Talk:Qur'an

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Qur'an article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Qur'an is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

	This article is part of the WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	Literature Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Archives
Archive 1 (Aug.2002 to Apr.2005) Archive 2 (Feb.2005 to Oct.2005) Qur'an Picture Controversy - Part 1 (Nov.2005 to Jan.2006) Qur'an Picture Controversy - Part 2 (Jan.2006) Archive 3 (Oct.2005 to Jan.2006) Archive 4 (3 February 2006 to May 2006) Archive 5

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.

Contents 1 The language of the Quran 2 Criticism of the Qur'an 3 offensive. 4 Controversial sentence ? 5 Is this true ? 6 Bad spellings 7 7 Manazil? 8 JESUS 9 Citing Qur'an in articles 10 no pic 11 Sentences two though four 12 Spelling issues: Qur'ān 13 Questions & Answers 14 Pruned links again 15 Lead 16 recent edit to Qur'an#Criticism of the Qur'an 17 On the archaeological record of sacred scripture 18 Accuracy of quote in Etymology section 19 Origin and development 20 Category for Deletion discussion 21 Criticism section revert 22 Miracles section deeply unencyclopedic

[edit] 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 prospective, 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 understanding that 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)

[edit] 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- Devine origin:There are different viewpoint among Muslims. Although nowadays most of Muslims accept the divine origine, but this was not a common belief durind history. Look at :Mihna

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

I propose this one instead "Although Qur'an has claimed it is the God word "Kalam allah" but Non-Muslims claims Muhammad has made it by himself."

• 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.[1] 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)

[edit] 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 Aposasy,[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.

thankyou.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

• {{Quran|3|72}} will produce Qur'an 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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^[1].

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. ^[2] The Dead Sea Scrolls are significant evidence in favor of an uncorrupted Septuagint (LXX) also^[3].

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. ^[4]

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))

[edit] 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 [2] cites Edwin Yamauchi, The Stones and the Scriptures. Leicester: IVP, 1973. (Runwiththewind 22:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Category for Deletion discussion

-- Jeff3000 00:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)