitab it is very clear that Book of Allah exists since day one to guide mankind, and the messenger opened that hidden portion of Book which the people of book were hiding, confirming that the book was there before Mohammad (pbuh). i.e existance and revelation of Book are not one and same things but the same AL-kitab has been revealed on the messenger, As per text of AL-kitab there are two Al-kitab words in one auyat, one is revealing over messenger and one is existing before this, the word kutubehi meaning "his writings", is reffering these two Books *AL-kitab and not previous scriptures because the both words Al-kitab are in singualr..
To clearify doubts in which Allah has revealed, ask those who are reciting the Book from before you i.e again the AL-kitab in singular, read by the people and present from before..

The AL-Injeel given to Easa (pbuh) is verifying what is between in his two hands from At-taurat, this verification is the sermon and guidance for "mutaqeen" those who guard and not four Gospels, not refering to the revelation transmitted by "Islamic view of Jesus|Isa" (Jesus), and also doesnot mean the scripture possessed and read by the Christian contemporaries of Mohammed (V, 51; VII, 156), i.e., the four Gospels. The Qu'ran refers to the message of Easa, the contents of the revelation contained in the Al-Injil transmitted by Easa (pbuh) are guidance and Sermon for those who guard, which are not refering to old or new testament as Injeel of Easa (pbuh).. That is why At-taurah of Al-kitab is not Reffering to Torah given to Moses (pbuh) alone. No where in Book of Allah is written that Moosa (pbuh) got only ("Torah") but got Al-kitab, Furqan. This is the reason that actual quotations from the Torah in the Qur'an are very few and inexact Tawrat. Because At-taurah of Al-kitab and Hebrew Torah are two different books. Al-kitab is referring it's governing ayats to At-taurah and not to Hebrew Torah. At-taurah of Al-kitab means "The law", which is written in next ayat of AL-kitab.
As per text of AL-kitab regarding Zabur, in a verse is written that We have written in the Zabur after zikar,and Zikar ia an attribute of AL-kitab. which tells very clearly that Zabur as per text of AL-kitab is some thing which is after Qur'an, which is an attribute of AL-kitab meaning reading of AL-kitab.. The books from which the people are studying and taking information about the words "kutub", "Tanzil" Qur'an and refering to previous scriptures are also not given them by Allah .
By placing At-turah "governing ayats" and sermon of governing ayats as AL-Injeel no any ayat will refer to previous scriptures.That is why just reading from AL-kitab that that Allah has given AL-injeel to Easa (pbuh) and Zabur to Dawood (pbuh) does not mean that previous scriptures but these are defined Allah as per AL-kitab.

can u please make AL-KITAB(Qur'an) sub page of Qur'an still waiting

thanks

Farrukh38 (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Qur;an references.

like [7] , 23 years are not mentioned in this refered verse of Qur'an, even then not removed the wrong reference which doesnot full fill the requrement of claim about revelation period of Qur'an in 23 years even then you did not remove after pointing out those verse.

   Farrukh38 

references not justifying the claims.

like 7 there are many claims which are supported by verse of Quran are not justifying. even after pointing all places you have ignored and still wrong refences are there. like7 there is not 23 years word in the referenced verse of Quran.--Farrukh38 (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Can true meaning of Quran be read unbiased, by simply applying plain Arabic grammer ?

I have discovered far more profound meanings and yet commonsense by browsing Quran and trying to understand the message AS IT IS.

The first Surah, Al-Fath like almost all others except Al-Toubah begin with the heading: Bism (In the name) Ellahe (of The Angel) Rrahmane (who cares universally) Rraheem (and cares individually).

So, the heading sets a clear path: Allah is the source of some universal power of love !

The first and second Ayats in the Surah, re-inforce the heading: Alhamdo (Affinity with) Lellahe (The Angel) Rabbel (guide to) Alameen (2 dimensions); Al-Rrahmane (The one who cares universally) Rraheem (and cares individually).

Does this mean care and love at all levels for everyone ?

Next Ayats follow the logic:

Maleke (Master of) Yaomeddin (Day of Faith).

. . . (Guiding to the most direct path).
. . . (The path for those who prosper, not to be subjected to aggression, and not for those in darkness).

The opening chapter sets the wisdom to read the rest.

This experience is entirely different from what I hear against Islam, and what I hear from mainstream advocates of Islam ! Maybe, the advocates of Islam should advocate the true message of Islam, rather than reflecting the aggression subjected to !

about qur'an template, and wrong quri ayat's references.

your template.: The Quran cannot be quoted for itself.

The Quran is a primary source. It cannot speak for itself. Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge

would u plz like to tell for whom is this avove template's matter? to write wrong Qur'ani ayats in support of claims? as you wrote many verses but they are not confirming your claims, example like Qur'an revealed in 23 years and you quoted [7].

more over you wrote AL-kitab and kutb as previous scripture, but did not quote the verses of Qur'an in which , ayats, 98:2-3 his his his ayats 2:285 etc

Remove those references which are not correct and i have mentioned in previous talk to which i did not get any reply and standing for misguiding from Qur'an.

Thanks

Farrukh38 (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

please check your reference in support of claim,

[Qur'an 10:37]The Qur'an has many other names. Among those found in the text itself are al-Furqan ("discernment"), Umm al-Kitab (the "mother book", or "archetypal book"), al-huda ("the guide"), Dhikrallah ("the remembrance of God"), al-Hikmah ("wisdom'), and Kalamallah ("the word of God"). Another term is Al-Kitab ("the book"), though it is also used in the Arabic language for other scriptures, such as the Torah and the Gospels.

10:37 tells that reading of AL-kitab is Qur'an. and not that quran has many names

AL-kitab as per text of kitab has an attribute of reading as Qura'n 10:37 . AL-kitab mean The writing and not previous scriptures. Plural of kitab in arabic is kutub which mean writings. you have quoted kutubehi as previous scriptures which means his writings. 2:285 it seems that you have quoted the people and not worked on it for verification which is not the wiki policy..,,

you have reverted many references and did not accept the Qura'ni ayats referenses for kitab it self which is is word of text of quran. how can it possible that people are wrting about Quran as per people research and not as per Text of Qur'an it self/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farrukh38 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

reference requied.

Another term is Al-Kitab ("the book"), though it is also used in the Arabic language for other scriptures, such as the Torah and the Gospels.

for above claim would u please write the reference?--Farrukh38 (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

with out putting references you have removed {{Fact}} template

please write down references instead of removing {{Fact}} template. in following text. usc|17|106|style=nosup}}</ref>‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  23 years are not mentioned in referenced ayat 17:106

The Qur'an was written down by Muhammad's companions (sahabah),‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› about names of writer's of Qur'an ,.

Etymology and meaning

As per verse of Al-Quran 10:37,Quran (Reading) is confirmation of what in between his two hands and details of Al-kitab. Among the earliest meanings of the word Qur’ān is the "act of reciting", example: "So when al-qur`ān is recited , listen to it and keep silent".

^{[Quran 10:37]}The Qur'an has many other names ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› , for names of Quur'an,

Another term is Al-Kitab ("the book"), though it is also used in the Arabic language for other scriptures ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  reference of any quranic verse,

the letter of the revelation dictated by the Angel to the prophet ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  , ref from quranic verse

History of Qur'an

Main article: Origin and development of the Qur'an