Talk:Qur'an

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Qur'an article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
Islam
Islam Portal
This article is within the scope of 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.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
To-do list for Qur'an: edit · history · watch · refresh

Qur'an has alot of racism in it, although it's not in the article. Quote from Allah when describing blacks, as "nose-boned slaves".

The qur'an is extremly despiting to jews, for example Allah killed several thousand jews by throwing them down the rocks, and making the women slaves.

Add that in.
 WikiProject Religious texts
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as start 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.)
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
Middle Ages Icon
Middle Ages Portal
Qur'an is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1 (Aug.2002 to Apr.2005)
  2. Archive 2 (Feb.2005 to Oct.2005)
  3. Qur'an Picture Controversy - Part 1 (Nov.2005 to Jan.2006)
  4. Qur'an Picture Controversy - Part 2 (Jan.2006)
  5. Archive 3 (Oct.2005 to Jan.2006)
  6. Archive 4 (3 February 2006 to May 2006)
  7. Archive 5 (May 2006 to October 2006)
  8. Archive 6 (October 2006 to March 2008)
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

[edit] Relationship with other literature

[edit] The Torah and the Bible

The Qur'ān speaks well of the relationship it has with former books (the Torah and the Gospel) and attributes their similarities to their unique origin and saying all of them have been revealed by the one God.[1][citation needed] in 2:285 for Taurah. ]], According to the Qur'ān[Qur'an 3:3] Yusuf Ali, {{cquote|It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step)[citation needed] ,[citation needed] steps by steps in arabic text of verse,

As the article name is Qura'n then at least references of Quranic verses must be as per claim. But here the verses are not reflecting the claims so these references must be omitted to avoid misguidance.

This artcle looks like information about Qura'n and not as per text of Qura'n. thanks

Please refer to our content policies WP:V and WP:OR, which explain that material should be sourced to secondary reliable sources, such as scholarly explanation or commentary. Citing primary sources (i.e. the Qur'an) to make one's own assertions is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and constitutes original research. Hope that helps... ITAQALLAH 22:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Farrukh, please slow down. You are making a lot of edits and inserting tags which you don't seem to know how to use properly. You're also making a bit of a mess of the talk page by copy-pasting large portions from the article. Please explain to me the exact points you want to make, and then I can try my best to insert them in a coherent manner with appropriate sourcing. That will help us move things forward. Thanks. ITAQALLAH 21:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I just want to have the correct Qur'ani ayats references in support of claims. If the ayat doesnot have that claim please remove that reference..like 23 years are not in 17:106, the pages i have provided to you, had only error as per you in one line but u removed all. Farrukh38 (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] =

This is my very first Wikipedia EDIT ever, so bare with. Concerning the comment "...However, many Jews and Christians[who?] believe that the historical biblical archaeological record refutes this assertion, because the Dead Sea Scrolls (the Tanakh and other Jewish writings which predate the origin of the Qur’an) have been fully translated,[93] validating the authenticity of the Greek Septuagint.[94]..." This MIGHT be true IF one is referring only to the Torah (i.e., earliest and most reliable) portion of the Greek Septuagint. It's my understanding that Isaiah, particularly, in the LXX is problematic. For instance, I believe that the entire Hebrew manuscript tradition shows so support for the Septuagint's rendering of "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin."Emerald twilites (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have reliable notable and verifiable sources in this regard then some of this information can probably be added to the article. Peter Deer (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] about [citation needed] for qur'an i ayats references.

salamunalaik, thank you very much for your reply, i posted so much things with references on Qur'an talk page please read those also and reply. Regarding your talk on farrukh talk page, would like to request you please remove the references of Qur'an verses placed for few claims like, 17;106 doesnot have 23 years of revelation period. 10:37 is not saying that Qur'an has different names, but in it the Qur'an is reading of AL-kitab that means the reading of AL-kitab is Qur'an, the rest of nanes are also attributes of AL-kitab and not names of Qur'an as per text of Qur'an. you have quoted translation of abdullah yousuf ali in which few words (step by step) are written which does not exists in the arabic text of Qur'an , even the shkir translation also not have used these extra words. As the topic is Qura'n so the references quoted os qur'an must be used for correct claims. i just request you to follow please wikipedea policy to tell the truth about Qur'an .

Please read my all points on talk page and donot revert please specially correcting the qur'an references.

thanks--Farrukh38 (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Farrukh, please give me some time to look through all of your concerns. Please also realise that there may be multiple citations for one sentence, so it might not necessarily be the Qur'an being used to verify one of the claims, it might be a secondary scholarly source instead. Thanks. ITAQALLAH 23:08, 8 March 2008
(UTC)

ITAqALLAH, please just think are you going to introduce "Qur'an to people or writing "thought of people about Qur'an" suitable title as per stuff of article, "About Qur'an" but for Qur'an at least the text of Qur'an must not verify the claim? thanks--Farrukh38 (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] please place the correct translation

please use shakir translation to avoid extra words like (step by step) as under.. you are trying to tell people about Qur'an or proving people concepts about Qur'an? please think about your article and better reword if you can to tell people about qur'an but as per text of qur'an and not as per people undersanding,,, torah section texts were authentic divine revelations given to prophets. 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). --Farrukh38 (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ayats not proving claims must be removed, or title of Qur'an must be changed.

Autobiographi of people should also be use for Quran too because claim must be seen in the referenced ayat of Qur'an other wise must be removed those ayats used for claims which do not proving those claims.wikipedea is not the place where people thought are to be written but truth. wikipedea also says to verify that it means if some body has done a mistake that should not be repeated here in wikipedea. As 17:106 does not have " 23 years" and Quran is a name of AL-kitab as reading and not Quran has many names Please change the name of article from Qur'an to Qur'an as per people and not as per text of Qur'an.

thanks--Farrukh38 (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Qur'an article looks like qur'an as per people understanding.

as per wikipedea verifiablity claim must be verified with reference. claim 23 years Ref 17:106 text of 17:106 وقرانا فرقناه لتقراه على الناس على مكث ونزلناه تنزيلا no word for 23 years.

(Torah),[2][3] word taorah is written but not that torah is a book of Allah revealed previi am fighting up to my levelously.

‏3:3 نزل عليك الكتاب بالحق مصدقا لما بين يديه وانزل التوراة والانجيل here no step by step is written in arabic

best tafseer brig allah not tafseer by Mohammad in 2:151 ولاياتونك بمثل الا جئناك بالحق واحسن تفسيرا


Transliteration Wala ya/toonaka bimathalin illa ji/naka bialhaqqi waahsana tafseeran Literal And they do not come to you with an example except We came to you with the truth and (a) better explanation/interpretation .

Yusuf Ali And no question do they bring to thee but We reveal to thee the truth and the best explanation (thereof). Pickthal And they bring thee no similitude but We bring thee the Truth (as against it), and better (than their similitude) as argument. Arberry They bring not to thee any similitude but that We bring thee the truth, and better in exposition. Shakir And they shall not bring to you any argument, but We have brought to you (one) with truth and best in

thats why please improve Qur'an as per text of Qur'an and not as per people understanding in the name of research. thanks Farrukh38 (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wrong references of verses of Qur'an should be removed to improve this article

Wrong references of verses of Quran which do not have the claims like 17:106 doesnot have 23 years in the arabic text of Qur'an. Quran is in arabic and not in eglish translations. please avoide to write in the name of Qur'an people openions if necessary then have to be written down as per people and not as per Qur'an plz. you have not considered the talk page of Qur'an too.

did not consider the discussion on talk page. Farrukh38 (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks

[edit] Spelling

Unresolved.

I've gone through the artIcle and standardised all spellings to Qur'an as per WP:AMOS. I've left the external links alone as I think it may be better to use the actual spelling in the webpage concerned. I suppose the same would apply to quotes in the main text. Comments appreciated. Thanks. MP (talk•contribs) 13:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Very good:) I believe this is the correct spelling. Imad marie (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have used the actual spelling for the Qur'an in the Translations section (Further reading) in the refs. Will try to do the rest once I find the energy! MP (talk•contribs) 17:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I think this is a mistake. The WP:AMOS actually says, "For the purposes of this convention, an Arabic word is a name or phrase that is most commonly originally rendered in the Arabic alphabet, and that in English is not usually translated into a common English word." In English, the word for the Muslim holy book is "Koran", and has been for hundreds of years. I also note that in this page there are at least five variations on "Qur'an" used by commentators. It would remove all ambiguity to simply revert to the standard English word, "Koran" (especially as this is an English language article).Nickpullar (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for the comment. I think that Koran used to be the standard spelling, but now it is Qur'an. Google yields more for Quran (13m) than Koran (10.3m) (albeit Koran more as compared to Qur'an - 4.7m). Also, many books nowadays use Quran, Qur'an etc. MP (talk•contribs) 09:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: A discussion about this has arised at Talk:Fitna (film)#Koran or Qur'an as well. - Face 12:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mpatel. I'm not really interested in what Google results say about this. The fact of the matter is that the English word for the Muslim holy book is "Koran". If there is a movement to replace an English word with an Arabic word, then that's an interesting topic for an academic treatise, but at present, almost all non-Mulism native English speakers would use the word "Koran", and not any of the species of "Qur'an". All references in this article should be changed to "Koran" and an explanatory note added about the different translitterations which some Mulisms prefer.Nickpullar (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that there has never been discussion about this, so I've posted a message at WikiProject Islam. - Face 12:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
"Koran" is highly outdated. Modern academic and mainstream literature uses "Qur'an" predominantly (e.g. Brill's authoritative "Encyclopedia of the Qur'an", Britannica's entry entitled "Qur'an", the "Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World"'s entry also entitled "Qur'an", and so on). Mpatel's changes were spot on. ITAQALLAH 18:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Itaqallah. Yes, some books from Brill's use "Qur'an", but it is not consistant how this word is spelled, sometimes it is "Qur'an", sometimes "Quran" and sometimes "Qur'ān". I understand this relates to the difficulties of accurrately representing Arabic in English. BUT, lots of books from the same Brill Publishers use the word "Koran", eg: Imagining Creation (2007), Women, the Koran and International Human Rights Law (2007), Women and Demons (2003), and Sodom's Sin (2004). So it's just not true to say that there is some sort of settled consensus in academia on this (at least if we go by the source which you used to make your point that there was).
My major point, which has not been addressed, is that native non-Muslim English speakers will use the word "Koran" to refer to the Muslim holy book. In the English Wikipedia, if an English word exists, we should use those English words to describe things. Almost every person who will read Wikipedia does not speak Arabic, but they will all speak some level of English. To use a foreign word when there is an English word available is just perverse. I recommend, per WP:AMOS that the English word "Koran" be used instead of the Arabic translitteration "Qur'an", the spelling of which is not even agreed upon by all Arabic speakers. Nickpullar (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right, spellings do indeed vary. Some use Quran, Qur'an, Kur`an, and so on. I don't agree with your attribution to native English speakers (being Muslim or not actually shouldn't matter here). Many do indeed use Qur'an -with or without apostrophes and macrons- especially the academic community, as I've shown above (hence dismissing the notion it's simply a "Muslim preference"). With regards to Brill, I'm primarily referring to those specialist texts written on the Qur'an by experts in the field, like the one mentioned. But I think it's a moot point given its broad general usage in academia.
On that basis, I'd say that Qur'an/Quran etc. is a popular transcription nowadays, perhaps even moreso than "Koran" (which one associates more with the older texts). Whatever the case, AMOS does say that if there's no established primary transcription, which is the case here given the several popular variants, then the standard transliteration should be used (in this instance: Qur'an). It also gives a good pertinent example "If there is no primary transcription, a standard transliteration is used... ...There is no single most-popular transcription for the name of the Prophet of Islam. "Mohammed", "Mohammad", "Muhammad", and "Mohamed" are all commonly used. The standard transliteration is Muhammad."
Furthermore, community consensus is to use Qur'an as this has persisted as the preferred rendition, including in featured articles like Islam, Mosque, Battle of Badr, and so on. So IMO the best thing to do would be to stick to using Qur'an. ITAQALLAH 23:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
"To use a foreign word when there is an English word available is just perverse." - erm.. they are both 'foreign words'. The only difference is in how they've been transliterated. ITAQALLAH 23:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
(reset) The fact of the matter is there isn't an English word. Qur'an and Koran are both transliterations of the same Arabic word. Qur'an is regarded as being a more accurate transliteration and seems to be the preferred one (the only one used in my experience, I first came across Koran in Sam and Max Hit the Road). Liam Markham (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm confused. Check the sources online! "Koran" has been used in English since 1615 [Dictionary]. The other derivatives of this word in other European languages are all similar to "Koran", ie, in Hungarian the name of the Muslim holy book is Korán. I know that "Koran" and "Qur'an" are both translitterations from the Arabic, but one of these has been in continuous use by native English speakers for hundreds of years, and the other is new. In fact I go further and assert that "Koran" is not now a translitteration at all, but an actual word in its own right meaning "the Muslim holy book". I accept that "Qur'an" is becoming more widely used, especially among Muslims and academics, but my point is that the vast majority of native English speakers, will type in "Koran" rather than "Qur'an" when they are looking up this word. Perhaps Wikipedia could give some stats to us on how many people type "Koran" verses "Qur'an" in the search box. I'd be prepared to concede if in fact "Qur'an" was entered more often than "Koran", as this would prove me wrong. - Nickpullar (talk) 08:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The Dictionary link also tells us how to pronounce Koran; the spelling Koran in no way matches the pronunciation (but Qur'an does).You also say, ..."Qur'an" is becoming more widely used, especially among Muslims and academics, but my point is that the vast majority of native English speakers, will type in "Koran" rather than "Qur'an"...; what they type in is not too important (they could just be ignorant of the accepted spelling) and the fact that Qur'an is becoming more widely used suggests a more up to date and encyclopaedic usage be adopted. People have also commented on this point here. MP (talk•contribs) 10:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
This is pretty terrible. Now I'm being told how to pronounce a word in my own language. I pronounce it "Koran". I don't speak Arabic (and I have no intention of learning) so there is no reason for me (or anyone else for that matter) to have to pronounce any word the way another language does. There are lots of words in English from other languages, and as those words become part of English, they are *anglicised*. There seems to be some sort of Arabic language supremacy going on here, and that's what I object to. No-one actually argues against the point I've made about common usage. You all just tell me that I'm wrong. Well I'm not wrong! I know how to speak and write in my own language, thank you all very much! I do not accept Arabic supremacy. The word in English is "Koran". There should be an explanation that "Qur'an" is growing in popularity, and as time goes by the usage of the word might change, but now, it's not "Qur'an". Can I request an arbitration on this? At the very least I'd like to know what people actually type into the search box. Who knows how to ask for this information? Nickpullar (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I've just done a search on Amazon, and for the modern books, published since 2000, "Koran" is used about half the time. The other half the time is a variant of "Qur'an": "Qu'ran", "Quran" or "Qu'ran". An a great majority of the earlier books use "Koran". So, this supports my points. 1) There is no settled agreement about how to spell "Qur'an", but there is settled agreement over "Koran". 2) That "Qur'an" (and it's variants) represents a recent innovation. Don't just tell me I'm wrong. Please tell me how I'm making a mistake. I really can't even see that you guys even have a case! Nickpullar (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
This comparison between Koran and Qur'an/variants is a bit of a red herring. Who cares whether or not people include the apostrophes and macrons? The basic spelling is the same. As per WP:AMOS, if there is no universally accepted primary transcription (and I'm sure you can at least accept this), then we defer to the standard transliteration - which is Qur'an. All this talk about Arabic supremacy and which word is more "English" is nonsense, with all due respect. ITAQALLAH 17:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Now it's a "red herring". No, it's simple. My contention is that, for native English speakers, the word is spelled "Koran", not any of the other variants. I've even proposed a test which I acknowledge before it's commenced would be difinitive. As to which word is more "English", that is the very point! If it doesn't matter which word is more commonly used by English speakers, why not change to "Koran"? - Oh, it *does* matter :) The standard word (now no longer a translitteration) is "Koran". And surely it does matter about macrons and apostrophes - I would even be happier with "Quran", which at least follows the norms governing English punctuation marks (we don't use diacritical marks of any sort in English - they just get dropped). - Nickpullar (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I think your contention isn't well-founded, and I've already provided some authoritative mainstream English language sources which contradict your claim that none of the other variants are used. What's the point in inventing tests to determine which word to use, when AMOS is quite clear that we should be using the standard transcription (i.e. Qur'an) in the absence of a universally accepted primary transcription? ITAQALLAH 17:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. There's clearly some dispute (here on WP) about which spelling is correct. But the MoS makes it very clear as per Itaqallah's last comment above. MP (talk•contribs) 17:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
But it's just not the case. You guys haven't actually argued for your position. You're just asserting that "Qur'an" is better. The AMOS claerly states that when an English word is available, that English word should be used. My claim (which I'd be happy for you to address) is that the word "Koran" is an English word which means "the book holy to Muslims". On that basis, this article should default to "Koran". I agree with you that this is changing, and that there are more references (especially among academics in Islamic studies that "Qur'an" should be used, but this is a fact to be discussed in the article. I think that it's just hijacking the English language to replace a word with a foreign word without so much as a "by your leave". I do not understand Itaqallah's point about providing references to "contradict [my] claim that none of the other variants are used". I'm not sure where I make that claim. Rather, I claim that even Muslims (or academics in Islamic Studies) cannot agree on which is the correct translitteration ("Quran", "Qur'an", "Qu'ran", "Qurān", "Qur'ān"...). In the face of this disagreement it seems more sensible to use a word about which there is no dispute, and which has been in continuous use in English for over 450 years.
This is what the AMOS actually says: "For the purposes of this convention, an Arabic word is a name or phrase that is most commonly originally rendered in the Arabic alphabet, and that in English is not usually translated into a common English word." You have to show that "Koran" is NOT an English word now.
Nick, I've already said the presence/absence of macrons or apostrophes is a moot point, the general spelling is the same. Presenting it as some sort of "dispute" is just wrong. There is no accepted primary transcription, this discussion alone proves that. The AMOS says to use the standard transliteration, Qur'an, in such cases. I provided to you the example of Muhammad (which is often alternatively written as Mohammed, Mahomet, etc.), and what AMOS says about that. This convoluted discussion about which word is "English" is becoming quite silly. Community consensus has been to use Qur'an, and I really don't see that changing. ITAQALLAH 18:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I see this discussion is no longer active. So far, both here and at Talk:Fitna#Koran or Qur'an, 6 users (MP aka Mpatel, Imad marie, Itaqallah, Liam Markham aka Eyeball226, Hypnosadist, gren AKA Grenavitar) seem to be in favor of using the word Qur'an, while 2 users (Nickpullar, StaticGull) prefer the word Koran. I did not include the anon who stated that the goal of media and academics is the destruction of the West.
I think this is too little to justify a decision on such an important topic. If you have not yet stated an opinion on this matter, and you have one, please state it. Thank you, Face 20:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Three days without posts is hardly grounds for concluding that the debate has died out. Anyway, I wanted to weigh in my reflections that have not been discussed in the previous debate. The film Fitna itself contains a pivotal aspect that should have a central bearing on this issue. In it, statistics are presented showing the growth of the Muslim population of the Netherlands from the beginning of the 20th century through until our present decade. A figure which has risen from a few dozen to around one million people. This fact has several implications. It tells us that the Muslims aren't any longer "them" living "over there" in some other, exotic, far-away part of the world. Cultures are indeed blending, and Muslims and Arabs (or Arab-speakers) are now part of the English-speaking world which before they weren't. The world has shrunk, and traditions and what was no longer has the persuasive power they used to. Politicians, including those involved in the politics of linguistics, now have a different constituency to answer to when voicing their opinions and making decisions. The discussion above, in my view, clearly reflects this in the declining use of the traditional word Koran in favour of versions that try to encompass more of the originality, identity and spirit (or sense) of the term in the culture in which it originates. So. it's a matter of "cultural sensitivity" also. Of course, that also invokes the contentious debate of who shall decide what should be the future of this language/culture/nation. Should people who have only been here a few decades be given an equal voice on par with the native inhabitants with a historical, continuous affinity to those traditions? I believe we see elements of that debate in the above, although not expressly attributed. __meco (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus in Western academia

The Qur’an in its actual form is generally considered by academic scholars to record the words spoken by Muhammad because the search for variants in Western academia has not yielded any differences of great significance and that historically controversy over the content of the Qur’an has never become a main point. [20][21] Therefore all Muslims, Sunni or Shia use the same Qur’an.

I am not happy with this passage. There are two problems straightaway:

  1. What is "the Qur'an in its actual form"? This needs to be defined.
  2. The last sentence does not follow on from the preceding sentence. The "therefore" is inappropriate. Also, are there not very small variants in the Qur'an? I believe that Egypt uses one by Asim of Kufa according to Hafs and Abu Bakr and then the rest of North Africa uses one by Nafi of Medina according to Warsh and Qualun. If this is right, this small varient should still be noted, or at least the last sentence should be deleted.

Aside from this, there are Western scholars who have suggested that the Qur'an has changed over time, or even that it was not written until several decades until after Mohammed had died. Such works include:

  • M. Cook, Muhammad, Oxford, 1983.
  • P. Crone, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam, Oxford, 1987.
  • P. Crone and M. Hinds, God's Caliph, Cambridge, 1986.
  • M. Cook and P. Crone, Hagarism: the Making of the Muslim World, Cambridge, 1977.
  • J. Schacht, Law and Justice in The Cambridge History of Islam, Cambridge, 1970.
  • J. Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, Oxford, 1977.

Should there not be some acknowledgement of these people in this article? To say "the search for variants in Western academia has not yielded any difference of great significance" is too strong. It should just say, "the majority of Western scholars believe that there have not been any significant changes since Islam was established". There is no total consensus on this in Western though; there seldom is on anything.

In the "Making Mus'haf" section, this passage is repeated except without the last sentence. It should be in one place or the other but not in both. Epa101 (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I do not see how M.W. Watt can be a good reference for this section at reference 20 when Watt also stated that the story of the Satanic Verses was quite probably true. As the Satanic Verses story suggests that the Qur'an has changed over time, such a belief would be inconsistent with the one that the Qur'an has not changed. Is Watt then a good reference here?
Cook and Crone have come under intense criticism from academic scholars for their views pertaining to Hagarism and the associated views about the Qur'an, as can be seen in the Hagarism article. Again Wansbrough's theory (which I think gave rise to Cook/Crone's theses) is also not generally accepted. Peters is also correct in his assertion that the search for pre-Uthmanic variants has not yeilded anything of significance, as that's what the Encyclopedia of Islam says too.
The Satanic Verses story says that Gabriel immediately informed Muhammad that the particular verses were not part of the Qur'an. Changing "over time" refers to change which diverges from the version accepted by Muhammad i.e. the time after his death up until the present day. While Watt may very well accept the authenticity of the story, it has no bearing on his acceptance that the Qur'an of Muhammad has been preserved up to today. ITAQALLAH 17:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
We need to recognize a fundamental problem that we will always have dealing with academic work. We as non-expert editors tend to pick up books willy-nilly and not notice directions in which the field is moving. Hagarism is 30 years old. Schacht's is 50. As a collective it's safe to say we're not up on the literature and that's a problem. Some of you might remember the controversy over the Liaquat Ali Khan article over at Hagarism. He berated her for not saying her work on Hagarism was wrong. I was lucky enough to discuss (obviously, not citeable source) and what she said to me we all need to realize when dealing with history--especially highly political history as this has become. She (paraphrased) said 'That's not how history is done. You don't say your past work was wrong because the study of history is a progression and you take the parts from past works that work and those trends continue in the literature.' We often take pieces out of older works which aren't necessarily widely accepted, even by the original authors--and I don't mean this just for Wansbrough, Cook, Crone, etc. I have no idea how we will solve this problem to write better articles other than becoming more educated or getting more qualified peer review.
Now, to your points. I think in light of what I said above you'll want to note her article from two years ago. Here's the relevant quote:
Most importantly, we can be reasonably sure that the Qur'an is a collection of utterances that he made in the belief that they had been revealed to him by God. The book may not preserve all the messages he claimed to have received, and he is not responsible for the arrangement in which we have them. They were collected after his death – how long after is controversial. But that he uttered all or most of them is difficult to doubt
I don't mean to use that to shut down your argument--I'm not fully sure what Rippin or Hawting or whomever else might thing. I doubt any of us are up on the Journal of Qur'anic Studies--my library doesn't even carry it. And I don't think she means the Qur'an is a direct collection of quotes nor does she shut down year variations in various things. But, the point is that there is a pretty direct connection between the prophets words and the book. That the idea that this came out of thin air is problematic. ...for what it's worth... gren グレン 20:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo of worlds first Printed Copy

Link to photos

Let me know if I can include the photo of the Quran which was on display at the Venizia el Islam Exhibition, I will take my name and watermark off the photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arshadhabib (talk • contribs) 00:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Arshadhabib, we always love good images on Wikipedia (or, the commons) and there is plenty of room to add another image to this article provided you are willing to release it under a free license as according to Wikipedia:Image use policy. gren グレン 03:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
A licensed photograph of the first printed copy of the Qur'an would be a lovely and valued addition to the article, and your offer to contribute it is much appreciated. Peter Deer (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Qur'an is not equal to Jesus Christ

In the end of the first paragraph of the article on the Qur'an it states, "The importance of the Qur’an for Muslims and Islam is tantamount to the importance of Jesus Christ for Christians and Christianity.[8]"

That is incorrect. The Qur'an is more like the Bible is to Christians. Christians believe the Bible is the unerring word of God, whereas Jesus Christ IS God - or the Son of God. However, while admittedly confusing, Christians believe Jesus was both God and the Son of God.

The Qur'an is not God. It is believed to be the Word of God, just as the Bible is. In order to be correct, that distinction must be made.

Radmdau (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

done. Yahel Guhan 22:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I think there may be some confusion here. 'The Qur'an is not equal to Jesus Christ'; clearly, this is true (but that's not quite what the sentence at the end of the 1st para. said), and it is true that the Bible is the holy book of Christianity and the Qur'an is the holy book of Islam. However, this does not concur with actual beliefs and practices. The sentiment that is supposed to be expressed at the end of the first paragraph is that the Qur'an is the most important aspect of Islam for Muslims just as Jesus is the most important aspect of Christianity for Christians. Therefore, the sentence will be changed back. Hope this helps to clarify the confusion. MP (talk•contribs) 09:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think such a comparison is unneeded. Why even make the comparison? We would not see in Christianity that Jesus holds the same importance in Christianity as the Qur'an does in Islam. It's generally poor writing. gren グレン 05:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's very insulting to say a pile of paper is equal to the gratest human being ever, Jesus, it's so stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.200.162 (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Gren. Maybe it was written down to emphasise what's most important in the religions, but that clearly has problems (for example, why not mention other religions ?). Now that I think about it, it adds nothing of significance to the article and I agree it's poorly written. I'll remove it if nobody objects. MP (talk•contribs) 08:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the same sentence from Qur’an as a religious text. Imad marie (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's prudent not to have it. It's just a source of disunity and confusion and does not really provide any encyclopedic information. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scholars of Qur'an

Can someone here look at Scholars of Qur'an. The page is in dire need of context and the title is not really meaningful. It may actually be redundant with Qur'an-related pages I'm not aware of. Thanks, Pichpich (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Its not It's

A nit, true, but in the section titled "Inward Aspects of the Qur’an" the following line contains a grammatical error: "It's essential idea for Shia as well as Sufism that Qur’an has inward aspects too."

That's "its" no apostrophe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrydarc (talk • contribs) 00:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it.67.150.253.130 (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

The criticism section notes: "Some critics reject the Muslim belief regarding the divine origin of the Qur’an". I really do not see the point in this statement. All religious books (eg. Hesiod's Theogony, the Bhagavad Gita, the Book of Mormon, the Talmud, etc etc.) are considered of divine origin only to their devout followers; all others, critics and aficionados alike, can only judge them by their literary and historical merits! Rastapopoulos (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and to take from the thoughtful and detailed piece in Atlantic Monthly only that simplistic and second-hand statement is a shame. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I did the honors :) Rastapopoulos (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
When someone has time there is a lot that could be explained using the Atlantic Monthly article. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
In the future, please don't delete reliable sources if they are relevant and can be easily fixed. Thanks. - Merzbow (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
what you say is true but sentence say more than that they say that it has been concluded based on text analyse.Oren.tal (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Robert Spencer, the Catholic Encyclopedia, and the Jewish Encyclopedia are not reliable sources on the Islamic scriptures. The only way I see inclusion of latter two is, if we say "Jews criticize" or "Catholics criticize", as each of those groups are very notable and should be readily included.Bless sins (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The views from Judaism and Catholicism would be better in a section "Other religions' viewpoints of the Qur'an" or similar, rather than one headed "Criticism". It is nothing to do with academic criticism, when an academic presents a paper at a conference, problems with it are chewed over and then it is rewritten. The Jews and Catholics are not expecting the Qur'an to be rewritten on the basis of their views! Itsmejudith (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I concur. I'm not even sure why we're using sources like Robert Spencer and "mukto-mona.com". ITAQALLAH 19:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Guys, anyone who is either not religious or subscribes to a religious dogma other than Islam would not agree with the Muslim belief regarding the divine origin of the Qur’an; to say that "some critics reject" the divive inspiration of the texts of any religion is a vacuous content-free statement! You can rationally "criticize" a religion for its practices - track record, but not for being a different religion than the one you subscribe to. This is different from the non-religious or atheists who rationally criticize / reject the divinity of all religions / superstitions. Rastapopoulos (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the Atlantic piece. Maybe it can be summarized better, but there's nothing incorrect about it now, so no reason to delete. - Merzbow (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Granted, your wording is much better. But still ... how would you feel about a statement such as "Some scholars, such as John Doe, Jane Smith and Throatwobbler Mangrove, are skeptical of traditional accounts of the Bhagavad Gita on the discord between the senses and the intuition of cosmic order"? Rastapopoulos (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As a sidenote, the eventual aim should be to incorporate any relevant criticism into a more appropriate section (i.e. a "Content" section, or "Interpretations" section) - as criticism sections themselves are not advisable. ITAQALLAH 11:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. A "Legacy" section perhaps? Rastapopoulos (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shiite sura?

I'm not very sure, but I vaguely reminded an Introduction to the Qur´an where it was written a sura, not admitted by Sunni majority, but only by the Shiites. Can anybody solve my doubt?. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.204.192.247 (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Shia and Sunni Muslims both agree that the Quran is complete and no changes have been made to this in now 1400 years. This includes changes, addition, omission etc. The doubt about 'some' about this relates to some fabricated hadith (traditions) that is to be found in both Shia and Sunni hadith collection. In Shi'ites Under Attack (to be found at the Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project). One shall remember that there is some extreme Shia and Sunni sect that hold some sura/aya are missing - these sect a minor sect around the world. --Imdkzmaa (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The authenticity of the Quran is quite unanimously agreed upon in the Muslim community. Peter Deer (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, very conveniently muslims think it's the last and final revalation of "Allah". Told you it was convenient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.200.162 (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm grateful to both of you for your kindness and scholarship. Bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.67.174.130 (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)